Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Ordinance 07-12
RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordinance No. 07 -12 (Amended) Passed 20 AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTIONS 153.057 THROUGH 153.066 TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN CODIFIED ORDINANCES (ZONING CODE) TO ESTABLISH THE NEW BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR ZONING DISTRICTS, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND APPROVAL PROCESS, AND AMENDING SECTION 153.002 OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN CODIFIED ORDINANCES (ZONING CODE) TO ADD AND MODIFY DEFINITIONS. (CASE 11- 020ADM) WHEREAS, it is necessary from time to time to amend Dublin's Zoning Code to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Dublin; and WHEREAS, the proposed regulations crafted for the Bridge Street Corridor require development that is vibrant, high- quality, pedestrian- oriented, and consistent with the Vision Principles stated in the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report adopted by Dublin City Council on October 25, 2010; and WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning Code amendments align with the planning themes and objectives for the Bridge Street Corridor and ensure that development is coordinated with the expected street network and infrastructure and for the entire Corridor; and WHEREAS, proposed Sections 153.057- 153.066 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances are unique, innovative, and tailored to address the special development conditions present in the Bridge Street Corridor; and WHEREAS, the City's desired goal is to create zoning districts that set high quality design and development requirements to ensure that buildings and uses in the districts will adhere to uniform provisions that address the unique needs of specialized industries and uses while ensuring consistency with the high quality image of the City; and WHEREAS, amended Section 153.002 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances provides for updated and current definitions for terms used within the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed Ordinance on October 13 and 20, 2011; November 3 and 10, 2011; December 1 and 8, 2011; January 5, 12, 19, and 24, 2012; and recommended its adoption on February 2, 2012 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 153.002 of the City of Dublin Zoning Code is hereby amended and shall provide as follows: § 153.002 DEFINITIONS For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning, as determined by the Director. (A) Uses Definitions (1) Uses Definitions — A (a) Accessory Structure or Building RECORD OF ORDINANCES 07- 12(Amended) Page 2 of 38 Passed . 20_ Ordinance No. A subordinate structure or building, the use of which is incidental to and customarily used in connection with the principal structure or use and which is located on the same lot with the principal structure or use. (b) Accessory Use A subordinate use which is incidental to and customarily used in connection with the principal structure or use and which is located on the same lot with a principal structure or use, unless otherwise permitted by this chapter. (c) Animal Care General Services A facility providing grooming, daycare, boarding, and training for household pets. 2. Veterinary Offices A facility for medical, dental, or other health services related to the diagnosis and treatment of animals' illnesses, injuries, and physical ailments, but not including crematory services. 3. Veterinary Urgent Care and Animal Hospitals A facility for emergency care for the treatment of animal illnesses, injuries, or physical ailments, but not including crematory services. (d) ATM, Walk -Up An automated teller machine installed on the exterior face of a building accessible only by pedestrians. (e) Attached Accessory Use /Structure Any use and/or structure that is integrated visually, structurally and architecturally with the principal structure, has an attached roof with similar design to the principal structure, permits access between the principal structure and the addition either internally or under the roof, and /or shares a common wall with the principal structure or is connected to the principal structure by an enclosed space. (f) Auto - oriented Commercial Facility A facility where a service is rendered or a sales transaction is made while the patron is typically not required to exit a vehicle, or a facility that includes services rendered directly on, to, or for vehicles. Auto - oriented commercial facilities include, but are not limited to establishments with drive- in/drive- through services, drive -up ATMs (automated teller machines), car washes (all types), fueling/service stations, facilities specializing in vehicle maintenance (oil changes, installation of car accessories, and other similar minor vehicle service facilities), and stand -alone parking lots. The sale of vehicles (new or used) is not included within this definition. (2) Uses Definitions — B (a) Bed and Breakfast A private home providing accommodations to the traveling public in habitable units for compensation, and is generally limited to short-stay facilities. This use includes the provision of related accessory and incidental services such as eating and drinking, meeting rooms, and the sale of gifts and convenience goods. (b) Bicycle Facilities Any amenity or element including, but not limited to, bicycle racks, lockers, and showers intended for use by either recreational or commuter cyclists. RECORD OF ORDINANCES 07- 12(Amended) RIT , 7d (3) Uses Definitions — C Passed Page 3 of 38 20 (a) Civic Use A use in a building or location that provides for community meetings and/or activities including, but not limited to, government administration, school administration, recreation center (public or private), Chamber of Commerce, Arts Council, public library, or other public buildings owned or operated by the City. (b) Community Activity An activity that is open to the general public and sponsored by a public, private nonprofit or religious organization that is educational, cultural, or recreational in nature. This use includes but is not limited to school plays and church fairs. (See also Special Event.) (c) Community Center A public or not - for - profit facility offering meeting, activity, and/or recreation space and facilities that is available to the public with or without a fee charged. This definition may include space within a commercially used building, provided that the facility is available to the public. (d) Community Garden An area for cultivation of fruits, flowers, vegetables, or ornamental plants by more than one person or family generally organized and managed by a public or not - for -profit organization. Incidental sales are permitted. (e) Conference Center A facility designed to accommodate and support meetings or conferences. The facility may be either freestanding or incorporated into a hotel or office facility, and may include eating and drinking facilities but excluding overnight lodging if not part of a hotel. (f) Construction and Contract Service Trades Facilities used for the repair of machinery, equipment, products or by- products. May include outdoor storage of materials, supplies or equipment as an accessory use. (g) Construction Trailer /Office A trailer or portable building used to provide temporary work space for construction management personnel during the construction of a building or facility. (h) Corporate Residence An accessory use integrated as part of a principal structure or in an accessory structure available in conjunction with a nonresidential use that provides temporary housing for personnel or visitors and is not available to the general public. (4) Uses Definitions — D (a) Data Center A facility with typically lower employee counts than general office uses that houses computer systems and associated data and is focused on the mass storage of data. (b) Day Care, Child or Adult RECORD OF ORDINANCES 07- 12(Amended) Page 4 of 38 Ordinance No. Passed 20 An adult day care facility offers social, recreational and health - related services in a protective setting to individuals who cannot be left alone during the day because of health care and social need, confusion or disability. A child day care is a facility providing non - medical care and supervision outside the home for minor children, provided the supervision is less than 24 hours per day and the facility is licensed by the State of Ohio. This definition includes preschools, nursery schools, and other similar facilities. (c) Dish Antenna An outside accessory antenna that is linked to a receiver located on the same lot and used for the reception of signals transmitted by stations licensed by the Federal Communications Commission in the Radio Broadcast Services including AM, FM and TV. (d) District Energy Plant A facility that is not a public utility and that generates electrical energy for distribution to a defined area containing 10 or more structures. (e) Drive- in/Drive- through A structure or building feature, including but not limited to a service window, automated device, or other equipment that is designed to provide sales and service to patrons who remain in their motor vehicles, including associated driveways and driving aisles by which patrons reach the structure or building feature. (f) Dwelling 1. Accessory Dwelling A dwelling unit for occupancy by an individual who is providing services to a principal use of the property, such as watchmen, maintenance personnel, or temporary guests, including corporate residences; or an accessory dwelling associated with a single - family dwelling, two - family dwelling, or townhouse dwelling. 2. Dwelling Administration, Rental, or Sales Offices A permanent or temporary building or office used to administer a building containing dwelling units or to market the rental or sale of dwelling units on or near the property within a defined development site. 3. Live -Work Dwelling A structure including residential dwelling units connected with principal non - residential uses listed as Permitted Uses within a particular zoning district. The predominant character of the structure is intended to be harmonious with residential areas. 4. Multiple- Family Dwelling A building arranged or intended for three or more households living independently of each other in separate dwelling units, any two or more of which may be provided with a common entrance or hall. Dwellings located on upper stories of a structure with non - residential uses on other stories are included in the definition of multiple - family dwelling. 5. Single - Family Dwelling A detached or attached building arranged or designed to be occupied by one family, the structure having only one principal dwelling unit. 6. Townhouse RECORD OF ORDINANCES 07- 12(Amended) Page 5 of 38 Ordinance No. Passed 20 A building consisting of three or more dwelling units attached to each other through the use of shared party walls on one or both sides, with each unit having a ground floor and a separate entrance. Two - Family Dwelling A building arranged or designed to be occupied by two families, the structure having only two dwelling units with separate entrances. (5) Uses Definitions — E (a) Eating & Drinking A facility that prepares or serves food or beverages directly to the public for on- or off - premise consumption. This use includes but is not limited to sit down or take -out restaurants, cafes or coffee shops, ice cream parlors, and may also include uses such as taverns, brewpubs, or wine bars. (b) Eating & Drinking (Accessory) Eating & drinking when accessory to a principal use of the property, and when the facilities are designed and intended for use primarily by residents or occupants of the principal use of the property. (c) Educational Facility A facility offering classes, training courses, or skill development to the public or to members of an organization. This use includes but is not limited to vocational, business, or technical schools, training centers, colleges, and universities, but does not include an elementary, middle, or high school. (d) Elementary or Middle School A facility providing education to students in kindergarten through 8th grades using a curriculum recognized by the State of Ohio, and including related assembly, sports, and activity areas, but not including facilities regularly used for housing or sleeping of students. (e) Entertainment/ Recreation, Indoor A facility or area providing opportunities for physical exercise, physical training or improvement of health for the general public or members of an organization. This use includes but is not limited to: theaters, bowling alleys, dance halls, game centers, gymnasiums, health clubs, exercise and fitness facilities, and climbing wall centers. (f) Essential Utility Services Facilities used to provide utility services to a building or property, including but not limited to water pipes, sewer pipes, electric lines and boxes, telecommunication lines or fiber optic equipment, gas regulator stations, and stone drainage pipes. This use does not include major utilities such as water or sewer treatment plants, electric generating plants, and other facilities that are primary rather than accessory uses of the sites on which they are located. Wireless communication facilities are also not included in this definition. (g) Exercise and Fitness A facility or area providing opportunities for exercise or fitness for the general public or members of an organization, including but not limited to health or exercise rooms and swimming pools, when accessory to a principal use of the property. (6) Uses Definitions — F (a) Farmers Market RECORD OF ORDINANCES 07- 12(Amended) Passed Page 6 of 38 Ordinance No. 20 An area, which may or may not be in a completely enclosed building, where on designated days and times, growers and producers of horticultural and agricultural products may sell those products and/or other incidental items directly to the public. (b) Fueling/Service Station A facility used primarily for the sale of vehicle fuels, oils or accessories. Services may include maintenance and lubrication of automobiles and replacement or installation of minor parts and accessories but shall not include major repair work such as engine or transmission replacement, body and fender repair or spray painting. This use may include the retail sales of convenience goods. (7) Uses Definition — G (a) Government Services 1. General A facility providing the administration of local, state, or federal government services or functions. Safety A facility providing police, fire, or emergency medical services to the surrounding community. Service A facility providing government services that includes vehicle and equipment parking and/or service or maintenance yards. (b) Group Residence A facility occupied by two or more individuals meeting the definition of handicapped in the federal Fair Housing Act Amendments, and living as a single housekeeping unit with shared common facilities. The facility may also provide food, shelter, personal care, assistance or supervision and supplemental health care services. For purposes of this definition, the term handicapped does not include persons currently using or addicted to alcohol or controlled substances who are not in a recognized recovery program, and does not include facilities or half -way houses for individuals in the criminal justice system. (8) Uses Definitions — H (a) Helipad/Heliports An aviation accessory devoted to the landing, takeoff and storing of helicopters. (b) High School A facility providing education to students from 9 through 12 grades using a curriculum recognized by the State of Ohio and including related assembly, sports and activity areas, but not facilities regularly used for the housing or sleeping of students. (c) Home Occupation A business or occupation incidental and subordinate to a principal residential use conducted within a dwelling. Examples include but are not limited to: artist's studio, office, teaching, or consultancy. (d) Hospital RECORD OF ORDINANCES 07- 12(Amended) Page 7 of 38 Ordinance No. Passed 20 Any facility in which in- patients are provided diagnostic, medical, surgical, obstetrical, psychiatric, or rehabilitation care for a continuous period longer than 24 hours, or a medical facility operated by a health maintenance organization. (e) Hotel A building or series of buildings providing accommodations to the traveling public in habitable units for compensation, and includes but is not limited to both short-stay and extended stay facilities. This use includes the provision of related services such as eating and drinking, meeting rooms, and the sale of gifts, and convenience goods. (9) Uses Definitions — I (Reserved for future use) (10) Uses Definitions — J(Reserved for future use) (11) Uses Definitions — K(Reserved for future use) (12) Uses Definitions — L (a) Large Format Retail A retail or wholesale use of 20,000 square feet or more of gross floor area as a single use area. (b) Library, Museum, Gallery Facilities containing collections of books, manuscripts, and similar materials for study and reading, or exhibiting works of art or objects in one or more of the arts and sciences. (13) Uses Definitions — M (a) Manufacturing and Assembly A facility used for the fabrication, assembly, finishing, packaging or processing of components and/or finished goods. (b) Medical and Diagnostic Laboratory A facility for sampling, photographing, analyzing or testing bodily fluids and other medical specimens. These facilities may not include laboratories for the sole purpose of research. (c) Mini - Storage A facility of leased or owned structures available to the general public for the storage of goods. (d) Mixed Use A mixed use development consists of two or more principal uses such as residential and commercial uses, and where the arrangement of buildings and uses share internal and external vehicular and pedestrian circulation, open spaces, and other similar development features. A mixed use development may occur either vertically within a structure, or horizontally within multiple structures as part of a coordinated development. (e) Motor Vehicle Repair, Major A facility or area where major mechanical (engine, transmission or other major mechanical systems) or body work is conducted on vehicles and/or trailers. (14) Uses Definitions — N RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordinance No. 07- 12(Amended) Page 8 of 38 Passed 20_ (15) Uses Definitions — O (a) Office 1. Call Center A facility providing customer service or sales requests by telecommunication or other data means. 2. Flex A facility including office, research, laboratory, manufacturing, clean assembly, warehousing, or other related activities whose configurations and construction methods allow for easy conversion of interior and exterior space. 3. General A facility providing executive, management, administrative, or professional services. This use includes corporate offices, law offices, architectural firms, insurance companies and other executive, management or administrative offices for businesses or corporations. General office uses may include the administration of local, state, or federal government services or functions. This facility does not include medical offices, call centers, or flex offices. 4. Medical A facility providing medical, dental, or other health services relating to the diagnosis and treatment of human illnesses, injuries, and physical ailments treated in an office setting. This includes outpatient surgery, rehabilitation, incidental laboratories and other related activities, but does not include overnight patient stays. (b) Outdoor Dining and Seating An area accessory to an eating and drinking facility or a retail business in which food and beverages are served, offered for sale, or are available for consumption outside of the principal structure. (c) Outdoor Display or Seasonal Sales The display of goods outside the principal structure on the site for the purpose of marketing or sales for a temporary period of time typically not exceeding three months in any calendar year, when accessory to a principal use of the property. (d) Outdoor Seasonal Plant Display An area adjacent to a retail business that, as an outdoor accessory use, displays live garden plant material for sale by the adjacent principal retail business. Display may include live plants such as flowers and trees suitable for planting or landscaping. (e) Outdoor Service Facility If not otherwise defined as Outdoor Seasonal Plant Display, an area that is not fully enclosed by solid walls and a roof and where services are rendered or goods are displayed, sold, or stored. Outdoor service facilities may include, but are not limited to outdoor dining areas, restaurant patios, outdoor storage areas, open -air markets, garden stores, and stand -alone parking lots. (16) Uses Definitions — P (a) Parks and Open Space Public or private land that has been identified for active or passive parks or property to be left in a generally natural state. RECORD OF ORDINANCES 07- 12(Amended) Ordinance No Page 9 of 38 Passed . 20 (b) Parking 1. Municipal Parking A parking lot or structure owned or controlled by the City of Dublin or other public entity available for use by the general public. 2. Parking, Accessory Parking that is provided to comply with minimum off - street parking requirements in this Chapter for a principal use of the property or a designated nearby property, and that is provided exclusively to serve occupants of or visitors to a principal and/or accessory use. 3. Parking Structure A facility used for vehicle parking and where there are a number of floors or levels on which parking takes place, either freestanding or integrated into a building. 4. Parking Structure, Accessory A structure that contains parking provided to comply with minimum off - street parking requirements in this Chapter for a principal use of the property or a designated nearby property, and that is provided exclusively to serve occupants of or visitors to a principal and /or accessory use. 5. Surface Parking Lot The use of land to provide off - street parking for vehicles. For the purposes of the BSC districts in § §153.057 to 153.066, surface parking does not include driveways for single - family attached or detached residential units. (c) Personal, Repair, & Rental Services A facility or establishment that provides services associated with personal grooming, personal instruction or education, the maintenance of fitness, health and well- being, or the rental, servicing, maintenance, or repair of consumer goods. This use includes but is not limited to yoga centers, beauty salons, barbers and hairdressers, meditation centers, massage centers, dry cleaning shops, tailors, shoe repair, and electronics repair shops. This facility does not include motor vehicle, recreational vehicle, or heavy equipment repair or rental. (d) Portable Classroom A manufactured structure not permanently attached to the ground, used on a temporary basis in conjunction with a permanent structure to provide educational services. (e) Portable Nonresidential Structures A building(s) or similar structure(s) designed for occupation which is not placed on a permanent foundation. The definition shall include construction trailers, portable classrooms, tents, trailers and any other uses which may be proposed for these structures. (f) Principal Use The primary or predominant use of a lot, parcel, or structure. (g) Public Safety Facility A facility used to provide police, fire, or emergency medical services to the community. (16) Uses Definitions — Q (17) Uses Definitions — R RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordinance No 07- 12(Amended) Page 10 of 38 Passed 20_ (a) Religious or Public Assembly A facility in which the public or members of an organization gather to engage in collective activities, which may include worship, study, relaxation, service activities, assembly space, or recreation. This use includes but is not limited to churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, clubs, meeting halls, and social organizations. (b) Renewable Energy Equipment or Alternative Energy Equipment Equipment for the collection of solar, wind or geothermal energy or its conversion to electrical energy or heat for use on the same property or for incidental sale to a utility when that equipment is accessory to a permitted or approved conditional principal use of the property. (c) Renewable Wind Equipment Equipment for the collection of wind energy or its conversion to electrical energy or heat for use on the same property or for incidental sale to a utility when that equipment is accessory to a permitted or approved conditional use of the property. Includes both building mounted and ground mounted units. Ground mounted units have a foundation and are not dependent on a building for structural support. (d) Research and Development A facility or area for conducting scientific research, synthesis, analysis, investigation, testing, or experimentation, and including the fabrication of prototypes, assembly, mixing and preparation of equipment and components incidental or necessary to the conduct of such activities. Research and development includes support facilities, but not including facilities for the manufacture or sale of products except as may be incidental to the main purpose of the laboratory. (e) Residential Model Home A residential structure used by a licensed homebuilder /developer, real estate worker or realtor to demonstrate construction, display built -in amenities and color selection charts to prospective home buyers and promote the sale or lease of housing units. (t) Retail, General A facility or area for the retail sale of general merchandise or food to the general public for direct use and not for wholesale. This use includes but is not limited to sale of general merchandise, clothing and other apparel, flowers and household plants, dry goods, convenience and specialty foods, hardware and similar consumer goods. (g) Retail or Personal Services (Accessory) General retail, as defined, when accessory to a non - retail or personal service principal use of the property. (18) Uses Definitions — S (a) Sexually Oriented Business Establishment A commercial establishment including adult cabaret, adult store, or adult theater primarily engaged in persons who appear nude /semi -nude, live performances, films or other visual representations, adult booths, or sale or display of adult material. (b) Special Event A temporary outdoor use of land for the purposes of a gathering, including but not limited to a fair, festival, celebration, or fundraiser. RECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton Legal Blank. Inc. Ordinance No. Passed 20 (c) Swimming Pool Any confined body of water, with a rim/deck elevation less than one foot above the existing finished grade of the site, exceeding 100 square feet in water surface area, and 24 inches in depth, designed, used, or intended to be used for swimming or bathing purposes. (19) Uses Definitions — T (a) Transportation 1. Park- and -Ride A facility providing parking and shelter for transit passengers or carpooling that typically includes parking lots and associated structures located along or near public transit routes. 2. Transit Station When a transit station is the principal use of the property, it is a facility where public transit vehicles load and unload patrons, and where patrons may transfer between public transit lines,. This use does not include park and ride or ride - sharing facilities, transit vehicle repair or maintenance facilities, bus stops located on public property, or bus stops accessory to a principal use of the property. 3. Transit Stop An incidental area, either along the public right -of -way or on a private site, with shelters or other related amenities for patrons waiting for buses or other forms of public transportation. A transit stop shall not include a transit station, park -and -ride, or other major transit facility. (20) Uses Definitions — U (a) Utilities 1. Electric Substation A facility where electricity generation, transmission and distribution system is managed through the use of transformers. 2. Renewable Energy Facilities. Commercial -scale operations for the collection of solar, wind, or geothermal energy and its conversion to electrical energy for sale to a public utility. (2 1) Uses Definitions — V (a) Vehicle Sales, Rental, and Repair A facility or area used for the retail sale of vehicles (new or used) and related vehicle service facilities, renting of vehicles, repairing vehicles or the sale and installation of tires, batteries, and other minor accessories and services for vehicles. This use does not include supplies, tires, or parts unrelated to repairs being performed on the premises, or a fueling/service station. (b) Vehicle Charging Station When accessory to a permitted or approved primary use of the property, vehicle charging stations are facilities or areas at which electric powered or hybrid powered motor vehicles can obtain electrical current to recharge batteries. (21) Uses Definitions — W 07- 12(Amended) Page 11 of 38 (a) Warehousing and Distribution RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordinance No, 07- 12(Amended) Page 12 of 38 Passed 20 Facilities and accessory uses for the mass storage and movement of goods as well as transportation, logistics, maintenance and fleet parking. (b) Wholesaling and Distribution. Facilities and accessory uses for the mass storage and movement of goods as well as transportation, logistics, maintenance and fleet parking. (c) Wireless Communication Wireless communications facilities and related terms are defined in §99.04 (B) General Defmitions For the purpose of this Chapter, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning, as determined by the Director. (1) General Definitions — A (a) Abandoned Sign A sign associated with an abandoned use, a sign that remains after the termination of the business, or a sign on its immediate premises not adequately maintained and not repaired within the specified time under § 153.162. (b) Aboveground Pool Any confined body of water, with a rim/deck elevation more than one foot above the existing finished grade of the site, exceeding 100 square feet in water surface area, and 24 inches in depth, designed, used, or intended to be used for swimming or bathing purposes. (c) Administrative Official The official charged with the administration and enforcement of this chapter. For the City, the Administrative Official is the Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning. (d) Administrative Review Team or ART An administrative body of City and Washington Township officials responsible for certain administrative reviews and approvals as designated in this chapter. (e) Aggregate Diameter The combined diameter of a multiple trunk tree measured at breast height (see diameter breast height). (f) Aisle That portion of the off - street parking and loading area that provides access to parking, stacking or loading spaces, exclusive of driveways and parking and loading spaces. (g) Alley A secondary access way typically not less than 20 feet in width available for public use or transportation and affording vehicular access to abutting property. (h) Alteration Any change, addition or modification in construction or any change in the structural members of a building, such as walls or partitions, columns, beams or girders, the consummated act of which may be referred to in this chapter as "altered" or "reconstructed." Any action to change, modify, reconstruct, remove or demolish any exterior features of an existing structure or of the site. RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordinance No. 07- 12(Amended) Page 13 of 38 Passed 1 20— Ordinary maintenance to correct any deterioration, decay or damage to a structure or site and to restore the structure as nearly as practicable to an original state prior to its deterioration, decay or damage is excluded from the definition of alteration, provided the work does not involve a change in type and/or color of building materials. (i) Animated Sign Any sign that uses or has the appearance of movement or change of artificial and natural lighting or noise to depict action or create a special effect or scene. (j) Applicant Any person who applies for a zoning approval through the provisions of this chapter. (k) Arcade A roofed or built structure, extending over the sidewalk or square, open to the street except for supporting columns, piers, or arches. (1) Architectural Character The architectural style, general design, and general arrangement of the exterior of a building or other structure intended to recreate a period of history, architectural theme or other similar effect. (m) Architectural Review Board or ARB The Architectural Review Board of the City, as created in § 153.172. (n) Architectural Review District, or Historic District The Architectural Review District of the City. The term may also be used to refer to Ohio Historic Inventory Properties as provided in § 153.170, where appropriate. (o) Architectural Style The predominant historic architectural styles within given areas of the Historic District, as described in § 153.174(B)(4), or in other defined areas. (p) Articulation Detailing, decoration, expression lines, shadow lines, and other similar techniques used to provide architectural interest. (q) Automated Teller Machine (ATM) An electronically operated device used to conduct financial transactions on site, by means of direct computerized access. These devices may be accessible by vehicle and /or pedestrians. (r) Auto -share Parking Space A parking space designated for use only by a vehicle owned or leased by an entity and made available to members of the entity for their shared use. Examples of this use include spaces reserved for a ZipCar or Flexcar vehicle. (s) Awning A roof -like covering, often adjustable, over a door, window, or other opening in a structure, designed to provide protection against the elements such as sun, wind, or rain. (t) Awning Sign A sign painted on or affixed to an awning. (2) General Definitions — B RECORD OF ORDINANCES 07- 12(Amended) Page 14 of 38 Ordinance No. Passed 20 (a) Banner A non -rigid cloth, plastic, paper, or canvas sign, used on a temporary basis, typically related to a special event or promotion that is cultural, educational, charitable, or recreational in its function, under the sponsorship of a for -profit establishment or business, or a public, private nonprofit or religious organization. (b) Bench Sign Any sign painted on, located on, or attached to any part of the surface of a bench, seat, or chair placed on or adjacent to a public roadway. (c) Bicycle Circulation Plan A detailed plan showing the location of all site access points, bicycle facilities, and travel routes expected to be used by bicyclists. (d) Bicycle Facilities All amenities or elements including bicycle racks, lockers, and showers intended to assist either recreational or commuter cyclists. (e) Billboard An off - premise sign directing attention to a specific business, product, service, entertainment or other activity sold, offered, or conducted off -site. (f) Bland Elevation An elevation that lacks the minimum required openings and architectural features, such as windows, doors, exterior chimneys, or other similar architectural features. (g) Blank Wall A fagade or portion of a fagade with no windows or doors or other elements of transparency. (h) Block The aggregate of lots, pedestrianways and alleys or service lanes, whether public or private, typically surrounded on all sides by public streets. (i) Block Face The aggregate of all the building facades on one side of a block. Lots with their front property line and buildings with their front fagade along the block face are referred to as "fronting" on the block or street. (j) Block Perimeter The horizontal distance around the boundaries of the block. (k) Board of Zoning Appeals, or BZA The Board of Zoning Appeals of the City. (1) Board Order The official document issued by the Architectural Review Board or Board of Zoning Appeals containing the official record of a final action or recommendation on an application for a review required by the ARB or BZA in accordance with this chapter. (m)Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) A planned area of the city generally bounded on the east by Sawmill Road, on the north and west by I -270, and including land within the Architectural Review District boundaries and along the north and south sides of SR 161. RECORD OF ORDINANCES 07- 12(Amended) Ordinance No. (n) Buildable Area Passed Portions of a site or lot where development is permitted. 20 (o) Building A structure intended for shelter, housing or enclosure of persons, animals or chattel. When separated by dividing walls without openings, each internal portion of the structure so separated shall be deemed a separate building. (p) Building Activity Area The area of a lot in which construction and building activities occur. . (q) Building Entrance An access door into the building primarily intended for pedestrian use. (r) Building Fagade See Fagade. (s) Building, Height The vertical distance measured from the grade to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof; to the deck line of a mansard roof; or to the mean height level between the eaves and ridge of a gable, hip or gambrel roof, unless otherwise specified by this chapter. (t) Building Identification Sign A type of wall sign which is physically attached to a building fagade and intended to provide an identity for buildings with three or more stories and high visibility along a street. Building identification signs are typically used to communicate a general name or address for a building or associated development, or to identify a major commercial tenant within the building. (u) Building - Mounted Sign A sign which is physically attached to a building fagade or associated appurtenance, and intended to provide visibility for either pedestrians or motorists. Building- mounted signs are typically used to identify commercial tenants within the building or to identify the general name of a residential building or associated development. Within the Bridge Street Corridor Districts, building- mounted signs include wall signs, projecting signs, awning signs and window signs, but do not include other types of signs that may be attached to a building, such as building identification signs and directory signs. (v) Building Type Required building forms for new construction and renovated structures within districts specified in this chapter. (w) Bus Shelter Sign Any sign painted on or affixed to any bus shelter. (3) General Definitions — C (a) Caliper The diameter of a tree trunk six inches above the existing grade or proposed planted grade. This measurement is used for nursery-grown trees. (b) Canopy A freestanding or connected roof -like structure designed to offer protection from the weather. Page 15 of 38 (c) Change RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordinance No. 07- 12(Amended) Page 16 of 38 Passed 20_ Any new construction, alteration, demolition, or removal or other construction involving any property subject to the provisions of this chapter including signs, landscaping, and tree removal. Change shall not include ordinary maintenance or repair of any property if no change in material, design, color, or outward appearance is undertaken. (d) Changeable Copy Sign A sign or portion thereof with characters, letters, or illustrations that can be changed or rearranged by mechanical, electronic or manual means without altering the face or surface of the sign. (e) Channel Letters The outline of a letter, border, or similar object with a vertical side wall to confine the lighting on the face either to restrict vision at an angle or to prevent light spillage over adjacent areas. (f) Chapter Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances of Dublin, unless otherwise specified. (g) 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. Cantilevered Chimney A chimney that projects from the exterior wall and does not have a foundation or extension to the ground. 2. 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. (h) Cistern An underground storage component of a rainwater harvesting system typically larger than 80 gallons. (i) City The City of Dublin, Ohio. (j) City Council, or Council The legislative body of the City. (k) Commercial Vehicle Any vehicle used or designed to be used for business or commercial purposes including but not limited to: bus, cement truck, commercial tree trimming equipment, construction equipment, dump truck, garbage truck, panel truck, semi - tractor, semi - trailer, or any other non - recreational trailer used for commercial purposes, stage bed truck, step van, tank truck, tar truck, or other commercial type vehicle licensed by the Ohio State Bureau of Motor Vehicles as a commercial vehicle or commercial truck. (1) Commission The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City. (m) Community Plan The current adopted Community Plan of the City and any amendments thereto. (n) Compact Parking Space RECORD OF ORDINANCES 07- 12(Amended) Page 17 of 38 Ordinance No. Passed 20_ A vehicle parking space, with dimensions smaller than a standard vehicle parking space, that is intended to be occupied by smaller vehicles. (See §153.065(B) (4)). (o) Concept Plan A plan that generally indicates the overall design of a proposed PUD project with sufficient information to enable the applicant and the City to discuss the concept for the proposed development and to determine if the proposal is generally consistent with the Community Plan and other applicable plans of the City. (p) Conditional Use A use allowed in a zoning district after approval is granted by the Commission according to the provisions of § 153.236. (q) Construction Sign A sign that identifies the project and, if desired, owners, lenders, contractors, architects, and engineers of a project under construction. (r) 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. (s) Corner Fagade Any building face generally oriented along a corner side property line, either within the corner required building zone or behind the comer setback. (t) Corner Side Property Line For corner lots occupied by a single building, the corner side property line is the lot line abutting the street right -of -way from which the corner required building zone (RBZ) or comer side setback, as applicable, is measured. (u) 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. Molded projections which crown or finish the part of the roof to which they are affixed are included in the definition of cornice. (v) Courtyard An outdoor area enclosed by a building on at least three sides. (w) Critical Root Zone The area inscribed by an imaginary line on the ground beneath a tree having its center point at the center of the trunk of the tree and having a radius equal to one foot for every inch of diameter breast height. (x) Crosswalk Designated paths intended for pedestrians to use for crossing the street right - of -way, typically at intersections and sometimes at mid - block. (y) Curb Line The face of a curb along a curbed public or private street. (4) General Definitions — D (a) Day Calendar day. RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordinance No. 07- 12(Amended) Page 18 of 38 Passed 20_ (b) Decking (Pool) The concrete, cement, wood, metal, brick, or other material surrounding or immediately adjacent a swimming pool. (c) Demolition The complete or substantial removal or planned destruction of any structure. (d) Deterioration The impairment of value or usefulness of a structure or site through action of the elements or lack of maintenance or upkeep. (e) Development Sign A temporary sign indicating such things as the names of the architects, engineers, landscape architects, contractors, or similar artisans, and the owners, financial supporters, sponsors and similar public or private individuals or firms having a role or interest with respect to the development, structure, or project, whether public or private. (f) Diameter Breast Height (DBH) The diameter of a tree measured at four and one -half feet above the existing grade at the base of the tree. This measurement is used for existing forest trees. (g) Directional Sign A temporary or permanent sign that provides information regarding location, instructions for use, or functional /directional data, but not used for advertising or identification. (h) Director The Director of Planning of the City of Dublin. (i) Directory Sign Small signs or placards affixed to a wall or elevation adjacent to the main entrance to a multiple -tenant building typically used to list tenants located within the building. 0) 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. (k) Dispensing Station The point of service for a fuel station at which a vehicle is fueled. A dispensing station is that location serving one vehicle, regardless of the number of individual fueling pumps or nozzles at the point of service. (1) Display Sign Signs incorporated into the window display of a business intended to advertise the goods and/or services associated with businesses and intended to change frequently. Display signs may be attached to or located within three feet of a window and may include restaurant menus or products for sale or display. (m) Dormer A window set vertically in a structure projecting through a sloping roof; also the roofed structure containing that window or a ventilating louver. (n) Double- Frontage Lot A lot having frontage along two public streets. (o) Driveway RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordinance Na 07- 12(Amended) Page 19 of 38 Passed 20 The hard paved surface of a lot that is specifically designated and reserved for the movement of motor vehicles to and from a public or private street. This definition includes the area from the street providing access to and from the lot and any maneuvering areas. (p) Driveway Apron A solid area of approved paving material immediately adjacent to and connecting a public or private street to a parking lot, parking structure, or driveway. (5) General Definitions — E (a) Eave The lower edge of a pitched roof; it typically overhangs beyond the side of a building. (b) Electronic Scoreboard An electronically - controlled changeable copy sign used to display scoring information for sporting events, typically located on a sports field. (c) 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. (d) Entry Feature Sign An on- premises ground- mounted sign that graphically identifies a residential subdivision and/or multiple- family development. For commercial uses, see Joint Identification Sign. (e) Epiphytotic The sudden and destructive development of a plant disease, usually over large areas. (f) Established Grade Line The average finished grade for a site. All references to sign height are from the established grade line unless otherwise noted. (g) Existing Structure For the purposes of §153.062, Existing Structures are structures that are lawfully existing but may not comply with the requirements of the Chapter because of restrictions such as front property line occupation, lot coverage, required build zone, buildable area, height, or other requirements related to the structure. (h) Existing Use For the purposes of §153.059, Existing Uses are uses that are lawfully existing at the effective date of this amendment. (i) Expression Line An architectural treatment extending or offset from the surface plane of the building wall. Expression lines typically delineate the transition between floor levels and the base - middle -top of a building. (j) Exterior Architectural Feature A prominent or significant part or element of a building, structure, or site. Features include the architectural style and general arrangement of the exterior of the structure including building materials, windows, doors, lights, signs, dry-laid stone fences and other fixtures appurtenant thereto. Features shall RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordinance No. 07- 12(Amended) Page 20 of 38 Passed 1 20 include the style, material, color, height, area, and lighting, and location of a sign regulated by this chapter. (6) General Definitions — F (a) Fagade The exterior face of a building, including but not limited to the wall, windows, windowsills, doorways, and architectural elements. May also be referred to as the building fagade. (b) 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. (c) Fence Any permanent or temporary partition, structure, or other material erected as a dividing structure, barrier or enclosure, and not an integral portion of a structure requiring a building permit. (d) Final Development Plan A detailed plan showing the location of all site improvements, including easements, utilities, buildings, parking areas, circulation routes, points of ingress and egress, transportation and other public improvements (both on- and off - site), landscaping, architectural drawings, loading and unloading zones, service areas, ground signs, directional signs, location of refuse containers, lighting and accessory structures, and other similar improvements, and may include a subdivision plat. Critical dimensions are shown unless otherwise required. (e) Flag Any fabric or bunting containing the officially recognized and adopted colors, patterns, or symbols used as the official symbol of a government, political, or corporate entity. (f) Flag Lot An interior lot located generally to the rear of another lot but with a narrow portion of the lot extending to the public street. (g) Flashing Sign Any directly or indirectly illuminated sign that exhibits changing natural or artificial light or color effects by any means whatsoever. (h) Flat Roof A roof with no visible slope and no parapet. (i) Floor Area, Gross (GFA) The sum of the gross horizontal area of the several floors of the building measured from the exterior faces of the exterior walls or from the center line of walls separating two buildings. The gross floor area of a building shall include the basement floor area only if more than one -half of the basement height is above finish lot grade and/or is otherwise considered to be a half -story. Areas excluded from the definition of GFA include any space devoted to off - street parking or loading, areas of basements (except as provided above), breezeways, porches, or attached garages. (j) For Sale/For Lease Sign A sign indicating the sale, rental, or lease of a structure or property. RECORD OF ORDINANCES < i MO Passed 20 (k) Foundation Cladding An aesthetic enhancement to the foundation concealing exposed portions with an approved material. (1) Freestanding Sign See Ground Sign. (m)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. (n) Frontage The orientation of a lot line or building fagade along, and typically parallel to, a street, block face or open space type. This term may also refer to the orientation of an open space type along a street. (o) Front Fapade Any building face generally oriented along a front property line, either within the front required building zone (RBZ) or behind the front setback. (p) Front Property Line (FPL) The boundary of a lot within a BSC district abutting the street right -of -way, from which the front required building zone (RBZ) or front setback, as applicable, is measured. (q) Furnishings Zone A hardscape area that extends to the sidewalk from the back of curb, edge of pavement or edge of a cycletrack, in which street trees in tree wells, street furniture, lighting, and street signs may be located. Furnishings zones are typically used adjacent to commercial buildings. (See also, Planting Zone). (7) General Definitions — G (a) Gable The vertical triangular end of a building from cornice or eaves to ridge; the similar end of a gambrel roof, the end wall of a building; and/or a triangular part of a structure. (b) Garage An accessory building or part of a principal structure used primarily for the storage of passenger vehicles as an accessory use. 1. Alley- loaded garage A garage with vehicular access from a public or private alley or drive typically from the rear of the property. 2. Courtyard -style garage A garage with vehicular access through an enclosed or partially enclosed pavement area that is located to the front of a principal structure typically providing access to a side - loaded garage. 3. Front - loaded garage A garage with vehicular access doors primarily oriented toward the same street right -of -way or private street as the front fagade of the principal structure. 07- 12(Amended) Page 21 of 38 4. Side - loaded garage RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordinance No. Passed 20_ A garage with vehicular access doors primarily oriented toward one of the side lot lines or a secondary public right -of -way or private street. (c) Gas - inflatable Sign/Device Any device which is capable of being expanded by any gas and used on a permanent or temporary basis to attract attention to a product or event. This definition includes both hot and cold -air balloons tethered or otherwise anchored to the ground. (d) Gateway Sign A sign, typically placed along a major roadway at or near the edge of a significant city attraction or land use, used to introduce the entry to the attraction. (e) Governmental Sign A sign erected and maintained pursuant to and in discharge of any government functions or required by law, ordinance, or other governmental regulations. (f) Green Roof A green roof, or `living roof,' system is an extension of the existing roof which involves a high quality water proofing and root repellant system, filter cloth, a lightweight growing medium, and plants. Green roofs may be flat or low -slope and serve such purposes as absorbing rainwater, providing insulation, creating a habitat for wildlife, urban agriculture, as well as helping to lower urban air temperatures. (g) Ground Sign Any sign which is physically attached to a foundation. These are commonly known as freestanding, pole, pylon, or monument signs. (8) General Definitions — H (a) Hard Surfaced or Paved Area Includes but is not limited to patios, driveways, courtyards, tennis courts, basketball courts, volleyball courts, swimming pool decks and walkways (water area excluded), and bicycle paths. Hard Surfaced or Paved Areas may be constructed of pervious or semi - pervious materials, which are typically not counted toward lot coverage or are counted at a reduced percentage due to water absorption capabilities. (b) Highly Transparent Low Reflectance Windows, doors, or other openings in a structure allowing light and clear views between the interior and exterior of the structure a majority of the time. (c) Historic District The portion of the Architectural Review District generally referred to as Historic Dublin, and as defined by §153.170. (d) Historic Site The location, structures, features or other integral part of a city, state, or United States designated archaeological or historic site. (9) General Definitions — I 07- 12(Amended) Page 22 of 38 (a) Illuminated Sign Any sign lighted by or exposed to artificial lighting either by light on or in the sign or directed toward the sign. RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordinance No. 07- 12(Amended) Page 23 of 38 Passed 20_ (b) Impervious Surface Any hard surface, man-made area that does not absorb water, such as principal and accessory structure roofs, sidewalks, parking, driveways, and other surfaces constructed with impermeable material. (c) Incidental Sales Sale of goods or services that are clearly secondary to the principal use of the property, generally provided for the convenience of customers and occupying less than 5% of the gross floor area of the principal use. (d) Information Sign A sign displaying necessary information for the convenience and safety of residents and visitors, and containing no advertising. (e) Interior Landscaping The use of landscape materials within the innermost boundaries of the landscape buffer zone and perimeter landscaping. (f) Interior Tree Lawn A continuous lawn area between rows of parking spaces. (g) Interrupting Vertical Wall A wall used to define and break up vertical building increments to reduce the overall scale of the building fagade. (10) General Definitions — J (a) Joint Identification Sign A sign that identifies the name, through type, graphics, or other symbols, of a shopping center, office park, industrial park, or other building complex more than one use on the same lot or in the same structure, occasionally allowed in addition to the permitted signs of the individual occupants. (11) General Definitions — K (12) General Definitions — L (a) Landmark Any property or site which has special character, archaeological, historical, aesthetic or architectural value as part of the heritage, development or cultural characteristics of the city, state, or the United States designated as a Landmark pursuant to the provision of this chapter, and including all property located in the city listed on the National Register of Historic Places. (b) Landscaped Area An area that is permanently devoted and maintained to the growing of shrubbery, grass and other plant material. (c) Landscaping The planning, installation and maintenance of a combination of trees, shrubs, vines, ground covers, flowers (annuals /perennials), and turf. May include natural features (e.g. stone, ponds, naturalized areas) and structural features, including fountains, reflecting pools, sculptures /art work, walls (retaining/ freestanding), fences, trellis /pergolas, and seating areas (benches /tables /chars). Exposed soil or other non - living organic material such as mulch shall not constitute landscaping. (d) Large Format Retail RECORD OF ORDINANCES 07- 12(Amended) Page 24 of 38 Ordinance No. A retail or wholesale use of 20,000 square feet or more of GFA. (e) Large Tree Any tree species which normally attains a full -grown height equal to or greater than 50 feet. (f) Lighting Trespass A condition in which light is cast in a location that is not permitted or at a level that is higher than permitted by this chapter. (g) Livable Area The total square footage of the livable area of a residential principal use or structure for all rooms meeting Council of American Building Officials (CABO) requirements for sleeping, living, cooking, or dining purposes, but excluding such places as attics, basements (unless finished and meeting the aforementioned CABO requirements), garages, and similar spaces. (h) Living Wall A hedge, hedgerow, or wall that is partially or completely covered with vegetation. (i) Loading Facility The portion of the building, structure, or site where access is permitted for loading and unloading activities related to building uses. (j) Loading Space A space dedicated for use by vehicles loading and unloading within or adjacent to a building as required by this chapter. (k) Logo See Primary Images and Secondary Images. (1) Lot Includes the words "plot' and "parcel." A lot may or may not be specifically designated as such on public records. A lot may also include a condominium unit and any limited common element under and surrounding the condominium unit, which together meet the minimum yard and area requirements of this chapter. (m)Lot, Corner A lot where the interior angle of two adjacent sides at the intersection of two streets is less than 135 degrees. A lot abutting on a curved street shall be considered a corner lot for the purposes of this Chapter if the arc has a radius of less than 150 feet and the tangents to the curve form an interior angle of less than 135 degrees. The tangents are measured at the two points where the lot lines meet the curve, or the straight street line is extended. (n) Lot Coverage The part or percentage of the lot occupied by impervious surfaces and semi - pervious surfaces. (o) Lot Depth The average horizontal distance between front and rear lot lines. Passed 20_ (p) Lot Line 1. General A line bounding or demarcating a plot of land or ground as established by a plat of record. Includes the words "property line." RECORD OF ORDINANCES 07- 12(Amended) Page 25 of 38 Ordinance No. Passed 20 Front Lot Line In the case of an interior lot, the front lot line is the line separating the lot from the street right -of -way. In the case of a corner lot, or double frontage lot, the front lot line is the line separating the lot from either street, unless otherwise designated by a plat, PUD or other lot line requirements of this chapter. (See also, Front Property Line). 3. Rear Lot Line Typically, the rear lot line is the lot line opposite the front lot line that separates the lot from an alley, rear lane, or from the rear of another lot. In the case of a lot pointed at the rear, the rear lot line, for purposes of measuring the rear yard setback, shall be an imaginary line parallel to the front lot line that is not less than ten feet long and lies farthest from the front lot line and wholly within the lot. 4. Side Lot Line Any lot line other than the front lot line or rear lot line. A side lot line separating a lot from another lot is an interior side lot line. (See also, Corner Side Property Line). (q) Lot, Minimum A parcel of land occupied or to be occupied by a principal structure or group of structures and accessory structures together with any yards, open spaces, lot width and lot area required by this chapter. (r) Lot Width In BSC districts only, the horizontal distance between side lot lines as measured along the front property line. Lot widths meet the minimum distance required by the building type(s) located on the lot. hi all other districts, the horizontal distance between side lot lines as measured at the two points where the building line or setback line intersects the side lot lines. The lot widths meet the minimum distance required by the district in which the lot is located, excluding easements for public or private streets. (s) Lumen The amount of light equal to one footcandle of light falling on one square foot of area. (13) General Definitions —M (a) Main Entrance The primary door for pedestrians into the building that provides access to the majority of the uses within the building. It is generally located on the front fagade. (b) Masonry Natural or natural- appearing stone or brick. (c) Medium Tree Any tree species which normally attains a full -grown height of between 30 and 50 feet. (d) Mid -Block The portion of the block located approximately within the middle third of the block length. (e) Mid -Block Pedestrianway RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordinance No. 07- 12(Amended) Page 26 of 38 Passed 20 A defined pathway, dedicated to pedestrians and separated from vehicles, that extends through a block from a street to a parallel or nearly parallel street or alley. (f) Mid - Building Pedestrianway A pathway, dedicated to pedestrians, intended to provide safe, well -lit, and convenient access through buildings from the public sidewalk to the rear or side of a building. Mid - building pedestrianways may coincide with mid -block pedestrianways. (g) Minor Plan Modification or Minor Modification A nominal deviation from, or clarification of, the adopted plan and/or text of a planned development, Development Plan, or Site Plan Approval, as provided in this chapter. (h) Monument Sign A ground sign attached to a wall or a base constructed specifically for the display of the sign. A common example is a permanent subdivision sign. (i) Multi -Tenant Building A building consisting of multiple tenant spaces, typically separated by common walls within a fully enclosed portion of the building, and which may or may not share a corridor, lobby area or other internal common space. (14) General Definitions —N (a) National Register of Historic Places A list of properties by the National Park Service that includes districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. (b) National Trust for Historic Preservation A private, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to saving historic places and revitalizing America's communities. (c) No -Build Zone (NBZ) An open area where construction is prohibited. All structures including, but not limited to buildings, parking, driveways, sidewalks, sheds, swimming pools, patios, decks or other accessory structures, fences, antennae and basketball courts or other sport courts are prohibited in order to preserve open space. (d) No Disturb Zone (NDZ) An area designated on a subdivision plat required to remain free of any structures including, but not limited to, drives, walks, buildings and outbuildings, sheds, fences, swimming pools, decks, swing sets /play structures, satellite dish antennae, basketball courts, etc., and an area with existing natural features that cannot be disturbed, removed, or physically altered. (e) Nonconforming Structure A structure or portion thereof lawfully existing at the effective date of this ordinance or amendments thereto, which does not conform to the provisions of this chapter for the district in which it is located. (f) Nonconforming Sign A sign lawfully existing at the effective date of this ordinance or amendments thereto which does not conform to the requirements set forth in this chapter for the district in which it is located. RECORD OF ORDINANCES 07- 12(Amended) Ordinance No. Page 27 of 38 Passed 20 (g) Nonconforming Use A use of land or a structure lawfully existing at the effective date of this ordinance or amendments thereto which does not conform to the use requirements set forth in this chapter for the district in which it is located of a building. (h) Non - Street Fagade Any building face not fronted along a street or open space type. (15) General Definitions —0 (a) Occupancy The use or intended use of a building or structure. (b) Occupied Space Interior building space regularly occupied by the building users. It does not include storage areas, utility space, or parking. (c) Off - street Loading Space A cubical area for parking one commercial vehicle for pickups and deliveries, located in a building or in the open on the same lot as the use the space is intended to serve. (d) Off - street Parking Space A quadrangular area for parking one motor vehicle, which is located in a structure or in the open, which has access to a public street and is exclusive of the right -of- way of any public or private street or any driveway, aisle, circulation drive or off - street loading space. (e) Ohio Historic Inventory A program of the State of Ohio developed to serve as an accurate and continuing record of the architectural and historic properties existing in the state. (f) Opacity An imaginary vertical plane extending from the established grade to a required height in which a required percent of the vertical plane acts as a visual screen from adjacent property use. (g) Opaqueness The degree to which a wall, fence, structure or landscaping is solid or impenetrable to light or vision in a generally uniform pattern over its surface, usually expressed in terms of percentage of area. (h) Open House A temporary public showing of a structure available for sale, rental, or lease. (i) Open Space Type A park or open space as required by § 153.064. (j) Open Space Type Frontage The orientation of a lot line, building facade or block face directly adjacent to an open space type, with no intervening public or private street. (k) Ordinary Maintenance Exterior work which does not involve any change in material, texture or color, design, or arrangement. Examples include repainting a house with the same color; residing a wood building with wood - siding and painting the same color. RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordinance No 07- 12(Amended) Page 28 of 38 Passed . 20 (1) Owner The legal person(s) of record having ownership of or valid legal interest in a property. (16) General Definitions —P (a) Parallel Ridge Line A main roof ridge line parallel to an adjacent street. (b) Parapet Roof A roof type with a low vertical wall projecting above the building roof line along the perimeter of the building. (c) Parking Setback Line A line specifically established by the City, zoning district, or subdivision plat which determines the minimum distance that parking, loading or maneuvering may be located from a street right -of -way line. (d) Pedestrian Circulation Plan A detailed plan showing the location of all site access points, sidewalks, walkways, bicycle facilities, and travel routes expected to be used by pedestrians. (e) Pedestrian Facilities All amenities or elements including sidewalks, walkways, benches, pedestrian lighting, and other similar facilities intended to assist or be used by pedestrians. (f) Pedestrian Lighting Lighting that improves walkway illumination for pedestrianways. (g) Pedestrian Path A sidewalk, path, walkway or other similar facility that is intended for ordinary use by pedestrians. (h) Pedestrian Realm That portion of the street right -of -way typically comprised of the streetscape, including pedestrian facilities, such as a sidewalk, path/trail, or off - street bicycle facility, and a street buffer such as a planting zone or furnishings zone. (i) Pedestrianway A pathway designed for use by pedestrians, located mid -block or within the middle -third of a building or structure, allowing pedestrian movement from one street to another without traveling along the block's perimeter. (j) Pennant A flag or banner often longer at one end that then other, usually tapering to a point(s). (k) Perimeter Landscape Buffer Zone That area adjacent to any vehicular use area or along common boundaries in which the perimeter landscape requirements of this chapter are to be met. (1) Perimeter Landscaping The use of landscape materials within the perimeter landscape buffer zone to achieve the required opacity. (m) Permanent Sign RECORD OF ORDINANCES 07- 12(Amended) Page 29 of 38 Passed 20_ Ordinance No. Any sign permanently attached or affixed to a building or the ground, as permitted by this chapter. (n) Permanent Structure Any structure that is not a temporary structure. (o) Person Includes any association, firm, partnership, trust, governmental body, corporation, or organization, as well as an individual. (p) Personal Automobile Any vehicle that seats fewer than ten passengers, is registered as a passenger vehicle or a non - commercial truck, and is used for the sole purpose of transporting resident(s) and guests(s) to and from daily activities. (q) Pervious Surface A paved or non -paved area that allows water to filter into the ground. (r) Pitched Roof A roof with a slope that includes, but is not limited to, hipped, gable, mansard and gambrel roofs. (s) Planned Unit Development (PUD) A form of a planned development that includes one or more uses permitted by right or as conditional uses and which is established according to the requirements of §153.052, or was approved as a PUD prior to the adoption of these regulations. (t) Planning and Zoning Commission, or Commission The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City. (u) Planting Zone A landscape area that extends to the sidewalk from the back of curb, edge of pavement or edge of a cycletrack, in which street trees, swales, lighting, and street signs may be located. Sidewalks may cross the planting zone. Planting zones are typically used adjacent to residential buildings. (See also, Furnishings Zone). (v) Plinth A continuous, usually projecting course of stone or brick forming the base or foundation of a wall. (w) Pole Sign See Ground Sign. (x) Political Sign A sign concerning candidates for elective office, public issues and similar matters to be decided by the public at an election. (y) Portable Sign Any sign that is designed to be or capable of being moved or transported, and not permanently affixed or attached to any building, structure, or grounds. (z) Preliminary Development Plan A plan, submitted at the time of rezoning, outlining permitted and conditional land uses, development sites, major circulation patterns, critical natural areas to be preserved, open space areas and linkages, buffer areas, entryways, and major utilities and their relationship with surrounding uses. For the purposes of RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordinance No. 07- 12(Amended) Passed Page 30 of 38 20 § §153.050 through 153.056, a preliminary development plan shall include a composite plan and any other development plan adopted prior to effective date of these regulations that are still in force. (aa) Preserve or Preservation The process, including maintenance, of treating an existing building to arrest or slow future deterioration, stabilizing the structure and providing structural safety without changing or adversely affecting the character or appearance of the structure. (bb) Primary Fapade Material The permitted building material or materials used for the majority of the facades of a building. (cc) Primary Image The name of the use or business identified on a sign. (See also Secondary Image.) (dd) Principal Frontage Street A street designated to establish the street frontage orientation of lots and building facades. Principal frontage streets are intended to create pedestrian- oriented block faces by establishing continuous street- facing facades with limited driveway interruptions. Front lot lines and front facades are oriented along principal frontage streets, and the building address is typically designated along these frontages. (ee) Principal Entrance The primary door into the building for pedestrians for which access is available to the majority of the uses within the building. It is generally located on the front fapade. (ff) Principal Structure Any building or structure in which the principal use of the lot or parcel takes place. (gg) Principal Use The main or primary use of a property, building, or site. (hh) Product Sign A sign typically located in a window, advertising a product or service offered by a business. (ii) Projected Image An image projected onto a building, structure, or sign. 6j) Projecting Sign A sign that is wholly or partly dependent upon a building for support or suspended from a pole attached to a building and extending 14 inches or more from the building or structure. Projecting signs are typically installed perpendicular to the building face upon which they are attached. (kk) Projection Any component of a structure that extends out from the principal structure. (11) Promotional Signs A temporary sign that provides information regarding time, place, and the like of a special event, community activity or similar activity. RECORD OF ORDINANCES 07- 12(Amended) Page 31 of 38 Ordinance No. Passed 20_ (nun) Protected Tree A protected tree is any tree having a diameter of six inches DBH or larger or having an aggregate diameter of 15 inches DBH or larger or a tree which has been designated by the City to be of high value or interest to the City because of its location or historic association, or other professional criteria. (nn) Pylon Sign See Ground Sign. (17) General Definitions —Q (a) 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) General Definitions —R (a) Raceway An elongated metal enclosure used to mount individual channel lettering and to conceal related transformers and wiring. (b) Rain Barrel An above - ground prefabricated storage receptacle with an automatic overflow diversion system that collects and stores storm water runoff from the roof of a structure that would have been otherwise routed into a storm drain. (c) Recreational Vehicle Any motorized vehicle and/or associated non - motorized equipment used for camping, traveling, boating, or other leisure activities including, but not limited to campers, boats, travel trailers, motor buses (more than nine passengers), motor homes, snow mobiles, wave runners, and other vehicles designed for traveling on water (motorized and non - motorized). Trailers used for transporting this type of vehicle are also included within this definition. (d) Refacing Any alteration to the face of a sign involving the replacement of materials or parts. Refacing does not refer to replacing the entire sign structure or the removal of the sign. (e) Remove or Removal (Trees) The causing or accomplishing of the actual physical removal of a tree, or the effective removal through damaging, poisoning, or other direct or indirect action resulting in, or likely to result in, the death of a tree. (f) Required Building Zone (RBZ) An area in which the front or corner fagade of a building is required to be placed. The zone dictates the minimum and maximum distance a structure may be placed from a property line. (g) Required Reviewing Body The Administrative Review Team, City Council, Planning and Zoning Commission, Architectural Review Board, or Board of Zoning Appeals when required by §153.066 to render a final decision on any application required for development within the BSC districts. (h) Roof RECORD OF ORDINANCES 07- 12(Amended) Ordinance No. Page 32 of 38 Passed 20_ Principal Roof The roofed area of a building enclosed by the main rafters, as opposed to the common rafters. 2. Roof Deck In a typical roof system, the roof deck is the roofing material layer between the primary structural components (trusses & joists) and either insulative layers or weatherproofing layers. 3. Roof Height The height of a roof as required to be measured by this chapter. 4, Roof Line The uppermost line or point of the fagade or parapet of a flat roof structure, or the lower edge of an eave, gable or rake of a sloped roof structure. (i) Roof Sign Any sign erected on or above the roof line of a building. (19) General Definitions —S (a) Sandwich Board Sign A sign with two hinged boards which is intended to be placed on the ground. (b) Seats The number of seating units installed or indicated on plans, or each 30 lineal inches of stands, benches or pews. Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, it is assumed that a seating unit occupies seven square feet of floor area for fixed seating and 15 square feet of floor area for uses without fixed seating, exclusive of aisles and assembly areas. (c) Secondary Fagade Material The permitted material or materials used to accent a building's primary fapade materials. (d) Secondary Image Any and all text, graphics, or images displayed on a sign in addition to the name of the use or business, including but not limited to registered/copyrighted images or text, pictorial representations, tag lines, products and phone numbers. (e) Section In the text, the term Section refers to the numeral under which it appears in this subchapter. (f) Semi - Pervious Surface A material that allows for absorption of water into the ground or plant material, such as pervious pavers, permeable asphalt and concrete, or gravel. (g) Service Structures Structures including, but not limited to, loading docks, storage tanks, dumpsters, electrical transformers, utility vaults which extend above the surface, cooling towers, roof top units and other equipment or elements providing service to a building or a site. (h) Setback The minimum distance required by this chapter from the property line and /or right -of -way line to the nearest part of the applicable building, structure, or RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordinance No. 07- 12(Amended) Page 33 of 38 Passed 20 sign, measured perpendicularly to the property line and/or right -of -way line. May also be referred to as the building line. (i) Shadow Line A decorative, three dimensional, linear architectural element, horizontal or vertical, protruding or indented from the exterior fagade of a building enough to create a shadow. It is typically utilized to delineate stories of a building. (j) Shall Is mandatory. (k) Shopping Corridor Continuous mixed use street frontage with retail uses occupying the ground floor of buildings located on streets with a highly articulated pedestrian realm. (1) Sign A sign is defined as any name, number, symbol, identification, description, display, illustration, object, graphic, sign structure, or part thereof, whether permanent or temporary, which is affixed to, painted on, represented directly or indirectly upon, or projected onto a building, structure, lot, or other device, whether mobile or affixed to the ground, and which directs attention to any object, product, place, activity, person, institution, organization, or business. Signs regulated by this chapter includes all signs visible from any public right - of -way or adjacent property, including interior signs oriented towards the exterior fagade of any building or structure as well as back - lighted translucent panels or strip lighting affixed to any wall or roof which serves to identify and attract attention rather than illuminate space for human activity. (m) Sign Face The surface intended for the display of information on the sign. (n) Sign Structure The supporting unit of a sign face, including, but not limited to, frames, braces and poles. (o) Site Any defined space or ground, including ground occupied by buildings, parking areas, service areas, undeveloped lands, and ground adjacent to structures. (p) Site Plan Includes the documents and drawings required by this chapter to ensure that a proposed land use or activity is in compliance with City requirements and state and federal statutes. (q) Small Tree Tree species which normally attains a full -grown height of under 30 feet. (r) Soffit The exposed undersurface of any overhead component of a building. (s) Stacking Space A space designed to be occupied by a vehicle while waiting to order or to be served at a drive- through window or drive -up ATMs, or while waiting to enter a parking lot, parking structure, fuel station, dispensing station, or loading area. (t) Storefront The portion of a building fagade serving as the front elevation of an individual tenant space, including an entrance and windows providing physical and visual RECORD OF ORDINANCES 07- 12(Amended) Page 34 of 38 Ordinance No. Passed 1 20 access into the tenant space, typically limited to the ground story and located along a street- facing facade. (u) Story A habitable level within a building measured from finished floor to finished floor. 1. Ground story The first floor of a building that is level to or elevated above the finished grade on the front and corner facades, excluding basements or cellars, accessible from the established grade through the use of a ramp or steps. 2. Half story A story either in the base of the building, partially below and partially above grade (visible basement), or a story fully within the roof structure with transparency facing the street. 3. Upper story The floors located above the ground story of a building, including any half - stories within the roof structure. (v) Streamer A ribbon- shaped or cord -like rope which may have pennants and /or banners attached and which is stretched or hung between two or more supports. (w) Street Fagade A building face with frontage along and typically parallel to a public street. Street facades are designated as either front or corner facades, and are oriented in relation to the front or corner side property lines. (x) Street Frontage The orientation of a lot line, building facade, block face or open space type along, and typically parallel to, a public street. A building facade oriented along a street frontage is also referred to as the street facade. (y) Streetscape The various components that make up the pedestrian realm, both in the right - of -way and along private lot frontages within required building zones, including tree lawns, pavement, parking spaces, planting areas, street furniture, street trees, streetlights, sidewalks, front yard fences, etc. (z) Street Right -of -Way The public or private right -of -way permitting associated streetscape elements and typically consisting of both a vehicular and pedestrian realm. (aa) Street Right -of -Way Line A line that separates the street right -of -way from a contiguous property. (bb) Street Termination The point at which a street ends, requiring vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians to turn the corner of a block. (cc) Street Type Required street configurations with specific combinations of right -of -way, pavement width, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, travel lanes, and parking lanes intended to result in a desired street character. (dd) Street Wall RECORD OF ORDINANCES 07- 12(Amended) Ordinance No. Page 35 of 38 Passed 20 An opaque, freestanding wall or an opaque combination of landscaping and fencing, built along the frontage line, or along the same building line as the building fagade, typically intended to screen vehicular use areas or service areas and/or to define the pedestrian realm. (ee) Structure Anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires permanent location on the ground, or attachment to something having permanent location on the ground, including advertising signs, billboards, mobile homes (located for occupancy on a permanent foundation) and other construction or erection with special function or form, except fences or walks. Includes the word "building." (ft) Structure, Principal A structure in which is conducted the principal use of the lot on which it is situated. (gg) 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) General Definitions —T (a) Tenant Space A designated area within a building dedicated to an individual tenant, whether by condominium ownership or a contractual relationship between an owner and renter or lessee, where the renter or lessee is considered a primary tenant. Typically, a tenant space is not directly accessible to other tenant spaces through an internal doorway, but may be accessible via a common corridor or lobby area. (b) Terminal Vista The result of a "T', "L ", or "Y" shaped street intersection or a change in street alignment or topography where the views down a street terminate at a lot or parcel instead of continuing down the street. (c) Through Lot A lot, with the exception of a corner lot, that has frontage on two public streets, not including alleys or service lanes. (d) Tower A vertical element of a building or structure, generally rectilinear or cylindrical in plan, which extends above the rest of the building or structure. Communication towers and wireless communication structures are not included in this definition. (e) Trailblazer Sign A government sign typically within the public right -of -way identifying company logos for lodging, gasoline stations, restaurants and other such establishments. (f) Trailer Sign Any sign which is attached to, supported by, or part of a structure which is designed to move on trailer wheels, skids, or other similar devices, or transported, pushed, or pulled by a motor vehicle. (g) Transparency RECORD OF ORDINANCES 07- 12(Amended) Page 36 of 38 Ordinance No Passed . 20_ The ability to see through with clarity. An opening in the building wall allowing light and views between interior and exterior for a majority of the time. Measured as glass area for buildings and as open area for parking structures. (h) Tree Any self - supporting woody plant together with its root system, growing upon the earth usually with one trunk, or multi - stemmed trunk system, supporting a definitely formed crown. (i) Tree Lawn That part of a street not covered by sidewalk, bikepath, or other paving, lying between the property line and that portion of the street right -of -way that is paved and usually used for vehicular traffic. (j) Tree Preservation Area The area of a parcel of land in which all trees shall be protected during all phases of construction. (k) Tree Preservation Plan A proposal which includes a tree survey and a written plan with text and/or graphic illustrations indicating the methods which are to be used to preserve existing trees during construction, and methods for ongoing maintenance, including fertilizing and pruning. (1) Tree Preservation Zone An area designated on a subdivision plat with restrictions noted regarding the removal of trees. (m)Tree Removal Permit The permit required by this chapter to be issued in order to remove any protected tree within the corporate limits of the city. (n) Tree Survey A graphic display drawn to scale, not to exceed 1" = 50', showing all existing trees on a site with a six -inch DBH or greater, species, conditions, and outline of the critical root zones. (o) Tree Well An opening in a sidewalk to accommodate street trees and other understory plantings such as perennials, groundcover, ornamental grass, and low growing shrubs. Tree wells are typically covered by an approved grate or other covering. (p) 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. (q) Turret A small tower, characteristically corbelled from a comer. (21) General Definitions —U (a) Used or Occupied As applied to any land or structure intended, arranged or designed to be used or occupied. (22) General Definitions —V RECORD OF ORDINANCES DaYt Le ^al Nlank Inc rm rvn nxnr 07- 12(Amended) Page 37 of 38 Ordinance No. Passed 20 (a) Vehicular Realm That portion of the street right -of -way comprised of vehicle travel lanes, on- street bicycle facilities, and on- street parking lanes. (b) Vehicular Use Area Any open or unenclosed area containing more than 1,800 square feet of area and/or used by six or more vehicles of any type, whether moving or at rest, including, but not limited to, driveways, parking lots, loading and unloading areas, parking and maneuvering areas within manufactured home parks, and sales and service areas. (c) Vertical Garden See Living Wall. (d) Vinyl Siding Accessories Exterior secondary design elements that serve to provide more visual interest and complement the primary home design. (e) Visible Basement A half story partially below grade and partially exposed above grade with required transparency provided on the street fagade. (f) Vision Report The Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report adopted by City Council and as amended. (23) General Definitions —W (a) Wall Lighting Accent, emergency, or safety lights intended to illuminate portions of a building fapade. (b) Wall Sign Any sign attached to or erected against the inside or outside wall of a building or structure, with the exposed display surface of the sign in a plane parallel to the plane of the building or structure and extending less than 14 inches from the building or structure. (c) Water Table A projecting brick or stone stringcourse, molding or ledge placed to divert rainwater from a building. (d) Window Sign Any signs, posters, symbols and other types of identification or information about the use or premises directly attached to the window of a building or erected on the inside of the building and visible from any public area or adjacent property. (24) General Definitions —X (25) General Definitions Y (a) Yard 1. Front yard An area extending the full width of the lot, the depth of which is the minimum horizontal distance between the front lot line and the nearest point of a principal structure. RECORD OF ORDINANCES 07- 12(Amended) Ordinance No. Page 38 of 38 Passed 20 2. Rear yard An area extending the full width of the lot the depth of which is the minimum horizontal distance between the rear lot line and the nearest point of the principal structure. 3. Side yard An area between the side line of the lot and the principal structure extending from the front lot line to the rear lot line. (26) General Definitions —Z (a) Zoning District A portion of the city within which certain uses of land and /or structures are permitted and within which certain regulations and requirements apply under the provisions of this chapter. 1. Residential District The Restricted Suburban Residential District, the Limited Suburban Residential District, the Suburban Residential District (R -3), the Suburban Residential District (R -4). The Two - Family Residential Distract, the Urban Residential District, the BSC Residential District, the BSC Historic Residential District and all Planned Districts with predominantly residential uses. 2. Non - Residential District All districts not listed under Residential District. (b) Zoning Ordinance, or Zoning Code, or Code This chapter. Section 2. Sections 153.059 through 153.066 of the City of Dublin Zoning Code are hereby amended and shall provide as attached to this Ordinance: Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective on the earliest date permitted by law. Passed this , 2& 1 '�, day of ,1(4 1y-C� 1 2012. �i1rh^ • �� Mayor - K9 ing Officer ATTEST: Clerk of Council AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 153.066 — REVIEW & APPROVAL PROCEDURES & CRITERIA (4) Development Plan Waiver Review (e) Criteria for Development Plan Waivers 1. The need for the Development Plan Waiver is caused by unique site conditions, the use of or conditions on the property or surrounding properties, or other circumstance outside the control of the owner /lessee, including easements and rights -of -way. (4) Site Plan Review Waiver Review (e) Criteria for Site Plan Review Waivers 1. The need for the Site Plan Review Waiver is caused by unique site conditions, the use of or conditions on the property or surrounding properties, or other circumstances outside the control of the owner /lessee, including easements and rights -of -way BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR Bridge Street Corridor Districts Sections 153.057 through 153.066 As Approved by Dublin City Council Monday, March 26, 2012 BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR EFFECTIVE DATE DEVELOPMENT CODE APRIL 26, 2012 BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR DISTRICTS § 153.057 GENERAL PURPOSE § 153.058 BSC DISTRICTS SCOPE AND INTENT (A) The primary purpose of the Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) districts is to implement the Vision Principles for development and redevelopment of the corridor consistent with the directions articulated in the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report. This is with the full recognition that the Report may be revised and acknowledging that the illustrations in the Report are conceptual and not regulatory. The Vision Report identifies the Bridge Street Corridor as the centerpiece of the city with a focus on historic and cultural acknowledgement, preservation and creation of outstanding open spaces, and the presence of mixed use districts. These features allow for a wider range of choices for housing and employment, create interesting places and walkable districts, and enable buildings of lasting, memorable architecture. (B) The Bridge Street Corridor districts are intended to bring to life the five Vision Principles of the Vision Report by enhancing economic vitality, integrating the new center into community life, embracing Dublin's natural setting and celebrating a commitment to environmental sustainability, expanding the range of choices available to Dublin and the region, and creating places that embody Dublin's commitment to community. (C) Specific Purpose (1) ( (3) (4) More specifically, the purpose of the Bridge Street Corridor districts is to promote development that creates an emerging center for urban lifestyles within a walkable, mixed use urban environment that will enhance central Dublin's image as an exceptional location for high quality business investment. These districts are further intended to create places that embody Dublin's commitment to community through the preservation of those areas having architectural landmarks and traditional design, creating complete neighborhoods, and providing designs that honor human scale in their details. In addition, the Bridge Street Corridor will continue to serve as a center of community for current and future Dublin residents. The BSC districts also provide a simplified, but thorough, development review process that provides a high degree of predictability and consistency. The process also sustains Dublin's reputation for high quality development while allowing BSC property owners to compete efficiently and effectively in the marketplace. Because the Vision Report is a transform ative redevelopment concept designed for long -term implementation, a secondary purpose of the Bridge Street Corridor districts is to allow property owners the flexibility to take advantage of new and innovative business opportunities that are consistent with the Vision Report. (A) SCOPE The following Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) districts are hereby created. The districts described by §153.058 are intended to be used for all land within the Bridge Street Corridor. Unless otherwise specifically noted, after the effective date of this amendment all development and redevelopment within the BSC districts shall be consistent with the general purpose of the BSC districts as specified in §153.057 and subject to the regulations of §§ 153.058 through 153.066. Other provisions of Chapters 152 and 153 of the Dublin Code of Ordinances apply in the BSC districts to the extent those provisions are not inconsistent with the provisions of §§ 153.058 through 153.066. Nothing contained herein shall prohibit an application for rezoning to any non -BSC district provided in this Chapter. (B) INTENT The Bridge Street Corridor zoning districts are generally based on the District Framework of the Vision Report. The purpose of the Framework is to allow development regulations to be adapted to the unique conditions present in each area. Although each district is unique, the five Vision Principles are intended to create a cohesive area, based on the concepts of walkability and urban vitality to support the quality of life for residents of all generations. The titles of each district are intended to describe the predominant land use character and/or special geographic locations rather than a single type of use. The following further describes the intent of each BSC district. (1) BSC RESIDENTIAL The intent of this district is to accommodate single - family, two - family, townhouse, live -work and multiple - family uses in mid -rise development. The BSC Residential district integrates existing and new residential developments to create true neighborhoods and add to the population base needed to help support nearby retail and office development. Uses are generally limited to residential and small -scale residential support uses, as listed in Table 153.059 -A. (2) BSC OFFICE RESIDENTIAL The intent of this district is to accommodate a mix of office and multiple- family residential development at higher densities and in larger buildings. This district offers great flexibility to take advantage of visibility and access for office uses, with opportunities to create residential neighborhoods to support the adjacent BSC districts. Uses include a mix of residential, personal service, and commercial uses, as listed in Table 153.059 -A. 2 § 153.057 EFFECTIVE DATE GENERAL PURPOSE APRIL 25, 2012 (3) BSC OFFICE The intent of this district is to allow a mix of offices and retail support uses, as listed in Table 153.059 -A. The BSC Office district provides significant additional development capacity and redevelopment opportunities that foster office uses with a walkable design along signature streets, and provides increased accessibility and an improved roadway network to ease traffic pressure along major roadways. (4) BSC COMMERCIAL This district applies generally to existing retail centers and other low -rise commercial uses, including single use freestanding retail buildings, as listed in Table 153.059 -A. Properties initially zoned into this district may be eligible for rezoning to the BSC Vertical Mixed Use District or to other surrounding BSC districts when future redevelopment to higher densities is desired. (5) BSC HISTORIC CORE This district applies to the historic center of Dublin and reinforces the character of this area as the centerpiece of the Bridge Street Corridor. The district focuses on ensuring sensitive infill development and redevelopment and providing an improved environment for walking while accommodating vehicles. The district accepts building types that are consistent with the historic development pattern of Historic Dublin, subject to review by the Architectural Review Board, and permit similar uses that support a highly walkable setting, as listed in Table 153.059 -A. (6). BSC HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL The intent of this district is to permit the preservation and development of homes on existing or new lots that are comparable in size, mass, and scale, while maintaining and promoting the traditional residential character of the Historic Dublin area. The purpose of these regulations is to protect the scale and character of the original platted village by maintaining regulations consistent with the previous Historic Residential zoning in place prior to the adoption of this amendment, as listed in Table 153.059 -A. (7) BSC SAWMILL CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD This district applies to the majority of the commercial areas at the east end of the Corridor. The standards of the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood create an active, walkable destination through integration of a strong mix of uses. Development within this district relies on the provision of physical and visual connections through improved access and enhanced visibility from Sawmill Road, and links to adjacent neighborhoods and open spaces. This district accommodates a wide variety of building types and permitted uses, as listed in Table 153.059 - A. Redevelopment of the BSC Sawmill Center area creates a walkable, mixed use core as the east anchor of the Corridor. The district is subject to the specific neighborhood standards defined in §153.063(0), establishing open space patterns, location requirements for building types, and permitting pedestrian - oriented, mixed use shopping areas. (8) BSC HISTORIC TRANSITION NEIGHBORHOOD This district complements the BSC Historic Core district by accommodating a variety of building types within a finer grained street and block network and uses consistent with that district. It accommodates uses similar to those in the BSC Historic Core district, as listed in Table 153.059 -A. Development allows an extension of the walkable mixed use character of the BSC Historic Core district on the larger parcels within this district. The district is subject to the specific neighborhood standards defined in §153.063(D). These requirements establish open space patterns and location requirements for building types, provide additional residential opportunities, and extend the small scale commercial activities of the BSC Historic Core district. (B) BSC INDIAN RUN NEIGHBORHOOD This district applies to the larger parcels north and west of the Indian Run and south of I -270, including adjacent properties fronting the north side of Bridge Street. The BSC Indian Run Neighborhood district is intended to develop as a new walkable, mixed use district that takes advantage of excellent highway visibility, an improved road network, and proximity to Historic Dublin and the natural areas flanking the Indian Run. Development within the district relies on a comprehensive road network providing connections within the Indian Run district and to the rest of the Corridor, as well as sensitivity of development at its edges given its proximity to Historic Dublin and the Indian Run. This district accommodates a wide variety of building types and permitted uses, as listed in Table 153.059 - A. Redevelopment of the area creates a walkable, mixed use core as the west anchor of the Corridor. The district is subject to specific neighborhood standards defined in §153.063(E). These regulations are intended to establish natural and man -made open space patterns, build pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular networks, provide location requirements for building types, and foster a pedestrian - oriented, neighborhood scale mixed use shopping area. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR §153.058 3 DEVELOPMENT CODE BSC DISTRICTS INTENT (10)BSC VERTICAL MIXED USE The intent of this district is to allow a wide variety of mid -rise, mixed use development, including vertical mixed use with ground floor retail, and large format retail with liner buildings, as listed in Table 153.059 - A. It is intended to be available for areas initially zoned into the BSC Indian Run Neighborhood, and BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood districts, once these areas are developed and the applicable neighborhood standards are no longer needed to establish the organization and hierarchy of places. The district may be applied to areas initially zoned to the BSC Commercial District or elsewhere in the Bridge Street Corridor as may be deemed appropriate when future redevelopment to higher densities is desired. Accordingly, the district is not intended to be mapped at the time the BSC districts are initially adopted. (11)BSC PUBLIC This district applies to a variety of public spaces and facilities, including but not limited to schools, parks, open spaces, and places that accommodate more intensive recreation, such as outdoor entertainment venues, as listed in Table 153.059 -A. It also applies to lands in and adjacent to rivers and creeks on which development is limited due to inclusion in a Federal Emergency Nlanagem ent Agency (FENIA) designated floodplain as regulated by this Chapter, or lands that have special cultural or environmental sensitivity. 4 § 153.058 EFFECTIVE DATE BSC DISTRICTS INTENT APRIL 25, 2012 § y 53.059 USES (A) GENERAL PROVISIONS (1) Permitted and conditional uses available in each BSC district are shown in Table 153.059 -A. (2) Table 153 -059 -A - Explanation of Terms (a) Listed uses are defined in §153.002(A). (b) A "P" in a cell indicates a permitted use that is allowed by right in that BSC district, subject to compliance with the use- specific standards referenced in the Use Table and the applicable provisions of Chapter 153. (c) A "U" in a cell indicates an upper floor use that is allowed by right in that BSC district on any floor of the structure other than the ground floor, subject to compliance with the use- specific standards referenced in the Use Table and the applicable provisions of Chapter 153. (d) A "C" in a cell indicates a conditional use that is allowed in that BSC district only upon approval of a Conditional Use as described in §153.236 and compliance with any use - specific standards referenced in the Use Table and the applicable provisions of Chapter 153. (e) An "S" in a cell indicates a size limited use that is allowed in that BSC district only if limited in size, subject to compliance with the use - specific standards referenced in the Use Table and the applicable provisions of Chapter 153. (f) A "T" in a cell indicates a time limited use that is allowed in that BSC district for a limited period of time pursuant to a permit from the City, subject to compliance with the use- specific standards referenced in the Use Table and the applicable provisions of Chapter 153. (g) A blank cell indicates that the use is prohibited in that district (3) Use Specific Standards (a) Whether a land use is a permitted or a conditional use in a BSC district, there may be additional standards that apply to that use. These additional standards are cross - referenced in the last column of Table 153.059 -A as Use Specific Standards. The cross - referenced standards are in §153.059(C). (b) In some cases, additional restrictions on uses apply to specific building types as noted in §153.062(0) and to development in the Bridge Street Corridor neighborhood districts as noted in §153.063. (4) Similar Use Determination (a) When a proposed land use is not explicitly listed in Table 153.059 -A, the Director shall determine whether it is reasonably included in the definition of a listed use, or that the proposed use meets the following criteria to the extent that it should be treated as a permitted or conditional use in the district. 1. The use is not specifically listed in any other BSC district. 2. The use is generally consistent with the intent of the BSC district and this chapter. 3. The use will not impair the present or potential use of other properties within the same district or bordering districts. 4. The use has no greater potential impact on surrounding properties than those listed in the district, in terms of aesthetics, traffic generated, noise, potential nuisances, and other impacts related to health, safety and welfare. 5. The use will not adversely affect the relevant elements of the Vision Report or Community Plan. (b) This determination shall be made available to the applicant and may be appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals. (5) Existing Structures Refer to § I 53.062(B)(2) for requirements related to Existing Structures. (6) Existing Uses The long range implementation of the Bridge Street Corridor Vision requires sensitive treatment of existing uses that represent significant investments in the City of Dublin. While it is the intent of the BSC districts for development to ultimately meet the building and use requirements of this chapter, it is the intent of this section to permit Existing Uses to continue and to be considered conforming to this Code, even if the use or the building type is not otherwise permitted in the district, provided that the following requirements are met (a) All uses that were permitted or conditional uses under the zoning of a property immediately prior to its rezoning into a BSC district shall continue to be allowed as permitted or conditional uses on the property, including any expansions of uses within Existing Structures as permittedby §153.062(B) (2), in addition to the permitted and conditional uses under the applicable BSC district, provided that at least one of the permitted or conditional uses under the prior zoning has been operated continuously in an Existing Structure and/or associated use areas on the property within the 12 months prior to the rezoning of the property into the BSC district. (b) Once a use that complies with the BSC district is established on a lot or parcel, no non -BSC use of the prior zoning district may be re- established. For multi - tenant buildings in Existing Structures, no BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.059 5 DEVELOPMENT CODE USES non -BSC use permitted in the prior zoning district may be re- established once the entire multi- tenant building is abandoned, or all tenant spaces have established uses under the applicable BSC district. (c) Abandonment of an Existing Use 1. If an Existing Use is abandoned for any reason for a period of more than 12 months, any subsequent use shall conform to the requirements of this Code. With regard to a multi - tenant building, the term "Existing Use" shall mean all of the existing uses in that building. 2. An Existing Use shall be determ tried by the Director to be abandoned if one or more of the following conditions exist: A. Utilities, such as water, gas or electricity to the property, have been disconnected, B. The property, buildings, or grounds have fallen into disrepair; C. Signs or other indications of the presence of the use have been removed, D. Equipment or fixtures necessary for the operation of the use have been removed, or E. Other actions which, in the opinion of the Director, constitute an intention on the part of the property owner or lessee to abandon the use. (d) Expansions of Existing Uses An Existing Use may be enlarged, increased, or extended to occupy a greater area of buildings and lands only after a finding by the ART that the enlargement, increase or extension meets all of the following standards: 1. The expansion does not have a substantial detrimental effect on, or materially impair the use and enjoyment of, adjacent uses or lots, and does not limit the ability for adjacent lots to develop in accordance with this Chapter, 2. The buildings and area encompassing the expansion of the Existing Use complies with all parking, sign, or other regulations applicable to the area affected by the proposed enlargement, increase or extension of use area, and 3. The buildings and area encompassing the expansion of the Existing Use complies with any reasonable conditions imposed by the ART that are necessary to ensure that the proposed enlargement, increase, or extension of use area will not prove detrimental to adjacent properties or the surrounding community. (e) Any Existing Use may be extended throughout any existing building or parts of a building which were manifestly arranged or designed for that use at the time of adoption of this amendment, but the Existing Use shall not be extended to occupy any land outside the existing building except as permitted by § I 53.059(A)(6)(d). (7) Existing Planned Development Districts All planned developments that are effective on the date of adoption of the applicable BSC rezoning shall continue in effect and be considered conforming under this Code in addition to the permitted and conditional uses under the applicable BSC district. This provision shall only apply to planned developments where no construction has commenced. The procedures for the implementation of these developments, including time limits for approval of final development plans or other time limits, must conform to the requirements of Chapter 153, to the extent the approved Planned Unit Development text does not address the requirements. (B) USE TABLE Refer to Table 153.059 -A. § 153.059 EFFECTIVE DATE USES APRIL 25, 2012 TABLE 153.059 -A: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN BSC DISTRICTS P = Permitted U = Permitted on upper floor(s) only C= Conditional S= Size Limited T =Time Limited BSC Districts Use Standards See §153.059 (C) m ;� c •p y It ri y tY v w d w m v E 0 U v U N_ 2 y 0) N_ �( 24: y >= F N_ 2 a 3 t Ca L =_ v Ca W NU X `y N >7 c 3 a Use PRINCIPAL USES Residential Dwelling, Single - Family P P (1)(a) Dwelling, Two - Family P Dwelling, Townhouse P P P P P (1)(b) Dwelling, Live -Work C P P P P P P P (1)(c) Dwelling, Multiple - Family P P P U U P P P P Group Residence S P (1)(d) Civic/PublicAnstitutional Cemetery P Community Center C C P P P P (2)(a) Community Garden P P P P P P P P P P P (2)(b) Day Care, Adult or Child P P P P P P P P (2)(c) District Energy Plant C C C C C C C C C (2)(d) Educational Facility P P P P P P P P P Elementary or Middle School P P P P P P P P P P Government Services, Safety C C C C C C C C P High School P P P P P P P P P Hospital C/ S C/S C/S C/S C/S C/S (2)(e) Library, Museum, Gallery P P P P P P P P P P (2)(f) Municipal Parking Lot P P P P P P P P P Religious or Public Assembly C/S C/S C/S C/S C/S C/S C/S C/S (2)(9) Parks and Open Space P P P P P P P P P P P Transportation, Park & Ride C C C C C C Transportation, Transit Station C C P P C C Animal Care, General Services, Veterinary Offices, and Veterinary Urgent Care and Animal Hospitals P P P P P P P (3)(a) Bank P P P P P P P P Bed and Breakfast P (3)(b) Conference Center C P P P U Eating and Drinking C/S P/S P/S P P P P P P (3)(c) Entertainment / Recreation, Indoor P/S P/S P/S P/S P P P C (3)(d) Fueling / Service Station C I (3)(e) Hotel P P P P P P P P Office, General P P P P P P P U Office, Medical P P P P P P P P Parking, Structure P/C P/C P/C C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C (3) (f) BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.059 DEVELOPMENT CODE USES TABLE 153.059 -A: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN BSC DISTRICTS P = Permitted U = Permitted on upper floor(s) onl C= Conditional S =Size imited T= Time Limited BSC Districts Use Standards is See §153.059 (C) ;� r •p y y It v w v w v E 0 U v U N_ 2 y it N_ X 2`: = F N_ 2 3 'a = =_ w R W NU k `y N >7 c 3 a Use Parking, Surface Lot C P C C P P C (3) (g) Personal, Repair, &Rental Services C/S P/S P/S P/S P/S P/S P P P/S (3)(h) Research &Development P P P P P P P U Retail, General C/S P/S P/S P P/S P/S P P P (3)(i) Sexually Oriented Business Establishment C (3)(j). Vehicle Sales, Rental and Repair C C (3)(k) Wireless Communications Refer to Chapter 99 of Dublin Code of Ordinances ACCESSORY AND TEMPORARY USES Accessory uses are permitted only in connection with a permitted or approved conditional use on the same property, . and must be clearly subordinate and incidental to that use. No accessory use may be operated when a permitted or approved conditional use does not exist on the property. Temporary uses are governed by time limits as provided by this Code. ATM, Walk -Up P P P P P P P P P Bicycle Facilities P P P P P P P P P P P Community Activity and Special Event T T T T T T T T T T T (4) (a) Construction Trailer /Office T T T T T T T T T T (4) (b) Day Care, Adult or Child P P P P P P P P P P P (2)(c) Drive -in /Drive- through C C C C C C (4) (c) Dwelling, Accessory P P P P P P P P P (4) (d) Dwelling Administration, Rental, or Sales Office P P P P P P P P P (4)(e) Eating & Drinking P P P P P P P P P Essential Utility Services P P P P P P P P P P P Exercise and Fitness P P P P P P P P P P Farmers Market P P P P P P P P Heli pad /Heliports C C C C C Home Occupation P P P P P P P P P (4) (f) Outdoor Dining and Seating P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C (4) (g) Outdoor Display or Seasonal Sales T T T T T T T T T (4) (h) Parking, Structure P/C P/C P/C P/C C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C (3) (f) Parking, Surface Lot P P P P P P P P P P (4)(i) Renewable Energy Equipment P P P P P P P P P P P (4)(j). Renewable Energy Equipment, Wind C C C C C C C C (4)(k) Residential Model Home T T T T T T T T (4)(1) Retail or Personal Services P P P P P P P P Swimming Pool P P P P P P P P Transportation, Transit Stop P P P P P P P P P P Vehicle Charging Station P 1 P P P P P P P P P Wireless Communications Refer to Chapter 99 of Dublin Code of Ordinances 8 § 153.059 EFFECTIVE DATE USES APRIL 25, 2012 (C) USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS (1) Residential Uses (a) Dwelling,. Single - Family 1. No Development Plan or Site Plan application shall contain more than 35 detached single - family dwelling units. 2. No Development Plan or Site Plan application containing detached single - family dwelling units may be approved if any of the proposed units would be located within 400 feet of any single - family detached dwelling constructed or approved within the BSC Residential district after the effective date of this amendment. 3. No single - family detached dwelling unit may be constructed within 500 feet of the I -270 right -of -way. (b) Dwelling, Townhouse 1. If single- family attached residential units are located across the street from existing single - family detached dwellings, no more than eight attached units may be permitted in a building. 2. Ground floor residential uses are not permitted on Bridge Street in the BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District. (c) Dwelling, Live -Work 1. No more than two non - resident employees are permitted in addition to the resident(s) of the dwelling. The required reviewing body may permit additional employees. 2. The non- residential use must be operated by a resident of the live -work dwelling unit. (d) Group Residence No more than six residents are permitted per dwelling, not including caregivers, in the BSC Residential district. (2) Civic/Public/Institutional Uses (a) Community Center Incidental sales of such products as refreshments, athletic supplies for activities conducted on the premises, and similar products are permitted. (b) Community Garden Incidental sales of items grown on the premises are permitted. Areas used for sales shall be located at least 10 feet from the edge of the pavement of any street. Parking shall be located off - street or in permitted on- street locations. One, 24 square foot sign shall be permitted, located at least 10 feet from the edge of the street and not within the public street right -of -way. 2. Refuse and compost bins must be constructed to be rodent - resistant and located as far as practicable from abutting residential uses. Refuse must be removed from the site at least once a week. 3. No outdoor work activity that involves power equipment or generators may occur after 9:00 pm or prior to 7:00 am. 4. One accessory building, not exceeding 100 square feet in gross floor area, may be permitted, provided the location meets all setback requirements applicable to accessory buildings as provided in § 153.074. (c) Day Care, Adult or Child 1. The use shall at all times comply with the requirements of O.R.C. §5104. 2. Outdoor recreation areas shall be located to the side or rear of the principal structure and be enclosed with a permitted fence. The outdoor recreation area shall be screened using fencing and/or landscaping to provide a minimum 50% opaque screen. 3. All outdoor play equipment and shade structures visible from the right -of -way or adjacent properties shall use subdued, earth toned colors. 4. Adult and/or child day care uses are prohibited in civic building types as the sole principal use. (d) District Energy Plant Incidental sales of electrical energy to public utilities are permitted. (e) Hospital Hospitals shall be limited to no more than 75,000 square feet of gross floor area per structure, not including associated parking structures. (f) Library, Museum, Gallery Incidental sales of refreshments and items related to exhibits or activities at the facility are permitted. (g) Religious or Public Assembly Religious or public assembly structures shall be limited to no more than 100,000 square feet of gross floor area, not including associated parking structures. (3) Commercial (a) Animal Care, General Services, Veterinary Offices, and Veterinary Urgent Care and Animal Hospitals All activities shall be conducted indoors. No outdoor animal exercise or activity areas shall be permitted. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.059 9 DEVELOPMENT CODE USES (b) Bed and Breakfast 1. The property owner shall reside on the property and/or manage the facility. No more than eight guest units are permitted. 2. Guest accommodations are limited to short- term stays of no more than 14 days. (c) Eating and Drinking The indoor gross floor area of the eating and drinking facility shall be limited to no more than 10,000 square feet in single tenant buildings in the BSC Office, BSC Office Residential, and BSC Residential districts. For multi- tenant buildings in the same districts, the indoor gross floor area of the eating and drinking facility shall be limited to no more than 10,000 square feet or 20% of the ground floor of the principal structure, whichever is smaller. (d) Entertainment or Recreation, Indoor 1. Indoor entertainment or recreation uses shall be limited to no more than 25,000 square feet of gross floor area in the BSC Office, BSC Office Residential, BSC Commercial, and BSC Vertical Mixed Use districts. 2. In the BSC Public district, the use must be owned and operated by either a public or non- profit organization. (e) Fueling/Service Station 1. Fuel pumps shall be located on the same lot as a permitted building type. 2. Fuel pumps are not permitted between the principal structure and an adjacent principal frontage street 3. Where pumps are facing any street type except for an alley or service street, a street wall at least three feet high shall be placed between the pumps and associated vehicular circulation area and the street. Refer to § I 53.065(E)(2) for street wall requirements. 4. Each fueling /service station shall be buffered from adjacent properties as required in §153.065(D)(4) and meet the applicable requirements of §153.065(D)(5). 5. Motor vehicles may be continuously stored outdoors on the property for no more than 24 hours. 6. Refer to §153.062(L) for vehicular canopy requirements. (f) Parking, Structure Parking structures that meet the building type requirements of §153.062(0)(12) are permitted uses; all other parking structures are conditional uses. 2. When constructed as a principal use, either as a public or a private parking structure, no 10 § 153.059 USES more than 75% of the parking spaces shall be used to provide the required accessory parking for other principal uses located within 600 feet of the structure, unless otherwise approved with a parking plan in accordance with §153.065(B)(1)(f). (g) Parking, Surface Lot 1. All surface parking lots shall meet the surface parking lot design requirements of §153.065(B)(6). 2. When constructed as a principal use, surface parking lots shall not have frontage on or have direct access from a principal frontage street unless permitted by the City Engineer. (h) Personal, Repair, and Rental Services 1. Personal, repair, and rental service establishments shall be limited to no more than 10,000 square feet for single tenant buildings in the BSC Office, BSC Office Residential, and BSC Residential districts. For multi- tenant buildings in the same districts, the indoor gross floor area of the personal, repair, and rental services shall be limited to no more than 10,000 square feet or 20% of the gross floor area of the principal structure, whichever is smaller. 2. Personal, repair, and rental service uses shall be limited to no more than 25,000 square feet of gross floor area in all other BSC districts except the BSC Indian Run Neighborhood and BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood. (i) Retail, General General retail uses shall be limited to no more than 20,000 square feet of gross floor area in all BSC districts except the BSC Indian Run Neighborhood, BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood, BSC Commercial, and BSC Vertical Mixed Use districts. O Sexually Oriented Business Establishment 1. Sexually Oriented Business Establishments shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 120 of the Dublin Code of Ordinances. 2. No person shall operate, locate, or permit the location of a sexually oriented business establishment within 750 feet (as measured from property line to property line) of any residential use or district, school, preschool, adult or child care, religious or public assembly, or any other civic /public/ institutional use (within the City of Dublin or other municipality), or another sexually oriented business establishment. (k) Vehicle Sales, Rental, and Repair 1. There shall be not more than one full access driveway for each 100 feet of lot frontage or portion thereof. EFFECTIVE DATE APRIL 25, 2012 2. Vehicular use areas are not permitted between the principal structure and a principal frontage street. In other locations where vehicular use areas are located between a principal structure and any other street type, a street wall at least three feet high shall be installed along that portion of the lot line between the vehicular use areas and the street. Refer to § I 53.065(E)(2) for street wall requirements. (4) Accessory and Temporary Uses (a) Community Activity and Special Event 1. The site of the activity or event shall be adequately served by utilities and sanitary facilities. 2. The activity or event shall not become a safety hazard or public disturbance and shall not cause substantial adverse impacts on surrounding properties or land uses by creating excessive noise, glare, heat, dust, odors, or pollutants as determined by the Director and Fire Marshal. 3. A permit shall be obtained for the Community Activity or Special Event from the City of Dublin Events Administration. (b) Construction Trailer /Office Construction trailers and/or offices shall comply with the setbacks applicable to principal structures on the property, but are not required to comply with street frontage requirements for building types. Construction trailers and/or offices shall comply with the provisions of §153.097. (c) Drive- in/Drive- through 1. Drive - in/drive - throughs are conditionally permitted only for banks in the BSC Office, Vertical Mixed Use, and BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood districts. 2. Drive -in /drive - through vehicular stacking areas and associated service locations shall not be on the side of a building facing a principal frontage street. Where drive -in/ drive- through access lanes are facing a non - principal frontage street, a street wall at least three feet high shall be placed between the access lanes and the street Refer to §153.065(E)(2) for street wall requirements. 3. No menu boards, speakers, or service windows shall be located between any fagade of the principal structure and a front or comer side property line. 4. Drive - in/drive- through vehicle stacking spaces shall be at least 20 feet long. Stacking spaces may not impede on -site or off -site vehicular, bicycle, or pedestrian circulation. Where five or more stacking spaces are provided, the individual stacking lanes shall be clearly delineated. The number of stacking spaces and a traffic and pedestrian circulation plan shall be submitted by the applicant with the Conditional Use application and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 5. Uses with drive - in/drive- through facilities shall be buffered from adjacent properties as required in §153.065(D)(5). 6. Audible electronic devices such as loudspeakers, service order devices, and similar instruments shall not be located within 25 feet of the lot line of any residential district or use and shall be subject to §132.03(A)(6). 7. Refer to §153.062(L) for vehicular canopy location and design requirements. 8. Drive- in/drive- throughs shall not have frontage on any shopping corridor. (d) Dwelling,. Accessory An accessory dwelling located in a single- family, two- family, or townhouse dwelling must comply with the following standards: 1. No more than one accessory dwelling unit is permitted on a lot with a single - family, two- family, or townhouse dwelling. Where townhouse dwellings do not have individual lots, no more than one accessory dwelling unit is permitted for each townhouse unit in the development. 2. An accessory dwelling unit shall be limited to no more than 800 square feet of gross floor area. 3. When accessory to a single - family dwelling, the accessory dwelling unit may be located either within the single- family dwelling structure or in a permitted accessory structure. 4. When accessory to a townhouse dwelling, the accessory dwelling unit may only be located in a permitted accessory structure or within the basement level of the principal dwelling. 5. When accessory to a single- family dwelling or two - family dwelling, the accessory dwelling unit shall have a separate entrance from the principal dwelling unit, and that entrance shall not face the front lot line and shall not be located on the same building fagade as the principal building entrance closest to the street. 6. The owner of the dwelling must occupy either the principal dwelling unit or the permitted accessory dwelling unit. 7. Ownership of the accessory dwelling unit may not be separate from the ownership of the principal dwelling unit. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.059 11 DEVELOPMENT CODE USES (e) Dwelling Administration, Rental, or Sales Office Dwelling sales or rental offices shall comply with the setbacks applicable to principal structures on the property, but are not required to comply with street frontage requirements for building types unless the use is conducted within a permanent principal structure. Dwelling sales or rental offices shall comply with the provisions of §153.073(D). (f) Home Occupation All home occupations shall comply with the provisions of §153.073 in the BSC Historic Residential district. In all other BSC districts, home occupations shall comply with the following standards. 1. The use must be conducted entirely within the principal dwelling or accessory buildings. 2. No business involving retail sales of goods on the premises is permitted. 3. No person not a member of the household residing on the premises shall work on the premises. 4. Not more than 25% of the ground floor gross floor area of the principal dwelling shall be devoted to the home occupation. 5. The exterior of the structure shall not be modified to accommodate the home occupation. 6. No display or signs pertaining to the home occupation shall be visible from the street. 7. No equipment shall be used that creates noise, vibration, sound, smoke, dust, odors, heat, glare, X -Ray or electrical disturbance to radio or television that is discernable in adjacent dwelling units or at the property line. 8. All home occupations that require a license from the state or City shall maintain a valid license at all times and shall operate in compliance with the terms of that license and all applicable regulations of the state or City at all times. 9. Home occupations shall not include or involve motor vehicle or equipment repair, the sale of weapons or hazardous materials, or other activities that would constitute a nuisance in a residential area. (g) Outdoor Dining and Seating 1. Outdoor dining and seating areas, furniture, and enclosures shall be set back at least five feet from the curb and at least five feet from all street trees and street furniture. 2. The use of outdoor speakers shall require Conditional Use approval. Outdoor speakers shall comply with the provisions of §132.03(A)(6) of the Dublin City Code. 3. Advertising is not permitted on dining furniture, accessories, or other similar amenities. 4. Dining furniture shall be of the same design, material and color for all furniture associated with the use. When not in regular use, outdoor furniture shall be stored in a location that is not visible to the public, unless the patio furniture is all- weather material, set up for use and not covered in any way, and weather conditions make the use of furniture possible. (h) Outdoor Display or Seasonal Sales 1. Outdoor seasonal plant display shall comply with the provisions of §153.099. 2. Outdoor sale of merchandise is permitted, and shall comply with the provisions of § I53.099(C)(2). Merchandise shall only be displayed during the hours of operation for the principal use. No permit is required. 3. Outdoor sales of Christmas trees and pumpkins shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 116 of the Dublin City Code. (i) Parking, Surface (Accessory) I. Where the non - residential gross floor area of the principal structure is 100,000 square feet or more and the principal structure is on a lot that is four acres or less, surface parking shall not be used to provide required parking. However, surface parking may be used for a maximum of 5% of the required spaces provided the parking lot is located to the side or rear of the principal structure and not fronting on a public street. 2. This requirement applies only to principal structures constructed after the effective date of this amendment. 0) Renewable Energy Equipment 1. In the BSC Historic Core and BSC Historic Residential districts, only equipment for the collection of solar and geothermal energy is permitted. 2. Ground - mounted equipment for the collection of geothermal energy is permitted only to the rear of and within five feet of the principal structure. Ground- mounted equipment for the collection of solar energy is permitted to the side or rear of the principal structure, but not within five feet of a side or rear property line. Rooftop equipment for the collection of solar energy is permitted provided it extends no more than 18 inches beyond the maximum permitted height of the principal structure. 12 § 153.059 EFFECTIVE DATE USES APRIL 25, 2012 4. Building - mounted renewable energy equipment shall be integrated into the architectural character of the principal structure. 5. Ground- mounted renewable energy equipment shall be sited to minimize view from the public right -of -way and adjacent properties, and shall be camouflaged to the extent that the equipment can function norm ally. (k) Renewable Energy Equipment, Wind 1. Ground- mounted equipment for the collection of wind energy is permitted to the rear of the principal structure, may not exceed the maximum permitted height of the principal structure by more than 40 feet, and must be set back from each property line a distance equal to the height of the equipment that exceeds the height of the principal structure. 2. As an exception, within 200 feet of the I -270 right -of -way, ground - mounted wind energy equipment shall be limited to 150 feet, and must be setback from each property line a distance equal to the height of the equipment. 3. Height of the equipment is measured to the farthest extent of any part of the equipment 4. Building- mounted equipment for the collection of wind energy must be integrated into the architectural character of the principal structure. 5. Rooftop- mounted equipment for the collection of wind energy shall be permitted to exceed the maximum permitted height of the principal structure by no more than 15 feet. (1) Residential Model Home Residential model homes shall comply with the provisions of §153.073(D). BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.059 13 DEVELOPMENTCODE USES § 153.060 LOTS AND BLOCKS (A) INTENT The intent of §153.060 is to establish a network of interconnected streets with walkable block sizes, organized to accommodate multiple modes of transportation. The street network includes certain streets designated as principal frontage streets to create continuous, pedestrian- oriented block faces of front building fagades and limited driveway interruptions. (B) APPLICABILITY The requirements of this section apply to all new developments within all BSC districts. (C) GENERAL BLOCK AND LOT LAYOUT (1) Interconnected Street Pattern The network of streets within the Bridge Street Corridor is intended to form an interconnected pattern with multiple intersections and resulting block sizes as designated in §153.060(0)(2). (a) Where practicable, the arrangement of streets shall provide for the continuation of existing or planned streets from adjoining areas into new developments. This provision shall not be construed as prohibiting the termination of streets at public street intersections where appropriate, provided that the overall connectivity of the street network is maintained, and intersections are adequately spaced as determined by the City Engineer. (b) Cul -de -sac and dead end streets are not permitted, except as specified in §153.060(C)(1)(0. (c) Wherever practicable, streets should be designed to follow natural features rather than interrupting or dead - ending at the feature. (d) Streets shall terminate at either an open space type or a front or corner side building fagade. Refer to §153.0620 for building requirements at these locations. (e) Refer to §153.061 for the general locations and configurations of existing and planned streets within the Bridge Street Corridor. (f) Exceptions Where an existing barrier limits the extension of the street network, streets shall be created to match the above requirements to the maximum extent practicable. Existing barriers include such features as a highway, waterway, open space, utility line, roadways with limited access restrictions, or development that is expected to remain. 1. Block length shall be the distance along one side of a block measured between two parallel or approximately parallel property lines on the opposite sides of the block. 2. Block perimeter shall be the aggregate block length along all sides of a block measured along the property lines. (c) Shopping Corridors Additional block requirements for shopping corridors are noted in § 153.063., Neighborhood Standards. (d) Exception When existing barriers limit extension of the street network, blocks shall be created to match the above requirements to the maximum extent practicable. Barriers may include such features as a highway, waterway, open space, utility line, (2) Maximum Block Size (a) Required Subdivision Developments meeting any of the following criteria shall subdivide to meet the maximum block sizes as required by Table 153.060 -A, Maximum Block Dimensions: 1. All developments within the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District, BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District, or BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District, 2. Any developments requiring approval of a Development Plan as required in §153.066(E). BSC Districts Length (ft) Perimeter (ft) Residential 500 1,750 Office Residential 500 1,750 Office 500 1,750 Commercial 500 1,750 Historic Residential 200 800 Historic Core 200 800 Historic Transition Neighborhood 300 1,000 Indian Run Neighborhood 500 1,750 Sawmill Center Neighborhood 500 1,750 Vertical Mixed Use 500 1,750 Public 300 1,000 (b) Measurement 14 § 153.060 EFFECTIVE DATE LOTS & BLOCKS APRIL 25, 2012 roadways with limited access restrictions, or development that is expected to remain. (3) Block Configuration Refer to Figure 153.060 -A for an illustration of typical block elements. (a) The shape of a block shall be generally rectangular, but may vary due to natural features or other site constraints. (b) Blocks shall be arranged with front property lines along at least two sides. (4) Principal Frontage Streets Principal frontage streets are designated to ensure certain streets are lined with continuous, pedestrian - oriented block faces of front building fagades or public open space, with limited conflicts between pedestrians and vehicular traffic. (a) Principal frontage streets are as designated in § 153.061, Street Types. Additional principal frontage streets may be designated as development progresses within the neighborhood districts as described in §153.063, Neighborhood Standards. (b) Where a principal frontage street is designated, access to blacks shall be located to comply with principal frontage street requirements as described in §153.060(C)(5). (c) Where a principal frontage street is designated, the principal frontage street shall be used to determine lot frontage orientation, as described in §153.060(C)(9). FIGURE 153.060 -A. TYPICAL BLOCK ELEMENTS Block Penmeter m U ED Q � Lot I I I Lot � �. !: I• a 1 1 ; i. I aa) n I: Lot i Lot I; 0 o u N Ia) I• � a I wt 1 I Lot Lot 5 i 1 is Block Length (5) B1ockAccess Configurations (a) Vehicular access shall not be permitted from a principal frontage street, unless the City Engineer determines that access from any other street is impracticable as described in §153.061(D). The determination shall be based on locations of existing and proposed vehicular access points of other developments along the principal frontage street and the number of principal frontage streets for the property. (b) Blocks may include alleys /service streets or driveway entrances with the following recommended configurations. See Figure 153.060 - B, Typical Block Access Configurations. 1. Mid- Block Access. This configuration includes an alley or drive running through or near the center of the block. I "T" Configuration. This configuration includes two perpendicular alleys or drives within a block, forming a "T," allowing development to front on three block faces. 3: "Fl" Configuration. Similar to the "T" configuration, this configuration allows development to front on all four block faces. FIGURE 153.060 -B. TYPICAL BLOCK ACCESS CONFIGURATIONS Mid -Block Access a) N (n m m m 0 LL a Q a I N (n a) 01 0 0 tl m Q U a Principal Frontage StreE r I 3 F � ro ` I a � , 1 i a 1 S�ruTc�reet _ Principal Frontage Street "T" Configuration f F I mIl U I )I �I I __ IIIII L Service _ II I — IIIi l' Principal Frontage Street "H" Configuration rincipal Frontage Street I V I II I I Principal Frontage Street BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.060 15 DEVELOPMENT CODE LOTS & BLOCKS I� M d I ede9tri nw � 0 I A I a I N (n a) 01 0 0 tl m Q U a Principal Frontage StreE r I 3 F � ro ` I a � , 1 i a 1 S�ruTc�reet _ Principal Frontage Street "T" Configuration f F I mIl U I )I �I I __ IIIII L Service _ II I — IIIi l' Principal Frontage Street "H" Configuration rincipal Frontage Street I V I II I I Principal Frontage Street BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.060 15 DEVELOPMENT CODE LOTS & BLOCKS (c) Wherever practicable, as determined by the City Engineer, vehicular access to blocks shall be aligned with other access points on opposite sides of the same block as well as aligned across the street from vehicular access points to other blocks. (6) Mid-Block Pedestrianways Mid -block pedestrianways are required on all blocks exceeding 400 feet in length, unless otherwise required for exempted by §153.063, Neighborhood Standards. (a) When combined with mid -block street crossings, pedestrianways shall align as nearly as practicable to facilitate continuous pedestrian pathways. (b) Mid -block pedestrianways shall be publicly accessible at all times and shall be located within the middle third of a block with access from the sides of a block exceeding 400 feet. Refer to Figure 153.060 -A, Typical Block Elements, for an illustration of the middle third of a block. (c) Design 1. Mid -block pedestrianways shall be a minimum of 14 feet in width, with a minimum five foot sidewalk, and designed as a continuation of the streetscape, including materials and furnishings. 2. The mid -block pedestrianway shall be lighted using footlights, bollard lights, building lights, and/or adjacent street lights to provide for safety and visibility. 3. The mid -block pedestrianway shall be landscaped and include shade trees spaced at 30 to 35 feet on center. Trees may be staggered, except as required by §153.060(C) ( (d) Amid - building pedestrianway, as described in §153.062(F), may serve as a mid -block pedestrianway provided it meets the applicable design and location requirements of mid -block pedestrianways described in this section in addition to other applicable requirements for mid - building pedestrianways, however, landscaping shall not be required. (e) Alternatively, the pedestrianway requirement may be fulfilled by a permitted alley when located in the middle third of a block and when a minimum five foot sidewalk is provided. Design requirements shall be based on the applicable street type specifications, as described in §153.061, Street Types. (7) Typical Lot Dimensions (a) Any lot shall be created to meet the requirements of one or more of the building types permitted by the district in which it is located, as provided in §153.062, Building Types. (b) Minimum lot width shall be measured at the front property line. (b) Comer Side Property Lines 1. For comer lots occupied by a single building, one lot line shall be the front property line and one lot line shall be the comer side property line. 2. For comer lots occupied by multiple buildings, lot lines shall be designated as front or comer side property lines as necessary to meet the building type street frontage requirements along both frontages. (c) Lots bordering more than two principal frontage streets shall meet the street frontage requirements as provided in § I53.062(N) along at least two of the streets. Subject to approval by the required reviewing body, the street frontage requirements shall be maximized to the extent practicable along the other principal frontage streets. (d) Lot lines along alleys or service streets or I -270 are not permitted to be designated as front or comer side property lines. (e) Alleys or service streets shall not be considered street frontage and shall not be subject to street frontage requirements described elsewhere in § §153.059 through 153.065. (f) Where lot lines cannot be determined by the requirements of this section, the required reviewing body shall designate which lot lines shall serve as the front and comer side property lines. To designate lot lines, the required reviewing body may consider all relevant factors and information, including but not limited to 1. The street types and the intended character of existing or proposed streets on which the lot has, or is proposed to have, frontage; 2. The proximity of existing or proposed principal frontage streets; and 3. The locations of front and comer side property lines on adjacent lots or lots located on the opposite side of the street. (8) Typical Lot Configuration (a) To avoid creating irregular lots, interior side lot lines shall be perpendicular to the street right -of- way to the extent practicable. (b) Flag lots are prohibited. (9) Street Frontage All lots shall have at least one lot frontage along a public street. (a) Front Property Line 1. A lot line bordering a single street right -of- way shall be the front property line. 2. A lot line bordering a principal frontage street shall be the front property line unless otherwise specified in this section. 16 § 153.060 EFFECTIVE DATE LOTS & BLOCKS APRIL 25, 2012 This page has been left blank intentionally. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.060 17 DEVELOPMENT CODE LOTS & BLOCKS § 153.061 STREET TYPES (A) INTENT The intent of §153.061 is to develop a comprehensive network of streets throughout the Bridge Street Corridor that are configured to accommodate multiple modes of transportation, organized by a hierarchy of street character families, and consistent with the placemaking principles of the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report. (B) APPLICABILITY The requirements of §153.061 apply to all new and existing streets and alleys or parts thereof as developed or reconfigured in the Bridge Street Corridor, whether public or private. (C) STREET NETWORK Streets shall form an interconnected street pattern with walkable block sizes as required in §153.060, Lots and Blocks. (1) Street Families Existing and planned streets within the Bridge Street Corridor are classified by street families. The intent of the street family designation is to provide a wide range of street configurations to accommodate different land use contexts and transportation needs while establishing a broader framework of street character throughout the area. The purpose and intended application of each street family is described below. (a) Corridor Connector Streets The corridor connector street family provides a series of street types that balance non - motorized and vehicular travel options along high- capacity thoroughfares. This street family serves multiple types of development and provides crosstown connections, while accommodating various transitions in land use and street character. (b) District Connector Streets The district connector street family provides a series of high to medium capacity street types that serve a wide variety of uses and development densities. District connector streets provide connections between districts throughout the Bridge Street Corridor along high- visibility frontages, and typically serve as prime locations for destination - oriented development such as shopping corridors. (c) Neighborhood Streets The neighborhood street family provides a series of low to medium capacity street types applicable to a wide variety of land use contexts, but often to residential areas or neighborhood- serving commercial uses. Neighborhood streets provide a finer- grained network of street connections that allow for multiple, interconnected travel routes, but typically serve more localized destinations rather than cross - corridor travel. (d) Alleys and Service Streets Alleys and service streets are very low capacity, low speed streets located to the rear of lots that minimize driveway interruptions in the pedestrian realm. Alleys and service streets provide access to parking facilities, loading facilities, and service areas for refuse and utilities. Alleys may also serve as mid -block pedestrianways if designed according to the requirements of §153.060(C)(6). (2) Street Types Street Families are comprised of multiple street types, each configured to accommodate specific transportation needs while reinforcing the intended character and function of the applicable street family. New streets shall be designed using the principles and characteristics defined by each street type. The City Engineer may require additional right -of -way, pavement width, or additional street infrastructure elements depending on unique site characteristics. Options for available street type configurations shall be reviewed with the applicant during the Pre - Application Review process, as described in §153.066. Appropriate street types shall be determined by the required reviewing body during the Development Plan or Site Plan Review process, as may be applicable. (3) Existing Streets Where existing streets are planned to be realigned, relocated or removed, the City shall reserve the right to maintain those rights -of -way and to incorporate them into the planned street network. The City Engineer shall designate the street family and street type(s) appropriate for these streets. (4) Street Network Map Refer to Figure 153.061 -A for a map of the planned Bridge Street Corridor street network and street family designations. The Street Network Map shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate locations and alignments of new streets during the Development Plan approval process as required in §153.066. As noted below, actual alignments and locations will be determined as individual properties are developed. (a) Graphic Intent The street network depicted Figure 153.061 -A is intended to illustrate one result of the block size and connectivity requirements in §153.060 and is representative of a general development pattern for the Bridge Street Corridor. Figure 153.061 -A is not intended to represent all requirements or actual development, nor is it intended to designate the precise locations for specific street types. (b) Illustrated Corridor Connector Streets Corridor connector streets illustrated in Figure 153.061 -A include existing high - capacity 18 § 153.061 EFFECTIVE DATE STREET TYPES APRIL 25, 2012 thoroughfares in existing and potentially realigned (1) Street Frontage Requirements configurations. These alignments maybe subject (a) All lots and blocks with frontage along a principal to change pending further engineering analysis frontage street shall meet the requirements of and land use programming. Actual locations §153.060(0)(4) and all development requirements of realigned corridor connector streets will associated with principal frontage streets be determined through the Development Plan described elsewhere in this Chapter, as may be Review and the City's capital improvements applicable. program process, as applicable. Where existing alignments are shown to remain, these streets may (b) In addition to the principal frontage streets be subject to improvements necessary to bring depicted in Figure 153.061 -A, all lots, blocks and them into conformance with a permitted street associated development with frontage along a $'Pe street or street segment which also has any open space type frontage as listed in §153.064, Open (c) Illustrated District Connector Streets Space Types, with the exception of pocket park District connector streets illustrated in Figure and pocket plaza open space types, shall meet all 153.061 -A include existing, realigned and applicable principal frontage street requirements. potential new streets representing major street (c) Alleys and service streets shall not be designated connections necessary to ensure connectivity as principal frontage streets. throughout the Bridge Street Corridor. These alignments, including the locations of future (2) Vehicular Access bridge crossings over the Scioto River, may be (a) Vehicular access shall not be permitted from a subject to change pending farther engineering principal frontage street, unless the City Engineer analysis and land use programming. Actual determines that access from any other street is locations of realigned district connector streets impracticable. Where this determination is made, will be determined through the Development all other applicable principal frontage street Plan Review and the City's capital improvements requirements described elsewhere in this Code program process, as applicable. Where existing shall continue to apply. alignments are shown to remain, these streets may (b) Vehicular access refers to private driveways or be subject to improvements necessary to bring lanes and to alleys or service streets whether them into conformance with a permitted street public or private. Other public street intersections type. are not restricted by principal frontage street (d) Illustrated Neighborhood Streets designations, but may be subject to access Neighborhood streets illustrated in Figure management limitations as determined by the City 153.061 -A include existing and potential new Engineer. street connections generally consistent with the (c) Alleys and service streets are the preferred means block size requirements of §153.060. Actual of vehicular access to lots and blocks. If utilized, locations of new neighborhood streets will alleys and service streets shall provide access be determined through the Development Plan from a non - principal frontage street wherever Review process. Where existing neighborhood practicable. Refer to §153.060(C)(5) for block streets are shown to remain, these streets may be access configurations. subject to improvements necessary to bring them (3) Multiple Principal Frontage Streets into conformance with a permitted street type. Where a lot or block is fronted by multiple principal (e) Alleys and Service Streets frontage streets, and where access from a principal The locations of new alleys and service streets frontage street is determined to be necessary as are subject to the block access requirements permitted by §153.061(D)(2), the following street of §153.060 and are not illustrated on Figure family hierarchy shall be considered by the required 153.061 -A. Actual locations of new alleys reviewing body in determining permitted vehicular and service streets will be determined through access locations t o t h e m aximum extent practicable: the Development Plan and Site Plan Review (a) Neighborhood streets shall be the preferred means processes. of providing vehicular access for alleys, or for driveways where no alley is present. Where a (D) PRINCIPAL FRONTAGE STREETS neighborhood street is designated as a principal Principal frontage streets are designated to ensure certain frontage street, any other neighborhood street street types are lined with continuous, pedestrian- oriented shall be used to provide vehicular access wherever block faces of front building fagades, and to limit conflicts practicable. between pedestrians and vehicular traffic. Refer to Figure (b) District connector streets shall take precedence 153.061 -A for principal frontage street designations in the over neighborhood streets in maintaining the planned Bridge Street Corridor street network. principal frontage street character. Vehicular BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.061 19 DEVELOPMENT CODE STREET TYPES access shall not be permitted from a district connector street if suitable alternative access from a neighborhood street is available. (c) Corridor connector streets shall take precedence above all other street types in maintaining the principal frontage street character. Vehicular access shall not be permitted from a corridor connector street if a suitable alternative access location is available. (E) TYPICAL STREET ELEMENTS Typical elements of a street right -of -way are divided into the vehicular and pedestrian realm. Each street type outlines which facilities are applicable and provides typical design specifications. Options for the required types and configurations of street elements for specific street types shall be reviewed with the applicant during the Pre - Application Review process, as described in §153.066. Appropriate street elements shall be determined by the required reviewing body during the Development Plan or Site Plan Review process, as may be applicable. (1) Bicycle Facilities A variety of bicycle accommodations are permitted in the street right -of -way, including cycletracks, bicycle lanes, and shared lanes. Appropriate bicycle facilities for specific street types shall be determined during the application review process. (2) Vehicular On- Street Parking On- street parking may be permitted or required on designated street types. The appropriate configuration and dimensions of on- street parking for specific street types shall be determined during the application review process. (a) On- street parking spaces may be counted toward the minimum required parking for a parcel, subject to the requirements of §153.065(B)(2). (b) On- street parking spaces may be used for loading and delivery, subject to the requirements of §153.065(B)(7). (3) Crosswalks Crosswalks shall be required at the stop - controlled legs of unsignalized intersections and all legs of signalized intersections. Crosswalks may be permitted at mid- block locations for areas where heavy pedestrian traffic is anticipated, such as shopping corridors, at the determination of the City Engineer. The locations of mid -block crosswalks should be aligned with the locations of mid -block pedestrianways where practicable. (a) Crosswalks shall be a minimum of eight feet in width, measured from mid - stripe to mid - stripe. (b) Crosswalks shall be appropriately indicated on the finished street surface with painted markings and/ or textured or colored pavement or pavers. All signs and markings shall meet the requirements Where the total width of all travel lanes is narrower than 22 feet, the following shall apply: (a) Unless otherwise required by the Fire Chief, each block shall provide at least one 22 -foot opening in the on- street parking or a 22 -font dedicated pull -off space on each side of the street to allow vehicles to pull over for a fire truck to pass. (b) A driveway, alley entrance, bus stop, building access zone or fire hydrant zone maybe used to fulfill this requirement. of the Ohio Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. (c) To encourage pedestrian activity, typical crosswalks shall not exceed 38 feet in length without a landscape median, curb extension and/or other pedestrian refuge to mitigate the effects of vehicular traffic on crossing and increase pedestrian safety and comfort. These design measures shall be implemented wherever practicable, as determinedby the City Engineer. (d) Crosswalks shall be constructed of asphalt, concrete or concrete pavers rated for truck traffic. The City Engineer may require alternate materials to better distinguish the crosswalk from the street where deemed necessary for safety and convenience. (F) CURB RADII AT INTERSECTIONS Curb radii at intersections shall be minimized to the greatest extent practicable to shorten pedestrian crossing distances, reduce vehicle turning speeds, and improve sight distance between pedestrians and motorists, balancing the ease of vehicular and pedestrian travel. (1) Typical Design Vehicle Intersections shall be designed for the typical design vehicle as opposed to the maximum design vehicle, as determined by the City Engineer. When the design vehicle requires a larger curb radius, approval of the City Engineer is required. (2) Permitted Radii The maximum curb radius for intersections along West Dublin- Granville Road, Riverside Drive, and Sawmill Road is 35 feet. Curb radii at all other intersections may range between 15 and 25 feet, as approved by the City Engineer. (G) FIRE ACCESS Street configurations have been calculated to provide appropriate fire track access. Where applicable, the following fire access accommodations shall also be required. (1) Room to Pass 20 § 153.061 EFFECTIVE DATE STREET TYPES APRIL 25, 2012 (2) Building Access Zone Building access zones provide dedicated space within the street right -of -way for fire trucks and other emergency vehicles to position necessary equipment and to access adjacent buildings. (a) A building access zone of 40 feet in length shall be provided for buildings with a height of 30 feet or greater, unless this requirement is waived by the Fire Chief where sufficient alternate access is available. (b) Building access zones should be located as close as practicable to the structure's principal entrance. Where possible, building access zones should be located to provide access to multiple buildings. (c) Where present, fire hydrant zones may be included within the building access zone. (d) A building access zone shall be striped and signed as a fire lane to restrict on- street parking within the zone. (e) Where on- street parking is provided, building access zones should be designed and located to minimize the reduction of parking spaces to the greatest extent practicable by co- locating with other zones or facilities in the street right -of- way, such as intersection visibility triangles and dedicated bus stops. (f) All or portions of a building access zone are encouraged to be designed as a curb bump -out, expanding the width of the street buffer into the on- street parking lane. This design should be co- located with mid -block pedestrian crossings where present. (g) Hardscape areas within building access zones shall be designed and constructed to provide sufficient physical support for emergency vehicles as required by the Fire Chief. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.061 21 DEVELOPMENT CODE STREET TYPES FIGURE 153.061 -A. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR STREET NETWORK GRAPHIC INTENT The street network depicted In this map Is Intended to Illustrate one result of the block size and connectivity requirements In §153.060 and Is representative of a general development pattern for the Bridge Street Corridor. This map Is not Intended to represent all requirements or actual development, nor Is It Intended to designate 1 745 the precise locations for specific street types. IND /qN pVNO0. Refer to §153.063(E)for r dwelopment intent in the 'ry BSCi Indian Ran -a _ F a R o ry INOIAN Neighborhood District _ It = os \RQ RR Na/4N .. �i r 7 7 developme Intent in the h BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District B WEST BRIDGE ST ass�'� I a p pER Z F Street Families Existing Potential tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiio sm se = Corridor Connector Streets District Connector Streets Neighborhood Streets (Not Depicted) Alleys /Service Streets Refer to §153.061(C) for a description of the purpose and intended application of each street family. Principal Frontage Streets Refer to §153.060(C)(4) and §153.061(D) for principal frontage street requirements. 1 l 257 1 P ut < I i Z 5. 22 § 153.061 EFFECTIVE DATE STREET TV PES APRIL 25, 2012 z�a f 1 T `Intersections with Corridor Connector Streets may be subject to access restrictions as determined by the City Engineer. N 0 500 1,000 Feet G C F = RePorto $153.013tC) for o , pmem imam im the BSC Sawmill Center NelphborhoaE Olahlot v Z $ F U Z C m ` Q 0 4Nk ER flR W D UBLIN- _ GRANVILLE RD 161 _7 STONERIOC R ti n m 2 M m a 0 a BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT CODE § 153.061 STREET TYPES 23 § 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (A) INTENT The building types detailed in §153.062 outline the required building forms for new construction and renovated structures within the BSC districts. The intent of these building types is to provide a range of high quality residential, commercial, mixed -use and civic building options to reinforce the character of each district. (B) GENERAL BUILDING TYPE REQUIREMENTS (1) Applicability (a) As provided in §153.062, the building type standards shall be applied to all new development within the Bridge Street Corridor. (b) Structures constructed after the date of this amendment that are subsequently made nonconforming by an amendment to this Chapter shall meet the requirements of §I53.004(C). (2) Existing Structures (a) At the effective date of this amendment where one or more lawful structures exist on a site that do not comply with the requirements of this Code because of restrictions such as front property line occupation, lot coverage, required building zone or setback, buildable area, height, or other requirements related to siting, the structure(s) may be continued as existing at the effective date of this amendment if the requirements of §153.062(B)(2) are met (b) Existing Structures may be extended, enlarged, altered, remodeled or modernized after approval by the Administrative Review Team (ART) upon finding that all of the following conditions are met: 1. That the Existing Structure meets all height area, and/or parking and loading provisions that were applicable immediately prior to the rezoning of the property into a BSC district. 2. That the enlargement or extension is limited to the same parcel on which the Existing Structure was located at the time of the adoption of this amendment. 3. That the improvement does not interfere with the use of other properties located contiguous to or directly across the street from the parcel on which the Existing Structure is located. 4. That the enlargement or extension does not exceed 50% of the gross floor area of the Existing Structure at the time of the adoption of this amendment. (c) Parking for Existing Structures is governed by § 153.065(B)(1)(a). (d) Reconstruction or Movement 1. Should an Existing Structure be damaged or destroyed by an act of God, or other action outside the control of the owner /lessee, that Existing Structure may be repaired or reconstructed as it existed prior to the action causing it to be damaged or destroyed. 2. Any permitted reconstruction shall be started within 12 months of the time of damage and shall be continued until completed. If this requirement is not met, the structure shall either be removed or reconstructed to meet the requirements of a new building. 3. Should the property/building owner or lessee demolish more than 50% of the gross floor area of an Existing Structure then all of the improvements on the property associated with the Existing Structure must be constructed and/or brought into conformance with the requirements of this Code for the building types required for the district. (e) Determination of Building Type The ART may designate an Existing Structure as a specific building type upon a finding that the structure is substantially similar in character and form to one of the permitted building types for the district in which the structure is located. (0 Exceptions 1. Where subsequent modifications bring the Existing Structure into compliance with specific building type requirements for the designated building type, the Existing Structure shall not be modified in a manner that brings the Existing Structure out of compliance with those specific requirements. 2. For Existing Structures within the Historic Core district the Architectural Review Board shall determine if the building type requirements apply to specific buildings. All new construction within this district shall meet the requirements of §153.062, § §153.170 through 153.180, and the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines. 3. For Existing Structures within the BSC Historic Residential District the Architectural Review Board shall determine if the building type requirements apply to specific buildings. All new construction within this district shall meet the requirements of §I53.063(B), § §153.170 through 153.180 and the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines. (g) Refer to §153.059(A)(6) for requirements for Existing Uses. 24 § 153.062 EFFECTIVE DATE BUILDING TYPES APRIL 25, 2012 (3) General Requirements (c) No Other Building Types All building types shall meet the following Principal buildings shall meet the requirements of requirements. the building types permitted within the appropriate (a) Zoning Districts BSC district. Each building type shall be constructed only (d) Permanent Structures within its designated BSC district. Table All buildings constructed, including principal 153.062 -A, Permitted Building Types in Each structures and accessory structures, shall be BSC District, outlines which building types permanent constructions without a chassis, hitch, are permitted in which BSC districts. Refer to wheels, or other features that would make the §153.058, BSC Districts Scope and Intent, for a structure mobile. description of each district. (e) Accessory Structures (b) Uses Accessory structures shall be permitted to be Each building type may house the uses allowed constructed in the buildable area of the lot in the district in which it is located. Refer to in locations not required to be occupied by a Table 153.059 -A, Permitted and Conditional principal structure. Accessory structures shall be Uses in BSC Districts. Additional use restrictions constructed to comply with §153.062(E), or as may apply based on the specific building type otherwise approved by the required reviewing requirements. ITTED BUILDING TYPES IN EACH BSC DISTRICT BSC DISTRICTS ' O O s `O c a w m • m O s n c — m i 7 y v C O 2 0O W 'y R R O RS O Wt M W 'O U F i O U OC lr W O o 0 IY —_ O O V U O O .0 R Et O E 0 3m r a (r O O U x xz Nz > a x Single Family Detached • Single Family Attached • • • • • U) Apartment Building • • • • • • a r Loft Building • F • • • • • Z Corridor Building • • • • • 6 J Mixed Use Building • • • • • • _ 7 m Commercial Center • • • O W Large Format Commercial Building F • • • • F Historic Mixed Use Building • • LU W a Historic Cottage Commercial • Civic Building • • • • • • • • Parking Stwcture • • • • • • • • ■ Podium Apartment Building • • • " Building Types do not apply to the Historic Residential District. Refer to §163.063(B). BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.062 DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING TYPES body, except that more than one primary fagade material is not required. All other applicable provisions of §153.074, Accessory Uses and Structures, shall be met. (C) GENERAL BUILDING TYPE LAYOUT AND RELATIONSHIPS The following outlines how BSC districts and building types shall relate to one another. (1) Incompatible Building Types Incompatible building types are not permitted directly across the street from one another or on the same block face, unless otherwise permitted by the required reviewing body. Refer to Table 153.062 -13 for building types considered to be incompatible. (2) Shopping Corridors At least one street or street segment shall be designated as a shopping corridor in the BSC Indian Run and BSC Sawmill Center neighborhood districts, meeting the requirements of §153.063, Neighborhood Standards. Shopping corridors shall include building types that accommodate retail uses on ground floors, such as mixed use, large format commercial, loft, or corridor buildings shall be no less than two feet and no more than six feet high. Where a six -foot parapet is insufficient to screen rooftop mechanical equipment a screening structure shall be required as provided in §153.065(E)(3). (b) Parapets shall wrap the building along all facades. (c) Horizontal Shadow Lines 1. Expression lines are encouraged to define the parapet from the upper stories of the building and to define the top of the parapet. 2. In the BSC Historic Core district, a projecting comice is required. (d) Occupied space or a half story shall not be incorporated within this roof type. FIGURE 153.062 -A. PARAPET. Parapet Height upper floor of building � Expression II II II II II II II II Line (a) These building types shall be - - _-- ' BUILDING TYPES clustered into street frontages NP = Not Permitted Existing Building Type uninterrupted by other building types NP'= Not Permitted for a minimum of 300 linear feet, as unless accessory O a) N E measured along the sidewalk. Street to the residential O Z rn Y E frontages may turn the comer and buildings, wrapped by T T 3 `o U m m m m - x m o t[ continue along an intersecting street. occupied space, or otherwise permitted m E 3 � E o m Z m 0 p `o p U ;' a - N (b) The required shopping corridor by the required a a) � E m -oo z E a) E - -o E a lon g m O E ° 3 shall be d a principal reviewing body. m� O 0 a o o x o o o 0 `m o frontage street. n n¢ ¢ U U U S 1:0 U a- a- m Single Family Detached (D) ROOF TYPE REQUIREMENTS Single Family All buildings shall utilize one or a Attached combination of the following roof types y Apartment as as permitted per building type. Refer to 0. §153.062(0) for specific building type - ° y Loft Building requirements. y Corridor 13 Building NP NP NP (1) Parapet Roof Type (Refer to Figure Mixed Use NP NP 153.062 -A) (a) Parapet Height Commercial Center NP NP NP NP 1. Parapet height is measured from w >,Large Format NP NP NP the highest point of the roof l' Commercial deck adjacent to the parapet to c Historic Mixed top of the parapet '0 Use 2. Parapets shall be high enough M Historic Cottage to screen the roof and any roof Commercial appurtenances from view from Civic Building the street(s) and any adjacent Parking NP' NP' NP' building of similar height or Structure lower, provided that parapets Podium NPI Apartment Bldg. 26 § 153.062 EFFECTIVE DATE BUILDING TYPES APRIL 25, 2012 (2) Pitched Roof (Refer to Figures 153.062 -B through 153.062 -D) (a) Roof Structure Hipped and gabled roofs are permitted, in addition to roofs with combinations of hips and gables with or without dormers. (b) Pitch Measure 1. The principal roof shall have a pitch appropriate to the architectural style. Roofs shall not be sloped less than a 6:12 (rise:run) or more than 12:12, as determined to be architecturally appropriate by the required reviewing body. 2. Slopes greater than 12:12 maybe utilized on pitched roofs without a closed ridge used to screen flat roofed mechanical areas. This determination shall be based on the appropriateness to the architectural style and building type. 3. Where pitched roofs without closed ridges are used, the roof ridge must be designed to appear closed as viewed from ground level FIGURE 153.062 -B. PITCHED ROOF (GABLE ROOF). Roof Slope and, to the extent practicable, from buildings of similar height in adjacent BSC districts. 4. Unless determined to be appropriate to the architectural style of the building, a pitch greater than 3:12 is required on roofs of dormers, porches, balconies, or other minor roofs. (c) Parallel Ridge Line (See Figure 153.062 -D) When appropriate to the architectural character of the building, and where the principal ridge line of any building type runs parallel to any street, gabled ends, perpendicular ridge lines, or dormers shall be incorporated to interrupt the mass of the roof. (d) Dormer Design Dormers shall be scaled and detailed appropriate to the architectural character of the building type. Dormer windows should be sized in relation to the windows used in the upper story, and dormers should be no wider than necessary to accommodate the window and coordinated trim. (e) Gable Ends An architecturally appropriate element such as a vent, window or other decorative element is required on street- facing gable ends. (f) Roof Height 1. In the BSC Historic Core District, roofs Roof without occupied space and/or dormers shall e Height have a maximum height on street - facing elevations equal to the maximum floor height permitted for the building type, or r�711 oor o ui ing as otherwise approved by the Architectural Revie w Board. Roof Height 2. In all other districts, roofs without occupied space and/or dormers shall be a maximum of one and a half times the maximum floor height permitted for the building type on street- facing fapades, unless otherwise determined by the required reviewing body to be appropriate to the building type and location. (g) A half story of occupied space may be incorporated within a pitched roof type. (h) Gambrel and Mansard Roofs FIGURE 153.062 -D. PARALLEL RIDGE LINE. Ridge Parallel to 1. Gambrel and mansard roofs are permitted only for single family detached buildings, unless otherwise determined by the required reviewing body to be architecturally appropriate for other building types. ❑ 2. For all building types, when the ridge of Gable a gambrel or mansard roof runs parallel End to the street, dormers or cross gables must m be incorporated with spacing and scale T appropriate to the length and architectural character of the building. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.062 27 DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING TYPES FIGURE 153.062 -C. LOW PITCH ROOF (HIP ROOF). 3. The primary roof material is required to be cedar shake, slate or metal. With examples of successful, high quality installations in comparable climates, other high quality simulated examples of these materials may be approved during the Site Plan Review by the required reviewing body. (3) Flat Roof (Refer to Figure 153.062 -E) (a) Flat roofs are permitted in all districts except the BSC Historic Core District (b) Eaves are encouraged on street facing fapades. (c) Interrupting vertical walls may interrupt the eave and extend above the top of the eave with no discernible cap. (d) Not more than one -half of the front fapade can consist of an interrupting vertical wall. (e) Flat roof sections located behind parapets or pitched roofs to screen mechanical equipment are not considered flat roofs. roof deck to the base of the parapet or eave of the tower's roof, and the tower shall not be greater than the height of one additional upper floor of the building to which the tower is applied. The width of a tower shall not exceed its height. (c) Occupied Space Towers may be occupied by the same uses allowed in upper stories of the building type to which they are applied. (d) Towers maybe capped by any permitted roof type. (5) Other Roof Types Other roof types not listed as a specific type but are generally consistent with the surrounding buildings may be approved by the required reviewing body during the Site Plan Review. (E) MATERIALS (1) Fapade Materials (4) Towers (Refer to Figure 153.062 -F) (a) A minimum of 80% of each fagade, exclusive (a) Quantity of windows and doors, shall be constructed of Where permitted by building type, only one tower primary materials. is allowed per building unless otherwise approved (b) For individual fagades over 1,000 square feet, by the required reviewing body. exclusive of windows and doors, a combination of (b) Tower Height primary materials shall be used to meet the 80% Towers may exceed the maximum building height requirement, unless otherwise approved by the and do not count as an additional story. Maximum required reviewing body. tower height shall be measured from the top of the (c) Permitted primary building materials shall be high quality, durable, natural materials such as FIGURE 153.062 -E. FLAT ROOF. stone, cultured stone, full depth brick, glass, wood or fiber cement siding. To provide visual depth Eave Depth Vertical and strong shadow lines, clapboard siding must Wall Plane have a minimum butt thickness of a quarter of an inch. Refer to §153.062(0) for permitted primary Eave building materials for individual building types. Thickness (d) Permitted secondary materials are limited to T details and accents and include gypsum reinforced III 71 fiber concrete, metal, and exterior architectural metal panels and cladding. Exterior insulated finishing system (EIFS) is permitted for trim only, FIGURE 153.062 -F. TOWER. except as provided in 153.062(E)(1)(e). Tower (e) EIFS and architectural metal panels and cladding Width shall not be utilized in the BSC Historic Core District. Tower Roof (f) Other high quality synthetic materials may be approved during the Site Plan Review by m the required reviewing body with examples of successful, high quality installations in Height Tower comparable climates. (2) Fagade Material Transitions (a) Vertical transitions in fagade materials shall occur at inside comers. upper floor of building ression (b) Where more than one fagade material is proposed Line vertically, the `heavier' material in appearance 28 § 153.062 EFFECTIVE DATE BUILDING TYPES APRIL 25, 2012 shall be incorporated below the' ighter' material (e.g. masori y below si(Eng). (3). Roof NGterials (a) Pennuied roof mahn a] s include 300 pound or better dimensional asphalt composite shingles, wood shingles and shakes, metal tiles or standing seam, slate, and ceramic tile. (b) Flatroofs are pernrittedto use arty roofmateriah appropriate to maintain proper drainage. (c) The required reviewing bodymay approve engineered wood or slate dining the Site Plan Review with examples of successful, high quality installations in comparable climates. (d) Roofpenetrations (fans, exhaust, vents, etc.) shall be finished to match the color of the roof and shall not be visible from principal frontage streets. (e) Gem roofs and roof gardem are encouraged. (4) Color Colors for all painted structures shall be selected from appropriate historic color palettes from army major paint manufacturer, or as determined appropriate by the required reviewing body. (F) ENTRANCES &PEOESTRIANWAYS Also see §153.062(I). (1) Entrance quantities and locations are required according to building types outlined in §153.062(0). (2) Recessed Entrances Entry doors shall be recessed a min mum of three feet from the property line, except as required for specific bnildim types outlined in §153.062(0). (3) Entrance Design O principal entrances on all binding types shall be of a pedestrian scale, shall effectively address the street and be given prominence on the building facade. Thi s may be satisfied through the use of architectural features including but not limited to entranceway roofs; sidelight windows, transom window, or other adjacent windows; additional mouldings with expression lines; a bay of unique width,; or raised stoop of 9least three steps and minimum depth of five feet and width of five feet. Refer to Figure 153.062 -G for one example of this requirement (b) Principal entrances on all single famfily detached and single firmly attached building types shall incorporate open porches or stoops as required by §153.062(I). (c) Doors for conunerci a] uses along all street frontages shall be consistent with the design of principal entrances and include glass and fill operating hardware in the design of the door. Exterior doors for residential uses shall also include glass, but this requirement may be met through the use oftransom armd/or sidelight windows. (d) Roll -up security grilles shall not be permitted. (e) Building Entrances 1. A principal building entrance shall be on any principal frontage street or the front facade of the building. principal entrance doors shall be fully functioning during regular business hours and shall connect to the public sidewalk along the street. 2. The number and spacing of entrances on a binding facade with street frontage and on re ar facade facing a parking lot shall be provided as required according to building t (4) Mil-Bnildint Pedestrlanways (a) Ivfid- building pedestrianways are intended to provide safe, well -lit, and attractive paths providing convenient pedestrian access to and from areas such as parking lots, parking structures, and/or service streets from the opposite side of a building. (b) Access trough buildings to parking lots behind buildings with a pedestrian walkway through the first Floor of the building is required based on building types. The walkway shall be a minimum of eight feet wide. One door, window, or opening shall be provided along the pedestriamvay for every fid130 feet of length. A mirinrwm of 20% ground Floor transparency, measured along the length of the walkway, shall be provided on building facades facing pedestrianways in shopping corridors. (c) Amid - binding pedestrisaway may serve as mid -block pedestrianway as described in §153.06)(C)(6)(d). (G) ARTICULATION OF STORIES ON STREET FACADES Facades shall be designed to follow the stories of the buildings with fenestration organized along and occupying each Floor. Floor to Floor heights are set to limit areas of I : ON IMA 0 INS11@T3.9 M OR BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR §153.062 29 DEVELOPMENTGODE BUILDINGTYPES the facade without fenestration. Refer to Figure 153.062 -H for an example illustration of this requirement. (H) WINDOWS, SHUTTERS, AWNINGS AND CANOPIES (1) Windows (a) Transparency percentage is required according to buildin t as outlined in §153.062(0). (b) Highly reflective glass is prohibited. For the purposes of this section, highly reflective glass has an exterior visible reflectance percentage greater than 20 %. (c) Spandrel glass, or heavily tinted glass that impedes views into the interior of the building, snot be used to meet the minimum transparency requirements. (d) Windows may be wood, anodized aluminum, metal -clad or vinyl -clad wood, steel, or fiberglass. The required reviewing body may approve other high quality synthetic materials during the Site Plan Review with examples of successfid, high quality installations in comparable climates. (e) To highlight the wall thickness as an important architectural feature conveying a substantial, high - quality appearance, Flush - mounted windows are prohibited for single - family detached, single - family attached, apartment building, podium apartment building, historic mixed use, and historic cottage commercial building types. Windows in masonry buildings shall have architecturally appropriate lintels and projecting sills. Windows within siding -clad walls shall have a projecting sill to serve as a base for either one by four (nominal) trim or brick mould easing. FIGURE 153.062 -H. ARTICULATION OF STORIES ON STREET FAPADES & BUILDING VARIETY. (f) Windows in single - family detached, single - family attached, apartment building, podium apartment building, historic mixed use, and historic cottage commercial building types shall have vertical proportions with architecturally or historically appropriate window divisions. Windows oriented horizontally are permitted for these building types only on non -street facing building facades. (2) Shutters (a) Ifinstalled, shutters shall be sized to provide complete coverage to the windows when closed and shall include fuuctiorung hardware, whether the shutters are operated or not. (b) Shutters shall be wood or engineered wood. Other materials may be approved during the Site Plan Review with examples of successfid, high quality installations in comparable climates. (3) Awnings and Canopies [Also see §153.062(v)(1)(a)] (a) General 1. Awnings and canopies maybe usedif they function as suitable protection from the elements. To provide suitable protection an wring or canopy may encroach over the sidewalk, provided the lowest portion is at least eight feet above the sidewalk. 2. Awnings and canopies may be mounted inside frames, above openings and/or below transoms, but installation methods shall be consistent on a building. 3. Awnings and canopies shall be designed to be consistent with the architecture of the building and other existing awnings and canopies on a building. (b) Awnings 1. Awnings shall be open on the underside. 2. Awnings may be made of canvas or decorative metal with metal used for the internal structure. If canvas is used, the material shall be durable and fade - resistant. 3. Awnings shall not be intemally illuminated, but may be lighted from above by downcast fixtures mounted to the building wall. (c) Canopies 1. Canopies may be clad with glass, metal, wood, or a combination of these materials. 2. Canopies may be cantilevered or supported from the building wall by metal cables or rods. 3. Canopies may include downward casting light fixtures and may be lighted from above by downcast fixtures mounted to the building wall. 30 6 153.062 EFFECTIVE DATE BUILDING TYPES APRIL 25, 2012 (D BALCONIES, PORCHES, STOOPS, AND CHIMNEYS The following provisions apply where balconies, open porches, stoops, and/or chimneys are incorporated into the facade design facing any street or parking lot. (1) Balconies (a) Size Balconies shall be a minimum of six feet deep and five feet wide (b) Counectionto Building Balconies maybe recessed into a building facade. Balconies that are not integral to the facade shall be independently secured and unconnecledm other balconies above and below. (c) Facade Coverage A maximum of 40 %of the front and comer side facades, as calculated separately, may be covered with balconies. (d) Juliet Balconies 1. Juliet balconies are permitted only on upper floors of buildings where windows extend to the floor or where doors are present. 2. Juliet bal conies built in conjunction with doors may project up to 24 inches and may be up to five feet wide. 3. Juliet balconies built in conjunction with windows may not exceed the width of the windows. 4. Juliet bal conies used with windows must be secured to th e window jamb. (2) Open Porches For the purposes of §153.062, an open porch shall mean a porch that is not enclosed by walls, windows, or screens greater than 24 inches above the porch level on street facing facades of the building. Open porches may be covered with a roof. (a) Size Porches shall be appropri ate to the architectural style of the building and have a minimum dear depth of six feet and sufficient width as necessary to be functional for use (b) Street Frontage Porches shall not be used to meet the front or comer required building zone (RBZ) requirement. Porches are permitted to extend forward of the RBZ but shall not encroach within the right -of- way. (3) Stoops (a) Size Stoops shall have a minimum width and depth of five feet and be located on the hard facade of the building. (b) Street Frontage Stoops and steps shall not be used to meet the front or comer RBZ requirement Stoops and steps are permitted to extend forward of the RBZ but shall not encroach within the right -of -way. (4) Chimneys Chimneys shall extend full height from the ground and vertically past the eave line and must be finished in masonry. Canfilevered and shed -type chimneys are prohibited (J) TREATMENTSATTERMINALVISTAS When a street terminates at a parcel or otherwise creates a terminal view at a parcel, the parcel shall be occupied by one of th e following: (1) If the terminus occurs at an open space, any open space type shall be used and a vertical element shall terminate the view. Acceptable vertical elements include, but are not limited to, a stand or grid of trees, a sculpture, or a fountain. Refer to §153.064 for additional open space requirements. (2) If the terminus does not occur at an open space type, the front or comer side of a building, whether fronting on a principal frontage street or not, shall terminate the view. The building shall incorporate one of the following treatments to terminate the view: slower, a bay window, a courtyard with a sculpture, or other similar treatment incorporafing a distinct vertical element. Refer to Figure 153.062 -I for an example illustration of this requirement. 00 BUILDING VARIETY Refer to Figure 153.062 -H for an example illustration of this requirement. Building design shall vary from al acent buildings by the type of dominant material or color, scale, or orientation of that material. Building design shall also vary through at least two of the following: (1) The proportion of recesses andprojectiuns. (2) A change in the location of the entrance and window placement. If storefronts are used, no change to the FIGURE 153.062 -I. BUILDINGS AT TERMINAL VISTAS. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.062 31 DEVELOPMENTCODE BUILDING TYPES entrance and window placement is required and one of the criteria is satisfied. (3) Changes to the roof design, including roof type, plane, or material, unless otherwise stated in the building type requirements. (L) VEHICULAR CANOPIES (N) INDIVIDUAL BUILDING TYPE REQUIREMENTS The following defines the requirements included in the tables for each building type listed in §153.062(0). Not all line items listed below appear within every building type's individual requirements table. The following requirements shall be met unless otherwise noted in the building types of §153.062(0). (1) For buildings facing a principal frontage street, (1) Building Siting General Requirements vehicular canopies shall be located on the rear fagade (a) Street Frontage of the principal structure or in the rear of the lot 1. More than one principal building is permitted behind the principal structure, where permitted by use. on one lot for those building types indicated. Refer to Figure 153.062 -J for an example illustration Unless otherwise noted, all requirements of of this requirement. the building type shall be met for all principal (2) If attached to the principal structure, design of the structures. vehicular canopy shall be coordinated with the 2. Where specified, front fagades of principal architecture of the principal structure to which it buildings are required to cover a minimum is associated. Regardless of whether the canopy is portion of the front property line within the attached to or detached from the principal structure, required building zone (RBZ). A street wall supporting columns shall be coordinated with the may be used to meet up to 10% of the front design of the principal structure. property line coverage requirement. Front (3) Canopies shall not exceed the maximum ground floor property line coverage is determ tried by height permitted for the specific building type, and measuring the width of the principal structure in no case shall the canopy exceed the height of the and length of a street wall within the RBZ principal structure to which it is associated. divided by the maximum width of the front RBZ (not including side setbacks). (M) SIGNS 3. Unless otherwise permitted, a comer of (1) All signs attached to the principal structure shall be the principal structure, a street wall, or a coordinated with the architecture of the building in permitted open space type shall be located terms of design, color scheme, and lighting. at the intersection of the front and comer RBZs. Refer to §153.065(E)(2) for street wall (2) Locations of all signs intended to be affixed to the requirements and §153.064 for open space principal structure and/or on an attached awning requirements. or canopy initially, or at any time in the future 4. The fagade of the principal building shall by subsequent tenants, shall be identified on the be located within the RBZ. When noted as architectural elevations submitted with the Site Plan a setback rather than an RBZ, the principal application. structure shall be located at or behind the (3) Other sign requirements not specified in §153.062 setback line. shall meet the requirements of §153.065(H). 5. Any part of the front or comer RBZ or FIGURE 153.062 -J. VEHICULAR CANOPIES. setback not occupied by building shall have a landscape, patio, or streetscape treatment. Refer to §153.065(D)(6) for RBZ treatment requirements. 6. Subject to approval of the City Engineer or aa) ® City Council where required, certain building m components, such as awnings and canopies, maybe permitted to extend beyond the m front property line and encroach within the 0 o right -of -way to within five feet of the curb. LL If permitted, these building components m shall maintain a minimum eight -foot height Vehicular Canopy clearance above the public sidewalk and a- shall not conflict with required street trees or landscaping. Porches and stoops are not o I perm nttedto encroach into the right -of -way. - �. Front Property Line Principal Frontage Street 32 § 153.062 EFFECTIVE DATE BUILDING TYPES APRIL 25, 2012 (b) BuildableArea 1. The side and rear yard setbacks apply to principal and accessory structures. 2. Unless otherwise noted, the side and rear yard setbacks are required to be landscaped and/or paved for pedestrian paths. 3. Driveways are permitted within the side and rearyard setbacks only in the following conditions: A. One drive, a maximum of 22 feet wide, is permitted to connect adjacent parking lots or alleys /service streets. B. Unless shared with the adjacent property, the drive shall be at least three feet from the property line. C. Refer to §153.065(B)(7) for loading area requirements. 4. Each lot is subject to the requirements of this Chapter for impervious surface coverage, measured as shown in Figure 153.062 -K. Additional semi - pervious coverage may be permitted through methods such as use of semi - pervious materials, green roofs or other methods approved by theART or required reviewing body. (c) Parking Location and Loading 1. Permitted locations for parking and loading facilities on development parcels and within buildings are specified for individual building types. Refer to §153.065(B) for additional parking requirements. 2. Parking may be located within the front or comer RBZ where consistent with the permitted parking locations for the applicable FIGURE 153.062 -K. MEASURING IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE. •uuuuuuuuuuuuuui Parking Maximum Impervious Cove :Building Coverage+ :Impervious Surfaces. • u Front Property Line building type. Such parking is subjectto the street wall requirements of §153.065(E) (2), except that surface parking shall not be located in any portion of an RBZ required to be occupied by a principal structure. 3. Parking shall not be located within a required setback, except as permitted by §153.065(13) ( 4. Alleys or service streets, when present, shall always be the primary means of vehicular access to parking lots or buildings. Refer to §153.060(C)(5) for block access requirements. 5. When alleys are not present, driveways may be permitted from streets not identified as principal frontage streets, except as permitted by §153.061(f)), and subject to the access management requirements of the City Engineer. Refer to §153.065(13)(6) for additional driveway requirements. (2) Height (a) Required minimum and maximum numbers of stories are provided for all building types. The minimum number of required stories shall be provided for all building facades within the RBZ, except as required in §153.062(N)(2)(d). (b) Half stories are located either completely within the roof structure with street- facing windows or in a visible basement exposed a maximum of one half story above grade (c) A building incorporating both a half story within the roof and a visible basement shall count the height of the two half stories as one full story. (d) Each building type includes a permitted range of height in feet for each story. 1. Unless otherwise specked, story height is measured in feet between the floor of a story to the floor of the story above it 2. For single story buildings and the uppermost story of a multiple story building, story height shall be measured from the floor of the story to the eave line on pitched roofs and to the tallest point of the roof deck on parapet and flat roofs. 3. Story height requirements apply only to street facing facades; however, no portion of the building shall exceed the maximum permitted height of any street facing facade 4. Accessory building height shall not exceed the height of the principal building. (3) Uses and Occupancy Requirements (a) Certain building types have limitations or requirements for uses which may occupy the ground story of a building or are permitted only BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR §153.062 33 DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING TYPES •aeurec: r�.om Additional Building : Seml- Pervious Footprint Coverage • u Front Property Line building type. Such parking is subjectto the street wall requirements of §153.065(E) (2), except that surface parking shall not be located in any portion of an RBZ required to be occupied by a principal structure. 3. Parking shall not be located within a required setback, except as permitted by §153.065(13) ( 4. Alleys or service streets, when present, shall always be the primary means of vehicular access to parking lots or buildings. Refer to §153.060(C)(5) for block access requirements. 5. When alleys are not present, driveways may be permitted from streets not identified as principal frontage streets, except as permitted by §153.061(f)), and subject to the access management requirements of the City Engineer. Refer to §153.065(13)(6) for additional driveway requirements. (2) Height (a) Required minimum and maximum numbers of stories are provided for all building types. The minimum number of required stories shall be provided for all building facades within the RBZ, except as required in §153.062(N)(2)(d). (b) Half stories are located either completely within the roof structure with street- facing windows or in a visible basement exposed a maximum of one half story above grade (c) A building incorporating both a half story within the roof and a visible basement shall count the height of the two half stories as one full story. (d) Each building type includes a permitted range of height in feet for each story. 1. Unless otherwise specked, story height is measured in feet between the floor of a story to the floor of the story above it 2. For single story buildings and the uppermost story of a multiple story building, story height shall be measured from the floor of the story to the eave line on pitched roofs and to the tallest point of the roof deck on parapet and flat roofs. 3. Story height requirements apply only to street facing facades; however, no portion of the building shall exceed the maximum permitted height of any street facing facade 4. Accessory building height shall not exceed the height of the principal building. (3) Uses and Occupancy Requirements (a) Certain building types have limitations or requirements for uses which may occupy the ground story of a building or are permitted only BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR §153.062 33 DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING TYPES on upper stories. Refer to Table 153.059 -A for additional use requirements. (b) The area(s) of a building in which parking is permitted within the structure of the building type shall meet the following requirements: 1. Basement parking shall meet street facade transparency requirements, unless otherwise permitted for individual building types. 2. Freestanding parking structures are addressed by the parking structure building type 3. When parking is permitted within the building an active, occupied space must be incorporated along the building facade, unless otherwise permitted for individual building types. Occupied space does not include storage areas, utility space, or parking. (4) Facade Requirements (a) Facade Transparency 1. Facade transparency percentages required for a building type shall be met with highly transparent, low reflective (minimum 60% visible light transmittance) glass windows (Figure 153.062 -L). 2. Ground story transparency is measured between two and eight feet above the sidewalk elevation. One example illustration of storefront transparency is shown in Figure 153.062 -M. 3. Blank, windowless walls shall have a rectangular area of not more than 30% of each building facade per story, as measured from floor to floor, and no horizontal distance greater than 15 feet per story shall be blank or windowless. 4. Vents, air condifioners and other utility elements shall not part of any street - facing building facade, unless otherwise permitted for individual building types. Where these elements are part of other facades, particular care must be taken to render these elements less visible to public view through architectural integration or other means of screening as approved by the required reviewing body. (b) Facade Divisions 1. Architectural elements or forms shall be used to divide the surface of the facade into pedestrian - scaled increments appropriate to the architectural character of the building type Acceptable divisions include, but are not limited to A. A.recess or projection along the building facade for a minimum of 18 inches in depth. B. Use of an architectural element pronding from or recessed into the facade a minimum of three inches, including pilasters, entranceways, or storefronts. Architectural elements, forms, or expression lines may be used to divide portions of the facade into horizontal divisions. Elements may include a cornice, belt course, corbelling with table, moulding, stringcourses, pediment, or other continuous horizontal omamentation with a minimum one -and -a -half inch depth. Where changes in roof plane are required by the building type, they shall be used to divide the roof mass into increments no greater than the dimensions permitted for each building type and shall correspond to recesses and projections in building mass. Permitted changes include a change in roof type and/ or horizontal or vertical variations in the roof plane. Unless otherwise determined to be architecturally appropriate by the required reviewing body, minimum increments shall be provided pursuant to the building type tables. MEASURING TRANSPARENCY PER STORY 34 § 153.062 EFFECTIVE DATE BUILDING TYPES APRIL 25, 2012 FIGURE 153.062 -M. STOREFRONT TRANSPARENCY ON GROUND STORY. One Story m Area of Each Story L Blank Wall Limitations Each Window Opening 34 § 153.062 EFFECTIVE DATE BUILDING TYPES APRIL 25, 2012 FIGURE 153.062 -M. STOREFRONT TRANSPARENCY ON GROUND STORY. (Q) BUILDING TYPES The following defines the building types permitted in the BSC districts. Refer to Table 153.062 -C for the list of symbols used on the building type tables to illustrate the individual building type requirements. Because some of the individual building type requirements do not apply to every building type, not every symbol is represented on every building type. TABLE 153.062 -C. BUILDING TYPE TABLE LEGEND Symbol Building Type Requirement Symbol Building Type Requirement A Multiple Principal Buildings W Upper Story B Front Property Line Coverage X Parking within Building C Occupation of Comer Y Occupied Space D Front Required Building Zone (RBZ) Z Ground Story Street Facade Transparency E Corner Side RBZ AA Upper Story Transparency F Front Setback BB Transparency (Street Facing Facades) G Corner Side Setback CC Blank Wall Limitations (Street Facing Facades) H Side Yard Setback DD Garage Openings I Rear Yard Setback EE Parking Lot Ground Story Transparency J Minimum Lot Width FF Transparency (Non- Street Facing Facades) K Maximum Lot Width GG Blank Wall Limitations (Non- Street Facing Facades L Maximum Building Length or Depth HH Principal Entrance Location M Minimum Lot Depth 11 Number of Street Facade Entrances N Parking Location JJ Number of Parking Lot Entrances O Loading Facility Location KK Mid - Building Pedestrianway P Entry for Parking Within Building LL Facade Divisions Q Access MM Vertical Increments R Minimum Building Height NN Horizontal Facade Divisions S Maximum Building Height 00 Required Change in Roof Plane or Type T Accessory Structure Height PP Permitted Roof Types U Minimum Finished Floor Elevation QQ Tower V Ground Story BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.062 35 DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING TYPES (1) Single - Family Detached (a) Building Siting (d) Fagade Requirements 1. Street Frontage O Minimum Finished. Floor Elevation 2.5 ft. above the adjacent sidewalk elevation Refer to §153.062(D) through §153.062(N) for design requirements Ground Story No additional requirements general to all buildings. Parking within Permitted in the rear of the first floor and Building fully in any basement(s) Multiple Principal Buildings Not permitted 1. Street Fagade Transparency Front Property Line Coverage Minimum 65% _ Transparency Minimum 25% -�-� Occupation of Corner Not required Front RBZ 5 -20 ft. O Blank Wall Limitations Required Corner side RBZ 5 -15 ft. © 2 . Non - St Fagade T ransparency Transparency Minimum 15% Landscape; Porches RBZ Treatment are permitted in the Wall Limitations Required RBZ 3. Building Entrance Right -of -Way Encroachment None 2. Buildable Area Principal Entrance Location required co rner, or side; porches are Minimum Side. Yard Setback 5 ft. © Street Facades: Number of 1 minimum per unit Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5 ft. O Entrances Parking Lot Facades: Not applicable Minimum Lot Width 30 ft. O Number of Entrances Maximum Lot Width 60 ft. © Mid- Building Pedestrianway Not required Minimum Lot Depth 100 ft. © 4. Fagade Divisions Maximum Building Length Not applicable Vertical Increments None Maximum Impervious Coverage 50% Horizontal Facade Divisions None Additional Semi - Pervious Coverage 20 % 3. Parking Location & Access Plane or yp enge in Roof None Parking Location Rear yard 5. Fagade Materials. Entry for Parking within Building Rear Permitted Primary Materials Stone, Brick, Wood, and Fiber Cement Siding Access Refer to � §153.062(N)(1)(c) 6. Roof Types (b) Height Permitted Types Pitched roof; other types may be permitted with approval (refer to Minimum Height 1.5 stories Q §153.062(D)) Maximum Height 3 stories Stories: Minimum Height 9 ft. Ma Height 12 ft. Accessory. Structure Height 2 stories maximums O Minimum Finished. Floor Elevation 2.5 ft. above the adjacent sidewalk elevation O (c) Uses & Occupancy Requirements Ground Story No additional requirements Upper Story No additional requirements Parking within Permitted in the rear of the first floor and Building fully in any basement(s) Occupied Space Minimum 15 ft. depth from the front facade Tower Permitted where architecturally appropriate Notes: 1 Garage doors shall be no taller than nine feet. No single garage door shall be wider than 18 feet. 36 § 153.062 0 " (1) EFFECTIVE DATE BUILDING T P S - APRIL 25, 2012 SINGLE - FAMILY DETACHED Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one result of one or more of the general requirements and do not represent all requirements or actual development. ■ PwmitWd Parking within Building Required Building Zone 9m1l; PS111*E 0 F9 N M 11�9-A Ti II Wa@1 K-AQ: X03 :1111■F1NC WA 111 rl reR;V_A T BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR §153.062(0)(1) 37 DEVELOPMENTCODE BUILDINGTTPES- SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED (2) Single - Family Attached (a) Building Siting Transparency 1. Street Frontage Wall Limitations Required Multiple Principal Buildings Permitted Principal Entrance Location Front Property Line Coverage Minimum 75 % 1 per unit minimum Occupation of Corner Required Mid - Building Pedestrianway Front RBZ 5 -20 ft. O Corner Side RBZ 5 -15 ft. Permitted on facades only at RBZ Treatment Landscape; Porches or stoops are permitted in the RBZ Right -of -Way Encroachment None adjacent to an open space type 2. B uildable Area Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 ft., 10 ft. between buildings Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5 ft. O Minimum Lot Width 16 ft. per unit O Maximum Lot Width None Maximum Length None Maximum Impervious Coverage Additional Semi - Pervious Coverage 70% 20% 3. Parking Location & Loading Parking Location Rear yard or within building (refer to (c) Uses) Entry for Parking within Building Rear or corner side facade (b) Height Minimum Height 1.5 stories 0 Maximum Height 4 stories Stories: Minimum Height Maximum Height 8 ft. 12 ft. Accessory Structure Height 2 stories maximum 0 Minimum Finished Floor Elevation 2.5 feet above the adjacent sidewalk elevatio O (c) Uses & Occupancy Requirements Ground Story No additional requirements Upper Story No additional requirements Parking within Permitted in the rear of the first floor and Building fully in any basement(s) Occupied Space Minimum 10 ft. depth from the front facade Q (d) Facade Requirements Refer to §153.062(D) through §153.062(N) for design requirements general to all buildings. 1. Street Fagade Transparency Transparency. Minimum 20 %�-_� Blank Wall Limitations Required 2. Non - Stree Fagade T ransparency Transparency Minimum 15% Wall Limitations Required 3. Building Entrance 5. Fagade Materials Principal Entrance Location Front, corner, or side; porches or stoops required Street Facades: Number of Entrances 1 per unit minimum Parking Lot Facades: Number of Entrances If parking lot or detached garage,. 1 per unit Mid - Building Pedestrianway Not required 4. Fagade Divisions Vertical Increments Every two units or no greater than 40 ft. Horizontal Facade Divisions None Required Change in Roof None Plane or Type 5. Fagade Materials Permitted Primary Materials Stone, Brick, Wood and Fiber Cement Siding 6. Roof Types Parapet, pitched roof, flat roof; Permitted Types other types may be permitted with approval (refer to §153.062(D)) Permitted on facades only at Tower terminal vistas, corners at two principal frontage streets, and /or adjacent to an open space type Notes: 1 One of every five principal buildings may front an open space type or a courtyard with a minimum width of 30 feet. 2 A landscaped courtyard, when enclosed by building on three sides, may contribute up to 35% of the front property line coverage requirement. 3 1f single - family attached residential units are located across the street from existing single - family detached dwellings, no more than eight attached units may be permitted in a building. 4 Garage doors shall be no taller than nine feet. No single garage door shall be wider than 18 feet. 38 § 153.062 S Op" (2) EFFECTIVE DATE BUILDING T P S - APRIL 25, 2012 SINGLE - FAMILY ATTACHED Note: Graphic figures are Intended to Illustrate one result of one or more of the general requirements and do not represent all requirements or actual development. king within Building ding Zone FIGURE 153.062 -0: SINGLE - FAMILY ATTACHED BUILDING TYPE DIAGRAM. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.062 (0) (2) 39 DEVELOPMENTCODE BUILDINGTYPES- SINGLE- FAMILY ATTACHED (3) Apartment Building (a) Building Siting (d) Fagade Requirements 1. Street Frontage Refer to §153.062(D) through §153.062(1) for design Multiple Principal Buildings Permitted O r equirements general to all buildings. Front Property Line Coverage P Y Minimum 75% 1 O 1, Street Fagade Transparency Transparency Minimum 20% Occupation of Corner Required Front RBZ 5 -20 ft. O Blank Wall Limitations Required Corner Side RBZ 5 -20 ft. © 2. Non - Street Fagade Transparency Transparency Minimum 15 % Z Landscape or less than RBZ Treatment 50% Patio; porches, Blank Wall Limitations Required stoops, and balconies are permitted in the RBZ 3. Building Entrance Right -of -Way Encroachment None Principal Entrance Location Primary street facade of building �1 2. Buildable Area Street Facades: Number of 1 per 75 ft. of facade minimum Entrances Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 ft. © Parking Lot Facades: Not required Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5ft. O Number of Entrances Minimum Lot Width 50 ft. O Mid - Building Pedestrianway 1 required for buildings longer Maximum Lot Width N one than 250 ft. Maximum Impervious Coverage 70% 4. Fagade Divisions Additional Semi - Pervious Coverage 20 % Vertical Increments No greater than 40 ft. 3. Parking Location &Lo On buildings 3 stories or taller, Rear yard 2; within Horizontal Facade Divisions required within 3 ft. of the top of Parking Location building (refer to (c) © the ground story Use & Occ. Req.) Required Change in Roof Plane Type No greater than every 80 ft. .. Loading Facility Location Rear or Entry for Parking: within Building Rear & side facade 5. Fagade Materials Access Refer to Permitted Primary Materials Stone, Brick, Wood, Fiber Cement Siding and Glass §153,062(N)(1)(c) (b). Height 6. Roof Types Minimum Height 2 stones Parapet, pitched roof, flat roof; Permitted Types other types may be permitted with Z Maximum Height 4.5 stories approval (refer to §153.062(D)) Stones: Minimum Height 9 ft. Permitted on facades only at Maximum Height 14 ft. Tower terminal vistas, corners at two principal frontage streets, and /or 2.5 ft. above the adjacent to a n open space type Minimum Finished Floor Elevation adjacent gidewalk G ele vation (c) Uses & Occupancy Requirements Notes: A landscaped courtyard, when enclosed by building on three sides, may Ground Story No additional requirements contribute up to 35% of the front property line coverage requirement. Upper Story No additional requirements 2 Basement level structured parking is permitted to extend between Parking within Permitted in the rear of the first 3 floors © buildings, screened from the street and covering a maximum of 10% Building and fully in any basement(s) of the length of the RBZ. Structured parking visible between principal Occupied Space Minimum 20 ft.�lepth for the ground story O buildings must be set back a minimum of 15 ft. from the street facing facing street(s) facades. 3 Where the principal building entrance is a lobby or other common space, the minimum finished floor elevation is not required. 40 § 153.062 S Op" (3) EFFECTIVE DATE BUILDING T P S - APRIL 25, 2012 APARTMENT BUILDING Note: Graphic figures are Intended to Illustrate one result of one or more of the general requirements and do not represent all requirements or actual development. n L A, W 0 N ...<...... '........ H ■Permitted Parking within Bulldinc FIGURE 153.062 -P: APARTMENT BUILDING TYPE DIAGRAM. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.062 (0) (3) 41 DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING TYPES - APARTM ENT BUILDING (4) Loft Building (a) Building Siting 1. Street Frontage Multiple Principal Buildings Permitted Front Property Line Coverage Minimum 75% O Occupation of Corner Required O Front RBZ 0 -15 ft. Oi Corner Side RBZ 0 -15 ft. frontage streets Landscape, Patio, or Access Refer to Streetscape; along West §153.062(N)(1)(c) Dublin- Granville Road, RBZ Treatment Streetscape required; where Minimum Height 2 stories residential uses are located Maximum Height 4.5 stories on the ground floor, porches Ground Story: Minimum Height 12 ft. or stoops are permitted in Maximum Height 16 ft. the RBZ Right -of -Way Encroachment Awnings, canopies, eaves, patios & projecting signs 2. Buildable Area Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 ft. W Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5 ft. Minimum Lot Width 50 ft. O Maximum Lot Width None Maximum Impervious Coverage 80% Additional Semi - Pervious Coverage 10% 3. Parking Location & Loading Rear yard; within building Parking Location (refer to (c) Uses & Occupancy Requirements) Loading Facility Location Rear &. side facade Rear &side facade, corner Where non- residential uses are Entry for Parking within Building side on non - principal Ground Story Street frontage streets Access Refer to O §153.062(N)(1)(c) (b) Height Minimum Height 2 stories Q Maximum Height 4.5 stories Blank Wall Limitations Ground Story: Minimum Height 12 ft. Maximum Height 16 ft. Upper Stories: Minimum Height 9 ft. 1 Minimum 20% Maximum Height 16 ft. Blank Wall Limitations Where residential uses are located Minimum Finished Floor Elevation on the ground floor, 2.5 ft. above the adjacent sidewalk elevation where residential uses are located (c) Uses & Occupancy Requirements Principal Entrance Location Ground Story No additional requirements Upper Story No additional requirements or stoops are required at each Parking within Permitted in the rear of the first 3 floors Building and fully in any basement(s) Occupied Space Minimum 30 ft. depth from the front facade Where ground story dwelling units (d) Fagade Requirements Refer to §153.062(D) through §153.062(1) for design requirements general to all buildings. 1. Street Fagade T Where non- residential uses are Ground Story Street incorporated on the ground floor, Facing Transparency minimum 60% required; otherwise minimum 20% Transparency Minimum 20% == Blank Wall Limitations Required 2. Non - Street Fagade Transparency Transparency Minimum 20% Blank Wall Limitations Required 3. Buil Entrance Primary street facade of building; where residential uses are located Principal Entrance Location on the ground floor, porches or stoops are required at each entrance Where ground story dwelling units Street Facades: Number of or tenant spaces are incorporated, Entrances 1 per full 30 ft.; otherwise, 1 per 75 ft. Parking Lot Facades: Number of Entrances 1 per 100 ft. of facade (minimum) Mid - Building Pedestrianway Not Required 4. Fagade Divisions Vertical Increments No greater than 40 ft. On buildings 3 stories or taller, required within 3 ft. of the top of the ground story and any visible Horizontal Facade Divisions basement. When 14 to 16 -foot upper stories are used, horizontal divisions are required between each floor. Required Change in Roof No greater than every 80 ft. for Plane or Type pitched roof type; none for other roof types. 5. Fagade Materials Permitted Primary Materials Stone, Brick, Glass 6. Roof Types Parapet, pitched roof, flat roof; Permitted Types other types may be permitted with ��- approval (refer to §153.063(D)). Permitted on facades only at Tower terminal vistas, corners at two principal frontage streets, and /or adjacent to an open space type. Notes: 1 Sixteen foot height in an upper floor counts as 1.5 stories. 42 § 153.062 S Op" (4) EFFECTIVE DATE BUILDING T P S - APRIL 25, 2012 LOFT BUILDING Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one result of one or more of the general requirements and do not Building BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 1 WD62 (0) tm 43 DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILOINGTYPES - LOFT BUILDING FIGURE 19.062 -0: LOFT BUILDING TYPE DIAGRAM. (5) Corridor Building (a) Building :Siting Awnings, canopies, eaves, 1. Street Frontage 10% patios & projecting signs Multiple Principal Buildings Permitted Rear yard 2 ; within building (refer to (c) Uses & Front Property Line Coverage Minimum 75 %1 O Occupation of Corner Required O Front RBZ 0 -15 ft. O Corner Side RBZ 0 -15 ft. None O Landscape, Patio, or RBZ Treatment Streetscape; along West Dublin- Granville Road, Streetscape required Right -of -Way Encroachment Awnings, canopies, eaves, Additional Semi - Pervious Coverage 10% patios & projecting signs length 2. Buildable Area Rear yard 2 ; within building (refer to (c) Uses & Vertical Increments Minimum Side Yard Setback. 5 ft. Rear & side facade Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5 ft. O Minimum Lot Width 50 ft. frontaae streets Maximum Lot Width None O Maximum Impervious Coverage 80% Additional Semi - Pervious Coverage 10% 3. Parking Location & Loading length Parking Location Rear yard 2 ; within building (refer to (c) Uses & Vertical Increments Occupancy Requirements) Loading Facility Location Rear & side facade Horizontal Facade Divisions Rear & side facade; corner Entry for Parking within Building side facade on non - principal Required Change in Roof frontaae streets Access Refer to §153.062(N)(1)(c) (b) Height Minimum Height 3 stories Q 5.5 stories. For buildings with residential uses fronting on Riverside Drive or any building located on Maximum Height a parcel within 600 ft. of the 1 -270 right -of -way, an additional 2 stories are permitted with an 8 ft. step -back from each front facade. Ground Stories: Minimum Height 12 ft. Maximum Height 16 ft. Stories: Minimum Height 9 ft. Maximum Height 14 ft. (c) Uses & Occupancy Requirements Ground Story Residential and general office uses are prohibited in shopping corridors Upper Story No additional requirements Parking within Permitted in the rear of the first 3 floors and Building f in any basemem(s) Occupied Space Minimum 30 ft. depth facing street(s) 0 (d) Facade Requirements Refer to §153.062(D) through §153.062(1) for design requirements general to all buildings. 1. Street Facade Transparency Ground Story Street Minimum 60% required Facing Transparency Transparency Minimum 30% == Blank. Wall Limitations Required 2. Non- Street Facade Transparency Transparency Minimum 15% Blank Wall Limitations Required 3. Building Entrance Principal Entrance Location Primary street facade of building. Street Facades: Number of 1 per 75 ft. of facade minimum Entrances Parking Lot Facades: Number of Entrances 1 per 100 ft. of facade minimum Permitted Primary Materials Stone, Brick, Glass 6. Roof Types Parapet, pitched roof, flat roof; Permitted Types other types may be permitted with approval (refer to §153.062(D)). Permitted on facades only at Tower terminal vistas, corners at two principal frontage streets, and /or adjacent to an open space type. Notes 1 A courtyard covering up to 35% of the front or corner RBZ is permitted. The courtyard, when enclosed by building on 3 sides, may contribute to the front property line coverage. 2 Parking decks are permitted to extend between buildings, screened from street and covering a maximum of 10% of the length of the RBZ. Parking decks visible between principal buildings must be set back a minimum of 15 feet from the street facing facades. 44 § 153.062 S Op" (5) EFFECTIVE DATE BUILDING T P S - APRIL 25, 2012 CORRIDOR BUILDING In shopping corridors, required for Mid - Building Pedestrianway buildings greater than 250 ft. in length 4. Fagade Divisions Vertical Increments No greater than 45 ft. On buildings 3 stories or taller, Horizontal Facade Divisions required within 3 ft. of the top of the ground story. Required at any building step -back. Required Change in Roof None Plane or Type 5. Facade Materials Permitted Primary Materials Stone, Brick, Glass 6. Roof Types Parapet, pitched roof, flat roof; Permitted Types other types may be permitted with approval (refer to §153.062(D)). Permitted on facades only at Tower terminal vistas, corners at two principal frontage streets, and /or adjacent to an open space type. Notes 1 A courtyard covering up to 35% of the front or corner RBZ is permitted. The courtyard, when enclosed by building on 3 sides, may contribute to the front property line coverage. 2 Parking decks are permitted to extend between buildings, screened from street and covering a maximum of 10% of the length of the RBZ. Parking decks visible between principal buildings must be set back a minimum of 15 feet from the street facing facades. 44 § 153.062 S Op" (5) EFFECTIVE DATE BUILDING T P S - APRIL 25, 2012 CORRIDOR BUILDING Note: Graphic figures are Intended to Illustrate one result of one or more of the general requirements and do not represent all requirements or actual 'king within Building ding Zone BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.062 (0) (5) 45 DEVELOPMENTCODE BUILDINGTYPES- CORRIDOR BUILDING RGURE 153.062 -R: CORRIDOR BUILDING TYPE DIAGRAM. (6) Mixed Use Building (a) Building Siting 1. Street Frontage Refer to §153.062(D) through §153.062(N) for design Multiple. Principal Buildings Permitted Front Property Line Coverage Minimum 95% O Occupation of Corner Required O otherwise, 65% 0 -10 ft. with up to 25% Upper Story Transparency Front RBZ of the front fagade O Required permitted between 2. Non - Street Fagade Transparency 1 0 -20 f Minimum 15% Corner RBZ 0 -10 ft. Required RBZ Treatment Patio or Streetscape Projecting signs, eaves, Principal frontage street fagade of Right -of -Way Encroachment awnings, patios, & building canopies Entrance must be recessed 2. Buildable Area Entrance Requirements if located within 5 ft. of front Minimum Side Yard Setback 0 ft. property line Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5ft. O Minimum Lot Width 50 ft. O Maximum Lot Width None Minimum of 1 Maximum Impervious Coverage 85% Additional Semi - Pervious Coverage 10% In shopping corridors, 1 required 3. Parking Location & Loading Mid - Building Pedestrianway for buildings greater than 250 ft. Rear; within building in length Parking Location (refer to (c) Uses & Occupancy No greater than 45 ft. Requirements) On buildings 3 stories or taller, or Loading Facility Location Rear where the maximum ground floor Rear, side, or corner height is used, required within 3 ft. Entry for Parking within Building fagade on non - principal of the top of the ground story frontage streets No greater than every 80 ft. (b) Heig Plane or Type Minimum Height 2 stories Q Maximum Height 5 stories Permitted Primary Materials Ground Story: Minimum Height 16 ft. 6. Roof Types Maximum H eight 24 ft. Upper Stories: Minimum Height 10 ft. Permitted Types Maximum Height 14 ft. (c) Uses & Occupancy Requirements Ground Story Residential and general office uses Permitted on fagades only at prohibited in shopping corridor Upper Story No additional requirements Parking within Permitted in the rear of all floors and fully principal frontage streets, adjacent Building in any basement to an open space type, and /or Occupied Space Minimum 30 ft. depth from the front and /or O corner side fagades (d) Fagade Requirements Refer to §153.062(D) through §153.062(N) for design requirements general to all buildings. 1. Street Fagade Transparency Ground Story Street Storefront with minimum 70 %; Facing Transparency otherwise, 65% Upper Story Transparency Minimum 30% Blank Wall Limitations Required 2. Non - Street Fagade Transparency Transparency Minimum 15% G Blank Wall Limitations Required 3. Building Entrance Principal Entrance Location Principal frontage street fagade of building Entrance must be recessed Entrance Requirements if located within 5 ft. of front property line Street Fagades: Number of 1 per 75 ft. of fagade minimum Entrances Parking Lot Fagades: Minimum of 1 �J Number of Entrances. In shopping corridors, 1 required Mid - Building Pedestrianway for buildings greater than 250 ft. in length 4. Fagade Divisions Vertical Increments No greater than 45 ft. On buildings 3 stories or taller, or Horizontal Fagade Divisions where the maximum ground floor height is used, required within 3 ft. of the top of the ground story Required Change in Roof No greater than every 80 ft. Plane or Type 5. Fagade Materials Permitted Primary Materials Stone, Brick, Glass 6. Roof Types Parapet, pitched roof, flat roof; Permitted Types other types permitted with approval (refer to §153.062(D)) Permitted on fagades only at terminal vistas, corners at two Tower principal frontage streets, adjacent to an open space type, and /or with a civic use 46 § 153.062 S Op" (6) EFFECTIVE DATE BUILDING T P S - APRIL 25, 2012 MIXED USE BUILDING Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one result of one or more of the general requirements and do not represent all requirements or actual ■Permitted Parking within Building FIGURE 153.062 -S: MIXED USE BUILDING TYPE DIAGRAM. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 1 WD62 (0) (6) 47 DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING TYPES - MUED USE BUILDING (7) Commercial Center (a) Building Siting None 1. Street Frontage 2. Buildable Are (b) Height Multiple Principal Buildings Permitted O Front Property Line Coverage Minimum 45% O Occupation of Corner Required 50 ft. Front RBZ 5 -25 ft. ■ Corner Side RBZ 5 -25 ft. Parking Lot Ground Story Transparency RBZ Treatment Landscape, Patio, or Streetscape Transparency Right -of -Way Encroachment None Residential uses prohibited 2. Buildable Are (b) Height Minimum Height Minimum Side. Yard Setback 5 ft. 3 stories Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5 ft. Maximum Height Minimum Lot Width 50 ft. O Maximum Lot Width None 2. Non - St Facade T ransparency Maximum Impervious Coverage 75% Additional Semi- Pervious 15% Coverage 3. Parking Location & Loading Rear & side yard; within building (refer to (c) Uses & Occupancy Requirements). Parking may be forward of Parking Location principal buildings provided the minimum front property line coverage and RBZ treatment requirements are met by other principal buildings. Loading Facility Location Rear Side, rear, or corner side Entry for Parking within Building facades on non - principal frontaae streets Access Refer to Residential uses prohibited §153.062(N)(1)(c) (b) Height Minimum Height 1 story Q Maximum Height 3 stories Ground Story: Minimum Height 12 ft. Maximum Height 18 ft. Upper Stories: Minimum Height 9 ft. Maximum H eight 1 ft. (c) Uses & Occupancy Requirements Ground Story Residential uses prohibited Upper Story No additional requirements Parking within Building Permitted in the rear of the first floor and fully in any basement(s) Occupied Space Minimum 30 ft. depth from the front and/ or corner side elevations if the side is a principal frontage street (d) Facade Requirements Refer to §153.062(D) through §153.062(N) for design requirements general to all buildings. 1. Street Facade Transparency Ground Story Street Facing Transparency Storefront with minimum 65% Q Upper Story Transparency Minimum 20% QD Blank Wall Limitations Required 2. Non - St Facade T ransparency Parking Lot Ground Story Transparency Storefront with minimum 50% I� Transparency Minimum 15% Z Required on parking lot facing: Blank Wall Limitations facades; Not required on other facades 3. Building Entrance Principal Entrance Location Not Applicable Street Facades: Number of 1 per 75 ft. of principal frontage Entrances street facade Parking Lot Facades: Number of Entrances 1 per 100 ft. of facade minimum Im Mid - Building Pedestrianway Not required 4. Fagade Divisions Vertical Increments No greater than 45 ft. On 3 -story buildings, required Horizontal Facade Divisions within 3 ft. of the top of the ground story Required Change in Roof None Plane or Type 5. Fagade Materials Permitted Primary Materials Stone, Brick, Glass 6. Roof Types Permitted Types Parapet, pitched roof, flat roof; other types permitted with approval (refer to §153.062(D)) Permitted on facades only at Tower terminal vistas, corners at two principal frontage streets, and /or adjacent to an open space type Notes: 1 Minimum front property line coverage shall be met, but not all principal buildings must be located within a Required Building Zone. 48 § 153.062 S Op" (7) EFFECTIVE DATE BUILDING T P S - APRIL 25, 2012 COMMERCIAL CENTER Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one result of one or more of the general requirements and do not represent all requirements or actual development. -Permitted Parking within Building FIGURE 153.062 -T: COMMERCIAL CENTER BUILDING TYPE DIAGRAM. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.062 (0) (7) 49 DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING TVPES- COMMERCIAL CENTER (8) Large Format Commercial (a) Building Siting (d) Fagade Requirements 1. Street Frontage Refer to §153.062(D) through §153.062(1) for design requirements general to all buildings. Multiple Principal Buildings Permitted 1. Street Fagade Transparency 95% Front Property Line Coverage Minimum 95 O Storefront with minimum 65%; Occupation of Corner Required O Ground Story Street corner side facade on non - Facing Transparency principal frontage street: minimum 0 -10 ft. with up to 25% 30 Front RBZ of the front facade permitted between 0 Upper Story Transparency Minimum 20:% 10 -20 ft. Corner Side RBZ 0 -10 ft. © Blank Wall Limitations Required 2 . Non - Street Fagade Tr RBZ Treatment Patio or Streetscape Transparency Minimum 15 °1 Projecting signs, eaves, Right -of -Way Encroachment awnings, patios, & Blank Wall Limitations Required canopies 3. Building Entrance 2. Buildable Area Minimum Side Yard Setback 0 ft. Principal Entrance Location Principal frontage street facade of building Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5 ft. O Street Facades: Number of Entrances Minimum of 1 per 75 ft. of fagade Minimum Lot Width 250 ft. O Maximum Lot Width None Parking Lot Facades: Minimum of 1 per 150 ft. Maximum Impervious Coverage 85% Number of Entrances Additional Semi - Pervious Coverage 10% Mid - Building Pedestrianway Not required 3. Parking Location & Loading 4. Fagade Divisions Rear yard; within building (refer to (c) Vertical Increments No greater than 45 ft. Parking Location Uses & Occupancy On buildings 3 stories or taller or Requirements) Horizontal Fagade Divisions where the maximum ground floor �1►, Loading Facility Location Rear height is used, required within 3 feet of the top of the ground story Rear, side, or corner Entry for Parking within Building side facade on non- Required Change in Roof Plane or Type No greater than every 80 ft. principal frontage O streets 5. Fagade Materials (b) Height Permitted Primary Materials. Brick, Stone, Glass Minimum Height 2 stories 6. Roof Types Maximum Height 5 stories Parapet, pitched roof, flat roof; Permitted Types other types permitted with Ground Story: Minimum Height 15 ft. 1 approval (refer to §153.062(D)) Maximum Height 24 ft. ;Additional height may be permitted with Site Permitted on facades only at Plan approval for theaters terminal vistas, corners at two and other special indoor Tower principal frontage streets, adjacent entertainment /recreation to an open space type, and /or uses with a theater use Upper Stories: Minimum Height 9 ft. Maximum Height 14 ft. Note: (c) Uses & Occupancy Requirements Any ground story height of 20 feet or taller counts as two stories. Residential uses prohibited; Residential Ground Story and general office uses prohibited in shopping corridors Upper Story No additional requirements Parking within Permitted in the rear of all floors and fully Building in any basement Occupied Space Minimum 30 ft. depth from the front and /or O corner side facades 50 § 153.062 S Op" (8) EFFECTIVE DATE BUILDING T P S - APRIL 25, 2012 LARGE FORMAT COMMERCIAL Note: Graphic figures are intended to HP ■Permitted Parking within Building ' Required Building Zone FIGURE 153.062 -U: LARGE FORMAT COMMERCIAL BUILDING TWE DIAGRAM. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.062 (0) (8) 51 DEVELOPMENTCODE BUILDING TYPES - LARGE FORMAT COMMERCIAL (9) Historic Mixed Use (a) Building Siting. (d) Fagade Requirements 1. Street Frontage Refer to §153.062(D) through §153.062(N) for design requirements general to all buildings. Multiple Principal Buildings Permitted 1. Street Fagade Transparency Front Property Line Coverage Minimum 80% O Occupation of Corner Required O Ground Story Street Facing Transparency Storefront with minimum 40% Front RBZ 0 -20 ft. O Upper Story Transparency Minimum 2090t�A Corner Side RBZ 0 -10 ft. © Blank Wall Limitations Required Patio or Streetscape; 2. Non - Street F Transparency RBZ Treatment Porches, stoops, and balconies are permitted Transparency Minimum 15% in the RBZ Blank Wall Limitations Required Right -of -Way Encroachment Projecting signs, awnings, eaves, patios, 3. Building Entrance & canopies Principal Entrance Location Principal frontage street facade of ,�i►, 2. Buildable Are building Vy' Minimum Side Yard Setback 0 ft. © Street Facades: Number of 1 per 40 ft. of facade for buildings 0 Entrances over 60 ft. minimum Minimum Rear Yard Setback. 0 ft. O Parking Lot Facades: Minimum Lot Width 30 ft. Number of Entrances Minimum of 1 Maximum Lot Width None O Mid - Building Pedestrianway 1 required for buildings greater Maximum Impervious Coverage 85% than 150 ft. in length Additional Semi - Pervious Coverage 5 % 4. Faga Divisions 3. Parking Location & Loading Vertical Increments N g reater than 30 ft. Y'1111 Parking Location Rear © Horizontal Facade Divisions N/A Loading Facility Location Not applicable Required Change in Roof Entry for Parking within Building Not applicable Plane or Type At every vertical division (b) Height 5. Fagade Materials Minimum Height 1.5 stories Q Permitted Primary Materials Stone, Brick, Wood and Fiber Cement Siding Maximum Height 2.5 stories © 6. Roof Types Ground Story: Minimum Height 10 ft. Pitched roof; other types Maximum H eight 12 ft. Permitted Types permitted with approval (refer to ��- Upper Stories: Minimum Height 9 ft. §153.062(D)) Maximu Height 12 ft. Permitted on facades only at (c) Uses & Occupancy Requirements Tower terminal vistas, corners at two principal frontage streets, and /or Ground Story Residential uses prohibited adjacent to an open space type Upper Story No additional requirements Parking within B uilding Not permitted Note: 1 When any front or corner property line is within five feet or less of the back of curb, the RBZ shall begin five feet off the back of curb to allow Occupied Space Not applicable for adequate sidewalk. width. 52 § 153.062 0 " (9) EFFECTIVE DATE BUILDING T P S - APRIL 25, 2012 HISTORIC MIXED USE Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one result of one or more of the general requirements and do not represent all requirements or actual 3 Biding Zone FIGURE 153.062 -V: HISTORIC MIXED USE BUILDING TYPE DIAGRAM. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.062 (O0" (9) 53 DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING P S- HISTORIC MIXED USE (10) Historic Cottage Commercial (a) Building Siting 1. Street Frontage Multiple Principal Buildings Permitted Front Property Line Coverage Minimum 50% " Occupation of Corner Required O Front RBZ 0 -25 ft. 1 Q Corner Side RBZ 0 -15 ft. RBZ Treatment Landscape, Patio, or 4. F Divisions Streetscape Vertical Increments Projecting signs, eaves, Right -.of -Way Encroachment awnings, patios, & Required Change in Roof Plane or Type canopies 2. Buildable Area Minimum Side Yard Setback 3 ft. Minimum Rear Yard Setback. 5ft. Minimum Lot Width 30 ft. Maximum Lot Width None O Maximum Building Length or Depth 70 ft. O Maximum Impervious Coverage 75% Additional Semi - Pervious Coverage 10% 3. Parking Location & Loading Rear or side, provided Parking Location the minimum front property line coverage is met Loading Facility Location Not applicable Entry for Parking within Building Not applicable Refer to Access §153.062(N)(1)(c) (b). Height Minimum Height 1 story Q Maximum Height 2 stories Ground Story: Minimum Height 8 ft. Maximum Height 11 ft. Upper Stories: Minimum Height 7.5 ft. Maximum Height 11 ft. (c) Uses &Occupancy Requirements Ground Story Residential uses prohibited Upper Story No additional requirements Parking within Not permitted Building Occupied Space Not applicable (d) Facade Requirements Refer to §153.062(D) through §153.062(N) for design requirements general to all buildings. 1. Street Fagade Transparency Transparency. Minimum 25% Z Blank Wall Limitations Required on ground story only 2. Non - Street Facade Transparency Transparency Minimum 15% Q Blank Wall Limitations Not required 3. Building Entrance Principal Entrance Location Principal frontage street facade of building Street Facades: Number of 1 per every 30 ft. for buildings Entrances over 50 ft. minimum Parking Lot Facades: Number of Entrances Not applicable 4. F Divisions Vertical Increments No greater than 30 ft. Horizontal Facade Divisions Not applicable Required Change in Roof Plane or Type At every vertical division 5. Facade Materials Permitted Primary Materials Stone, Brick, Wood and Fiber Cement Siding 6. Roof Types Permitted Types Pitched roof; other types permitted with approval (refer to §153.062(D)) Tower Not permitted Note: 1 When any front or corner property line is within five feet or less of the back of curb, the RBZ shall begin five feet off the back of curb to allow for adequate sidewalk width. 54 § 153.062 (A (10) EFFECTIVE DATE BUILDING P S- APRIL 25, 2012 HISTORIC COTTAGE COMMERCIAL FM FIGURE 163.062 -W: HISTORIC COTTAGE COMMERCIAL BUILDING TYPE DIAGRAM. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.062(0) (10) 55 DEVELOPMENT CODE BBILOINGTYPES - HISPOBIC WTTAGE COMMEBCML Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one result of one or more of the general requirements and do not represent all requirements or actual development (11) Civic Building (a) Building Siting 1. Street Frontage Multiple Principal Buildings Permitted Occupation of Corner Not required Additional Semi - Pervious Coverage 10% Minimum Front Setback 15 ft. O Minimum Corner Side Setback 15 ft. Parking Location building (refer to (c) Setback Treatment Landscape, Patio, or Streetscape Parking Lot Facades: Number of Entrances Right -of -Way Encroachment None Loading Facility Location Rear 2. Buildable Area Rear, side, corner Vertical Increments Minimum Side Yard Setback 10 ft. streets Minimum Rear Yard Setback 20 ft. O Minimum Lot Width Maximum Lot Width 50 ft. None O Maximum Impervious Coverage 65% Transparency Additional Semi - Pervious Coverage 10% Blank Wall Limitations 3. Parking Location & Loading 3. Building Entrance Rear & side yard; within Principal Entrance Location Parking Location building (refer to (c) Street Facades: Number of Entrances Uses & Occupancy Parking Lot Facades: Number of Entrances Requirements) Mid - Building Pedestrianway Loading Facility Location Rear 4. Facade Divisions Rear, side, corner Vertical Increments Entry for Parking within Building side facades on non - principal frontage Horizontal Facade Divisions streets Required Change in Roof Plane or Type Refer to Access 5. Facade Materials § Permitted Primary Materials (b) Height 6. Roof Types Minimum Height 1.5 stories Q Maximum Height 5 stories; 3 stories in BSC Historic Core District Ground Story: Minimum Height 12 ft. Maximum Height 24 ft. Upper Stories: Minimum Height 9 ft. Maximum Height 14 ft. (c) Uses & Occupancy Requirements Ground Story Civic /Public /Institutional only except day care as a principal use Upper Story Civic /Public /Institutional only Parking within Permitted in the rear of the first 3 floors Building and fully in any basement(s) :Occupied Space Minimum 30 ft. depth from the front and /or O co rner side facade (d) Fagade Requirements Refer to §153.062(D) through §153.062(N) for design requirements general to all buildings. 1. S Fagade Transparency Transparency Minimum 25% Blank Wall Limitations Required 2. Non- Street Fagade Transparency Transparency Minimum 20% Blank Wall Limitations Required 3. Building Entrance Principal Entrance Location Principal frontage street facade of b uilding Street Facades: Number of Entrances 1 per 75 ft. of facade minimum Parking Lot Facades: Number of Entrances 1 per 100 ft. of facade minimum Mid - Building Pedestrianway Not required 4. Facade Divisions Vertical Increments No greater than 60 ft. Horizontal Facade Divisions On buildings 3 stories or taller or where the maximum ground floor nR, height is used; required within 3 ft. of the top of the ground story Required Change in Roof Plane or Type None 5. Facade Materials Permitted Primary Materials Brick, Stone, Glass 6. Roof Types Parapet, pitched roof, flat roof, Permitted Types other types permitted with approval (refer to §153.062(D)) Tower Permitted Note: 1 Any ground story height of 20 feet or taller counts as two stories. 56 § 153.062 (0) (11) EFFECTIVE DATE BUILDING T AS - APRIL 25, 2012 CIVIC BUILDING Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one result of one or more of the general requirements and do not represent all requirements or actual thin Building BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.062 (0) If 1) 57 DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING TYPES - CIVIC BUILDING FIGURE 153.062 -X: CIVIC BUILDING TYPE DIAGRAM. (12) Parking Structure' 2. Buildable A (a) Building Siting 1. Street Frontage. Street frontage requirements apply only when no buildings are planned between the street and the parking structure. Multiple Buildings Not permitted Minimum Front Property Line Coverage 90% O Occupation of Corner Required Front RBZ 5 -25 ft. ■ Corner Side RBZ 5 -25 ft. RBZ Treatment Landscape, Patio, or Streetscape Right -of -Way Encroachment None 2. Buildable A Required b Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 ft. CD Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5 ft. O Minimum Lot Width 80 ft. Blank Wall Limitations Maximum L Width None O Maximum Building Length 300 ft. O Maximum Impervious Coverage 80% All street facades of building Additional Semi - Pervious Coverage 10% VIA' 3. Parking Location & Loading 1 per 75 ft. of facade minimum Within building only (refer Not applicable Parking Location to (c) Uses & Occupancy Requirements) Not required Rear, side, corner side structures fronting streets. Entry for Parking within Building facades on non�principal O frontage streets Horizontal Facade Divisions Access Refer to §153.062(N)(1)(c) (b) Height Required Change in Roof Minimum Height 2 stories Q Maximum Height 5 stories 3,4 Garage Floors Ground Story: Minimum Height 12 ft. Maximum Height 18 ft. 5. Facade Materials Upper Stories: Minimum Height 8.5 ft. Maximum Height 12 ft. (c) Uses & Occupancy Requirements Commercial uses are required only when Ground Story fronting a principal frontage street, a O shopping corridor or a greenway Upper Story No additional requirements Rear of ground story where there is Parking within frontage on a principal frontage street, a Building shopping corridor, or a greenway; all floors above ground story Minimum 20 ft. depth where the ground Occupied Space story fronts on a principal frontage street, a I shopping corridor, or a greenway (d) Facade Requirements Refer to §153.062(D) through §153.062(N) for design requirements general to all buildings. 1. Street Facade Transparency. This section applies only parking structures fronting streets. Storefront with minimum 65% Ground Story on principal frontage streets, Street Facing Transparency shopping corridors, or greenways; otherwise, refer to the blank wall limitations Blank Wall Limitations Required b Garage Openings Parked cars shall be screened T from the street 2. Non - Street Facade Transparency Blank Wall Limitations Required 6 3. Building Entrance. This section applies only to parking structures fronting streets. Permitted on facades only at Principal Pedestrian Entrance All street facades of building Location VIA' Street Facades: Number of Entr 1 per 75 ft. of facade minimum Parking Lot Facades: Not applicable Number of Entrances Mid - Building Pedestrianway Not required 4. Facade Divisions. This section applies only to parking structures fronting streets. Vertical Increments No greater than 30 ft. Horizontal Facade Divisions Required within 3 ft. of the top of A1►. 1 �►' the ground story Required Change in Roof None Plane or Type Garage Floors Garage floors shall be horizontal along all street facades. 5. Facade Materials Permitted Primary Materials Brick, Stone, Glass 6. Roof Type Parapet, pitched roof, flat roof; Permitted Types other types may be permitted with approval (refer to §153.062(D)) C Permitted on facades only at Tower terminal vistas, corners at two principal frontage streets, and /or adjacent to an open space type Notes: 1 The requirements of §153.065(6)(5) Parking Structure Design shall be met. 2 Vehicular entrance openings shall not exceed 30 feet in width. 3 Height may not exceed overall height in feet of any adjacent building or any conforming building immediately across the street. 4 Parking is permitted on roof level. 5 No rectangular area greater than 30% of a story's facade, as measured from floor to floor, shall be windowless on the ground story and solid on the upper stories. 6 No rectangular area greater than 30% of a story's facade, as measured from floor to floor shall be solid. 58 § 153.062 (OJ (12) EFFECTIVE DATE BUILDING P S- APRIL 25, 2012 PARKING STRUCTURE Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one result of one or more of the general requirements and do not represent all requirements or actual development. vithin Building FIGURE 19.062 -Y: STRUCTURED PARKING BUILDING TYPE DIAGRAM. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 1 WD62 (0) (12) 59 DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING TYPES - PARKING STRUCTURE (13) Podium Apartment Building (a) Building Siting 1. Street Frontage Multiple Principal Buildings Permitted Front Property Line Coverage Minimum 75 % 0 Occupation of Corner Required 5 ft. CD Front RBZ 5 -20 ft. O Corner Side RBZ 5 -20 ft. None O Maximum Impervious Coverage Landscape or less than Additional Semi - Pervious Coverage 20% 50% Patio; porches, RBZ Treatment stoops, and balconies of residential are pgrmitted in the building (subject to Parking Location RBZ Right -of -Way Encroachment None 2. Buildable Are Permitted; podium garage parking shall be Minimum Side. Yard Setback 5 ft. CD Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5 ft. A Minimum Lot Width 50 ft. Maximum Lot Width None O Maximum Impervious Coverage 70% Additional Semi - Pervious Coverage 20% 3. Parking Location & Loading Transparency Ground floor of residential transparency otherwise and for building (subject to Parking Location applicable screening requirements), partially facing a principle frontage street sunken or depressed Blank Wall Limitations underneath buildings, and /or underground Loading Facility Location Rear Entry for Parking within Building Rear & side facade O Access Refer to §153.062( (b) Height Minimum Height 3 stories Q Maximum Height 4.5 stories Stories: Minimum Height 9 ft. Maximum Height 14 ft. 2.5 ft. above the Minimum Finished Floor Elevation adjacent 4 Sidewalk elevation (c) Uses & Occupancy Requirements Ground Story No additional requirements Upper Story No additional requirements Refer to §153.062(D) through §153.062(1) for design Permitted; podium garage parking shall be requirements general to all buildings. screened to at least 90% opacity through Parking within the use of building materials that are Building compatible with and integrated into the Minimum 90% opacity on remainder of the facade that is located above parking area Occupied Space None required in ground story O (d) Facade Requirements Refer to §153.062(D) through §153.062(1) for design requirements general to all buildings. 1. Street Fagade Transparency Minimum 90% opacity on portion of ground floor or visible basement occupied by podium Transparency garage parking; minimum 20% transparency otherwise and for all other portions of the building facing a principle frontage street Blank Wall Limitations Required 2. Non - Street Facade Transparency Minimum 90% opacity on portion of ground floor or visible Transparency basement occupied by podium garage parking; minimum 15 transparency otherwise and for all other portions of the building Blank Wall Limitations Required 3, Building Entrance Principal Entrance Location Primary street facade(s) of building I }�► I W Street Facades: Number of E ntrances 1 per 75 ft. of facade minimum 0 Parking Lot Facades: Not required Number of Entrances 1 required for buildings longer Mid- Building Pedestrianway than 250 ft, except as provided in §153.063, Neighborhood Standards 4. Facade Divisions Vertical Increments No greater than 40 ft. On buildings 3 stories or taller; Horizontal Facade Divisions required within 3 ft. of the top of the ground story Required Change in Roof Plane or Type No greater than every 80 ft. 5. Facade Materials Permitted Primary Materials Stone, Brick, food and Fiber Cement Siding 6. Roof Types Parapet, pitched roof, flat roof; Permitted Types other types may be permitted with Z approval (refer to §153.062(D)). Permitted on facades only at terminal vistas, comers at two Tower principal frontage streets, and/ or adjacent to plaza open space type. Notes: 1 A landscaped courtyard, when enclosed by building on three sides, may contribute up to 35% of the front property line coverage requirement. 2 A landscape buffer a minimum of five feet in width as measured from the base of the building is required. In addition to the foundation planting requirements of §153.065(D)(7), the required reviewing body may require enhanced foundation plantings, including but not limited to vertical landscape materials, to add visual interest to the ground floor or exposed basement level parking facade. 60 § 153.062 (OJ (13) EFFECTIVE DATE BUILDING P S- APRIL 25, 2012 PODIUM APARTMENT BUILDING Notes, Continued: Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one result of one or more of the general requirements and do not represent all requirements or actual development. FIGURE 153.062 -P: PODIUM APARTMENT BUILDING TYPE DIAGRAM. 3 Basement level structured parking is permitted to extend between buildings, screened from the street and covering a maximum of 10% of the length of the RBZ. Structured parking visible between principal buildings must be set back a minimum of 15 ft. from the street facing facades. 4 Where the principal building entrance is a lobby or other common space, the minimum finished floor elevation is not required. 5 I lieu of transparency requirements, the ground story or exposed basement facade shall incorporate architectural elements equal to the degree of detailing used on the stories above the parking level. Blank wall limitations may be met using these architectural enhancements, as determined by the required reviewing body. 6 The required reviewing body may reduce the number of entrances along street facades as functionally appropriate to the apartment building with parking fully or partially below grade, provided the building has an adequate number and frequency of entrances to be convenient for residents and visitors and the entrances are conducive to establishing a safe and attractive pedestrian realm. 7 Masonry, as described in §153.062(E)(1), shall be used as the primary building material for ground story or exposed basement facades. 8 The incorporation of active occupied spaces along street facades is strongly encouraged wherever practicable. Common spaces including but not limited to a clubhouse, fitness facility, or administration /rental /sales office, should be designed so that those buildings or uses have ground story street frontage. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.062 (0) (13) DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING TYPES - PODIUM APARTMENT BUILDING 61 Required Building Zone This page has been left blank intentionally. 62 § 153.063 EFFECTIVE DATE NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS APRIL 25, 2012 § 153.063 NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS (A) INTENT Certain Bridge Street Corridor Districts require special attention to locations and character of buildings, streets, and open spaces to accommodate larger scale, coordinated development and redevelopment to permit a wide variety of uses. The intent of §153.063 is to establish requirements for the creation of signature places in the city consistent with the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report by incorporating long -term phasing plans, transitional development conditions, and adaptability to future market needs. The neighborhood standards guide the development of streets, open spaces, buildings, and other placemaking elements over time. They are not intended to designate the precise locations for approved street types, use areas, open spaces or other required elements of this Code, actual locations and specific development requirements will be determined through the Development Plan and Site Plan Reviews as required in §153.066 for individual neighborhoods. (1) The BSC Historic Residential District is a singularly unique residential neighborhood with a historic development pattern. The requirements for the BSC Historic Residential District ensure that the scale and placement of new or modified buildings are compatible with the historic character of the existing residential uses and streets. (2) The BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood and BSC Indian Run Neighborhood districts anchor the Bridge Street Corridor through the creation of mixed use neighborhoods with signature development characters. Each neighborhood is intended to be anchored by a critical mass of commercial uses located in highly walkable shopping corridors with streets, blocks, buildings and open spaces designed to encourage park -once visits, window shopping, impromptu public gatherings and sidewalk activity. (3) The BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District serves as a bridge between the existing historic scale of the BSC Historic Core District and the more contemporary, larger scale of the BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District. (B) BSC HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (1) Development Intent While included as part of the Neighborhood Standards, it is the intent of this district to maintain the existing conditions of this important neighborhood. The BSC Historic Residential neighborhood represents a snapshot in time that should be maintained, preserved, and protected. (2) The following standards for arrangement and development of land and buildings are required. (a) LotArea For each dwelling unit, there shall be a lot area not less than 8,712 square feet (0.2- acre). (b) Lot Width Lots shall be a minimum of 60 feet in width with a minimum frontage of 60 feet along a public street. (c) Height No residential 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. (d) Lot Coverage Combined square footage of all principal and accessory structures and impervious surfaces shall not exceed 50% of the lot area, unless otherwise approved by the Architectural Review Board. (e) Front, Side, and Rear Yards All lots shall have minimum setbacks as noted in Table 153.063 -A. TABLE 153.063 -A. MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS FOR BSC HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT For properties fronting Front Yard Side Yard Total Side Yard Rear Yard onto: (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) Dublin Road 15 4 16 15 Franklin Street 25 4 12 25 High Street (north &. 15 4 16 15 south) South Riverview Street O 3 12 15 (east side) South Riverview Street 20 3 12 15 (west side) North Riverview Street D 3 6 15 (east side) North Riverview Street 20 3 6 15 (west side) Short Street 20 3 12 15 Streets not listed above 1 20 1 3 1 12 15 BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.063 (B) 63 DEVELOPMENT CODE NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS - BSC HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL (C) BSC SAWMILL CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT (1) Development Intent The Sawmill Center Neighborhood offers a unique opportunity to provide a vibrant, active mixed use environment with a wide variety of shopping, service and entertainment activities. This neighborhood will have a strong pedestrian friendly streetscape and a well - defined network of streets connecting to the major roadways of Sawmill Road and West Dublin - Granville Road. Supporting residential and office uses may be incorporated in a variety of ways, including upper floors in vertical mixed use areas and in stand- alone buildings. Additionally, the neighborhood will have connections to greenways planned for the Bridge Street Corridor to connect to other development areas to the west (2) Refer to §153.058 for the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District intent and the adopted Zoning Map for the actual limits of the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District Refer to Figure 153.063 -A for an illustration of a conceptual development pattern desired for this district. (3) Block, Access, and Street Layout (a) Refer to § 153.060 for Lots and Blocks; refer to §153.061 for Street Types; refer to §153.062(0) for access permitted for specific building types. (b) Block Length Refer to Table 153.060 -A, Maximum Block Dimensions. (c) Access Refer to §§ 153.060 and 153.061 for existing and planned principal frontage streets within the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District and general block access configurations. Corridor Connector Shopping O & District Connector Corridor Streets Open Space n_ii& 4�04 Corridor Open Space Node Commercial Center Building Type Potential d��� Premitted Gateway %144I Locations Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one result of one or more of the general requirements and do not represent all requirements or actual development. The Development Standards illustration is intended to be representative of a general development pattern. It is not intended to show the precise locations for approved street types, use areas, open spaces or other required elements of this Code. Actual locations and standards will be provided with the approval of the Development Plan and Site Plan as required in §153.066 for individual neighborhood areas. (d) Mid -Block Pedestrianways Blocks consisting entirely of residential uses that are located in predominantly residential development areas may be exempted from the mid -block pedestrianway requirements of §153.060(0)(6), subject to approval by the required reviewing body, except where a block has frontage on a principal frontage street. (e) Street Types Refer to § 153.061 for existing and potential streets and street family designations within the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District. (4) Building Types. Refer to § 153.062. (a) Permitted Building Types Corridor Building, Loft Building, Apartment Building, Podium Apartment Building, Single - Family Attached, Mixed Use Building, Large Format Commercial Building, Commercial Center, Civic Building, Parking Structure 64 § 153.063 (C) EFFECTIVE DATE NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS - APRIL 25, 2012 BSC SAWMILL CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD FIGURE 153.063 -A. ILLUSTRATION OF SAWMILL CENTER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (b) Building Types Permitted in Shopping Corridors Corridor Building, Loft Building, Mixed Use Building, Large Format Commercial Building (c) Commercial Center Building Types Commercial Center building types are permitted to front only on Village Parkway and Sawmill Road. (5) Placemaking Elements (a) Shopping Corridor 1. At least one continuous shopping corridor is required and shall be located along at least one principal frontage street in the approximate location shown on Figure 153.063 -A. 2. The minimum required length of the required shopping corridor shall be measured as the aggregate length of the block faces along both sides of the principal frontage street. The required length shall be based on the total area of the development site as noted in Table 153.063 -B. TABLE 153.063 -B SHOPPING CORRIDOR LENGTH - BSC SAWMILL CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT Development Area Required Shopping Corridor Length Less than 5 acres No minimum 5 to 20 acres 600 linear feet minimum Over 20 acres 1200 linear feet minimum 3. Any block within a shopping corridor exceeding 300 feet shall provide a mid -block pedestrianway meeting the requirements of §153.060(C)(6). 4. The required shopping corridor is penmitted to turn the corner of a block provided the minimum required length of the shopping corridor is located along the principal frontage street (b) Sign Plans 1. The BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District is intended to accommodate a wide variety of building types and uses to create vibrant, mixed use shopping and entertainment districts. The sign and graphic standards shall contribute to the vibrancy of the district and the creation of a high quality environment with effective graphics intended for navigation, information, and identification primarily for pedestrians and secondarily for vehicles. 2. Am aster sign plan shall be submitted as required by §153.066(J). The approved master sign plan may include alternative sign types, number, size, heights, locations, colors, and lighting, provided the purpose and intent of the sign and graphic standards for the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District are maintained. (c) Street Terminations Refer to §153.062(J) for Treatments at Terminal Vistas. (d) Gateways 1. Gateways shall be provided in the approximate locations shown in Figure 153.063 -A. Gateway designs shall be approved with the Site Plan Review, but locations shall be identified with the Development Plan Review and shall be coordinated with the street network. 2. Gateways are points of identification that provide a sense of arrival to the area. Gateway designs shall be pedestrian- oriented in scale and shall include a combination of architectural elements, landscape features and/or public open spaces. Gateways may include a gateway sign in accordance with § 153.065(H). Gateway elements should be coordinated with the design of the nearby streetscape, open spaces and architecture as may be applicable. (6) Open Spaces. Refer to §153.064. (a) Open Space Character The BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood district is intended to accommodate a wide variety of building types and uses to create vibrant, mixed use shopping and entertainment districts accented by a high quality open space network that balances a variety of natural and hardscape areas designed to provide intimate gathering spaces appropriate for an urban setting. (b) Required Open Space Open space shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of §153.064(C). All open spaces fulfilling this requirement shall meet the intent and design requirements of an open space type permitted in the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District as described in § 153.064(G). Required open spaces shall be publicly accessible and accommodate community activity and gathering spaces. (c) Permitted Open Space Types Pocket Park, Pocket Plaza, Plaza, Square, Green, Park, Greenway (d) Open Space Network 1. Open spaces within the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood district shall be organized as a series of interconnected nodes and corridors appropriate to the scale and character of surrounding streets, buildings and land uses. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.063 (C) 65 DEVELOPMENT CODE NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS - BSC SAWMILL CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD The purpose of this requirement is to create highly accessible public gathering spaces and activity areas along a continuous open space network weaving through this urban neighborhood. 2. The open space network shall be provided, at minimum, in the approximate locations shown in Figure 153.063 -A. Open space designs shall be approved with the Site Plan Review, but locations and types shall be identified with the Development Plan Review and shall meet the following criteria: A. Open space corridors and nodes shall be coordinated with the street network, and with gateways where applicable. B. Open space corridors may be provided as a greenway open space type or by using . approved street types, provided that open space nodes are located along the street with no greater than three full blocks between each open space node, and if pedestrian and bicycle movement between the open spaces is emphasized in the street design. C. The open space network shall connect to existing or planned greenways within the vicinity, providing pedestrian and bicycle access to nearby residential districts, the Scioto River, other destinations throughout the Bridge Street Corridor, and to the city's larger open space system. D. Open space nodes shall be provided at prominent street intersections, such as those serving as entrances to a designated shopping corridor and other gateway locations, with other appropriately scaled open space types integrated along the corridor as appropriate to the character of the street. (D) BSC HISTORIC TRANSITION NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT (1) Development Intent The Historic Transition Neighborhood presents a unique opportunity within the Bridge Street Corridor. Transitional elements include building on the BSC Historic Core District's strong gridded pedestrian and street network and providing appropriate connections to the BSC Indian Run Neighborhood. A strong residential presence will be important to support the smaller scale retail, service, and entertainment uses in the BSC Historic Core. Other limited areas of BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood border the Historic District and require sensitive treatment to maintain complementary relationships to adjacent districts. (2) Refer to §153.058 for the BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District intent and refer to the adopted Zoning Map for the actual limits of the BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District. Refer to Figure 153.063 -13 for an illustration of a conceptual development pattern desired for this district. (3) Bloch Access, and Street Layout (a) Refer to §153.060 for Lots and Blocks; refer to §153.061 for Street Types; refer to §153.062(0) for access permitted for specific building types. (b) Block Length 1. Refer to Table 153.060 -A, Maximum Block Dimensions. 2. Developable lots are not permitted between greenways and the street adjacent to the Indian Run west of North High Street. (c) Access Refer to §§ 153.060 and 153.061 for existing and planned principal frontage streets within the BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District and acceptable block access configurations. (d) Mid- B1ockPedestrianways Blocks consisting entirely of residential uses that are located in predominantly residential development areas may be exempted from the mid -block pedestrianway requirements of §153.060(C)(6), subject to approval by the required reviewing body, except where a block has frontage on a principal frontage street. (e) Street Types Refer to §153.061 for existing and potential streets and street family designations within the BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District. (4) Building Types. Refer to §153.062. (a) Permitted Building Types Single Family Attached, Apartment Building, Podium Apartment Building, Loft Building, Historic Mixed Use Building, Civic Building, Parking Structure (b) Building Height Buildings located across a street from or adjacent to the BSC Historic Core District shall be limited to two and a half stories. (5) Placemaking Elements (a) Historic Sites and Structures Historic sites and structures listed on the National Register and/or the Ohio Historic Inventory shall be preserved to the extent practicable with redevelopment unless otherwise approved by the Architectural Review Board pursuant to §153.171. 66 § 153.063 (C) EFFECTIVE DATE NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS - APRIL 25, 2012 BSC SAWMILL CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one result of one or more of the general requirements and do not represent all requirements or actual development. The Development Standards illustration is intended to be representative of a general development pattern. It is not intended to show the precise locations for approved street types, use areas, open spaces or other required elements of this Code. Actual locations and standards will be provided with the approval of the Development Plan and Site Plan as required in §153.066 for individual neighborhood areas. Open Space Corridor n� Limited Building Height Boundary Open Space Node �+ Potential Gateway Locations (b) Use Limitations Ground floor residential uses are not permitted on Bridge Street (o) Gateways 1. Gateways shall be provided in the approximate locations shown in Figure 153.063 -B. Gateway designs shall be approved with the Site Plan Review, but locations shall be identified with the Development Plan Review and shall be coordinated with the street network. 2. Gateways are points of identification that provide a sense of arrival to the area. Gateway designs shall be pedestrian- oriented in scale and shall include a combination of architectural elements, landscape features and /or public open spaces. Gateway elements should be coordinated with the design of the nearby streetscape, open spaces and architecture as may be applicable. The BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District is intended to complement the BSC Historic Core District by accommodating a variety of building types within a finer grained street and block network and uses consistent with that district. On the larger parcels within this district, development shall be planned to allow an extension of the walkable mixed use character of the BSC Historic Core District. 2. Open spaces shall be planned in a manner appropriate to the smaller scaled urban environment consistent with the adjacent Historic District, with a network of open spaces to serve the residential presence in the BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District, a high quality public green to BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.063 (D) 6 7 DEVELOPMENT CODE NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS - BSC HISTORIC TRANSITION Corridor Connector & District Connector Streets 1919 Building Q (6) Open Spaces. Refer to §153.064. (a) Permitted Open Space Types Pocket Park, Pocket Plaza, Plaza, Square, Green, Greenway (b) Open Space Character FIGURE 153.063 -13. ILLUSTRATION OF BSC HISTORIC TRANSITION DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS serve as a community gathering space, and connections to the Indian Run greenway and the Scioto River. (c) Required Open Space Open space shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of §153.064(C). All open spaces fulfilling this requirement shall meet the intent and design requirements of an open space type permitted in the BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District. Required open spaces shall be publicly accessible and accommodate community activities and gathering spaces. (d) Open Space Network 1. Open spaces within the BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District shall be organized as a series of interconnected nodes and corridors, appropriate to the scale and character of surrounding streets, buildings and land uses. The purpose of this requirement is to create highly accessible public gathering spaces and activity areas along a continuous open space network weaving through and around the edges of this urban neighborhood. coverage requirements are reduced to 50% along the greenway. E. Other required open space corridors may be created by using approved street types, provided that open space nodes are located along the street with no greater than three full blocks between each open space node and pedestrian and bicycle movement between the open spaces is emphasized in the street design. F. Aminimum of one open space type (Green, Square, Plaza, or Park) shall be provided north of Bridge Street, with continuous pedestrian and bicycle connections to the Indian Run greenway. G. Other open space nodes shall be provided at gateway locations, such as at prominent street intersections, with other appropriately scaled open space types integrated along the corridor as appropriate to the character of the street. (E) BSC INDIAN RUN NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT 2. The open space network shall be provided, (1) Development Intent at minimum, in the approximate locations The BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District provides shown in Figure 153.063 -B. Open space a significant opportunity for a well - planned and designs shall be approved with the Site designed mixed use neighborhood. Special attention Plan Review, but locations and types shall at the boundaries of the neighborhood will be required be identified with the Development Plan to deal with the sensitivity of the Indian Run and the application and shall meet the following opportunities for prominent visibility from I -270. criteria: Land use opportunities include a substantial residential A. Open space corridors and nodes shall be presence, especially in those areas nearest the Indian coordinated with the street network, and Run, with office employment and supporting service with gateways where applicable. and commercial uses. A comfortable, walkable B. Greenways are required along all street network is intended to convey a strong sense branches of the Indian Run and shall of connection between each of these diverse but be designed to facilitate pedestrian and complementary land uses. bicycle travel. Greenways shall be (2) Notwithstanding the foregoing, any real property that designed with publicly accessible street had a Planned Unit Development (PUD) classification frontage for a minimum of one third of pursuant to §153.052 immediately prior to its rezoning the greenway length along all branches of into the BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District the Indian Run within the BSC Historic shall be permitted to be developed, at the election of Transition Neighborhood District. the property owner or other applicant, in one of the C. Required greenways shall connect to following manners: existing or planned greenways within (a) Per the terms of the PUD zoning text that was the vicinity, providing pedestrian and approved in accordance with §153.052, if the bicycle access to the BSC Indian Run approved PUD zoning text is silent on any Neighborhood District, the Scioto River, particular matter, issue, restriction, or requirement, other destinations throughout the Bridge then the Dublin Zoning Code, as it existed Street Corridor, and to the city's larger immediately prior to the adoption of § §153.057 open space system. through 153.066, shall provide the applicable D. Building frontage directly along a zoning requirements. Aproperty owner or greenway with no intervening street shall applicant that desires to develop their property in be treated as street frontage and shall accordance with this provision shall be required meet street- facing fagade requirements, to file and obtain approval of a Final Development except the minimum front property line 68 § 153.063 (D) EFFECTIVE DATE NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS - APRIL 25, 2012 BSC HISTORIC TRANSITION GURE 153.063 -C. ILLUSTRATION OF INDIAN UN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS W 7 K F Q O H Shopping Corridor Open Space Corridor m _* Open Space Node Potential Gateway ��►' Locations Corridor Connector & District Connector Streets Commercial Center Building Type Permitted Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one result of one or more of the general requirements and do not represent all requirements or actual development. The Development Standards illustration is intended to be representative of a general development pattern. It is not intended to show the precise locations for approved street types, use areas, open spaces or other required elements of this Code. Actual locations and standards will be provided with the approval of the Development Plan and Site Plan as required in §153.066 for individual neighborhood areas. Plan application as required under §153.053 of the Dublin Zoning Code; or (b) A property owner or applicant that desires to develop their property in accordance with the requirements of § §153.057 through 153.066 shall be required to follow all of the procedures required for approval of development projects under the BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District. (3) Refer to § 153.058 for the BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District intent, and refer to the adopted Zoning Map for the actual limits of the BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District. Refer to Figure 153.063 -C for an illustration of a conceptual development pattern desired for this district. (4) Block, Access, and Street Layout (a) Refer to §153.060 for Lots and Blocks; refer to §153.061 for Street Types; refer to § 153.062(0) for access permitted for specific building types. (b) Block Length Refer to Table 153.060 -A, Maximum Block Dimensions. (c) Access Refer to §§153.060 and 153.061 for existing and potential principal frontage streets within the BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District and acceptable block access configurations. (d) Mid -Block Pedestrianways Blocks consisting entirely of residential uses that are located in predominantly residential development areas may be exempted from the mid -block pedestrianway requirement of §153.060(C)(6), subject to approval by the required reviewing body, except where a block has frontage on a principal frontage street. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.063 (E) 69 DEVELOPMENT CODE NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS - BSC INDIAN RUN NEIGHBORHOOD (e) Street Types Streets fronted by a required open space type shall be designated as principal frontage streets. 2. Refer to §153.061 for existing and planned streets and street family designations within the BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District. (5) Building Types. Refer to §153.062. (a) Permitted Building Types Corridor Building, Loft Building, Apartment Building, Podium Apartment Building, Single - Family Attached, Mixed Use Building, Large Format Commercial Building, Commercial Center, Civic Building, Parking Structure (b) Building Types Permitted in Shopping Corridors Corridor Building, Loft Building, Mixed Use Building, Large Format Commercial Building (c) Commercial Center Building Types Commercial Center building types are permitted to front only on Bridge Street (6) Placemaking Elements (a) Shopping Corridor 1. At least one continuous shopping corridor is required and shall be located along at least one principal frontage street in the approximate location shown on Figure 153.063 -C. 2. The minimum required length of the required shopping corridor shall be measured as the aggregate length of the block faces along both sides of the principal frontage street The required length shall be based on the total area of the development site as noted in Table 153.063 -C. TABLE 153.063 -C .. OPPING CORRIDOR LENGTH - BSC INDIAN DISTRICT Development Area Required Shopping Corridor Length Less than 5 acres No minimum 5 to 20 acres 600 linear feet minimum Over 20 acres 1200 linear feet minimum 3. Any block within a shopping corridor exceeding 300 feet shall provide a mid -block pedestrianway meeting the requirements of §153.060(C)(6). 4. The required shopping corridor is permitted to turn the corner of a block provided the minimum required length of the shopping corridor is located along the principal frontage street (b) Indian Run Frontage If buildings are fronted directly along the Indian Run greenway, ground floor fagades shall be treated the same as front fagades on principal frontage streets. Parking lots, parking structures, garages, and loading facilities are not permitted in the rear yards of lots with frontage along the Indian Run greenway. 2. Eating and drinking establishments are encouraged along the Indian Run greenway, with an additional 10% semi - pervious area permitted for outdoor dining and seating where the outdoor dining area is within 20 feet of the principal structure. (c) Street Terminations Refer to §153.0620 for Treatments at Terminal Vistas. (d) Gateways 1. Gateways shall be provided in the approximate locations shown in Figure 153.063 -C. Gateway designs shall be approved with the Site Plan Review, but locations shall be identified with the Development Plan Review and shall be coordinated with the street network. 2. Gateways are points of identification that provide a sense of arrival to the area. Gateway designs shall be pedestrian- oriented in scale and shall include a combination of architectural elements, landscape features and/or public open spaces. Gateways may include a gateway sign in accordance with §I53.065(H). Gateway elements should be coordinated with the design of the nearby streetscape, open spaces and architecture as may be applicable. (e) Sign Plans 1. The BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District is intended to accommodate a wide variety of building types and uses to create vibrant, mixed use shopping and entertainment districts. The sign and graphic standards shall contribute to the vibrancy of the district and the creation of a high quality environment with effective graphics intended for navigation, information, and identification primarily for pedestrians and secondarily for vehicles. 2. Am aster sign plan shall be submitted as required by §153.0660. The approved master sign plan may include alternative sign types, number, size, heights, locations, colors, and lighting, provided the purpose and intent of the sign and graphic standards for the BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District are 70 § 153.063 (E) EFFECTIVE DATE NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS - APRIL 25, 2012 BSC INDIAN RUN NEIGHBORHOOD maintained. The approved master sign plan may include alternative sign types, number, size, heights, locations, colors, and lighting. (7) Open Spaces. Refer to §153.064. (a) Open Space Character 1. The BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District is intended to accommodate a wide variety of building types and uses to create vibrant, mixed use shopping and employment districts accented by a high quality open space network that balances a variety of stunning natural greenways and hardscape areas designed to provide intimate gathering spaces appropriate for an urban setting. 2. Greenways shall be provided to connect the BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District with the BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District to the east, creating pedestrian and bicycle connections and natural corridors from this mixed use activity center to the Scioto River and throughout the Bridge Street Corridor. (b) Required Open Space Open space shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of §153.064(C). All open spaces fulfilling this requirement shall meet the intent and design requirements of an open space type permitted in the BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District as described in §153.064(G). Required open spaces shall be publicly accessible and accommodate community activity and gathering spaces. (c) Permitted Open Space Types Pocket Park, Pocket Plaza, Plaza, Square, Green, Park, Greenway (d) Open Space Network 1. Open spaces within the BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District shall be organized as a series of interconnected nodes and corridors appropriate to the scale and character of surrounding streets, buildings and land uses. The purpose of this requirement is to create highly accessible public gathering spaces and activity areas along a continuous open space network weaving through and around the edges of this urban neighborhood. 2. The open space network shall be provided, at a minimum, in the approximate locations shown in Figure 153.063 -C. Open space designs shall be approved with the Site Plan Review, but locations and types shall be identified with the Development Plan Review and shall meet the following criteria: A. Open space corridors and nodes shall be coordinated with the street network, and with gateways where applicable. B. Greenways are required along all branches of the Indian Run and shall be designed to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle travel. Greenways shall be designed with publicly accessible street frontage for aminimurn of one third of the greenway length along all branches of the Indian Run within the Indian Run district. C. Required greenways shall connect to existing or planned greenways within the vicinity, providing pedestrian and bicycle access to Historic Dublin, the Scioto River, other destinations throughout the Bridge Street Corridor, and to the city's larger open space system. D. Where buildings front directly onto greenways, semi- pervious outdoor dining areas are permitted within 20 feet of the principal structure adjacent to the greenway. E. Other required open space corridors may be created by using approved street types, provided that open space nodes are located along the street with no greater than three full blocks between each open space node and pedestrian and bicycle movement between the open spaces is emphasized in the street design. F. Open space nodes shall be provided at prominent street intersections, such as those serving as entrances to a designated shopping corridor and other gateway locations, with other appropriately scaled open space types integrated along the corridor as appropriate to the character of the street. G. Where a conference center use is provided, an adjacent plaza or square shall be required to serve as an open space node. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.063 (E) 71 DEVELOPMENT CODE NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS - BSC INDIAN RUN NEIGHBORHOOD § 153.064 OPEN SPACE TYPES (A) INTENT AND PURPOSE The intent of the open space type requirements is to ensure a variety of functional, well- designed open spaces carefully distributed throughout the Bridge Street Corridor, located and planned to enhance the quality of life for residents, businesses, and visitors. The purpose of these requirements is to ensure that individual open spaces complement adjacent land uses and contribute to the creation of a comprehensive, corridor -wide open space network. In addition, these regulations are intended to guide the design of each open space so that it properly responds to its unique location and the needs of the primary users. (B) APPLICABILITY All required open space shall conform to one of the open space types of §153.064. (C) PROVISION OF OPEN SPACE (1) Residential There shall be a minimum of 200 square feet of publicly accessible open space for each residential dwelling unit. Required open space shall be located within 660 feet of the main entrances of the residential units or the main entrance of a multiple - family building, as measured along a pedestrian walkway. (2) Commercial There shall be a minimum of one square foot of publicly accessible open space for every 50 square feet of commercial space or fraction thereof. Required open space shall be located within 660 feet of the main entrance to the commercial space as measured along a pedestrian walkway. (3) MixedUse Open space requirements for mixed use developments shall be calculated based on the open space required for each use as noted in §153.064(C)(1) -(2). (4) Civic No open space is required for civic uses in civic building types except as may be required by the landscape provisions of this chapter. Where civic uses are located in other permitted building types, there shall be a minimum of one square foot of publicly accessible open space for every 50 square feet of civic space or fraction thereof. Where required, open space shall be located within 660 feet of the main entrance to the building as measured along a pedestrian walkway. (5) Existing Open Spaces An existing open space may be used to meet the area requirements for open space for an individual development if approved by the required reviewing body. The applicant shall either add to the existing open space, create anew open space in accordance with §153.064, pay a fee in lieu of provision of open space as required by §153.064(E) where permitted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, or a combination thereof. (6) Variation of Open Space Types More than one open space type may be used in combination to meet the open space requirement. Where three or more individual open spaces are proposed to meet the requirement, at least two different types must be provided. (D) SUITABILITY OF OPEN SPACE (1) The ART or required reviewing body shall review all proposed open space types during the Site Plan and Development Plan application review processes to determine the suitability of the open space. In determining the suitability of areas to be set aside for new open space types or in considering the ability of existing open space types to meet the requirement,. the ART or other reviewing body may consider all relevant factors and information, including, but not limited to (a) The goals and objectives of the City's Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report, Community Plan and Parks and Recreation Master Plan, (b) Suitability of the open space for active or passive recreational use or preservation of natural features, (c) The need for specific types of open space and recreation in the Bridge Street Corridor and particularly in the general vicinity of the proposed development taking into account the anticipated users of the open space and nearby land uses, (d) The proximity or potential connectivity to other open space types. (2) If the ART determines the open space proposed (or portions thereof) to be inconsistent with any of these considerations, a fee -in -lieu of the provision of open space, or a combination of fee and provision of open space may be used to meet the requirement if approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission in accordance with §153.064(E). (3) If the resulting amount of required open space for the proposed development cannot meet the open space type area or dimensional requirements, a fee -in -lieu of required open space shall be paid to the City if approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission in accordance with §153.064(E). (E) FEE -IN -LIEU OF OPEN SPACE (1) The following requirements shall be met where the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that 72 § 153.064 EFFECTIVE DATE OPEN SPACE TYPES APRIL 25, 2012 a payment of a fee -in -lieu of open space is permitted. Refer to §153.066 for the procedures for open space fee in lieu determination (2) Fee -In -Lieu Calculation The payment of fees -in -lieu of open space shall be collected prior to the issuance of a building permit for each phase of development and shall be calculated using the following method: (a) Calculate the total acreage of required open space from §153.064(C)(1) -(4) as applicable, (b) Multiply the acreage of required open space by its estimated average value per acre. This value shall be established from time to time by resolution of City Council. (c) Multiply the value of the required open space as determined in §153.064(E)(2)(b) by the required open space to obtain the open space fee. (3) Use of Open Space Fee Unless otherwise specifically directed by City Council, all fees collected shall be deposited in a fund which shall be used only for land acquisition, development, maintenance and operation of publicly accessible open spaces in the Bridge Street Corridor as outlined in §153.064. (F) OPEN SPACE TYPES (1) Pocket Plaza Pocket plazas are intended to provide a formal open space of relatively small scale to serve as an impromptu gathering place for civic, social, and commercial purposes. The pocket plaza is designed as a well defined area of refuge separate from the public sidewalk. These areas contain a greater amount of impervious coverage than other open space types. Seating areas are required and special features, such as fountains and public art installations, are encouraged. Refer to Table 153.064 -A for an illustration of a typical pocket plaza. (2) Pocket Park Pocket parks are intended to provide small scale, primarily landscaped active or passive recreation and gathering spaces for neighborhood residents within walking distance. The design and programming of pocket parks should respond to the needs of residents in the immediate vicinity. Refer to Table 153.064 -A for an illustration of a typical pocket park. (3) Green Greens are intended to provide informal, medium scale active or passive recreation for neighborhood residents within walking distance. Refer to Table 153.064 -A for an illustration of a typical green. (4) Square Squares are intended to provide formal open space of medium scale to serve as a gathering place for civic, social, and commercial purposes. Squares are generally rectilinear and bordered on all sides by a vehicular right -of -way, which together with adjacent building fagades define the space. Squares contain both hardscape areas, such as paths, fountains, gazebos, public art, and street furniture, as well as landscaping. Refer to Table 153.064 -A for an illustration of a typical square. (5) Plaza Plazas are intended to provide formal open space of medium scale to serve as a gathering place for civic, social, and commercial purposes. Plazas are usually located in areas where land uses are more diverse and there is potential for a greater level of pedestrian activity. The plaza may contain a greater amount of impervious coverage than any other open space type. Special features, such as fountains and public art installations, are encouraged. Refer to Table 153.064 - A for an illustration of a typical plaza. (6) Park Parks are intended to provide informal active and passive larger -scale recreational amenities to city residents and visitors. Parks have natural plantings and can be created around existing natural features such as water bodies or tree stands. Parks can be used to define edges of neighborhoods and districts. Refer to Table 153.064 -A for an illustration of a typical park. (7) Greenway Greenways are intended to provide a combination of informal and well organized, primarily linear open spaces that serve to connect open space types and major destinations within and outside of the Bridge Street Corridor. Portions of greenways may follow and preserve a natural feature, such as a river or stream edge, ravine, or tree row, or man -made features, such as streets. Greenways can be used to define edges of neighborhoods and districts and may be directly adjacent to other open space types. Refer to Table 153.064 -A for an illustration of a typical greenway. (G) GENERAL REQUIREMENTS The following defines the general requirements for all open space types in the Bridge Street Corridor as provided in Table 153.064 -A, Summary of Open Space Type Requirements. Land not meeting the requirements of §153.064(G) and Table 153.064 -A shall not be counted toward an open space requirement. (1) Size Minimum and maximum size of open space is measured along the parcel lines of the property. (a) Minimum Dimension The minim urn length and the minimum width of an open space are measured along the longest two straight lines intersecting at a right angle. Refer to Figure 153.064-A, Examples of Measuring BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.064 73 DEVELOPMENT CODE OPEN SPACE TYPES the Minimum Length and Width of Open Space Types. (b) Proportion Requirement With the exception of the greenway, open space types shall be sized at a ratio of not more than three to one (3:1), length to width. (2) Access All open space types shall provide public pedestrian access from a street right-of-way. (a) Minimum Percentage of Street Right -of -Way Frontage Required The minimum percentage of street right -of -way frontage required is measured as the minimum percentage of the open space perimeter, as measured along the outer parcel line or edge of the space, that shall be located directly adjacent to a street right -of -way, excluding alley frontage. This requirement provides access and visibility to the open space. (b) Continuity Pedestrian paths, including sidewalks or multi -use paths connecting to existing or planned bicycle or pedestrian paths or other open space types, shall be made when the open space abuts an existing or planned path right -of -way, a parcel zoned in the BSC Public District, or other open space types. For greenways, pedestrian and/or bicycle access points may be required by the ART or the required reviewing body. (3) Districts Permitted (a) The districts permitted are the BSC districts in which each open space type is permitted. Refer to §153.058 for the intent of all BSC Districts. (b) Frontage Orientation of Adjacent Buildings/ Parcels The frontage orientation of adjacent buildings/ parcels is the preferred orientation of the adjacent buildings' and/or parcels' frontages to the open space. Front, comer, side, and rear refers to the property line either adjacent to the open space or facing the open space across the street (4) Improvements The following types of development and improvements may be permitted on an open space type. (a) Designated Sports Fields Designated sports fields are ball fields or courts designed for one or more sports including, but not limited to, baseball fields, softball fields, soccer fields, basketball courts, football fields, and tennis courts. For the purposes of §153.064, small scale recreational courts and activity areas such as bocce, shuffleboard or game tables are not classified as designated sports fields. (b) Playgrounds For the purposes of §153.064, playgrounds are defined as areas with play structures and equipment typically for children, such as slides, swings, climbing structures, and skate parks. (c) Site Furnishings Site furnishings such as benches, bicycle racks, and waste receptacles are permitted and encouraged in all open spaces. (d) Public Art The incorporation of public art is highly encouraged as an amenity in all open spaces. (e) Structures 1. Design Ancillary structures in open spaces shall not be subject to the physical requirements of the building types, but shall be designed and famished to be consistent with the district in which they are located and consistent with the building material requirements of §153.062(E). Structure consistency may be achieved through frontage, massing, and character similar to adjacent development, as determined by the required reviewing body. 2. Fully- Enclosed Structures A. Maximum Area Where permitted, fully enclosed structures are limited to a maximum building coverage as a percentage of the open space area. In no case shall an individual fully enclosed structure exceed 500 square feet in area unless approved by the required reviewing body. B. Fully enclosed structures may include such accessory uses as maintenance sheds, refreshment stands, newsstands, and restrooms. Refer to §153.059, for additional information about permitted principal and accessory uses. 3. Semi - Enclosed Structures Open -air structures, such as gazebos, open air pavilions, picnic shelters, outdoor theaters, and similar structures, are permitted in all open spaces. (f) Maximum Impervious and Semi- Pervious Surface Permitted In Table 153.064 -A, the amounts of impervious and semi - pervious coverage are provided separately to allow an additional amount of semi - pervious surface, such as permeable paving, for paved surfaces including but not limited to parking facilities, driveways, sidewalks, paths, and structures. 74 § 153.064 EFFECTIVE DATE OPEN SPACE TYPES APRIL 25, 2012 (g) Open Water 1. The maximum amount of area within an open space that may be covered by open water is provided in Table 153.064 -A for all open space types. This includes but is not limited to water features above grade, such as fountains, as well as ponds, lakes, and pools. 2. Open water within an open space shall be located at least 20 feet from a property line unless the required reviewing body determines that a lesser distance will ensure public safety. (h) Fencing and Walls Open spaces may incorporate fencing and walls provided that the following requirements are met. 1. Height A. Fencing shall not exceed 42 inches, unless a higher or lower requirement is approved by the required reviewing body for special circumstances such as proximity to highway right -of -way and/ or use around swimming pools, ball fields, and ball courts. B. Walls shall not exceed 36 inches as measured from the established grade. 2. Opacity Fence opacity shall not exceed 60 %. Walls may be 100% opaque. 3. Type A. Chain -link fencing is not permitted, with the exception of designated sports fields or court fencing approved by the required reviewing body. Vinyl fencing is prohibited. B. Walls may be constructed of masonry, consistent with the street wall design requirements of §153.065(E)(2). 4. Spacing of Openings An opening or gate permitting access to an open space type shall be provided at a minimum of every 200 feet of street frontage. (5) Ownership Open spaces may either be publicly or privately owned. If privately owned, required open space must be publicly accessible along a street right -of -way. (6) Parking Requirements Off - street parking is not required for open spaces but is encouraged for open space types three acres or larger. Refer to §I53.065(B), Parking and Loading, for more information on parking requirements. (7) Stormwater Management Storm water management practices, such as storage and retention facilities, maybe integrated into open spaces. Refer to Chapter 53 for design requirements. (a) Stormwater Features Stormwater features in open space may be designed as formal or natural amenities with additional uses other than stormwater management, such as an amphitheater, sports field, or a pond or pool as part of the landscape design. Stonnwater features shall not be fenced and shall not be designed or placed so as to impede public use of the land they occupy. (b) Qualified Professional A licensed stormwater design professional shall be utilized to incorporate stormwater features into the design of the open spaces. FIGURE 153.064 -A. EXAMPLES OF MEASURING THE MINIMUM LENGTH AND WIDTH OF OPEN SPACE TYPES. "JI Note: Graphic figures on this page and the following on Table 153.064 -A, Summary of Open Space Type Requirements, are intended to illustrate one result of one or more of the general requirements and do not represent all requirements or actual development. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.064 75 DEVELOPMENT CODE OPEN SPACE TYPES TABLE 153.064 -A. SUMMARY OF OPEN SPACE TYPE REQUIREMENTS Size Minimum Open Space Type Perimeter Along Street/ Minimum Maximum Mlnlmum (Acres) (Acres) Dimension Building (Feet) 30/ of perimeter Pocket Plaza 300 as ft 1200 sq. ft. 10 along street / building i C I Pocket Park .10 .50 None 30i 1 1 J � JJ L Green .5 3 45 ; r 1 . fo, oe 2 25. acres v Y in n Z ��II���''11������.�. Squire .25 2 80 100% qq INIM1 30/ of perimeter Plaza .25 1 60 along street building s 30/ up to 5 Park 2 None 100 acres; 20/ over 5 acres L ��fa9Utl Greenway'• 1 None 30; average of 60 50/ Table Notes(Continued on following page) ' Small scale recreation courts and activity areas such as bocce; shuffleboard, or game tables as permitted z Ponds and lakes are not permitted 76 § 153.064 EFFECTIVE DATE OPEN SPACE TYPES APRIL 25, 2012 TABLE 153.064 -A. SUMMARY OF OPEN SPACE TYPE REQUIREMENTS (CONTINUED) Frontage Permitted Uses/Structures Impervious + Designated Fully Districts Orientation Semi- Maximum % Permitted Buildings/ Sports Playgrounds Enclosed Pervious Open Water Parcels Fields Structures Surface All, except BSC Minimum: 40 %; Residential, BSC Office Front or Corner No No No Maximum: 80% 20 %� Residential + 10 BSC Residential, BSC Office Any Noy Yes No 30%+10% 20% Residential, Public All Front or Corner No Yes No 20%+15% 30% All Front or Corner No No Maximum 5% of area 40%+20-/o 20% Minimum: 40 %; All, except BSC Front or Corner No No Maximum 5% Maximum. 80% 30%2 Residential of area + 10 If 3 acres All Any Yes Yes or greater; 25%+10% 20% maximum 2% of area All Any No Yes No 20 %+ 10% 30% ' Coordination. Greenways shall be continuous and connected. Any private greenway developed shall be adjacent to or directly across a street from another existing Greenway, a proposed Greenway, a Park, or buffer areas adjacent to the Scioto River or either fork of the Indian Run. 4 Building Frontage. When the rear or side of a building is adjacent to a Greenway, that fagade of the building shall be treated as if it were located on a principal frontage street. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.064 77 DEVELOPMENT CODE OPEN SPACE TYPES § 153.065 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (A) PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY (1) The purpose of the site development standards is to facilitate the implementation of the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report and establish a walkable, mixed use urban core for the City of Dublin consistent with the principles and directions articulated in the Vision Report. (2) Site development standards covered by this section that are nonconforming at the effective date of this amendment or made nonconforming by a change to this Chapter shall meet the requirements of §153.004(C). (B) PARKING AND LOADING (1) General Provisions (a) Applicability 1. Vehicular and bicycle parking as required by §153.065(B) shall be provided for the use of occupants, employees and patrons of each new building or addition constructed. Required parking shall be provided as permitted by this section, including, but not limited to, shared parking arrangements. 2. Parking meeting the requirements of this section shall be provided for buildings that are expanded by more than 25% of the gross floor area existing on the effective date of a rezoning to a BSC zoning district. 3. Whenever the use of a building or lot is changed to a use requiring 25% or more parking spaces than the required parking for the previous use, parking shall be brought into full compliance as required by §153.065(B) within a reasonable time, at the determination of the Director. For a multi - tenant building, when a portion of the building or lot changes to a use requiring 25 % or more parking spaces, only that parking for the new use shall be required. If applicable, a shared parking plan as described in §153.065(B)(2)(b) may also be submitted to ensure adequate parking while accommodating changes of use in multi - tenant buildings. 4. Required parking and loading spaces shall be installed and completed prior to building occupancy. The Director of Building Standards may grant one, six month extension following occupancy approval if adverse weather conditions or unusual delays beyond the control of the property owner prevent completion of parking and loading areas. Adequate parking areas and spaces shall be available, either on or off -site, during the extension period under the following conditions: A. On -site parking areas, if not in a finished condition, shall be adequately surfaced to accommodate anticipated traffic, stormwater drainage and snow removal, . at the determination of the Director, and/ or B. Parking may be provided off -site, subject to the requirements of §153.065(B)(1)(b). 5. The provisions of §153.207, Parking in Residential Districts, shall apply in the BSC Residential and BSC Historic Residential districts. 6. Parking and loading spaces for uses not addressed in §153.065(B) shall be determined by the Director based on the anticipated parking impacts of the proposed use, its similarity to characteristics of other listed uses, and supporting documentation that may be provided by the applicant. 7. Parking for Existing Structures Existing Structures which do not have the minimum number of parking or loading spaces required by this Code, and which thereafter provide additional parking and/ or loading spaces in conjunction with an improvement as permitted in §153.062(B)(2), shall provide the parking and loading spaces required by Tables 153.065 -A and 153.065 -C, except as these requirements may be modified by an approved parking plan as described in § 153.065(B)(1)(f). (b) Parking Location 1. On -Site Parking A. Surface parking provided on -site may only be located on those areas of each development parcel that are not required by §153.062 to be occupied by a principal structure. Off - street parking may also be provided within a principal structure as permitted by § 153.062(0). The parking areas shall be readily accessible by vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. B. Parking shall not be located within a setback as required for individual building types in §153.062(0), except that parking areas may extend across contiguous lots in unified developments with coordinated site design, shared access points and/or shared parking arrangements. § 153.065 EFFECTIVE DATE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - APRIL 25, 2012 PARKING & LOADING 2. Off -Site Parking to appropriate design standards, as approved Required off- street parking shall be provided by the Director. Plug -in points are exempt from either on -site, or in a parking structure or the service structure screening requirements of surface parking lot located within 600 feet of §153.065(E). the subject parcel as permitted by the BSC (d) Parking Lot/Structure Lighting district in which the parking lot or structure Parking lot and parking structure lighting shall is located and shall be readily accessible by comply with the requirements of §153.065(F). vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. (e) Parking Lot Landscaping A. The use of off -site parking to meet the minimum parking requirement shall Parking lot landscaping shall comply with the require an approved parking plan as requirements of §153.065(D). described in §153.065(B)(1)(f). If not (f) Parking Plan Required under single ownership, provisions 1. A parking plan demonstrating compliance for off -site parking shall be made by with the provisions of §153.065(B) is binding agreements between two or more required for the following conditions: property owners. Written easements which provide for continued use and A. Applications for Site Plan approval; maintenance of the parking shall be B. Applications that include a request for submitted to the City for approval. Any off -site parking, or in any case where a agreement shall include provisions to modified parking agreement necessitates address changes in use or ownership. a new or modified parking plan as B. If an off-site parking agreement is described in §I53.065(B)(1)(b); severed or modified with the result of C. Applications involving a use listed in eliminating required parking for one or Table 153.065 -A for which the parking more properties, parking for the affected requirement is specifically noted as being properties shall be brought into full determined by an approved parking plan, compliance as required by §153.065(B) D. Applications that include a request for an and approval of a new or modified adjustment to required vehicle parking parking plan shall be required. as permitted in §153.065(B)(2)(b), or C. If located off -site, distances to required where a change in conditions renders an parking areas shall be measured along approved adjustment insufficient to meet a walkway from the nearest pedestrian the parking needs of a use, building or entrance to the parking area to the main lot, entrance to the principal structure or use E. Applications that include a request for being served. an adjustment to the number or location 3. On- Street Parking of required loading spaces as permitted On- street parking spaces may be counted in §153.065(B)(7), or where a change toward meeting the minimum parking in conditions renders an approved requirement for a parcel provided that the adjustment insufficient to meet the spaces are on the same side of the street and loading needs of a use, building or lot, or more than one -half the length of the parking F. Applications for a Certificate of Zoning space lies between the two side lot lines of Plan Approval for a change of use that the parcel extended into the street right -of- requires 25% or more parking spaces way. On comer lots on- street spaces on both than the previous use. street frontages may be counted in the same 2. Each parking plan for a parking area that manner. Credit for on- street parking spaces contains 50 or more parking spaces shall shall apply to parking for all uses on the demonstrate compliance with the pedestrian parcel rather than any specific use. On- street circulation standards of § I53.065(B)(6)(f). parking spaces shall not be designated for (2) Required Vehicle Parking exclusive use by any specific use, building or lot (a) Minimum Amount Required and Maximum (c) Electric Car Charging Points AmountPermitted Parking lots or structures are strongly encouraged I. Each use shall provide the minimum amount to provide at least one electric plug -in service of parking required for that use listed on point for every 200 parking spaces. Plug -in Table 153.065 -A, and shall be permitted points shall be associated with an individual to provide up to the maximum amount of parking space and shall be installed according parking on -site, as indicated for that use in BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.065 (B) 79 DEVELOPMENT CODE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - PARKING & LOADING TABLE 153.065 -A: REQUIRED VEHICLE PARKING. USE MINIMUM REQUIRED MAXIMUM PERMITTED Principal Uses Residential Dwelling, Single - Family 2 per dwelling unit 2 per dwelling unit Dwelling, Two - Family Dwelling, Townhouse Dwelling, Live -Work 2 per dwelling unit 3 per dwelling unit Studio /efficiency and one bedroom: 1 per dwelling unit Two bedrooms: 1.5 per dwelling unit Three or more bedrooms: 2 per dwelling unit Age - restricted Housing: 2 per 3 dwelling units if 80% of Dwelling, Multiple - Family 2 per dwelling unit units are restricted for occupancy by those 65 or older Handicapped Housing: 1 per 2 dwelling units if 80% of units are reserved for those meeting the definition of "handicap" under the federal Fair Housing Act Amendments General Requirement: 1 per 4 residents capacity as shown on the building permit Age - restricted Housing: 1 per 5 residents capacity if 80% Group Residence of units are restricted for occupancy by those 65 or older 1 per 3 resident capacity Handicapped Housing: 1 per 6 residents capacity if 80% of units are reserved for those meeting the definition of "handicap" under the federal Fair Housing Act Amendments CivictPubl is /Institutional Cemetery Per approved parking plan Community Center Per approved parking plan Community Garden Per approved parking plan Day Care, Adult or Child Per approved parking plan demonstrating adequate site circulation, including pick -up and drop -off areas District Energy Plant Per approved parking plan 1 per 3 persons maximum occupancy of largest seating Educational Facility area or maximum building capacity, whichever is higher, as 125% of minimum shown on the building permit Elementary or Middle School Per approved parking plan demonstrating adequate site circulation, including pick -up and drop -off areas Government Services, Safety 2 per 1,000 sq. ft. 150% of minimum High School Per approved parking plan demonstrating adequate site circulation, including pick -up and drop -off areas Hospital Per approved parking plan Library: 3.3 per 1,000 sq. ft. Library, Museum, Gallery 125% of minimum Museum or Gallery: 1 per 1,000 sq. ft. Religious or Public Assembly 1 per 6 persons maximum capacity in the largest seating area, as shown on the building permit 200% of minimum Parks and Open Space Per approved parking plan Transportation, Park and Ride Per approved parking plan Transportation, Transit Station Per approved parking plan Commercial Animal Care, General Services, Veterinary Offices, and Veterinary Urgent Care 2.5 per 1,000 sq. ft. 150% of minimum and Animal Hospitals Bank 2.5 per 1,000 sq. ft. 125% of minimum Bed and Breakfast 1 per guest bedroom, plus 1 for operator 150% of minimum § 153.065 (B) EFFECTIVE DATE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - APRIL 25, 2012 PARKING & LOADING TABLE 153.065 -A: REQUIRED VEHICLE PARKIN USE MINIMUM REQUIRED MAXIMUM PERMITTED Conference Center 1 per 6 persons maximum capacity in the largest seating area, as shown on the building permit 125% of minimum Eating and Drinking 10 per 1,000 sq. ft. 125% of minimum Entertainment /Recreation, Indoor Theater: 1 per 4 persons maximum capacity in the largest seating area, as shown on the building permit 150% of minimum Sports courts: 2 per court Other uses: Per approved parking plan Fueling / Service Station 4 per 1,000 sq. ft., plus 1 per dispensing station 150% of minimum Hotel 2 per 3 guest rooms, plus 4 per 1,000 sq. ft. of accessory use area 125% of minimum Office, General Less than 50,000 sq. ft. 2.5 per 1,000 sq. ft. 125% of minimum 50,000- 150,000 sq. ft. 3 per 1,000 sq. ft. Greater than 150,000 sq. ft. 4 per 1,000 sq. ft. Office, Medical 2.5 per 1,000 sq. ft. 125% of minimum Parking, Structure N/A N/A Parking, Surface Lot N/A N/A Personal, Repair & Rental Services 2 per 1,000 sq. ft. 125% of minimum Research & Development 2 per 1,000 sq. ft. 125% of minimum Retail, General 3 per 1,000 sq. ft. 125% of minimum Sexually Oriented Business Establishments Per approved parking plan Vehicle Sales, Rental and Repair 2 per 1,000 sq. ft., plus 1 per 2,000 sq. ft. of outdoor vehicle display area 150% of minimum Wireless Communications N/A N/A Accessory and Temporary Uses No parking is required for accessory or temporary uses, except as noted below. Day Care, Adult or Child 2 per 1,000 sq. ft. 125% of minimum Dwelling Administration, Rental or Sales Office 2 spaces N/A Residential Model Home 1 space plus 1 per employee on largest shift N/A Swimming Pool Per approved parking plan Table 153.065 -A, except as may be modified by the provisions of §153.065(B). 2. When calculating minimum and maximum parking requirements, fractional numbers shall be increased to the next whole number. 3. Unless otherwise noted, all square footage requirements are based on indoor gross floor area. 5 shall not exceed 30% of required parking, regardless of the number of these adjustments applied. Additional reductions may be permitted by §153.065(B)(2)(b)6. Shared Parking Calculations (b) Adjustments to Required Vehicle Parking The maximum on -site parking requirements may not exceed that permitted by Table 153.065 -A unless a parking plan meeting the criteria of §153.065(B)(2)(b)6, below is approved by the required reviewing body. The minimum amount of parking required by Table 153.065 -A may be reduced by approval of a parking plan meeting the requirements of §153.065(B)(2)(b)1 -6. The cumulative reduction of minimum parking requirements permitted by §153.065(B)(2)(b)l- BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.065 (B) DEVELOPMENT CODE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - PARKING & LOADING Where a mix of land uses creates staggered peak periods of parking, shared parking plans that have the effect of reducing the total amount of needed parking spaces may be approved. Parking spaces included in shared parking plans should be equally accessible and available to each of the affected users. The collective provision of off - street parking for two or more buildings or uses may be permitted subject to the following: A. Shared parking plans may include any lot or structure meeting the parking location requirements of §153.065(B)(1) (b). Adjacent lots included in the shared ee arrangement shall be connected for vehicular passage and shall provide safe and efficient pedestrian access to all uses served by the parking area(s). B. Arequest for a shared parking reduction shall be based on a shared parking analysis, including, but not limited to, the following factors: i. The number of originally required spaces for different uses or facilities sharing the same parking areas as noted in Table 153.065 -A, and ii. Documented percentages of required parking needed for different uses at different days and times. C. The adjusted required parking for shared parking areas shall be the largest number of spaces needed for all uses during the most intensive time period of use. 2. Auto -Share Parking Spaces The required minimum number of off - street parking spaces may be reduced by four spaces for each parking space reserved for auto -share parking, not to exceed a 10% reduction in the required minimum number of spaces in any one parking lot or structure. Auto -share parking spaces shall be designated on a parking plan and signed for the exclusive use of auto -share vehicles. Measures shall be taken to ensure that the auto -share spaces are used only for that purpose. 3. Transit Proximity The required minimum number of off - street parking spaces may be reduced by 10% if more than 50 % of the land in a proposed development is located within 1,320 feet of any public transit stop. If an existing transit stop is subsequently eliminated, any previously permitted parking reduction shall remain valid, provided that an active transit route remains within 1,320 feet of the development. 4. Shower Facilities The required minimum number of off - street parking spaces for a non - residential development may be reduced by 5% if a development contains shower and clothing locker facilities for bicycle commuting employees or patrons. The reduction shall apply only to that portion of the minimum parking requirement attributable to the tenant(s) or user(s) that have access to the shower and locker facilities. If the shower or locker facilities are later eliminated, the reduction of the minimum required parking shall no longer apply and parking shall be provided in accordance with §153.065(B). 5. Transportation Demand Management As an alternative or supplement to the other adjustments in subsection §153.065(B)(2) (b), off - street parking requirements may be reduced by up to 30 % through the use of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program approved by the Director and the City Engineer. A. Parking Demand Study Required Before a TDM program may be approved, the applicant shall submit • parking demand study prepared by • traffic engineer or other qualified transportation professional acceptable to the City. The study shall document that the use of alternative modes of transportation, including transit, bicycles, walking, and/or the special characteristics of the customer, client, employee, or resident population will reduce expected vehicular use and parking space demands for the use, as compared to the Institute of Transportation Engineers vehicle trip generation rates and the minimum parking requirements established in Table 153.065 -A. B. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Activities The TDM program must include at least two of the following established and maintained activities in order to qualify for a reduction in off - street parking requirements: t Carpooling, vanpooling, ridesharing, guaranteed ride home, telecommuting, and/or shuttle service programs, ii. Staggered or alternative work scheduling, allowing employees to arrive and depart at different times to minimize peak parking demands associated with mass shift changes, iii. Dissemination of information to employees, residents, and visitors to the site regarding the TDM plan and alternatives to single- occupancy vehicle travel to the site through an on -site office or project- specific web site; or iv. Use of alternative TDM activities that the Director and the City Engineer determine are likely, in combination with other TDM measures, to result in at least 30 %° § 153.065 (B) EFFECTIVE DATE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - APRIL 25, 2012 PARKING & LOADING reduction in single- occupancy vehicle travel to and from the site, as compared to the Institute of Transportation Engineers vehicle trip generation rates. C. TDMAnnualReport i. The owner of the parcel or principal structure must provide an annual report to the Director and City Engineer describing the implementation strategies for the approved TDM plan as approved. The report shall include a description of the TDM activities, a list of current tenants and number of employees for each tenant, and a parking- reduction analysis based on employee and/or resident use of ridership programs or alternative transportation options. ii. If the report does not document reasonable progress toward a 30% reduction in the Institute of Transportation Engineers vehicle trip generation rate of single- occupancy vehicle travel to and from the site, then the report shall identify what changes to the TDM plan or activities are being made to further reduce single- occupancy vehicle travel to and from the site. The Director and the City Engineer shall be permitted to require additional parking facilities to be constructed or a fee from the owner of the parcel or primary structure to be used for the construction of additional parking facilities or improvements to offset the impact of the single - occupancy vehicles. 6. Demonstration of Parking Need. In addition to or in lieu of parking adjustments as described in §153.065(B)(2) (b)(1) -(5), the required reviewing body shall be permitted to approve a parking plan for fewer than the minimum required parking spaces or more than the maximum permitted parking spaces based on a demonstration of parking need by the applicant. The required reviewing body shall consider: A. The land use and development character of the area to be served by the parking facility, C. The timing of parking use relative to other uses in the area, D. The parking requirement for similar uses as may be determined by the Director, as described in §153.065(B)(1)(a); E. Whether the location of all provided parking meets the requirements of § 153.065(B)(1)(b), F. Whether compliance with Table 153.065 - A is made to the maximum extent practicable; G. Whether other adjustments as described in this section should apply in conjunction with or in lieu of the requested need -based adjustment, and H. Whether supporting documentation, if provided, adequately demonstrates that sufficient parking is available to meet projected typical demand. (c) Accessible Parking Spaces 1. Within the total number of off - street parking spaces provided, a minimum number of spaces shall be designated, installed, and managed for use by the physically disabled in compliance with the Ohio Building Code, current edition, Chapter on Accessibility and the Referenced Standards therein. 2. All handicapped parking spaces shall be designated by freestanding signs as provided in the Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices or as approved by the City Engineer. (3) Required Bicycle Parking (a) Applicability Bicycle parking is required for any development or use with six or more required vehicle parking spaces. Required bicycle parking may be used as bicycle -share spaces. (b) Minimum Number of Bicycle Parking Spaces Required 1. Bicycle parking spaces shall be required as follows: A. For residential uses, except attached and detached single- family, one space for every two dwelling units. B. For civic /public /institutional uses, one space for every 20 required vehicle parking spaces. C. For commercial uses, one space for every 10 required vehicle parking spaces. B. The availability of other publicly 2. Provided that bicycle parking is not available parking in the area, completely eliminated, required bicycle parking may be increased or reduced by the required reviewing body when it is BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.065 (B) 83 DEVELOPMENT CODE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - PARKING & LOADING demonstrated that the level of bicycle activity at that location warrants a different amount. (c) Facility Type 1. Designs of bicycle racks, docks, posts, and lockers are encouraged to be decorative, unique, and appropriate to the surrounding area. Bicycle parking design should be incorporated whenever possible into building design and coordinated with the design of street furniture when it is provided. 2. Bicycle parking racks, docks, or posts shall be designed and installed to allow a bicycle to be locked to a structure, attached to the pavement, building, or other permanent structure, with two points of contact to an individual bicycle frame. Racks, docks, and posts shall be designed to allow the bicycle frame and one or both wheels to be locked with a U -lock when used as intended. 3. Bicycle parking racks, docks or posts provided within the street right -of -way shall be of a consistent design on all streets included within a Development Plan or Site Plan area. Facility types, designs and locations within the street - right -of -way shall require approval by the City Engineer. (d) Location 1. Required bicycle parking shall be located within a reasonable walking distance of the principal building entrance. The location and design shall ensure that bicycle parking and facilities do not obstruct vehicle parking or pedestrian walkways as required by the Ohio Building Code, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and other applicable state and federal laws, policies and guidelines. Bicycle facilities and parking areas shall meet the sight visibility requirements of this Chapter. 2. Outdoor bicycle parking areas shall be located in well -lit areas in accordance with §153.065(F). 3. A pedestrian - accessible walk shall be available between the outdoor bicycle parking area and the principal building entrance. Public sidewalks may be used to meet this requirement. 4. Bicycle lockers shall be located inside or to the side or rear of the principal structure, but not within any required setback or required building zone. 5. Covered Bicycle Parking Areas A. Bicycle parking areas are encouraged to be sheltered from natural elements by locating them inside or under principal or accessory structures, in bicycle lockers, under roof extensions, overhangs, awnings, carports or enclosures, or other sim ilar m ethod. B. If bicycle parking is covered, the cover must be permanently attached to the ground or a structure and have at least seven feet of clearance above the surface to which it is attached. C. Covered bicycle parking areas shall be in accordance with building type requirements and are not permitted within any required setback or required building zone unless the shelter is part of the principal structure and adequate space is available for pedestrians. 6. Public bicycle parking located within the street right -of -way may be counted toward meeting the minimum bicycle parking requirement for a parcel provided that the spaces are on the same side of the street and located between the two side lot lines of the parcel. On comer lots public bicycle parking spaces on both street frontages may be counted. Credit for public bicycle parking spaces shall apply to parking for all uses on the parcel rather than any specific use. Public bicycle parking spaces shall not be designated for exclusive use by any specific use, building or lot. (e) Installation Bicycle parking shall be installed according to the dimensional requirements set forth by the manufacturer and the latest edition of the APBP Bicycle Parking Guidelines, or similar industry publication acceptable to the Director. (4) Off - Street Parking Space and Aisle Dimensions Parking spaces and maneuvering aisles shall comply with Table 153.065 -B. Refer to Figure 153.065 -A for a graphic depiction of these requirements. AND'Al WE DIMENSION •_ Aisle Regular Space Compact Parking Width Space Pattern 1 2 Way Way Width Length Width Length Parallel 12 ft. 18 ft. 9 ft. 23 ft. 8 ft. 20 ft. 30 -75 12 ft. 22 ft. 9 ft. 21 ft. 8 ft. 18 ft. 76 -80 N/A 22 ft. 1 9 ft. 18 ft. 8 ft. 16 ft. 'A maximum of 10% of parking spaces may be designed as compact parking spaces, and all spaces shall be clearly marked and reserved for that use. § 153.065 (B) EFFECTIVE DATE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - APRIL 25, 2012 PARKING & LOADING FIGURE 153.065 -A: OFF - STREET PARKING SPACE AND AISLE DIMENSIONS. Parallel 30 ° -75 76' -90" ®1 ®1Y 1 -Way AISLE = 72' AISLE= 12' regular space regular space 8 3r� 2 -Way AISLE =18' 9' 9 ' 38' AISLE =22' AISLE =22' 7®T ®T8. 8 1 8 1 18 11111mi (5) Parking Structure Design Parking structures shall be designed in accordance with the minimum requirements of this section. Refer to the building type requirements for Parking Structures in §153.062(0) for additional information. (a) Entrance /Exit Lanes 1. One entrance lane shall be required for each 300 spaces or part thereof. One exit lane shall be provided for each 200 spaces or part thereof. 2. Single entrance and exit lanes from the street shall be no wider than 16 feet. Double entrance and exit lanes shall be no wider than 24 feet at the street right -of -way. Where more than two entrance or exit lanes are required, a separate entrance /exit shall be provided. 3. No entrance or exit lanes shall be permitted directly onto a principal frontage street except as may be permitted by §153.061(D)(2). 4. On other street frontages, only one entrance and one exit lane shall be permitted for each 200 feet of frontage unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 5. To reduce the width of sidewalk interruptions and promote walkability, only single entrance Imes may be used unless access is provided from an alley /service street. (b) Stacking Spaces Two vehicle lengths of stacking space shall be provided between the street and the garage entry gate. The stacking area shall not be located across a sidewalk or in the public right -of -way. Additional stacking may be required by the City E based upon traffic patterns and street types, or may be requested by the applicant pursuant to §153.066(I-I) based on a circulation 2. As an alternative, off -street parking areas may be surfaced with permeable asphalt, plan demonstrating need for the additional stacking spaces. (c) Interior Circulation The interior of the structure shall be designed in accordance with the requirements of this section. 1. Maximum aisle length shall not exceed 400 feet without providing a cross - aisle. 2. Cross aisles shall be a minimum of 18 feet and no greater than 24 feet in width. 3. A minimum ceiling clearance height of 12 feet is required where the parking structure has street frontage, excluding the driveway opening and the parking structure shall be designed and constructed to allow potential occupancy of the first 20 feet of building depth by a commercial or a civic /public/ institutional use permitted by §153.059(B). 4. Design of all other parking structures and upper levels shall include a minimum ceiling clearance height of eight and one half feet. (d) Pedestrian Safety 1. Stairways on the building's exterior shall be visible from outside of the structure. The maximum distance between parking spaces and the nearest exit stairwell shall be 200 feet 2. At least one elevator shall be provided to serve a parking structure. The maximum distance between any parking space and an elevator shall be 350 feet. 3. Pedestrian flow shall be channeled through openings to permit surveillance, either by a booth cashier or by cameras being monitored from a remote location. If 24 -hour coverage is available, active techniques with security personnel who monitor television or sound equipment may also be used. (6) Surface Parking Lot and Loading Area Design and Construction (a) Grading All off -street parking and loading areas including spaces, driveways, aisles and circulation drives shall be graded and maintained so that water does not unreasonably accumulate on the surface areas or flow or drain onto adjacent public or private properties. (b) Surfacing 1. All off -street parking and loading areas including spaces, driveways, aisles and circulation drives shall be hard - surfaced with asphalt, concrete or a combination of those materials approved by the City Engineer. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.065 (B) 85 DEVELOPMENT CODE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - PARKING & LOADING permeable concrete or turf blocks, or some combination of permeable and non- permeable surfaces, subject to review by the City Engineer and the Fire Chief. The City Engineer may approve an adjustment to the calculations for required stormwater management and retention measures to reflect greater stormwater volume control through the use of permeable paving. 3. All parking and loading surfaces shall be maintained in compliance with §153.065(B) (8) at all times. (c) Driveways 1. Adequate access to a parking lot shall be provided by clearly defined driveways designed so that vehicles entering or leaving the parking lot will be traveling in a forward motion, unless the City Engineer confirms that an alternative design will protect traffic flow and traffic safety. 2. No driveway shall be permitted directly onto a principal frontage street unless approved by the City Engineer as provided by §153.061(D)(2). 3. On other street frontages, driveways shall be limited to one per lot or parcel, whichever requires the fewer number of access points, unless vehicular access is provided from an alley or service street or the need for an additional driveway on a street is documented based on an access management study approved by the City Engineer. 4. If it is determined that shared driveways will better protect traffic flow or traffic safety on surrounding streets, the City Engineer may require that access to two or more adjacent surface parking or loading areas shall be provided through one or more shared driveways. 5. Driveway aprons connecting parking lots to public roadways may not be constructed with permeable materials. 6. Driveways shall be no wider than 22 feet at the intersection with the adjacent street right - of -way. Alternative driveway throat width may be requested by applicants and approved pursuant to §153.066(H). 7. Curb radii for driveways connecting parking lots to public roadways shall not exceed 20 feet. Alternative radii may be requested by applicants and approved pursuant to §153.066(H). (d) Curbs and Wheel Stops with abutting landscape areas, sidewalks, streets, buildings or lot lines. The minimum distance from a curb or wheel stop to a property line or protected area shall be two and one -half feet. 2. If a curb is located at the edge of a landscaped area, planted areas shall be installed at a lower grade than the parking lot pavement and curbing shall have openings or gaps allowing drainage from the pavement to enter and percolate through the landscaped areas. 3. Wheel stops may only be used in conjunction with accessible parking spaces where an adjacent walkway is installed at the same grade as the parking space. Curbs shall be required in all other circumstances. (e) Striping Parking areas shall be striped and maintained in good condition to be clearly visible with lines to indicate parking space limits. All striping shall comply with the Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices unless an alternative is approved by the City Engineer. (f) Pedestrian Circulation Each surface parking area that contains 50 or more parking spaces, . or contains any parking spaces located more than 350 feet from the front fagade of the principal structure shall contain at least one pedestrian walkway or sidewalk allowing pedestrians to pass from the row of parking farthest from the primary building fagade to the primary building entrance. The required walkway must be at least five feet wide, shall not be located within a driving aisle, and, where possible, shall be located in a landscaped island running perpendicular to the primary building fagade. (7) Required Loading Spaces (a) Applicability The provisions of §153.065(B)(7) apply to all lots: 1. That are located in any BSC district with the exception of BSC Residential and BSC Historic Residential districts; and 2. That contain a principal structure with more than 25,000 square feet of gross floor area, and 3. Where the permitted or conditional uses in the principal structure require the regular or periodic receipt or distribution of materials or merchandise by vehicles with a gross weight over 25,000 pounds. Raised or rolled concrete curbs or wheel stops (b) Location at least five inches high shall be installed 1. Off - street loading spaces may only be located where necessary to prevent vehicle conflicts on those areas of a lot that are not required § 153.065 (B) EFFECTIVE DATE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - APRIL 25, 2012 PARKING & LOADING to be occupied by a principal or accessory structure pursuant to §153.062(0). 2. Off - street loading areas may not be located on any parking spaces or parking aisles designated to meet the minimum parking requirements of this section, unless approved in a required parking plan demonstrating that the location and timing of loading activities will not cause conflict with typical parking use on the site, or with vehicular or pedestrian circulation. 3. Where more than one off - street loading space is provided, at least one of the spaces shall be separate from areas designated on the site plans as waste storage or pickup areas. 4. An alley or service street may be used instead of a separate off - street loading space, subject to approval as part of a required parking plan demonstrating that the loading and delivery activities will be coordinated with other users of the alley to minimize access and circulation conflicts. 5. On- street parking spaces may be counted toward meeting the minimum loading space requirement for a parcel provided that the spaces meet the same requirements for parking location as described in §153.065(B) (1)(b)(3), and subject to approval as part of a required parking plan demonstrating that the on- street spaces are of adequate size, number and availability to serve the intended delivery vehicle(s) without creating conflicts with surrounding vehicular, bicycle or pedestrian traffic and circulation. 6. Fire access zones as described in §153.061(G) may not be used to meet loading space requirements. 7. No loading dock, or any loading area used for the storage or staging of materials being transported to or from the site, shall be located closer than 50 feet to any lot in a residential district unless entirely contained within a completely enclosed building, or screened as required by §153.065(E)(3)(e), nor shall any loading dock or loading area directly face a residential district. (c) Number Required 1. The number of off- street loading spaces required is based on the size of the principal structure, and is listed in Table 153.065 -C. For principal structures of 25,000 square feet or less in gross floor area, loading and delivery activities may be conducted using an alley or service street, on- street parking spaces, or other on -site parking area as described in §153.065(B)(7)(b), unless the required reviewing body determines that a dedicated off - street loading space is necessary based on the frequency and type of loading activities anticipated for the use. TABLE 153.065 -C: LOADING SPACES REQUIRED PER PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE 25,001- 50,000 sq. ft. gross floor area 1 space 50,001 - 100,000 sq. ft. gross floor area 2 spaces 100,001 sq. ft. gross floor area or higher 3 spaces (d) Design All off - street loading spaces shall be at least 12 feet wide and 30 feet long with a height clearance of 14 feet, unless, at the determination of the required reviewing body, the typical delivery vehicle(s) designated in an approved parking plan can be adequately accommodated by reduced loading space dimensions. 2. Refer to §153.065(E)(3)(e) for off - street loading area screening requirements. 3. Truck loading and unloading docks and maneuvering areas shall be designed so that truck movements do not interfere with traffic on public streets or off - street parking when vehicles are parked for loading and unloading. Loading areas requiring vehicles to back in from the street are permitted. Vehicles loading or unloading may not extend over any sidewalk or into any public right - of -way between the hours of 6:00 am and midnight, unless located entirely within a designated on- street parking lane or within the vehicular travel lane of an alley or service street as permitted in an approved parking plan. (8) Maintenance and Use (a) General Provisions 2. Subject to approval of a required parking plan, the required number of loading spaces may be increased or reduced by the required reviewing body when it is demonstrated that the frequency and type of loading activities at 2. that location warrant a different number. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.065 (B) DEVELOPMENT CODE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - PARKING & LOADING Unless an equal number of required spaces conforming to §153.065(B) are provided, parking and loading areas shall be maintained and not used for any other purpose while the principal structure or use remains in operation. Other parking arrangements for temporary community activities and special events may be permitted with approval from the City of Dublin Events Administration All parking lots shall be maintained free of potholes, litter, debris, glass, nails or other dangerous materials. Me 3. Surfacing, curbing, lighting fixtures, signs, and related appurtenances shall be maintained in good condition. The visibility of pavement markings delineating parking spaces and directional control shall be maintained. 4. Except on a temporary basis in the event of heavy rainfall or snowfall, all off - street parking and loading facilities shall be maintained free of accumulated snow or standing water which may prevent their full use and occupancy. 5. All permeable paving materials shall be maintained in an unbroken condition and shall be regularly swept and vacuumed to prevent blockages of sand, sediment, or other materials that would impair their permeability to water as originally designed. 6. Signs designating the use of individual private parking spaces for specific users, buildings or lots shall not be legible from a public right -of -way, except where such a sign is otherwise required by this Chapter. (b) Use Restrictions 1. It is unlawful for any person to park or store any vehicle in a parking lot or parking structure without the consent of the owner, holder, occupant, lessee, agent or trustee of the property. 2. All vehicles parked in a parking lot or parking structure within a BSC district shall be operable and have a valid registration and license within the most recent 12 -month period. For the purposes of this section, operable means capable of being started and driven. 3. Arecreational and utility vehicle may be located outside of an enclosed structure for up to 72 hours in any 30 -day period, provided the owner or person in charge of the recreational and utility vehicle is the owner or a guest of a resident of that property. The vehicle shall be parked on a hard surface, and shall not be used for overnight sleeping or living. 4. Off - street parking and loading areas may not be used for material storage, storage or display of vehicles and/or merchandise, or for vehicle or machinery repair or maintenance. If located within an off - street parking or loading area, refuse storage stations and dumpsters shall be located and designed in accordance with §153.065(E) and shall not interfere with driveway circulation or access to parking spaces and loading areas. 5. Except on parcels where the sale of vehicles is a permitted or approved conditional use of the property, no vehicle may be parked in any off - street parking or loading area for the sole purpose of displaying the vehicle for sale. 6. Unless no other parking area is reasonably available, no vehicle that, at the determination of the Director, is intended for the display of advertising to the public may be parked so as to be visible to traffic on a public street or parking area. (C) STORMWATER MANAGEMENT All stonnwater shall be managed as required by Chapter 53 of the Dublin City Code. (D) LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION (1) Purpose (a) The intent of § 153.065 is to improve the appearance of the BSC districts, reduce noise and air pollution, reduce heat island impacts, protect the character and value of surrounding neighborhoods, and promote public health and safety through appropriate urban -scale landscaping of street frontages and surface parking lots. This section is also intended to ensure buffering between significantly different land uses, and that trees are preserved and replaced in a manner appropriate to urban environments. (b) Because the BSC districts reflect a more urban, mixed use character than other portions of the city, these standards generally allow landscaping benefits to be achieved through intensities of planting or other forms of screening as an alternative to wide planted areas. Quantitative requirements for landscape materials are intended to provide minimum amounts based on the scale and intensity of development. Unless otherwise specified, these requirements should not be interpreted as requiring regular, symmetrical or standardized intervals of vegetation within landscape areas. Required landscaping should be creatively and architecturally designed to add visual interest and preserve natural integrity, as appropriate to the character of the surrounding area. (2) General (a) The provisions of § §153.132 through 153.148 shall apply in the BSC districts unless specifically modified or waived by the provisions of §153.065(D). (b) Each application for development or redevelopment shall include a landscape plan showing compliance with the provisions of §153.065(D). The siting of buildings shall avoid the removal of desirable trees in good or fair § 153.065 (B) EFFECTIVE DATE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - APRIL 25, 2012 PARKING & LOADING condition where alternatives consistent with the provisions of §153.062 are available. (c) Protected trees, as defined in this Chapter, removed from any portion of a lot consistent with an approved Site Plan Review shall be replaced in accordance with §153.146 except as provided by §153.065(D)(9). (d) Existing trees which are incorporated into the landscape plan shall be protected during construction as required by § 153.145. (e) In all areas where landscaping is required, a minimum of 80% of the surface area of any landscape bed shall be covered within four years after installation by living materials, rather than bark, mulch, gravel or other non - living materials. Areas included in rain gardens or other vegetated site features to meet stormwater management requirements are excluded from this requirement with prior approval from the Director. (f) Areas included in rain gardens or vegetated site features created to meet stormwater management requirements may be counted towards any landscaping required by§ 153.065(D)(4) - (6) if landscaped to meet the requirements. (g) All irrigation systems shall be designed, installed, and operated to minimize run -off and over -spray of irrigation water onto roadways, sidewalks, and adjacent properties, and shall be installed with rain sensors to turn the system off during rainy conditions. (h) Shrubs and plants that exceed two and one -half feet in mature height are prohibited in required sight visibility triangles for site access points as defined in Appendix C and are prohibited in required sight visibility triangles for street intersections as defined by the City Engineer. (i) If two or more conflicting landscape requirements apply to the same area, the one requiring the most landscaping shall apply. O A registered landscape architect shall be utilized for the preparation of all required landscape plans. (3) Street Trees When a property is developed or redeveloped in any BSC district the applicant shall be required to plant and maintain trees m the street right -of -way pursuant to the following requirements. No existing street trees shall be required to adhere to the following requirements unless they are required to be removed and replaced consistent with an appropriate approved application as provided in §153.066. (a) A minimum of one tree is required per 40 linear feet of street frontage or fraction thereof. Refer to Table 153.065 -D, Street Tree Spacing Requirements, for spacing based on tree size and site characteristics. (b) Street trees shall be planted within urban tree wells or within tree lawns based on the applicable street type design requirements. Refer to §153.061 for more information regarding street types. (c) Structural soil or an equivalent material approved by the City Forester shall be used for all street trees, regardless of whether they are planted within urban tree wells or tree lawns. The soil shall be placed within trenches which are generally parallel to the curb, connecting street trees underneath the pavement and extending beyond the tree well or tree lawn as far as physical site conditions permit. (d) The street tree openings shall be a minimum of four feet wide and four feet long and excavated to a minimum depth of three feet The City Forester may require a deeper excavation based on specific tree species, site conditions, and/or conditions related to the adjacent street type. (e) Tree wells shall be covered with a tree grate, permeable pavers (block or stone) or by plant material, where appropriate for the street type and site conditions as approved by the City Forester. (f) Species and Size 1. Street trees shall be from the approved Urban Street Tree List for Dublin, Ohio or other species approved by the City Forester. 2. Street trees shall have a clear trunk of at least seven feet above the ground. The minimum trunk caliper measured at six inches above the ground for all street trees shall be no less than two and one -half inches. Existing trees in good or fair condition may be used to satisfy these requirements with prior approval of the City Forester. 3. Small tree species are permitted for use in planting zones where overhead utility lines exist. Small tree species may also be planted in medians, in addition to medium and/ or large tree species, where medians are provided. (g) Spacing and Location Street trees shall be spaced as set forth in Table 153.065 -D below unless modified by the City Forester based on unusual site conditions or obstructions. (h) Maintenance and Replacement by Property Owner The property owner shall be required to maintain the street trees for one year after the trees are planted and replace any tree which fails to survive or does not exhibit normal growth characteristics of health and vigor, as determined by the City Forester. The one -year period after the approval of the City Forester shall begin at each planting and shall recommence as trees are replaced. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.065 (D) 89 DEVELOPMENT CODE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - LANDSCAPING & TREE PRESERVATION TABLE 153.065 -D: STREET TREE SPACING REQUIREMENTS Requirement Small Medium Large Tree Tree Tree Spacing range between trees 20 -25 ft. 30 -35 ft. 40 -45 ft. Minimum distance between trunk and face of curb (at 3 ft. 3 ft. 3 ft. planting) Minimum distance from 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. intersection Minimum distance from fire 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. hydrants and utility poles May be planted within 10 lateral yes No No feet of overhead utilities (i) Prohibited Activities 1. No person shall top any tree within the public right -of -way unless specifically authorized by the City Forester. Topping is defined as the severe cutting back of limbs to stubs larger than three inches in diameter within the tree's crown to such a degree so as to remove the normal canopy and disfigure the tree, as determined by the City Forester. 2. Unless specifically authorized by the City Forester, no person shall intentionally damage, cut, carve, transplant, or remove any tree or shrub; attach any rope, wire, nails, advertising posters, or other contrivance to any tree or shrub, allow any gaseous liquid, or solid substance which is harmful to trees or shrubs to come in contact with them, or set fire or penn it fire to burn when fire or heat will injure any portion of any tree or shrub. 3. No person shall excavate any tunnels, trenches, or install a driveway or sidewalk within a radius of ten feet from the trunk of any public tree or shrub without first obtaining the prior written approval from the City Forester. 4. No person shall remove a tree or shrub from the City -owned tree lawn, streetscape planting zone or other public property without first obtaining the prior written approval of the City Forester. 5. No person shall by any type of construction reduce the size of a tree lawn or streetscape planting zone without prior written approval of the City Engineer. 6. Decorative lights, strings of lights, electrical cords or wires are not permitted to be attached to any tree form ore than four consecutive months. 0) Municipal Rights within public rights -of -way and other public grounds as may be necessary to ensure public safety or to preserve or enhance the environmental quality and beauty of public grounds. This section shall not prohibit the planting of street trees by adjacent property owners providing that the prior written permission of the City Forester has been granted. 2. The City Forester may cause or order to be removed any tree or part of a tree that is in an unsafe condition or which by reasons of its nature is injurious to sewers, electric power lines, gas lines, water lines, or other public improvements, or is affected with any injurious fungi, insect or other pest. 3. The City Forester shall have the right to enter private property to access trees adjacent to public areas for the purposes of proper pruning, after reasonable prior written notice has been given to the property owner. 4. Wherever it is necessary to remove a tree(s) or shrub(s) from a public tree lawn or other public property, the City shall endeavor to remove and replant or replace the trees or shrubs. No protected tree within the public right -of -way or on other public grounds shall be removed without prior review by the City Forester, and the trees shall only be removed if the City Forester determines there are no other means available to preserve the tree. 5. The City Forester shall have the right to cause the removal of any dead or diseased tree(s) located on private property within the city and/or cause the removal of branches of trees located on private property that overhang or impede access to public property, when those trees constitute a hazard to life and property, or harbor an epiphytotic disease which constitutes a potential threat to other trees within the city. The City Forester shall notify in writing the owners of the trees to be removed. Removal shall be done by the owners at their own expense within 60 days after the date of service of written notice, unless a longer period is agreed to in writing by the City Forester, to allow time to attempt to treat and cure a salvageable diseased tree. In the event of failure of owners to comply within 60 days, the City Forester shall notify in writing the owners of the trees of the City's authority to remove any tree(s) and charge the cost of removal to the owner as provided by law. (4) Perimeter Landscape Buffering The City shall have the right to plant, prune, Perimeter landscape buffering is intended to provide maintain and remove trees, plants and shrubs a buffer between land uses of significantly different § 153.065 (D) EFFECTIVE DATE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - APRIL 25, 2012 LANDSCAPING & TREE PRESERVATION intensities. The buffering is intended to obscure the higher - intensity land use from view and block potential negative impacts related to noise, lighting levels, and activity through the use of denser landscape screening and /or a fence or wall visually softened by clustered plantings, creatively and architecturally designed, as appropriate to the character of the surrounding area. (a) Perimeter landscape buffering is required: 1. When development or redevelopment in accordance with §153.062(B)(1) in any BSC district abuts property in a norl district; or 2. With the exception of the BSC Historic Core district, when a non - residential land use is adjacent to a parcel containing only single - family detached building types (regardless of whether there is an intervening street, alley, or driveway). (b) Perimeter landscape buffering shall be provided in accordance with either Option A or B described below. The required reviewing body may require openings in the buffer to allow pedestrian passage if it determines that passage between the two properties is desirable. Refer to Figure 153.065 -13 for an illustration of each option. 1. Option A A. A landscape buffer at least 10 feet wide shall be provided on the side or rear of the BSC district parcel adjacent to the non-BSC property or on the side or rear of the non - residential land use parcel adjacent to the residential -only land use parcel. B. The buffer shall include natural landscape materials such as lawn, ground cover, mounds, shrubs, and trees, and shall not contain impervious materials, except that a pedestrian or multi -use path may be permitted. C. One tree and five evergreen or deciduous shrubs shall be provided for every 25 lineal feet of boundary lot line, or fraction thereof. Plantings may be creatively clustered and architecturally designed to achieve naturalized appearance, as appropriate to the character of the surrounding area, provided the spacing is designed to provide a minimum 75% year round opacity six feet above grade level. The required opacity shall be provided within four years of planting, as measured on the noel district/ residential only land use side of the property line. FIGURE 153.065 -B: PERIMETER LANDSCAPE BUFFERING OPTIONS. houb—tout buff., delandecepe 2. Option B A. A landscape buffer at least five feet wide shall be provided on the side or rear of the BSC district parcel adjacent to the norl property or on the side or rear of the non - residential land use parcel adjacent to the residential -only land use parcel. B. The buffer shall include an opaque wall, fence or dense vegetative screen with 100% year round opacity at least six feet in height. C. If a fence or wall is provided, it shall meet the requirements of §159.065(E), and the side facing the norl district or a residential use shall be at least as finished in appearance as the side facing the BSC district or non - residential use. Four evergreen or deciduous shrubs, evergreen or deciduous trees, or a combination thereof, shall be provided per 25 lineal feet of boundary lot line, or fraction thereof. Plantings may be creatively clustered and architecturally designed to achieve a naturalized appearance, as appropriate to the character of the surrounding area, and shall be provided on the side of the fence or wall facing the norl district/ residential use. I] If a dense vegetative screen is provided, it shall be at least six feet in height within four years after planting and may be located on the shared boundary. BRIDGE STREETCORRIDOR § 153.065 (D) 91 DEVELOPMENTCODE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - LANDSCAPING &TREE PRESERVATION (c) These requirements apply when a site subject to these requirements is developed or redeveloped in accordance with §153.062(B)(2). No existing development shall be required to install perimeter landscape buffering because of a change in the nature, character, or zoning classification of an adjacent parcel. (d) The required perimeter landscape buffer area may be located within a utility or other easement with the prior approval of the City Engineer provided all of the landscape requirements are met. (e) Required buffer materials must be placed on the parcel where development or redevelopment is occurring, unless both the parcel providing the buffering and the parcel being buffered are in common ownership, in which case the buffer may be provided on either or portions of both properties. (f) Vehicles or other objects shall not overhang or otherwise intrude upon the required perimeter landscape buffer. Refer to § 153.065(B)(6)(d) for curb and wheel stop requirements. (g) Existing landscape material in good or fair condition may be used to satisfy these requirements with the prior approval of the Director. (5) Surface Puking and Circulation Area Landscaping All surface puking lots containing ten or more puking spaces, vehicular circulation areas for fueling service stations, drive in/drive throughs, and other vehicular use areas shall provide the landscaping required by § 153.065(D)(5). Refer to Figure 153.065 -C for an illustration of this requirement. (a) Street Frontage Screening Surface puking lots and other vehicular use areas located within 40 feet of a public street shall either be landscaped, or a street wall shall be installedin accordance with §153.065(2)(2) along the parking lot boundary facing the street to create a visual edge along the public right -of -wag. The required street frontage treatment shall be in accordance with the following: 1. Where a surface parking lot/veMcular use area is located between 20 feet and 40 feet from any street right -of -way the property owner shall install at least one deciduous tree per 40 lineal feet, or fraction thereof, of puking lot boundary facing the public street, in addition to the street trees required by § 153.065(D)(3). In addition, at least five deciduous or evergreen shrubs per 25 lineal feet, or fraction thereof, of a parking lot boundary facing the public street shall be installed, with a mature height of at least three feet. Required landscaping shall be installed within five feet of the edge of the puking lot and may be creatively clustered and architecturally designed, as appropriate to the character of the surrounding area. 2. Where a surface puking lot/veMcular use area is located within 20 feet of any street right -of -way, the property owner shall install a street wall in accordance with § 153.065(E) (2) and at least five deciduous or evergreen shrubs per 25 lineal feet, or fraction thereof, of a puking lot boundary facing the public street. Trees are permitted to be installed but not required. Required landscaping may be creatively clustered and architecturally designed, as appropriate to the character of the surrounding area. 3. Where a surface puking lot/veMcular use area is located within 20 feet of a principal frontage street, the property owner shall install a masonry or wrought iron street wall in accordance with §153.065(E)(2). In addition, at least five deciduous or evergreen shrubs per 25 lineal feet, or fraction thereof, of a puking lot boundary facing the public street shall be installed. Trees are permitted to be installed but not required. Required landscaping may be creatively clustered and architecturally designed, as appropriate to the character of the surrounding area. (b) Perimeter Buffering Where a surface puking lot is located within 30 feet of a side, comer side, or rear lot line, and the adjacent property contains only single -family detached building types or is a non -B SC district (regardless of whether there is an intervening street, alley, or driveway), the property owner shall install perimeter buffering meeting the requirements of §153.065(D)(4). & 153.065 (D) SITE DEVELOPMENTSTANDARDS - LANDSCAPING & TREE PRESERVATION EFFECTIVE DATE APRIL 25, 2012 FIGURE 153.065 -C: SURFACE PARKING AND CIRCULATION AREA LANDSCAPING. (c) Interior Landscaping 1. In addition to required street frontage and perimeter buffering described in subsections §153.065(D)(5)(a) -(b) above, a minimum of 5% of the interior parking lot area, calculated as the total of the area in all parking spaces and drive aisles, shall be landscaped. 2. Interior landscape areas shall be landscaped with one or more of the following options: A. Option A: Landscape Peninsula or Island — the minimum width of a landscape peninsula or island shall be 10 feet with • minimum area of 150 square feet, with • maximum run of 12 parking spaces permitted without a tree island. One medium deciduous tree as defined by Appendix E or as otherwise approved by the City Forester shall be planted for every 12 parking spaces. Structural soil or equivalent material as approved by the City Forester shall extend three feet beyond the edge of the peninsula or island into the adjacent pavement. All islands and peninsulas shall be excavated to a depth of three feet. B. Option B: Interior Tree Lawn - The minimum width of an interior tree lawn shall be 10 feet with a minimum area of 300 square feet. One medium or large deciduous tree as defined by Appendix E, or as otherwise approved by the City Forester, shall be planted for every 12 parking spaces or every 30 linear feet, whichever provides more canopy cover. Trees may be grouped or spaced within the interior lawn area. All interior tree lawns shall be excavated to a depth of three feet and filled with amended clean soil or equivalent material as approved by the City Forester. C. Option C: Large Consolidated Island— a landscape island interior to the parking lot with a minimum width of 36 feet with a minimum area of 1,300 square feet One medium or large deciduous tree as defined by Appendix E, or as otherwise approved by the City Forester, shall be planted for every 12 parking spaces. Trees may be grouped or spaced within the large consolidated island. Exiting trees which are to be preserved may be incorporated into the large consolidated island, as approved by the City Forester. Where existing trees are not being preserved within the large consolidated island, the area shall be excavated to a depth of three feet and filled with amended clean soil or equivalent material as approved by the City Forester. 3. All trees planted in interior landscaped areas shall have a three foot minimum dimension from the tree trunk to the back of curb or edge of pavement, as applicable. 4. When a landscape peninsula or island abuts the length of a parking space, a clear space for persons entering and exiting parked vehicles shall be provided by turf or pavers, mulch, and other similar non - vegetative material. 5. Each interior landscaped area must include at least one deciduous shade tree (from the approved Urban Street Tree List) to be counted toward the required landscape area. Trees shall have a clear trunk of at least seven feet above the ground, and the remaining area shall be landscaped with hardwood mulch, shrubs, perennials or ground cover. Interior tree lawns and large consolidated islands may also use turf. Shrubs or perennials shall not exceed two feet in mature height 6. Required on -site drainage shall be incorporated into interior landscaped areas to the maximum extent practicable. If a curb is located at the edge of a landscaped area, planted areas shall be installed at a lower grade than the parking lot pavement and curbing shall have openings or gaps allowing drainage from the pavement to enter and percolate through the landscaped areas. Plantings in landscaped areas intended to be used for biofiltration shall be those appropriate for rain gardens. (6) Required Building Zone (RBZ) Treatment All areas between the front or comer side property lines and the back of the RBZ or setback not occupied by a building shall be treated with either a landscape, patio, or streetscape treatment as required by §153.062(0). (a) Landscape RBZ treatment shall include lawn and/or planters with perpendicular access walks connecting the public sidewalk with building entrances. (b) Patio RBZ treatment shall include paved surfaces with landscape planters, seating, fencing in accordance with §153.065(E) and street furniture. (c) Streetscape RBZ treatment shall be an extension of the public sidewalk streetscape with sidewalk paving, street trees, planters, and/or other street furniture. (d) Where parking is permitted to the side or rear of a principal structure pursuant to the building type requirements of §153.062(0), surface parking areas and associated driveways may encroach into BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.065 (D) 93 DEVELOPMENT CODE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - LANDSCAPING & TREE PRESERVATION the front and/or comer side RBZ provided a street within five years after the credit is awarded, shall wall is installed in accordance with §153.065(E) be replaced by the land owner with the number of (2) to screen the parking area. The area on the trees for which the credit was granted. street facing side of the street wall shall be treated with either landscape, patio, or streetscape RBZ p p p TABLE 153.065 -E: TREE PRESERVATION CREDITS. treatment as permitted by the building type. DBH of Preserved Tree Numbers of Trees (7) Foundation Planting (in inches) Credited Building foundation landscaping is required for all Over 12 in. 3 fagades of all principal structures as described below: 8 in. to 11.9 in. 2 (a) Building foundation landscaping is required along 6 in. to 7.9 in. 1 all sides of a building not otherwise occupied by building entrances, sidewalk, parking or loading areas, or other similar areas. Building foundation (9) Tree Preservation landscaping is not required for portions of the (a) General Provisions front or comer side building fagades located 1. Applicability within 10 feet of the front property line and where a streetscape or patio RBZ treatment is provided. §153.065(D)(9) applies to protected trees on all public and private properties. (b) Where building foundation landscaping is required, at least one shrub shall be provided per 2. Tree Preservation Plan Required each 10 linear feet of building fagade, or fraction A. Due to unique and/or noteworthy thereof, within a landscape bed or raised planter characteristics including size, species, extending a minimum of 42 inches beyond the age, and historical significance, landmark foundation. Where streetscape or patio RBZ trees and significant groups of mature, treatment is provided, raised planting beds, non - diseased trees are community raised planters, and flower boxes may be used. amenities that should be preserved to the Landscaping may be creatively clustered and maximum extent feasible. architecturally designed, as appropriate to the B. Applicants shall submit a tree character of the surrounding area. preservation plan for approval by the (c) Building foundation landscaping may be installed required reviewing body the demonstrates at building foundation grade level or in a raised the site landscaping complies with the planter. The planter shall not be higher than three provisions of § 153.065(D). At either the feet above the building foundation grade level. preliminary plat or initial application Roof top gardens do not count towards meeting stage, the property owner shall submit a this requirement. copy of the tree preservation plan to the (d) A minimum of 80% of the surface area of any appropriate public utilities in order to foundation planting landscape bed shall be alert those public utilities to the proposed covered by living materials, rather than bark, placement of the trees in relation to mulch, gravel or other non - living materials in utility service lines. accordance with §153.065(D)(2)(e). C. Atree survey shall be submitted (8) Credit to Preserve Existing Trees with the tree preservation plan for all (a) Credit Available Development Plan and/or Site Plan Review applications for lots containing Property owners who demonstrate they have existing trees. The tree survey shall preserved mature, non - diseased trees with a six - include the location, size, condition and inch caliper as measured at diameter breast height species of all existing trees over four (DBH) during development or redevelopment may inches caliper as measured at DBH. obtain credits toward required landscaping. Trees D. The tree preservation plan submitted as intended to be preserved shall be indicated on part of the Development Plan and/or Site the landscape plan and shall be protected during Plan Review application shall identify construction through use of tree protection fencing all landmark trees and/or significant around the critical root radius. The total amount of tree stands on the site, including critical tree credits shall not exceed 50% of the required root zones to establish the limits of tree tree landscaping requirement. preservation zones, as determined by the (b) Amount of Credit required reviewing body. Credit for preserved trees is shown in Table E. The property owner shall replace 153.065 -E. Any preserved trees for which credit inch for inch any trees within tree is given and that are lost to damage or disease § 153.065 (D) EFFECTIVE DATE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - APRIL 25, 2012 LANDSCAPING & TREE PRESERVATION preservation zones that are removed or lost due to damage, regardless of their location on the lot, except as provided in §153.065(D)(9)(b). Site Layout and Design Where practicable, site design and architectural layout activities shall preserve existing protected trees and avoid risk of protected tree loss through changes of grade and soil moisture, both on the subject parcel and on adjacent parcels. This includes, but is not limited to, the layout and design of buildings and any associated site improvements including auguring, jacking, or boring to install utilities (as opposed to open cutting). The critical root zones of protected trees on the subject parcel and adjacent parcels shall be reviewed and land disturbance within those zones avoided to the extent reasonable. 4. Tree Removal Permit The provisions of §153.143 shall apply, except as provided in §153.065(D)(9)(b). A. Protected trees used as credit to meet a required tree landscape requirement which die shall be replaced by the land owner with the number of trees for which the credit was granted. Replacement trees may count towards the credit amount for the development. B. Replacement trees provided pursuant to §153.065(D)(9)(b) shall count towards landscaping required under other portions of this section if they meet the size, type, and location standards for the landscaping required. (b) Exemptions The following activities are not subject to the tree replacement requirements for protected trees as described in §153.146 provided the proposed tree removal is included in the required application as described in §153.066. 1. Trees planted due to a requirement of a previously approved development plan or as a condition to a previously issued Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval prior to the date this provision takes effect; 2. Removal of trees that, at the determination of the City Forester, are undesirable with respect to structure, species, and/or condition; 3. Removal of trees on any portion of a lot required to be occupied by a structure pursuant to the standards of §153.062 as approved by the required reviewing body with a Site Plan Review application, 4. Removal of trees which are an obstruction to traffic signals or traffic signs, power lines, or other utilities; 5. Removal of trees necessary for rescue in an emergency or for cleanup after a natural disaster, and 6. Removal of trees deemed hazardous by the City Forester or a certified arborist, and approved by the City Forester. (10)Maintenance and Replacement (a) Street Trees and Public Trees Each property owner shall comply with those standards for maintenance, replacement, protection and management of street trees and public trees in §153.065(D)(3). (b) Other Required Landscaping on Private Property For landscaping other than public trees and street trees, each property owner shall: 1. Maintain all required landscaping in good condition, as determined by the City Forester, 2. Remove any landscaping or tree that dies or is required to be removed due to damage or disease within three months after the loss of that landscaping or tree; and 3. Replace the landscaping or tree within three months of its removal. (c) The City Forester may extend times for performance if weather or other conditions prevent performance within the times stated above. (11) Alternative Landscaping In lieu of compliance with the specific requirements of §153.065(D)(3) -(9) an owner may propose alternative approaches consistent with the intent of § 153.065(D) (2) to accommodate unique site conditions, abutting or surrounding uses, or other conditions, as deemed appropriate by the required reviewing body. Requests for alternative landscaping shall be reviewed by the required reviewing body with the Site Plan Review application and approved only if the proposed alternative is equal to or better than the aesthetic, environmental, and buffering functions anticipated with the provisions of §153.065(D). BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.065 (E) 95 DEVELOPMENT CODE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - LANDSCAPING & TREE PRESERVATION (E) FENCING, WALLS AND SCREENING (1) Fence and Wall Standards The provisions of this section are required for all fences, walls, and screening materials in the BSC districts. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the provisions of §153.064(G) shall be met with respect to fencing and walls for open spaces. (a) Prohibited Materials Chain link, vinyl and temporary plastic fences (such as snow fences) are prohibited except during construction as security for construction sites and materials. Fences that are electrically charged, constructed of barbed wire, and razor wire are prohibited. No fence, wall or retaining wall shall be constructed of materials not designed to be used for that purpose. High quality synthetic materials may be approved with the Site Plan Review by the required reviewing body with examples of successful, high quality installations. (b) Fence and Wall Height and Opacity 1. No fence or wall located between the principal structure on a lot and the front property line shall exceed four feet in height. No fence located between the principal structure on a lot and the front property line shall be more the 50% opaque unless otherwise required by §153.065(E)(2) or § §153.059 through 153.065. These provisions apply to all street frontages on multiple frontage lots. 2. No fence or wall located between the principal structure on a lot and the side, corner side, or rear property line shall exceed six feet in height. 3. The height provisions of §153.065(E)(1)(b)1- 2 shall not apply to fences or walls required to comply with the screening standards of §153.065(D). 4. The provisions of § I 53.065(E)(1)(b) 1 -2 shall apply to all portions of retaining walls that extend above grade level, as measured from the elevated side of the retaining wall. Where a fence is located on top of a retaining wall, the combined height of the retaining wall and fence shall not exceed the maximum height permitted for a fence, as measured from the elevated side of the retaining wall. (2) Street Wall Standards (a) Intent Street walls are intended to screen vehicular use areas or service areas and/or to define the pedestrian realm. (b) Street Wall Design and Location 1. Street walls are intended to be placed within the front and/or corner RBZ where an RBZ exists. If an RBZ is occupied by a building, the street wall shall be installed along the same plane as the nearest building fagade. 2. Street walls shall be designed to coordinate with the architectural character of the building to which it is associated. Street walls shall be constructed of brick, stone, or CMU with stucco finishing (masonry street wall type), wrought iron fencing combined with landscaping (wrought iron street wall type), or a hedgerow combined with landscaping and masonry posts (solid hedge and post type). The required reviewing body shall be permitted to approve or require specific or alternative street wall designs, such as stacked stone walls, based on the design of the associated building and/or the development character of the lots surrounding the site. 3. Street walls in the Historic Core shall be constructed as stacked stone walls, unless otherwise approved by the required reviewing body. 4. Street walls shall be a minimum of 30 inches, but no street wall shall exceed 36 inches in height. 5. Street walls are prohibited in required sight visibility triangles for site access points as defined in Appendix C and are prohibited in required sight visibility triangles for street intersections as determined by the City Engineer. (c) Street Wall Landscaping In all areas where landscaping is required, within four years after installation a minimum of 80% of the surface area of any landscape bed shall be covered by living materials, rather than bark, mulch, gravel, or other non- living materials. Masonry Street Wall 2. 3. § 153.065 (E) SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - FENCING, WALLS, & SCREENING For masonry street walls, the property owner shall provide at least five shrubs per 25 feet of linear street frontage or fraction thereof on the street side of the masonry wall where the Landscape RBZ treatment is used. Required landscaping may be clustered for a more natural design. Wrought Iron Street Wall For a wrought iron street wall, the property owner shall provide at least five shrubs per 25 feet of linear street frontage or fraction thereof on the side of the fence interior to the lot. Solid Hedge and Post Street Wall For a solid hedge, the property owner shall install dense, closely spaced living plant material composed of trees, deciduous or EFFECTIVE DATE APRIL 25, 2012 evergreen shrubs, or a combination thereof, with a masonry post every 25 feet of linear street frontage or fraction thereof. The ground on the street side of the hedge shall be landscaped with ground cover exclusive of grass. (3) Screening (a) Prohibited Materials Chain link, vinyl, EIFS, and unfinished or non - decorative CMU are prohibited screening materials. No screen shall be constructed of materials not designed to be used for that purpose. High quality synthetic materials may be approved with the Site Plan Review by the required reviewing body with examples of successful, high quality installations. (b) Roof Mounted Mechanical Equipment All roof - mounted mechanical equipment (including but not limited to HUAC equipment, exhaust fans, cooling towers, and related guard rails or safety equipment) shall be fully screened from view at ground level on all sides of the structure and, to the extent practicable, from adjacent buildings of similar height in a BSC district. Screening shall be provided by: A. A parapet wall or similar feature that is an integral part of the building's architectural design (refer to §I53.062(D) for roof requirements for building types), or B. A screening structure located around the equipment that incorporates at least one of the primary materials and colors on a street - facing fapade of the principal structure; or C. A living wall or vertical garden which is covered by vegetation to provide a minimum of 50% year round opacity. 2. The parapet wall or screening structure shall be fully opaque year round and shall be at least as tall as the height of the mechanical equipment being screened. 3. The standards of §153.065(E)(3)(b) shall not apply if the only feasible location for screening would impede the functioning of solar, wind or geothermal energy equipment or systems. (c) Ground Mounted Mechanical Equipment 1. All ground - mounted mechanical equipment shall be incorporated within the footprint of a principal or accessory structure or shall be fully screened from view on all sides using one of the following options: A. Landscape material which provides a minimum of 50% year round opacity, or B. A living wall or vertical garden which is covered by vegetation to provide a minimum of 50% year round opacity, or C. A decorative wall or fence that incorporates at least one of the primary materials and colors of the nearest wall of the principal structure and that provides 75% year round opacity. 2. The wall or screen shall be at least one foot taller than the height of the mechanical equipment being screened, up to a maximum of 12 feet. 3. The standards of §153.065(E)(3)(c) shall not apply if the only feasible location for screening would impede the functioning of solar, wind or geothermal energy equipment or systems. 4. Utility boxes shall be oriented with access doors facing away from the street right -of- way or adjacent property to the maximum extent practicable. (d) Outdoor Waste and Storage Containers and Enclosures 1. All waste, refuse, and recycling containers and enclosures shall be incorporated within the footprint of a principal or accessory structure to t h e m aximum extent practicable. If incorporation within the building footprint is not practicable, outdoor waste and storage containers and enclosures shall be fully screened from view on all sides by landscaping or by a decorative wall or fence finished and constructed to match the materials and design of the nearest wall of the principal structure and shall be fully opaque year round. 2. The wall or screen shall be one foot taller than the height of the waste or storage container or enclosure being screened, up to a maximum of 12 feet. (e) Off - Street Loading Areas Off - street loading docks or loading areas used for the storage and staging of materials shall be screened from view on all sides facing a street right -of -way or adjacent property, as practicable, by a decorative wall or fence between six and 12 feet in height, as necessary to sufficiently screen the area, constructed and finished to match the materials and design of the nearest wall of the principal structure. This requirement does not apply to the side of a loading area facing an alley/ service street; the side by which vehicles enter and leave the loading area; maneuvering areas used for vehicles to approach the loading area, BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.065 (E) 97 DEVELOPMENT CODE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - FENCING, WALLS, & SCREENING or alternative loading area locations permitted by §153.065(B)( )(b). (f) Access Doors Screening structures may contain access doors to accommodate servicing of equipment and emptying or replacement of containers. The access doors shall be self - closing, and shall be constructed and finished to coordinate with the materials and design of the nearest wall of the principal structure. Access doors shall remain closed and all containers fully within the structure when not being used. Offset openings may be used in lieu of man doors provided the service structures remain fully screened from view. (g) Vegetative Screening If vegetative screening is used to meet the requirements of §153.065(E)(3), evergreen and deciduous species may be used provided the plant size and opacity meet the required height and opacity requirements within four years after planting. The minimum planting bed width shall be 42 inches. (h) Alternative Screening In lieu of compliance with the requirements of § I 53.065(E)(3), an alternative approach to accommodate unique site conditions or surrounding uses may be approved if the required reviewing body determines that the proposed alternative achieves the aesthetic, environmental, and screening results better than compliance with the standards of §153.065(E)(3). (F) EXTERIOR LIGHTING (1) Intent The standards of §153.065(F) are intended to allow adequate night time lighting to protect public safety while protecting residential uses from excessive night time light and glare, protecting motorists from glare along public rights -of -way, reducing consumption of electricity for lighting purposes, and prohibiting excessive light trespass beyond property lines. (2) Applicability The provisions of §153.149 shall apply to all development within the BSC districts in addition to the requirements of §I53.065(F), except as noted in this section. (3) Exemptions The following types of lighting are exempt from the requirements of §153.065(F): (a) Lighting for single family detached and single family attached dwellings. (b) Pedestrian walkway ground lighting. (c) Lighting for designated sports fields. (4) Fixture Power and Efficiency All light fixtures shall meet the standards in Table 153.065 -F for power and efficiency. TABLE 153.065 -F: XTURE POWER AND EFFICIENCY BSC Indian All other Run and BSC BSC 7Requirement Sawmill Center Districts permitted 9.7 lumens/ p lumens 13.9 lumens /sq. ft. ft. sq. Maximum lamp 60,000 lumens 44,000 allowance lumens Minimum lumens per watt or energy consumed (as documented by 80 lumens/ manufacturers 80 lumens /watt watt specifications or results of an independent testing laboratory) (5) Shielding (a) All exterior light sources and lamps that emit more than 900 lumens shall be concealed or shielded with an Illuminations Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) full cut -off style fixture with an angle not exceeding 90 degrees to minimize the potential for glare and unnecessary diffusion on adjacent property. No portion of the lamp, reflector, lens, or refracting system may extend beyond the housing or shield, with the exception of pedestrian lighting. (b) All light sources shall be designed, located, and installed so that the light source is not directly visible from any adjacent property in a residential district. (6) Lighting Uniformity Lighting across a horizontal surface shall have an average range from one to three footcandles. O Light Trespass Light generated on site shall not add more than one footcandle to illumination levels at any point at grade level 10 feet beyond the property line. (8) Light Poles The base of light poles in parking areas shall be either flush with grade or mounted on a concrete foundation projecting no more than 36 inches above grade. The base of light poles in non- parking areas shall be either flush with grade or mounted on a concrete foundation projecting no more than six inches above grade. (9) Wall Lighting (a) Decorative incandescent lights shall be limited to no more than 40 watts and decorative LED lights shall be limited to no more than 20 watts. Decorative wall lighting shall not require § 153.065 (F) EFFECTIVE DATE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - APRIL 25, 2012 EXTERIOR LIGHTING shielding and may be used to provide uplighting accents for buildings in all BSC districts. (b) Ground or pole - mounted floodlights are not permitted for fagade lighting. (10) Canopy Lighting (a) All canopy lighting shall use recessed luminaire fixtures and shall be designed and located so as to prevent glare onto adjacent properties. (b) Highly reflective material shall not be installed on the underside of the canopy. (11) Prohibited Lighting Types Sodium vapor light fixtures are prohibited in all BSC districts. (G) UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING In all BSC districts, all utility lines including but not limited to water supply, sanitary sewer service, electricity, telephone and gas, and their connections or feeder lines shall be placed underground. All utility connections shall be kept to the rear or the side of the building, out of view or screened. (H) SIGNS (1) Intent and General Purpose (a) General The intent of §153.065(H) is to enhance the physical appearance of the BSC districts and the City of Dublin as a whole by encouraging high quality, effective outdoor graphics for the purposes of navigation, information and identification; and to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. More specifically, it is the intent of this section to provide sign standards that allow fair competition while ensuring that signs used by individual businesses will contribute to the urban vitality, interest and uniqueness of the Bridge Street Corridor; provide aesthetic standards that ensure adherence to the high level of design and construction quality expected by the community, provide the public with a safe and effective means of locating businesses, services and points of interest by multiple modes of transportation, and to provide standards for signs that are appropriately scaled to the pedestrian realm and designed to enliven the pedestrian experience. It is also the intent to regulate signs in accordance with applicable federal and state law. (b) BSC Residential, Office Residential, Office, Commercial, and Public Districts The purpose of signs in these districts is to provide identification with high visual quality in a manner that respects the character and scale of residential areas while providing clear visibility for larger office, commercial and residential developments. Signs should provide high quality awareness through graphics that effectively assist in navigation, information and identification for both pedestrians and vehicles. (c) BSC Indian Run Neighborhood, Sawmill Center Neighborhood, and Vertical Mixed Use District Signs The purpose of signs in these districts is to accommodate a wide variety of building types and uses to create vibrant, mixed use shopping and entertainment districts. Sign and graphic standards shall contribute to the vibrancy of the districts and the creation of high quality environments with effective graphics intended for navigation, information, and identification primarily for pedestrians and secondarily for vehicles. (d) BSC Historic Core and Historic Transition Neighborhood Districts The purpose of signs in these districts is to provide for pedestrian - oriented signs that match the general character and scale of Dublin's original village commercial center. Signs should provide business identification in a manner consistent with the historic appearance and character of the districts, while encouraging a more interesting streetscape. (2) General Provisions (a) All applicable requirements of § §153.150 through 153.163 shall apply to the BSC districts except as modified by §153.065(H). In the event of a conflict with the provisions of §§ 153.150 through 153.163, the provisions of §153.065(H) shall govern. (b) Where noted for the purposes of permitted signs, street frontages shall apply only to public streets. (c) Approval Authority 1. All signs shall require a permanent sign permit unless otherwise exempted for a specific sign type. 2. Required reviewing bodies shall not address the content of the sign message. 3. Off - premise signs are only permitted with the approval of a master sign plan. 4. All signs located within or projecting over the public right -of -way shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to placement 5. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, the design and placement of City sponsored banners for special events or public announcements affixed to public facilities in the right -of -way within the Bridge Street Corridor Districts shall be approved by the City Manager prior to placement, BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.065 (H) 99 DEVELOPMENTCODE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - SIGNS 6. Master Sign Plans (3) BSC Districts with Special Sign Provisions A. Any applicant may request approval of (a) BSC Historic Residential District amaster sign plan that departs from the The requirements of § §153.150 through 153.163 requirements of §153.065(H), provided shall apply in the BSC Historic Residential district the purpose and intent of the sign and without modification. graphic standards for the applicable BSC district is maintained Except as provided (b) BSC Indian Run Neighborhood, Sawmill Center - Vertical in § 153.065(H)(2)(6)(E), the Planning Neighborhood, and Mixed Use Districts and Zoning Commission shall review all 1. Signs in these districts shall be subject to master sign plans and shall be permitted the requirements of §153.065(H)(6) through to approve alternative requirements for (7) as applicable, unless a master sign plan sign number, type, size, height, location, is approved by the Planning and Zoning and lighting. Commission (refer to § B. All applications for a Basic Plan Review 2. Am aster sign plan is required for a planned as required in §153.066(D) shall include shopping corridor. The master sign plan shall a description of the general design be submitted prior to or concurrent with a intent for proposed signs, demonstrating Site Plan Review in a shopping corridor. coordination with proposed building (c) BSC Historic Core and Historic Transition architecture and compatibility with Neighborhood Districts the surrounding development context. Information provided at the Basic Plan 1. Signs in these districts shall be subject to the Review shall demonstrate that signs will requirements of §153.065(H)(6) through (7) meet all requirements of §153.065(H), as applicable, unless a master sign plan is or that the applicant intends to request approved by the Architectural Review Board modifications to those requirements as (ARB) (refer to § I 53.065(H)(2)(b)6). part of a master sign plan. A master sign 2. All new ground and building - mounted signs plan may be reviewed concurrently with in those parts of the BSC Historic Core and a Basic Plan Review. Historic Transition districts that fall within C. Am aster sign plan shall include, at a the Architectural Review District boundaries minimum: the proposed locations, types, shall be subject to review and approval by the number, heights and sizes of signs, Architectural Review Board. indicated on scaled plans and/or building (4) Sign Design and Lighting elevation drawings, proposed materials to All permitted sign types shall be designed with the be used for sign structures and sign faces, maximum of creativity and the highest quality of and proposed types of illumination. materials and fabrication. It is strongly recommended D. Where applicable, all signs located that all signs be designed by a professional sign within a development shall meet the designer and be installed by a qualified sign builder or requirements established in an approved contractor. master sign plan. All requirements of (a) All permitted sign types shall be designed to §153.065(H) shall continue to apply fully integrate with the building architecture except as modified by the master sign and overall site design, and to enhance the plan. pedestrian experience in the Bridge Street E. The Architectural Review Board shall be Corridor. Signs attached to principal structures permitted to approve master sign plans shall be coordinated and fit appropriately with the that depart from the requirements of architecture of the building in accordance with §153.065(H), provided the purpose and §I53.062(M). Signs placed on windows, awnings intent of the sign and graphic standards and canopies shall meet the requirements of for the BSC Historic Core and Historic §153.062(H). Transition Neighborhood districts and the (b) The illumination of signs is strongly encouraged historic character of Historic Dublin are to help add a sense of liveliness and activity to maintained. The Board shall determine the area. Unless otherwise noted, signs may be the appropriateness of signs and their externally illuminated, provided that all exterior placement given the architecture of lighting meets the requirements of §153.065(F). buildings within these districts. Internally illuminated pan channel or cabinet signs are permitted, provided that the sign is creatively designed with high quality materials and fabrication, as determined by the required § 153.065 (H) EFFECTIVE DATE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - SIGNS APRIL 25, 2012 reviewing body. Awning signs and sandwich board signs may not be internally illuminated. Illuminated signs shall be constructed so that raceways, conduit and piping for electrical sources are not exposed to view. (c) The provisions of §153.158(0)(3) (limitations on sign shape), shall not apply in the BSC districts. (d) Sign Colors and Secondary Images Logos or images used to convey information about the business or use of the building or lot must be compatible with the size, design, and scale of the sign, Colorful logos and signs are encouraged to help add character and interest to the building and streetscape. 1. Signs shall be limited to three colors, including black and white. The background color shall be considered one of the three permissible colors, unless channel letters are used, in which case the background is not considered one of the three colors. As long as a registered corporate trademark or symbol used in a sign adheres to the size limitations of §153.158(C)(2), colors used in the registered corporate trademark or symbol shall not be limited in number, but shall be considered as one of three permissible colors. Sign copy or background shall use one of the colors used in the registered corporate trademark or symbol. 2. Where a registered corporate trademark or symbol exceeds 20% of the sign area, signs shall have a maximum of five colors including symbols, sign copy, and background color. The background color is included in the maximum permissible colors, unless channel letters are used and affixed directly to a building or other support structure, in which case the background is not considered one of the permissible colors. (5) Sign Types Permitted in BSC Districts (a) All sign types permitted in the BSC districts are listed in Table 153.065 -G. Refer to §153.065(H) (6) for number of signs permitted, and §153.065(H)O for requirements for specific sign types. (b) Different sign types may be used on the same frontage. (c) Where required, setbacks shall be measured from the public street right -of -way, lot line, or minimum Required Building Zone, as applicable. TABLE 153.065 -G: SIGN TYPES PERMITTED IN BSC DISTRICTS Sign Type Code Section Reference Sign Type Intent Ground Sign Ground Sign §153.065(H)(7)(a); Ground signs are intended primarily for buildings with Table 153.065 -H greater front and corner side setbacks. Building- Mounted Signs Wall Sign Building- mounted signs are intended to provide Awning Sign §153.065(H)(7)(b); Table 153.065 -1 visibility for pedestrians and vehicles approaching from different directions and to create a diversity of Projecting Sign signs along an active streetscape. Window Sign Building Identification Sign Building identification signs are intended to identify §153.065(H)(7)(c); major building tenants and large -scale commercial Building Identification Sign Table 153.065 -J development in the Bridge Street Corridor. Building names or street address numerals may be used in lieu of a tenant name. Other Permitted Signs Directory signs are intended to provide identification for upper story tenants and /or tenants that are Directory Sign otherwise not permitted an individual identification sign. Directory signs may also be used for restaurant §153.065(H)(7)(d); menus and other similar uses. Display signs are intended to advertise goods or Table 153.065 -K services. Display signs may change frequently and Display Sign may be attached to or located within 3 feet of a window on the interior of the building. Examples include products for sale or display, and signs that show or describe goods or services offered. Sandwich Board Sign Sandwich board signs are intended to be used in areas with high pedestrian and commercial activity. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.065 (H) 101 DEVELOPMENTCODE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - SIGNS (6) Number of Permitted Signs an additional projecting sign is permitted Refer to §153.065(H)(6)(d) for the number of signs provided it is located adjacent to a common permitted in the BSC Historic Core and Historic public entrance providing access to the upper Transition Neighborhood Districts and to § §153.150 floor tenant spaces. through 153.163 for the BSC Historic Residential (d) Number of Permitted Signs in the BSC Historic district. For all other BSC districts, the number Core and Historic Transition Neighborhood of permitted signs shall be in accordance with District subsections §153.065(H)(6)(a) -(c). Refer to Table Refer to §153.065(H)(7)(a) and (b) for specific 153.065 -G, Sign Types Permitted in BSC Districts, for requirements for ground and building- mounted the list of permitted signs and the intent of each sign sign types, sizes, locations, and heights. type. 1. Single Tenant Buildings (a) Ground Signs A combination of two different sign types, In addition to any other signs permitted by including ground signs and building- mounted §153.065(H)(6)(b) and (c), one ground sign is signs, are permitted for each street- facing permitted per building or parcel for each street building fagade or frontage. For lots with frontage, not to exceed a maximum of two ground more than one street frontage, one additional signs. Refer to §153.065(H)(7)(a), Ground Signs, ground or building - mounted sign is permitted for specific requirements for size, location, and along the second lot frontage, not to exceed a height total of three signs. (b) Single Tenant Buildings and Multiple Tenant 2. Multiple Tenant Buildings Buildings without Storefronts A combination of two different sign types, Refer to 153.065 § (H)(7)(b), Building- Mounted including ground signs and building-m ounted Signs, for specific requirements for sign types, signs, are permitted for each ground floor sizes, locations, and heights. tenant with a storefront. 1. Multiple tenant buildings without storefronts 3. An additional building- mounted sign is and single tenant buildings are permitted a permitted for each tenant with a storefront maximum of one building- mounted sign per where the tenant also has a dedicated public street frontage. entrance facing an off - street parking area or 2. A directory sign may be used at each public parking structure in the same block, provided entrance to identify tenants in multiple tenant that the secondary public entrance is located buildings without storefronts. For buildings on the side or rear fagade of the building. with fewer than three stories an additional 4. Tenant spaces located above the ground floor projecting sign not exceeding eight square may be identified by a directory sign or by feet may be located adjacent to a common a window sign or projecting sign located public entrance providing access to the upper adjacent to a common public entrance floor tenant spaces. providing access to the upper floor tenant (c) Multiple Tenant Buildings with Storefronts Refer to §153.065(H)(7)(b), Building- Mounted Signs, for specific requirements for building - mounted sign types, sizes, locations, and heights. 1. Buildings with ground floor storefronts are permitted a maximum of two building - mounted signs for each ground floor tenant with a storefront. The two permitted building - mounted signs shall not be of the same sign type. 2. One additional building- mounted sign is permitted for each tenant with a storefront with a public entrance facing an off - street parking area or parking structure in the same block, provided that the entrance is located on the side or rear fagade of the building. 3. A directory sign may be used to identify tenant spaces located above the ground floor. For buildings with fewer than three stories, spaces. (7) Specific Sign Type Requirements (a) Ground Signs 1. Ground sign height is measured from the established grade of the base of the sign to the top of the sign or its frame /support. The height may not be artificially increased. 2. All ground signs shall comply with the provisions of Table 153.065 -H, Ground Sign Requirements. (b) Building- Mounted Signs 1. Building- Mounted Sign Types and Measurements A. Building- mounted signs include wall signs, awning signs, projecting signs, and window signs. B. Wall sign height is measured directly beneath the sign from the established § 153.065 (H) EFFECTIVE DATE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - SIGNS APRIL 25, 2012 grade at the base of the structure to which the sign is attached to the top of the sign. C. Wall sign areas for buildings with storefronts shall be determined by taking the length of the storefront applicable to each tenant and computing sign requirements for that portion of the total wall. D. Projecting sign height is measured directly beneath the sign from the established grade at the base of the structure to which the sign is attached to the top of the sign, but shall not include brackets or equipment which are necessary to attach the sign to the structure. Necessary brackets or equipment shall not be counted as part of the sign area. 2. All building - mounted signs shall comply with the provisions of Table 153.065 -I, Building - Mounted Sign Requirements, except that: A. Any building- mounted sign associated with a secondary public entrance as described in §153.065(H)(6)(c) and (d) shall not exceed six square feet in size and shall be located within six feet of the secondary public entrance, as measured horizontally along the building fagade. B. Any projecting sign associated with a common public entrance providing access to upper floor tenant spaces as described in § 153.065(H)(6)(c) and (d) shall not exceed eight square feet and be located within six feet of the common public entrance. (c) Building Identification Signs 1. In addition to any other permitted signs, one building identification sign is permitted per street frontage for buildings with three or more stories. Building identification signs are not permitted in the BSC Historic Residential, Historic Core, or Historic Transition Neighborhood districts unless approved by the Architectural Review Board through a master sign plan (refer to §153.065(H)(2) (b)6) 2. Building identification signs shall comply with Table 153.065-J, Building Identification Sign Requirements. If street address numbers are used in lieu of the name of a major tenant, the street address numbers shall require a permanent sign permit and shall comply with Table 153.065 -J, Building Identification Sign Requirements. (d) Other Permitted Signs In addition to the signs permitted by Tables 153.065 -H through 153.065 -I, directory, display, and sandwich board signs shall be permitted in accordance with Table 153.065 -K, Requirements for Other Permitted Signs. TABLE 153.065 -H: GROUND SIGN REQUIREMENTS BSC Historic Core and Historic Transition Neighborhood Districts All Other BSC Districts Number Refer to §153.065(H)(6)(d) 1 per building or parcel, per street frontage, not to exceed 2. Size Maximum 8 sq. ft. Maximum 24 sq. ft. Historic Cottage Commercial building type only. 8 ft. from the minimum required building zone, setback, or street right -of -way, as appropriate Location for the building type. Refer to §153.062(0) for more information regarding building types. If Minimum setback of 8 ft. from the street right -of- way or any property line. two ground signs are used, the signs shall be located on different street frontages. Height Maximum Eft. Maximum 8ft. Permitted .ground signs may be attached to a freestanding wall or other similar structure on the same lot as the building or use. Sign foundations may not be exposed and shall either be mounted on a masonry base or clad in material compatible with the material used for the sign and the principal structure containing the General use with which the sign is associated. Ground signs shall be landscaped where appropriate to site conditions. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.065 DEVELOPMENTCODE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - SIGNS 103 TABLE 153.065 -I: BUILDING - MOUNTED SIGN REQUIREMENTS BSC Historic Core and Historic Transition Neighborhood All Other BSC Districts Districts Wall Sign Number Refer to §153.065(H)(6)(d). Refer to §153.065(H)(6)(a) through (c) for requirements based on building type. Size Maximum 8 sq. ft. '/z sq. ft. per each lineal foot of building wall or storefront width up to a maximum of 50 sq. ft. On walls facing a public street Signs shall be located on the portion of the wall associated with the tenant space or storefront, Location and /or within 6 ft. of the common public entrance, where not associated with a storefront. Wall signs shall not extend more than 14 inches from the face of the structure to which it is attached Height Maximum 15 ft., and shall not extend above the Located within the first story as appropriate to each building type of §153.062(0) and shall not roofline. extend above the roofline. Awning Sign Refer to §153.065(H)(6)(a) through (c) for Number Refer to §153.065(H)(6)(d). requirements based on building type. Only 1 sign permitted per awning. Size 20 0 /6 of the cumulative surface of the awning area, not to exceed 8 sq. ft. Location Awning signs may be on any portion of the awning, and affixed flat to the surface and shall not extend vertically or horizontally beyond the limit of the awning. Maximum 15 ft. Located within the first story as appropriate to I Height each building type of §153.062(0). The lowest portion of an awning sign shall be at least 8 ft. above the sidewalk. Projecting .Sign Number Refer to §153.065(H)(6)(d). Refer to §153.065(H)(6)(a) through (c) for requirements based on building type. Size Maximum 8 sq. ft. Maximum 16 sq. ft. Within 6 ft. of the principal entrance. Projecting signs shall be separated by at least 10 ft. from another projecting sign, as measured along the building facade. Location Projecting signs shall not extend more than 6 ft. from the face of the structure to which it is attached and maintain at least 8 ft. of clearance above the sidewalk. A projecting sign shall be located within 6 ft. of the principal entrance of the building or storefront, as measured horizontally along the building facade. Maximum 15 ft., or not extending above th7silr1l Located within the first story as appropriate to building type of §153.062(0) and shall not Height of the second story window whichever is l each , extend above the roof line. The lowest portion of a projecting sign shall be at least 8 feet above the sidewalk. Window Sign Number Refer to §153.065(H)(6)(d). Refer to §153.065(H)(6)(a) through (c) for requirements based on building type. Size 20 0 /6 of the surface area of the window to which it is attached, not to exceed 8 sq. ft. Location Ground floor only, except as permitted by Ground floor only §153.065(H)(6)(d)4. General Window signs shall only be permitted in lieu of display signs affixed to a window. Refer to Table 153.065 -K, Requirements for Other Permitted Signs, for Display Sign Requirements. § 153.065 (H) EFFECTIVE DATE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - SIGNS APRIL 25, 2012 TABLE 153.065 -J: BUILDING IDENTIFICATION SIGN REQUIREMENTS BSC Historic Core and Historic All Other BSC Districts Directory Signs Transition Neighborhood All Other BSC Districts Location Districts Size Number Height 1 wall sign per building or street frontage, not to exceed 2. Location On a building fagade facing a street. Size 1/z sq. ft. per each lineal foot of building frontage, each sign not to Height Not Permitted exceed 100 sq. ft. Height Shall not extend above the roofline. Not Permitted Individual channel or pin- mounted letters or characters are Sandwich board signs are permitted only immediately in front of the building containing the activity described on the sign. Signs shall be placed within 6 ft. of the primary ground floor public entrance of the business and generally along the same plane as other sandwich board signs to ensure a consistent sidewalk clearance. required. General 6 sq. ft. per side. Height 3 ft. General Buildings with frontage on the 1 -270 right -of -way are permitted an Sandwich board signs shall be removed and stored indoors or in a location not visible to the public during non - business hours. additional sign in accordance with §153.161 (A). TABLE 153.065 -K: REQUIREMENTS FOR OTHER PERMITTED SIGNS BSC Historic Core and Historic Transition Neighborhood Districts All Other BSC Districts Directory Signs Number 1 per public entrance. Location Located within 6 ft. of the entrance and mounted flat to the wall. Size Maximum 4 sq. ft. Height Ground floor only. Display Signs Size Display signs located within 3 feet of the window shall not exceed 20% of the surface area of the window on which the signs are displayed. Display signs affixed to a window shall not exceed 20% of the surface area and shall not be permitted if a window sign is used. Refer to Table 153.065 -1, Building- Mounted Sign Requirements, for window sign requirements. Height Ground floor only. Sandwich Board Signs Number 1 per ground floor storefront tenant. Not Permitted Location Sandwich board signs are permitted only immediately in front of the building containing the activity described on the sign. Signs shall be placed within 6 ft. of the primary ground floor public entrance of the business and generally along the same plane as other sandwich board signs to ensure a consistent sidewalk clearance. Signs shall maintain a minimum unobstructed 5 -ft. clearance on sidewalks and shall not impede the safe movement of pedestrians or the safe operation of vehicles. Size 6 sq. ft. per side. Height 3 ft. General Sandwich board signs may include chalkboard and whiteboard elements. The sandwich board sign structure shall be constructed with subdued colors. Sandwich board signs shall be removed and stored indoors or in a location not visible to the public during non - business hours. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.065 (H) 105 DEVELOPMENT CODE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANIDARDS - SIGNS 153.066 REVIEW AND APPROVAL development proposal and to provide information ROCEDURE$AND CRITERIA on the procedures and policies of the City, including the application review procedures that (A) INTENT may be used. The intent of §153.066 is to provide an efficient and (b) Pre- Application Reviews may be submitted and predictable review process for applications for rezoning processed simultaneously with a request for a and/or development within the Bridge Street Corridor Basic Plan Review as provided in §153.066(D). districts and to enhance Dublin's reputation for high quality (c) Pre- Application Reviews do not result in a development while allowing property owners to compete development decision or permit, and shall not for development consistent with the Vision Principles obligate the City or the developer to take any and direction articulated in the Bridge Street Corridor action on the proposal. Vision Report. The review and approval procedures and (2) Review Procedure criteria are also intended to ensure that new development and redevelopment is served by adequate and efficient (a) A request for a Pre- Application Review shall infrastructure so as not to burden the fiscal resources of the be made in accordance with the provisions of City, and generally to protect the health, safety, and general §153.066(L). welfare of residents, occupants, and users of property in (b) The City shall notify the applicant in writing the BSC districts and surrounding areas of the city. at least five days prior to the Pre- Application Review meeting. (B) REQUIRED REVIEWS (c) The ART and other applicable departments shall (1) This section outlines the requirements and procedures be promptly notified of the ART Pre- Application for development review specifically within the BSC Review meeting. Prior to the meeting the Director districts. The review types of §153.066 shall be used shall distribute the submitted materials to the ART for all development applications in a BSC district. and other applicable City departments for input (a) Refer to Table 153.066 -A, Summary Procedure and recommendations. Table, for the list of reviews and procedures (d) The ART shall review the submitted materials and applicable in all BSC districts. provide non - binding input and recommendations. (b) Refer to Figure 153.066 -A, Review and Approval The ART shall complete its review of the application not more than 14 days from the date Procedures for Planning and Zoning Commission the request was submitted. Reviews. (e) A written summary of comments and suggestions (c) Refer to Figure 153.066 -B, Review and Approval made during the Pre - Application Review shall be Procedures for Architectural Review Board provided to the applicant not more than 10 days Reviews. after the Pre- Application Review meeting. (d) Refer to Figure 153.066 -C, Other Review and (f) Prior to filing an application for the Basic Approval Procedures, illustrate the review and Plan Review, the applicant shall be given the approval procedures for development in all Bridge opportunity to revise the application in response to Street Corridor districts. the ART's comments. The applicant may schedule (2) The following abbreviations and terms are used in additional Pre - Application Review meetings with §153.066: the ART prior to filing a request for a Basic Plan ART — Administrative Review Team Review. ARB — Architectural Review Board (g) The written summary of the Pre - Application BZA — Board of Zoning Appeals Review shall be forwarded to the required reviewing body with the application for a Basic Commission —Planning and Zoning Commission Plan Review. Council — City Council (C) PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW (1) Purpose and Applicability (a) APre- Application Review with the Administrative Review Team (ART) is required for any proposal that requires Development Plan or Site Plan Review approval under the provisions of §153.066(E) and (F). The purpose of the Pre - Application Review is to provide a potential applicant with a non - binding review of a (D) BASIC PLAN REVIEW (1) Purpose and Applicability (a) The purpose of the Basic Plan Review is to outline the scope, character, and nature of the proposed development. The process is intended to allow the required reviewing body to evaluate the proposal for its consistency with the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report and this Chapter. It is also intended to provide clear direction to the applicant § 153.066 EFFECTIVE DATE REVIEW & APPROVAL APRIL 25, 2012 PROCEDURES & CRITERIA TABLE 153.066 -A: SUMMARY PROCEDURE TABLE R = Recommendation D = Decision A = Administrative Appeal RF = Review & Feedback Type of Application ART ARB BZA Commission Council City Code Reference Zoning Code Approvals Zoning Map or Text Amendment R R R D §153.234 Conditional Use R R D §153.236 Special Permit R D §153.231 (G) Use Variance R R D §153.231(H) Non -Use (Area) Variance R D §153.231(H) Subdivision Reviews Preliminary Plat R R D Chapter 152 Final Plat R R D Chapter 152 Other Approvals Administrative Appeals D A §153.231 (F) Building Code Appeal D §153.231 (1) Bridge Street Corridor Districts Pre - Application Review RF §153.066(C) ARB Basic Plan Review R RF RF §153.066(D) (3) Basic Plan Review Other BSC Districts R RF §153.066(D) ARB Development Plan Review R D A A §153.066(E) (6) Development Plan Other BSC Districts D A A §153.066(E) Development Plan Elective Review R A D A §153.066(E) (3) Development Plan Waiver Review R A D A §153.066(E) (4) ARB Site Plan Review R D A A §153.066(F)(6) Site Plan Review Other BSC Districts D A A §153.066(F) Site Plan Review Elective Review R A D A §153.066(F)(3) Site Plan Review Waiver Review R A D A §153.066(F)(4) Minor Projects D A A §153.066(G) Administrative Departure D A A §153.066(H) Open Space Fee in Lieu R A D A §153.064(D) and (E) Minor Modification to Approved Plans D A A §153.066(1) Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval (Building and Site Modifications) D A A §153.066(L)(3) ARB Master Sign Plan Review R D A A §153.065(H) (2) Master Sign Plan Other BSC Districts R/D A D A §153.065(H) (2) BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.066 107 DEVELOPMENTCODE REVIEW & APPROVAL PROCEDURES & CRITERIA FIGURE 153.066 -A: REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES INCLUDING COMMISSION REVIEWS PZC Basic PPT ART Pian Review Pre -App Pre•4 at-, n 18 Day Hnnd,no.v Review 1PDan pub8a IV /xn Na!!m ART PZc Development Apphr Lion DavelapmaM Plan plan Review Walrer /Elactlrs Ravlaw or separate Building Permit 1 i ART PZc L Applir9tion Sib Plan Site Plan Review WaararJEkctlwRev Nw lB Days n Days FIGURE 153.066 -13: REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES INCLUDING ARB REVIEWS ART Pre - Application ART Pre -APP Review ARB Basic Plan Review Option 14pa IR ft ys gibbf Matirc ART Development Application Plan —/ Review a8Daya orseparate ART 5i[e Plan Appllcatlon Review z8Dars ARB Development Plan and Walvers RaWew serviop Building Pe—Ft ARB Site Plan and Walvers FIGURE 153.066 -C: OTHER REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES and the ART in its review of an application for Development Plan or Site Plan Review. (b) The Basic Plan Review is also intended to provide an opportunity for public input at the earliest stages of the development process. (c) Except as provided in §153.066(D)(1)(d), a Basic Plan Review with the Planning and Zoning Commission is required for any proposal that requires Development Plan or Site Plan Review approval under the provisions of § 153.066(E) and (F). (d) ABasic Plan Review with the Architectural Review Board for applications involving property within the boundaries of the Architectural Review District is at the option of the applicant, or may be required by the ART if it concludes that the application includes major site or building improvements that would benefit from a Basic Plan Review by the ARB. (2) Review Procedure (a) An application for a Basic Plan Review shall be made in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (b) Public Review A public review of a Basic Plan application shall be held in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (c) The Planning and Zoning Commission shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Basic Plan Review based on the Development Plan Review Criteria of §153.066(E)(5) and /or the Site Plan Review Criteria of § 153.066 (F) (5). The decision on the Basic Plan Review shall be provided not more than 28 days from the filing of the Basic Plan Review application. The Commission shall schedule meetings as necessary to meet the review period requirement If denied, the applicant shall be permitted to reapply for another Basic Plan Review. (d) The applicant may request additional Basic Plan Reviews, which shall be subject to a 28 day review period and the required public review. 100 § 153.066 EFFECTIVE DATE REVIEW & APPROVAL APRIL 25, 2012 PROCEDURES & CRITERIA Minor Projects (e) The Basic Plan Review decision provided by 14 Days the required reviewing body shall be forwarded ART in writing to the applicant not less than 10 Approval Administrative days following the review. The decision on the Departures Basic Plan Review shall be incorporated into the Development Plan and/or Site Plan Review application. Director Minor Modifications (f) If a Development Plan and/or Site Plan Review Approval 14 Days application is not submitted within one year from the date of the last Basic Plan Review for a site, the applicant shall be required to obtain BZA Administrative an additional Basic Plan Review by the required Approval Appeals reviewing body prior to submitting an application for a Development Plan and /or Site Plan Review 100 § 153.066 EFFECTIVE DATE REVIEW & APPROVAL APRIL 25, 2012 PROCEDURES & CRITERIA involving the same site in accordance with §153.066(L). (E) DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW (1) Purpose and Applicability (a) The purpose of the Development Plan Review is to ensure that the street network and block framework meet the requirements of § §153.060 and 153.061, and §153.063 as applicable, and to ensure that the proposed development is consistent with the general development requirements of the City with respect to such elements as infrastructure, transportation, and environmental considerations. The Development Plan review process is not intended to be a review of the individual development regulations of §153.059 and § §153.062 through 153.065, which is intended for the Site Plan Review process. (b) An application for a Development Plan Review is required in the following conditions: 1. The application involves the construction of more than one principal structure on one or more parcels; or 2. The application includes five or more gross acres of land; or 3. The application involves the design or construction of new streets, or a proposed realignment or relocation of any other street in the general pattern of street development conceptualized by the Bridge Street Corridor Street Network map in §153.061 that is required or permitted by the City. (2) Review Procedure (a) An application for a Development Plan Review shall be made in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (b) The ART shall review the Development Plan application under the criteria of §153.066(E)(5) and render a decision not more than 28 days from the receipt of a completed application, except as provided for in §153.066(E)(6). A written summary of the ART's decision shall be provided to the applicant not more than 10 days after the Development Plan Review meeting. (c) Following the review, the applicant shall be given the opportunity to revise the application in response to the ART's comments if the application is not approved by the ART. The applicant may request additional subsequent meetings with the ART, which shall also be subject to a 28 day time limit for a decision. (3) Development Plan Elective Review (a) Rather than reaching a final determination under the provisions of §153.066(E)(2), the ART may elect to forward any Development Plan application to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a decision if it concludes that the application raises complex issues, such as the need for major infrastructure improvements and other neighborhood or community -wide effects, that would benefit from a Commission decision. (b) The ART shall submit its recommendation for consideration by the Commission under the procedures of §153.066(E)(2). (c) Public Review A public review of a Development Plan Elective Review application shall be held in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (d) The Commission shall consider the application and render a decision under the criteria of §153.066(E)(5) not more than 28 days from the recommendation of the ART. (4) Development Plan Waiver Review (a) Except for those applications provided for in §153.066(E)(6), applications for Development Plan approval that deviate from one or more of the requirements of § §153.060 and 153.061, andthat do not qualify for an Administrative Departure under the provisions of §153.066(H), maybe reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission as a Development Plan Waiver. (b) The applicant shall submit a list of proposed Waivers with the Development Plan application. Should other necessary Waivers be identified by the ART during its review, those Waivers may be included for review by the Commission. The ART shall review the requested Waivers and make recommendations to the Commission for their approval, denial, or approval with conditions in accordance with §153.066(E)(2). (c) The Commission shall review the recommendation of the ART and the specific Development Plan Waivers using the criteria of § 153.066(E)(4)(e). Should other Waivers be necessary to resolve conflicts with other requirements of this Chapter resulting from the requested Waivers, those Waivers shall also be reviewed by the Commission. (d) The Commission shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the specific Development Plan Waiver request(s) not more than 28 days from the recommendation of the ART. (e) Criteria for Development Plan Waivers Each required reviewing body shall make its recommendation or its decision on an application for Development Plan Waivers based on each of the following criteria and the recommendation of the required reviewing body during the Basic Plan Review: BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.066 109 DEVELOPMENTCODE REVIEW & APPROVAL PROCEDURES & CRITERIA I . The need for the Development Plan Waiver is caused by unique site conditions, the use or conditions on the property or surrounding properties, or other circumstance outside the control of the owner/lessee, including easements and rights -of -way, 2. The Waiver, if approved, will generally meet the spirit and intent of the Vision Report, 3. The Waiver is not being requested solely to reduce cost or as a matter of general convenience, and 4. The other elements of the Development Plan not affected by the Waiver will be generally consistent with §153.060(A) and §153.061(A). (5) Review Criteria for Development Plans Each required reviewing body shall make its recommendation or its decision on an application for Development Plan approval based on each of the following criteria and the recommendation of the required reviewing body during the Basic Plan Review: (a) The Development Plan shall be substantially similar to the approved Basic Plan. (b) The lots and blocks proposed are consistent with the requirements of §153.060, (c) The application is consistent with the general pattern of street development conceptualized by the BSC Street Network as shown in §153.061, and the expected traffic from the development can be accommodated on existing or proposed streets consistent with that system, (d) The application is consistent with the requirements of §153.063, Neighborhood Standards, if applicable, (e) If the development is to be implemented in phases, each phase is able to be considered independently, without the need for further phased improvements, (f) The application demonstrates consistency with the Vision Report, Community Plan and other related policy documents adopted by the City, and (g) The application provides adequate and efficient infrastructure to serve the proposed development, consistent with the City's most recently adopted Capital Improvements Program. (6) Architectural Review Board (ARB) (a) Applications for Development Plan approvals for property within the boundaries of the Architectural Review District shall be reviewed by the ART and then forwarded to the ARB with a recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Applications for ARB approval shall be reviewed in accordance with § 153.066(E)(5), as well as the provisions of §153.170 through §153.180. (b) Public Review Apublic review of a Development Plan application by the ARB shall be held in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (c) The ARB shall make a decision on the application not more than 28 days from the date of the ART's recommendation. (d) As part of the Development Plan approval, the ARB may review any Development Plan Waivers from the requirements of § §153.060 and 153.061 and approve, deny, or approve with conditions the specific provisions under review. Should other Waivers be necessary to resolve conflicts with other requirements of this Chapter resulting from the requested Waivers, those Waivers shall also be reviewed by the ARB in accordance with §153.066(E)(4)(e). (F) SITE PLAN REVIEW (1) Purpose and Applicability (a) The purpose of the Site Plan Review is to confirm that the proposed development of an individual site and building is consistent with the BSC district regulations. The Site Plan Review process is intended as a review of the individual development regulations of §153.059 and § §153.062 through 153.065. Approval of the Site Plan Review includes assuring that the dimensions of a parcel meet the lot size requirements for the applicable building type(s) and that the surrounding street network meets the applicable requirements of § §153.060 and 153.061. (b) A Site Plan Review is required for any development application within the BSC districts, including those applications for which a Development Plan is required, with the exception of any application meeting the requirements for a Minor Project as provided in §153.066(G). (2) Review Procedure (a) An application for a Site Plan Review shall be made in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (b) The ART shall review the Site Plan Review application under the criteria of §153.066(F)(5) and render a decision not more than 28 days from the receipt of a completed application, except for those applications provided for in §153.066(F)(6). A written summary of the ART's decision shall be provided to the applicant not more than 10 days after the Site Plan Review meeting. (c) Following the review, the applicant shall be given the opportunity to revise the application in response to the ART's comments if the application § 153.066 EFFECTIVE DATE REVIEW & APPROVAL APRIL 25, 2012 PROCEDURES & CRITERIA is not approved by the ART. The applicant may (c) Review Determination request additional subsequent meetings with 1. The ART shall review the Site Plan Review the ART, subject to the same time limits of Elective Review application and submit §153.066(F)(5)(b). its recommendation for consideration by (3) Planning and Zoning Commission Site Plan Review the Commission under the procedures of Elective Review §153.066(F)(2). (a) A Site Plan Review Elective Review shall 2. The Commission shall consider the be conducted by the Planning and Zoning application and render a decision under the Commission under the following conditions: criteria of § 153.066(F)(5) not more than 28 1. The ART may forward any Site Plan Review days from the recommendation of the ART. application to the Planning and Zoning (4) Site Plan Review Waiver Review Commission for a decision if it concludes (a) Except for those applications provided for that the application raises complex issues, in §153.066(F)(6), applications for Site Plan such as the need for major infrastructure Review approval that deviate from one or more improvements and other neighborhood or of the requirements of §153.059 and § §153.062 community -wide effects that would benefit through 153.065, and that do not qualify for an from a Commission decision. Administrative Departure under the provisions of 2. Should the ART determine that the number § 153.066(Fl), shall be reviewed by the Planning and scope of Site Plan Review Waivers and Zoning Commission. requested by the applicant would have a (b) The applicant shall submit a list of proposed detrimental effect on the intent of the district Waivers with the Site Plan Review application. in which it is located and/or the Vision Should other necessary Waivers be determined Report, it may forward the Site Plan Review by the ART during its review, those Waivers may application for Commission review, provided be included for review by the Commission. The that any elements of the application meeting ART shall review the requested Waivers and this Chapter remain unchanged. make recommendations to the Commission for 3. Any applicant may request a Site Plan their approval, denial, or approval with conditions Review by the Commission to modify any under the procedures of §153.066(F)(2). provisions of §153.059 and § §153.062 (c) The Commission shall review the through 153.065. The Commission shall recommendation of the ART and the specific approve the requested modifications only Site Plan Review Waivers using the criteria after reaching findings that all of the of §153.066(F)(4)(e). Should other Waivers following are met: be necessary to resolve conflicts with other A. The development proposal as modified requirements of this chapter resulting from the will otherwise meet the spirit and intent requested Waivers, those Waivers shall also be of the district in which it located and the reviewed by the Commission. Vision Report, (d) The Commission shall approve, deny, or approve B. The requested modification will result in with conditions the specific Site Plan Review a development of equal or greater quality Waiver request(s) not more than 28 days from the with respect to design, material, and recommendation of the ART. other similar development features, (e) Criteria for Site Plan Review Waivers C. The requested modification would better Each required reviewing body shall make its be addressed through an individual recommendation or its decision on an application modification rather than an amendment for a Site Plan Review Waiver approval based to the requirements of this Chapter, and on each of the following criteria, and with due D. The request for a modification is caused consideration of the recommendation of the ART: by unique site conditions or conditions 1. The need for the Site Plan Review Waiver is on surrounding properties, and is not caused by unique site conditions, the use of being requested simply to reduce cost or or conditions on the property or surrounding as a matter of general convenience. properties, or other circumstance outside (b) Public Review the control of the owner/lessee, including A public review of a Site Plan Review Elective easements and rights -of -way, Review application shall be held in accordance 2. The Site Plan Review Waiver is not being with the provisions of §153.066(L). requested solely to reduce cost or as a matter of general convenience, BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.066 111 DEVELOPMENTCODE REVIEW & APPROVAL PROCEDURES & CRITERIA 3. The Site Plan Review Waiver does not have the effect of authorizing any use or open space type that is not otherwise permitted in that BSC district, and 4. The Site Plan Review Waiver, if approved, will ensure that the development is of equal or greater development quality with respect to design, material, and other similar development features than without the Waiver. (5) Review Criteria for Site Plan Review Each required reviewing body shall make its recommendation or its decision on an application for Site Plan Review approval based on each of the following criteria and the recommendation of the required reviewing body during the Basic Plan Review: (a) The Site Plan Review shall be substantially similar to the approved Basic Plan. (b) If a Development Plan has been approved that includes the property, the application is consistent with the Development Plan, (c) The application meets all applicable requirements of §153.059 and § §153.062 through 153.065 except as may be authorized by Administrative Departure(s) pursuant to §153.066(H), (d) The internal circulation system and driveways provide safe and efficient access for residents, occupants, visitors, emergency vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians, (e) The relationship of buildings and structures to each other and to other facilities provides for the coordination and integration of the development within the surrounding area and the larger community and maintains the image of Dublin as a high quality community, (f) The application is consistent with the requirements for types, distribution, and suitability of open space in §153.064 and the site design incorporates natural features and site topography to the maximum extent practicable, (g) The scale and design of the proposed development allows the adequate provision of services currently furnished by or that maybe required by the City or other public agency including, but not limited to, fire and police protection, public water and sanitary sewage services, recreational activities, traffic control, waste management, and administrative services, (h) Stormwater management systems and facilities will not cause alterations that could increase flooding or water pollution on or off the site, and removal of surface waters will not adversely affect neighboring properties, (i) If the development is to be implemented in phases, each phase is able to be considered independently, without the need for further phased improvements, and O The application demonstrates consistency with the BSC Vision Report, Community Plan and other related policy documents adopted by the City. (6) Architectural Review Board (ARB) (a) Applications for Site Plan Review approvals for property within the boundaries of the Architectural Review District shall be reviewed by the ART and forwarded to the ARB with a recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Applications for ARB approval shall be reviewed using the criteria of §153.066(F)(5), as well as the provisions of §153.170 through §153.180. (b) Public Review A public review of a Site Plan Review by the ARB shall be held in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (c) The ARB shall make a decision on applications for Site Plan Review approval not more than 28 days from the date of the ART's recommendation. (d) As part of the Site Plan Review approval, the ARB may review any requests for Site Plan Review Waivers from the requirements of §153.059 and §§153.062 through 153.065 and approve, deny, or approve with conditions the specific provisions under review. Should other Waivers be necessary to resolve conflicts with other requirements of this Chapter resulting from the requested Waivers, those Waivers shall also be reviewed by the ARB. (e) In the event of a conflict between the requirements of §153.059 and § §153.062 through 153.065 and the provisions of §153.170 through §153.180, the ARB shall determine the most appropriate provisions to apply to the specific application based on the criteria of §153.066(F) (5) (G) MINOR PROJECTS (1) Purpose and Applicability (a) The purpose of the Minor Project review is to provide an efficient review process for smaller projects that do not have significant community effects. The Minor Project review is necessary to ensure that applications meet the requirements of this chapter. (b) The following improvements are considered Minor Projects: 1. Single family detached dwelling units. 2. Multiple family and townhouse buildings of 8 or fewer dwelling units in a single building § 153.066 EFFECTIVE DATE REVIEW & APPROVAL APRIL 25, 2012 PROCEDURES & CRITERIA BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.066 113 DEVELOPMENTCODE REVIEW & APPROVAL PROCEDURES & CRITERIA on an individual lot and not part of a larger (H) ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTURES development complex. (1) Purpose and Applicability 3. Development of mixed use and non- The intent of §153.066(14) is to provide an residential principal structures of 10,000 administrative process to allow minor deviations from square feet or less gross floor area and the strict application of the BSC district requirements associated site development requirements. caused by unusual site or development conditions or 4. Additions to principal structures that increase conditions unique to a particular use or other similar the gross floor area by not more than 25 %, conditions that require reasonable adjustments, but or not more than 10,000 square feet gross remain consistent with the intent of this chapter. floor area, whichever is less, existing as of Examples include, but are not limited to, adjustments the effective date of this amendment, or when to building setbacks, parking requirements, first constructed. landscaping, building materials, or other similar 5. Exterior modifications to principal structures features or elements. involving not more than 25% of the total (2) Review Procedure fagade area of the structure. (a) An application for Administrative Departure 6. Signs, landscaping, parking, and other site may be submitted with an application for a related improvements that do not involve Development Plan, Site Plan Review, or Minor construction of a new principal building. Project approval, or at any time after those Parks, when used to meet requirements as an applications have been submitted and before a open space type, as provided in §153.064, decision or recommendation by the ART has shall require Site Plan Review. been made. If an application for Administrative 7. Accessory structures and uses. Departure is made after an application for a Development Plan, Site Plan Review, or Minor 8. Modifications to Existing Structures in Project has been filed, the Director may require accordance with §153.062(B), that the time period for ART review start over (2) Review Procedure on the day the request for an Administrative (a) An application for a Minor Project Review shall Departure is received. be made in accordance with the provisions of (b) An application for an Administrative Departure §153.066(L). may be processed simultaneously with the (b) After accepting a complete application for a Development Plan, Site Plan Review, or Minor Minor Project, the ART shall approve, deny, Project application to which it relates. The or approve with conditions the application not ART shall determine whether each requested more than 14 days from the date the request Administrative Departure is approved, approved was submitted, provided that the applicant has with conditions, or denied. Decisions on provided all materials required by the City. The Administrative Departures shall be reported to City shall notify the applicant in writing not less the required reviewing body if a Development than five days prior to the review meeting. Plan, and/or Site Plan Review Waiver or Elective Review is conducted. (c) The ART shall review the application and approve, deny, or approve with conditions, based (c) Should the ART find that the request does not on the criteria of § I 53.066(F)(5)(e) applicable to meet the criteria for an Administrative Departure, Site Plan Review approvals. A written summary the applicant may file for a Development Plan of the ART decision shall be provided to the Waiver under the provisions of § I53.066(E)(4) or applicant not more than 10 days after the Minor a Site Plan Review Waiver under the provisions of Project review meeting. § I 53.066(F)(4), or submit a new application for Development Plan or Site Plan Review. (d) Following the review, the applicant shall be given the opportunity to revise the application in (3) Criteria for Administrative Departure Approval response to the ART's comments if the application The ART shall make its decision on Administrative is not approved by the ART. The applicant may Departure based on the following criteria: request additional subsequent meetings with the (a) The need for the Administrative Departure is ART, which shall also be subject to the 14 day caused by unique site conditions, conditions on time limit for a decision. surrounding properties, and/or otherwise complies with the spirit and intent of the Vision Report, and is not being requested simply to reduce cost or as a matter of general convenience, (b) The Administrative Departure does not have the effect of authorizing any use, sign, building type, BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.066 113 DEVELOPMENTCODE REVIEW & APPROVAL PROCEDURES & CRITERIA or open space type that is not otherwise permitted in that BSC district, (c) The Administrative Departure does not modify any numerical zoning standard related to building dimensions, lot dimensions or coverage, open space, landscaping, parking, fencing, walls, screening, or exterior lighting by more than 10% of the requirement, and (d) The Administrative Departure, if approved, will ensure that the development is of equal or greater development quality with respect to design, material, and other development features than without the Administrative Departure. (1) MINOR MODIFICATIONS (1) Purpose and Applicability (a) The Director may authorize Minor Modifications to an approved Development Plan or Site Plan Review that are required to correct any undetected errors or omissions, address conditions discovered during the permitting process or construction, or that are necessary to ensure orderly and efficient development. Any approved Minor Modifications must be generally consistent with the approved Development Plan or Site Plan Review. (b) The following are considered Minor Modifications. 1. Adjustments to lot lines, provided no additional lots are created and required setbacks and/or RBZs are maintained, 2. Adjustments to the location and layout of parking lots provided the perimeter setbacks, yards and buffers, and required parking are maintained, 3. Adjustments for buildings up to 10% in total floor area of the originally approved building, building height(s) or floor plans, that do not alter the character of the use, 4. Substitution of landscaping materials specified in the landscape plan with comparable materials of an equal or greater size, 5. Redesigning and/or relocating stormwater management facilities provided that general character and stormwater capacities are maintained, 6. Relocating fencing, walls or screening (not including screening walls), provided that the same level and quality of materials and screening are maintained, 7. Modifications to sign location, sign face, landscaping and lighting, provided the sign number and dimensional requirements are maintained, 8. Changes in building material or colors that are similar to and have the same general appearance comparable to or of a higher quality as the material approved on the Site Plan Review, 9. Changes required by outside agencies such as the county, state, or federal departments, and/ or 10. Other modifications deemed appropriate by the Director that do not alter the basic design or any specific conditions imposed as part of the original approval. (2) Review Procedure (a) An application for a Minor Modification shall be made in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (b) The Director shall review the application and make a decision on the request for a Minor Modification not more than 14 days after receiving a complete application. (c) Following the decision, the applicant shall be given the opportunity to revise the application in response to the Director's comments and resubmit for further consideration. If a revised application is submitted, the 14 day review period shall start over on the day the revised request is received. (d) Requests not meeting the requirements for a Minor Modification shall require the filing and approval of a new application for a Development Plan Review, Site Plan Review, Minor Project Review, or other review, as applicable, in accordance with §153.066. (J) OTHER APPLICABLE REVIEWS (1) Open Space Fee in Lieu The Planning and Zoning Commission shall determine whether a request for a payment of a fee in lieu of open space dedication is appropriate, as provided in §153.064(D) and (E), after recommendation from the ART. (2) Conditional Uses The Conditional Use approval procedures in §153.236 shall apply in the BSC districts. In addition, a recommendation from the ART shall be submitted for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission. (3) Zoning Map or Text Amendment The amendment procedures of §153.234 shall apply in the BSC districts. In addition, a recommendation from the ART shall be submitted for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. (4) Preliminary and Final Plats Reviews of Preliminary and Final Plats shall be governed by Chapter 152 of the Dublin Code of § 153.066 EFFECTIVE DATE REVIEW & APPROVAL APRIL 25, 2012 PROCEDURES & CRITERIA (5) Special Permit The Special Permit procedures in §153.231(G) shall apply in the BSC districts. (6) Zoning Variance The zoning Variance procedures in §153.231(I) shall apply in the BSC districts. In addition, a recommendation from the ART shall be submitted for consideration by the Board of Zoning Appeals, and for City Council in the instance of a Use Variance. (7) Public Tree Permit The tree permit requirements of §153.134(G) shall apply in the BSC districts. (8) Master Sign Plan The Planning and Zoning Commission or Architectural Review Board shall review all master sign plans in the BSC districts, as provided in §153.065(H). (K) ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL (1) The Administrative Appeal provisions of §153.231(F) apply in the BSC districts. (2) Decisions on appeals are limited to those specific provisions or approvals that are the subject of the appeal. No other part of an application shall be modified by the Board of Zoning Appeals. (3) The decision of the BZA may be further appealed to City Council within 10 days of the BZA decision. (4) City Council must determine whether or not to hear the appeal, in its sole discretion and by a motion passed by a majority vote, no later than 21 days following the Clerk of City Council's receipt of the written notice of appeal, unless an extended time is agreed upon by City Council and the applicant. (5) City Council shall decide the appeal no later than 28 days following the date of Council's decision to hear the appeal unless an extended time is otherwise agreed upon by City Council and the applicant. In considering the appeal, City Council may consider any evidence and may affirm, reverse, or otherwise modify the decision of the BZA or any other part of the application. (L) GENERAL PROVISIONS (1) Applications (a) Each application required by §153.066 shall be made in writing on a form provided by the City and shall be accompanied by the fee as established by City Council. (b) Applications for approvals in the BSC districts shall include all information required by the City, unless some information is deemed unnecessary by the Director based on the nature and scale of the proposed development. No application shall be accepted by the City until it is complete. Any applicable time limits noted in §153.066 shall not begin until a complete application is accepted by the City. If found to be incomplete, the Director shall inform the applicant of any additional materials required to complete the application. (c) After acceptance of a complete application, the Director and/or required reviewing body may request additional materials if deemed necessary to evaluate the proposal. (d) Resubmission No application for a Development Plan or Site Plan Review which has been denied by the required reviewing body shall be resubmitted for a period of one year from the date of the decision, unless permitted by the Director after a demonstration by the applicant of a change of circumstances from the previous application that may reasonably result in a different decision. (e) Simultaneous Processing In cases where a Development Plan application is submitted, a Site Plan Review and/or a Minor Project may be reviewed simultaneously with that Development Plan, but a Site Plan Review or Minor Project approval shall not be effective until the Development Plan has been approved. If appropriate, other required reviews as provided in this section may be processed jointly with a Development Plan and/or Site Plan Review application. (f) Public Reviews Where public reviews are required by this section, a written notice of the public meeting shall be sent to the applicant, property owner, and owners of parcels of land within 300 feet of the subject parcel(s), as listed on the County Auditor's current tax list, not less than 10 days prior to the meeting. The notice shall, at a minimum, indicate the property that is the subject of the request, describe the nature of the request, the time, date and location of the meeting at which the application will be considered, and indicate when and where written comments will be received concerning the request. (2) Decisions (a) Any application required to be reviewed under §153.066 shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the required reviewing body based on the applicable review criteria as provided in §153.066. The recommending body and required reviewing body shall state the reasons for their decisions in the minutes and provide a written record of the decision to the applicant not more than 10 days after a recommendation or decision is made, unless otherwise provided in this section. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.066 115 DEVELOPMENTCODE REVIEW & APPROVAL PROCEDURES & CRITERIA (b) Prior to reaching a decision, if the required year following the completion of the Basic Plan reviewing body determines that an application Review. If a Development Plan and/or Site Plan does not meet the applicable review criteria Review application is not filed within this period as provided in §153.066, but determines that a new application for a Basic Plan Review shall the application could meet those criteria with be required in accordance with the requirements modifications that could not be reasonably of §153.066(D). conditioned, the applicant may request that the (b) All Development Plan, Site Plan Review, and application be tabled to provide the opportunity Minor Project approvals made pursuant to to make those modifications. If the request for §153.066 shall be valid for a period of two years. tabling is granted, a new review period shall begin If an initial building permit for the approved on the date the applicant submits a complete development has not been issued within that application with revised materials. two year period, the applicant shall be required (c) Following the approval of a Site Plan Review to apply for a new Development Plan, Site Plan or Minor Project application, the applicant Review, or Minor Project approval, as applicable, may proceed with the process for obtaining a pursuant to § 153.066 before obtaining a building Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval and building permit. permit, consistent with the approval as granted. (c) Abandonment All construction and development under any building permit shall comply with the approved 1. Once a final approval is granted by the Site Plan Review and Development Plan, and any required reviewing body, if significant other approval, as applicable. construction is not started within two years and meaningfully continued, or the Director (3) Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval of Building Standards determines that work A Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval issued by the has been abandoned for a continuous period Director verifying compliance with all applicable of six months, the approval shall lapse and zoning requirements is required prior to modification, cease to be in effect. extension, or alteration of sites and structures, and/or 2. The Director of Building Standards shall change of use in BSC districts. establish the date of abandonment based on (4) Code Administration the presence of one or more of the following The Planning and Zoning Commission and the conditions: Architectural Review Board may evaluate and monitor A. Removal of construction equipment or the application of the requirements and standards supplies; of § §153.057 through 153.066 by the ART. The B. Expiration of an active building permit Commission and the Architectural Review Board issued by the City, may advise the ART as to whether it finds that the requirements or standards (including requests for C. Evidence of a failure to maintain the Administrative Departures) are being applied correctly, property, such as overgrown weeds, and recommend to City Council any changes needed failure to secure buildings, broken in the BSC district standards and requirements to windows, or other evidence of lack of better implement the Vision Report. maintenance; (5) Time Extensions D. Other actions documented by the Director of Building Standards and/or (a) Where the provisions of § 153.066 require that Director evidencing an intent to abandon an action be taken by the City within a stated the construction of the project. period of time, that time may be extended with the written consent of both the applicant and the 3. If a new application is not submitted within Director prior to expiration of the required time 90 days from the date of abandonment as period. determined by the Director of Building Standards, the owner shall restore the site (b) If the applicant submits arevised application to its previous condition, and/or remove during any required review period, and the any structures or other evidence of work on Director determines that the revised application the site, within 180 days from the date of differs substantially from the previous application, abandonment. a new review period shall begin and additional meetings of the required reviewing body may be (7) Administrative Review Team (ART) scheduled if deemed necessary by the Director. (a) The purpose of the Administrative Review Team (6) Duration of Approvals is to provide for review and approval authority for certain applications as defined by §153.066. (a) An application shall be filed for a Development The Administrative Review Team is responsible Plan and/or Site Plan Review approval within one for the comprehensive review of each application, 6 § 153.066 EFFECTIVE DATE REVIEW & APPROVAL APRIL 25, 2012 PROCEDURES & CRITERIA and making recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission, Architectural Review Board, or Board of Zoning Appeals where required. The ART is also responsible for making decisions in an efficient and timely manner based on evaluation of objective development standards and specific review criteria. While these objective standards and criteria must guide the decisions of the ART, it is recognized that some degree of subjectivity must be part of the ART's deliberations. (b) The Administrative Review Team shall consist of the Director (Chair), City Engineer, Fire Chief, Economic Development Manager, Parks and Open Space Director, . Police Chief, and Chief Building Official, or their representatives, and any other members appointed by the City Manager as deemed necessary, either as permanent or temporary members. (c) The ART may use the services of other professionals, such as architectural, engineering, and other consultants as they deem necessary, to advise the ART on the application of the provisions of this Chapter. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.066 117 DEVELOPMENTCODE REVIEW & APPROVAL PROCEDURES & CRITERIA City of Dublin Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 -1090 Phone: 614 - 410 -4400 • Fax: 614 - 410 -4490 To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Marsha I. Grigsby, City Manager \ 1 NL- - Date: March 22, 2012 Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning Memo Re: Ordinance 07 -12 (Amended) - An Ordinance Adding Sections 153.057 through 153.066 to the City of Dublin Codified Ordinances (Zoning Code) to Establish the New Bridge Street Corridor Zoning Districts, Development Standards and Approval Process, and Amending Section 153.002 of the City of Dublin Codified Ordinances (Zoning Code) to Add and Modify Definitions. (Case 11- 020ADM) Update Ordinance 07 -12 was introduced for first reading at the February 13, 2012 City Council meeting, and was reviewed by City Council on February 27, March 12, and March 19, 2012. At the March 19 Study Session, Council members requested clarification regarding the purpose of the Basic Plan Review, the role of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Administrative Review Team (ART) in that review, and the level of detail anticipated as part of the Basic Plan application. Other clarifications in the Approvals section are provided regarding the potential for City Council to hear appeals and for the review criteria for Development Plan /Site Plan Review Waivers. In addition, Section 153.058 (A) has been amended to specifically state that applications for rezonings to non -BSC zoning districts may be sought. Review and Approval Process Summary Several modifications to the Basic Plan Review process are recommended based on Council's feedback at the March 19 study session. The review and approval process in Section 153.066 includes a Basic Plan Review that provides the opportunity for a proposal to be reviewed in some detail for consistency with the BSC Vision Report and the Zoning Code. It also provides for public comment on the Basic Plan and allows for Planning and Zoning Commission feedback early in the process. Planning and Zoning Commission Approval Authority (Page 4 of 21, red -lined version) The process first recommended by the City Administration provided for the Planning and Zoning Commission to provide non - binding feedback. The proposed revised process requires the Commission to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a Basic Plan Review. The Commission will use the same review criteria to review the Basic Plan Review as the Administrative Review Team (ART) uses for the Development Plan /Site Plan Reviews. To ensure that approval time limits are met, the Code allows 28 days to vote on the application following the submission for a request for Basic Plan Review. The text includes a requirement that the Commission adjust its meeting schedule as needed to meet this time frame. This modification is based on Council's desire to allow the Commission and the public to have meaningful input, while ensuring that the review is completed within the stated time. Memo re. Ord. 07- 12(Amended) Bridge Street Corridor District Zoning Code March 22, 2012 Page 2 of 3 Validity of Basic Plan Review (Pages 7 and 11 of 21, red -lined version) To ensure that the Basic Plan Review and the subsequent development submission are substantially the same, a review criteria has been added to the Development Plan and Site Plan Review applications used by the ART that requires the plans to be substantially similar to the Basic Plans approved by the Commission. If the ensuing Development Plans and Site Plans are inconsistent with the approved Basic Plans, the applicant may be required to submit a new Basic Plan Review application for review by the Commission. Basic Plan Review Requirements It is expected that a Basic Plan Review application may be submitted to simultaneously cover both the Development Plan and Site Plan Review applications. However, they may be submitted separately, which would then require two Basic Plan Reviews -- one for the Development Plan and one for the Site Plan Review. As the nature of the Development Plan and Site Plan Review are quite different, separate submission requirements would be in place. A list of Basic Plan requirements is attached to this memo. This information is not part of the Zoning Code, but will be administered by staff. This is to avoid having to amend the Zoning Code if staff determines that additional application information should be submitted. Development Plan Waivers: Section 153.066 (E)(3) Page 6 of 21 (red -lined version) Site Plan Review Waivers: Section 153.066 (F)(3) Page 10 of 21 (red -lined version) Waivers are always approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The number and nature of waivers will vary widely from project to project. A simple waiver, such as minor deviations from the percent of primary building materials required. For example, the use of a material such as an architectural metal panel cannot be more than 20% of any building fagade. A unique architectural design may call for a 30% this material; this could only occur if approved by the Commission. A more complex waiver might be permitting a building to be located outside the required building zone, which would permit parking to be in the front of the building, for example. This again would have to be approved by the Commission. The waiver language has been modified to clarify the conditions under which a waiver can be approved. It adds language that permits the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider other property conditions not within the control of the owner /lessee, including rights -of -way and easements. It does not include requested language that would have required the City to enforce private deed or other private restrictions on the property that exist between two private property owners. (Pages 6 of 21 and 10 of 21, red -lined version) Language for Site Plan Review Waivers has been clarified from earlier text. The revised text requires consideration of the use of (rather than uses of ) or conditions regarding adjacent Memo re. Ord. 07- 12(Amended) Bridge Street Corridor District Zoning Code March 22, 2012 Page 3 of 3 properties that could create a condition where a waiver might be warranted. (Page 10 of 21, red- lined version) Council Appeals (Page 18 of 21, red -lined version) The Law Director has prepared language requested by Council for the right of an applicant to appeal a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals (Section 153.066 (Q. Recommendation Staff recommends City Council approval of Ordinance 07 -12 (Amended) at the March 26, 2012 City Council meeting. (Attachment: Basic Plan Review Requirements) BASIC PLAN REQUIREMENTS Any application for a Development Plan or a Site Plan Review requires a Basic Plan Review. The purpose of the Basic Plan Review is to provide the Planning and Zoning Commission with information sufficient to make a determination as to the consistency of the proposal with the BSC Vision Report and the Zoning Code. Greater levels of detail will be required for a Development Plan and Site Plan Review to be completed by the Administrative Review Team. General Requirements - Plan information including name of development, name of developer, plan scale, plan date and dates of revisions, location map, and north arrow. - Property Description: area, dimensions - Project Description: Generally outline the potential project. (Details may vary widely depending on the applicant's stage of the development process.) - General conformance to the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report, Zoning Code Section 153.057 (BSC General Purpose), and Zoning Code Section 153.058 (BSC Districts Intent). - List of Development Plan /Site Plan Review Waiver(s) (if known) and a brief description of the need for the Waiver(s). - Conceptual phasing plan (if applicable) - Other materials or information on which the applicant would like to receive feedback. Basic Plan Requirements: Development Plan Review Applications The Development Plan's purpose is to show proposed streets, lots, and block dimensions and configurations. Accordingly, the Basic Plan Review for a future Development Plan application will include these basic elements. Streets and Utilities - Street network designations - Relationships to existing or planned adjoining streets - Street types and typical sections - Possible intersection modifications - Location of all proposed access points, including potential service streets - Location of sanitary service or needed extensions - Location of water service and fire hydrants or needed extensions - Location and general plan for stormwater management compliance - Location and level of pedestrian access provisions - Fire access zones - On street parking areas Lot and Block Configurations - Lot dimensions and locations of Required Building Zones - Block dimensions, length and perimeter - Planned /potential public or private open spaces adjacent the public realm - Possible building types, if known - Mid -block pedestrian locations Basic Plan Requirements: Site Plan Review The purpose of the Basic Plan Review prior to the Site Plan Review application submission is to ensure that the applicable Site Development Standards, Building Type requirements, and open space types and requirements, and other essential project elements are considered. Bui lding Types and Architecture - Schematic architectural renderings • General details on roof plans • Conceptual building sections • Conceptual building elevations • Planned building materials /material palettes - Building type(s) - Terminal vista treatments (if applicable) - Method of meeting building variety requirements Site Development - Use • Planned uses • Number of dwelling units • Square footage - Building and Site • Building stories • Front and corner property line coverage • Building envelopes • Buildable areas • Required building zones - Open Space • Required open space computations and method(s) of compliance • Open Space Types • Potential for fee -in -lieu application - Parking • Parking computations • General parking locations and computations - Landscape • Typical landscape treatments • Streetscape • Parking areas • Tree preservation methods • Street trees - Signs • General sign locations • Sign Plan concept (if known) - Site Management • Conceptual grading plan (where necessary) • Location and general plan for stormwater management compliance 153.057 -058 — General Purpose and BSC Districts Intent City Council — March 26, 2012 New Text Deleted T.Put § 153.057 General Purpose (A) The primary purpose of the Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) districts is to implement the Vision Principles for development and redevelopment of the corridor consistent with the directions articulated in the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report . This is with the full recognition that the Report may be revised and acknowledging that the illustrations in the Report are conceptual and not regulatory. The Vision Report identifies the Bridge Street Corridor as the centerpiece of the city with a focus on historic and cultural acknowledgement, preservation and creation of outstanding open spaces, and the presence of mixed use districts. These features allow for a wider range of choices for housing and employment, create interesting places and walkable districts, and enable buildings of lasting, memorable architecture. (B) The Bridge Street Corridor districts are intended to bring to life the five Vision Principles of the Vision Report by enhancing economic vitality; integrating the new center into community life; embracing Dublin's natural setting and celebrating a commitment to environmental sustainability; expanding the range of choices available to Dublin and the region; and creating places that embody Dublin's commitment to community. (C) Specific Purpose (1) More specifically, the purpose of the Bridge Street Corridor districts is to promote development that creates an emerging center for urban lifestyles within a walkable, mixed use urban environment that will enhance central Dublin's image as an exceptional location for high quality business investment. (2) These districts are further intended to create places that embody Dublin's commitment to community through the preservation of those areas having architectural landmarks and traditional design, creating complete neighborhoods, and providing designs that honor human scale in their details. In addition, the Bridge Street Corridor will continue to serve as a center of community for current and future Dublin residents. (3) The BSC districts also provide a simplified, but thorough, development review process that provides a high degree of predictability and consistency. The process also sustains Dublin's reputation for high quality development while allowing BSC property owners to compete efficiently and effectively in the marketplace. (4) Because the Vision Report is a transformative redevelopment concept designed for long -term implementation, a secondary purpose of the Bridge Street Corridor districts is to allow property owners the flexibility to take advantage of new and innovative business opportunities that are consistent with the Vision Report. § 153.058 Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) Districts Scope and Intent (A) Scope The following Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) districts are hereby created. No land designat as ° 14 li to ° nl,.. D e l e p.. ei 4 (PD) di iet The districts described by 053.058 are intended to be used for all land within the Bridge Street Corridor. Unless otherwise specifically noted, after the Page 1 of 4 153.057- 058 — General Purpose and BSC Districts Intent New Text Deleted T.Put City Council — March 26, 2012 effective date of this amendment all development and redevelopment within the BSC districts shall be consistent with the general purpose of the BSC districts as specified in § 153.057 and subject to the regulations of §§ 153.058 through 153.066. Other provisions of Chapters 152 and 153 of the Dublin Code of Ordinances apply in the BSC districts to the extent those provisions are not inconsistent with the provisions of §§ 153.058 through 153.066. Nothing contained herein shall prohibit an application for rezoning to any non -BSC district provided in this Chapter. (B) Intent The Bridge Street Corridor zoning districts are generally based on the District Framework of the Vision Report. The purpose of the Framework is to allow development regulations to be adapted to the unique conditions present in each area. Although each district is unique, the five Vision Principles are intended to create a cohesive area, based on the concepts of walkability and urban vitality to support the quality of life for residents of all generations. The titles of each district are intended to describe the predominant land use character and/or special geographic locations rather than a single type of use. The following further describes the intent of each BSC district. (1) BSC Residential The intent of this district is to accommodate single - family, two - family, townhouse, live -work and multiple - family uses in mid -rise development. The BSC Residential district integrates existing and new residential developments to create true neighborhoods and add to the population base needed to help support nearby retail and office development. Uses are generally limited to residential and small -scale residential support uses, as listed in Table 153.059 -A. (2) BSC Office Residential The intent of this district is to accommodate a mix of office and multiple- family residential development at higher densities and in larger buildings. This district offers great flexibility to take advantage of visibility and access for office uses, with opportunities to create residential neighborhoods to support the adjacent BSC districts. Uses include a mix of residential, personal service, and commercial uses, as listed in Table 153.059 -A. (3) BSC Office The intent of this district is to allow a mix of offices and retail support uses, as listed in Table 153.059 -A. The BSC Office district provides significant additional development capacity and redevelopment opportunities that foster office uses with a walkable design along signature streets, and provides increased accessibility and an improved roadway network to ease traffic pressure along major roadways. (4) BSC Commercial This district applies generally to existing retail centers and other low -rise commercial uses, including single use freestanding retail buildings, as listed in Table 153.059 -A. Properties initially zoned into this district may be eligible for rezoning to the BSC Vertical Mixed Use District or to other surrounding BSC districts when future redevelopment to higher densities is desired. (5) BSC Historic Core This district applies to the historic center of Dublin and reinforces the character of this area as the centerpiece of the Bridge Street Corridor. The district focuses on ensuring sensitive infill Page 2 of 4 153.057- 058 — General Purpose and BSC Districts Intent New Text Deleted T.Put City Council — March 26, 2012 development and redevelopment and providing an improved environment for walking while accommodating vehicles. The district accepts building types that are consistent with the historic development pattern of Historic Dublin, subject to review by the Architectural Review Board, and permit similar uses that support a highly walkable setting, as listed in Table 153.059 -A. (6) BSC Historic Residential The intent of this district is to permit the preservation and development of homes on existing or new lots that are comparable in size, mass, and scale, while maintaining and promoting the traditional residential character of the Historic Dublin area. The purpose of these regulations is to protect the scale and character of the original platted village by maintaining regulations consistent with the previous Historic Residential zoning in place prior to the adoption of this amendment, as listed in Table 153.059 -A. (7) BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood This district applies to the majority of the commercial areas at the east end of the Corridor. The standards of the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood create an active, walkable destination through integration of a strong mix of uses. Development within this district relies on the provision of physical and visual connections through improved access and enhanced visibility from Sawmill Road, and links to adjacent neighborhoods and open spaces. This district accommodates a wide variety of building types and permitted uses, as listed in Table 153.059 -A. Redevelopment of the BSC Sawmill Center area creates a walkable, mixed use core as the east anchor of the Corridor. The district is subject to the specific neighborhood standards defined in §153.063(C), establishing open space patterns, location requirements for building types, and permitting pedestrian - oriented, mixed use shopping areas. (8) BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood This district complements the BSC Historic Core district by accommodating a variety of building types within a finer grained street and block network and uses consistent with that district. It accommodates uses similar to those in the BSC Historic Core district, as listed in Table 153.059 - A. Development allows an extension of the walkable mixed use character of the BSC Historic Core district on the larger parcels within this district. The district is subject to the specific neighborhood standards defined in §153.063(D). These requirements establish open space patterns and location requirements for building types, provide additional residential opportunities, and extend the small scale commercial activities of the BSC Historic Core district. (9) BSC Indian Run Neighborhood This district applies to the larger parcels north and west of the Indian Run and south of I -270, including adjacent properties fronting the north side of Bridge Street. The BSC Indian Run Neighborhood district is intended to develop as a new walkable, mixed use district that takes advantage of excellent highway visibility, an improved road network, and proximity to Historic Dublin and the natural areas flanking the Indian Run. Development within the district relies on a comprehensive road network providing connections within the Indian Run district and to the rest of the Corridor, as well as sensitivity of development at its edges given its proximity to Historic Dublin and the Indian Run. Page 3 of 4 153.057- 058 — General Purpose and BSC Districts Intent New Text Deleted T.Put City Council — March 26, 2012 This district accommodates a wide variety of building types and permitted uses, as listed in Table 153.059 -A. Redevelopment of the area creates a walkable, mixed use core as the west anchor of the Corridor. The district is subject to specific neighborhood standards defined in §153.063(E). These regulations are intended to establish natural and man -made open space patterns; build pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular networks; provide location requirements for building types; and foster a pedestrian- oriented, neighborhood scale mixed use shopping area. (10) BSC Vertical Mixed Use The intent of this district is to allow a wide variety of mid -rise, mixed use development, including vertical mixed use with ground floor retail, and large format retail with liner buildings, as listed in Table 153.059 -A. It is intended to be available for areas initially zoned into the BSC Indian Run Neighborhood and BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood districts, once these areas are developed and the applicable neighborhood standards are no longer needed to establish the organization and hierarchy of places. The district may be applied to areas initially zoned to the BSC Commercial District or elsewhere in the Bridge Street Corridor as may be deemed appropriate when future redevelopment to higher densities is desired. Accordingly, the district is not intended to be mapped at the time the BSC districts are initially adopted. (11) BSC Public This district applies to a variety of public spaces and facilities, including but not limited to schools, parks, open spaces, and places that accommodate more intensive recreation, such as outdoor entertainment venues, as listed in Table 153.059 -A. It also applies to lands in and adjacent to rivers and creeks on which development is limited due to inclusion in a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated floodplain as regulated by this Chapter, or lands that have special cultural or environmental sensitivity. Page 4 of 4 153.066 — Review & Approval Procedures & Criteria City Council — March 26, 2012 New Text Hell... T. Pu t § 153.066 REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA (A) Intent The intent of §153.066 is to provide an efficient and predictable review process for applications for rezoning and/or development within the Bridge Street Corridor districts and to enhance Dublin's reputation for high quality development while allowing property owners to compete for development consistent with the Vision Principles and direction articulated in the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report. The review and approval procedures and criteria are also intended to ensure that new development and redevelopment is served by adequate and efficient infrastructure so as not to burden the fiscal resources of the City, and generally to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of residents, occupants, and users of property in the BSC districts and surrounding areas of the city. (B) Required Reviews (1) This section outlines the requirements and procedures for development review specifically within the BSC districts. The review types of §153.066 shall be used for all development applications in a BSC district. (a) Refer to Table 153.066 -A, Summary Procedure Table, for the list of reviews and procedures applicable in all BSC districts. (b) Refer to Figure 153.066 -A, Review and Approval Procedures for Planning and Zoning Commission Reviews. (c) Refer to Figure 153.066 -B, Review and Approval Procedures for Architectural Review Board Reviews. (d) Refer to Figure 153.066 -C, Other Review and Approval Procedures, illustrate the review and approval procedures for development in all Bridge Street Corridor districts. (2) The following abbreviations and terms are used in §153.066: ART — Administrative Review Team ARB — Architectural Review Board BZA — Board of Zoning Appeals Commission — Planning and Zoning Commission Council — City Council TABLE 153.066 -A: SUMMARY PROCEDURE TABLE R = Recommendation D = Decision A = Administrative Appeal RF = Review & Feedback Type of Application ART ARB BZA Commission Council City Code Reference Zoning Code Approvals Zoning Map or Text Amendment R R R D 153.234 Conditional Use R R D q153.236 Special Permit R D §153.231(G Use Variance R R D §153.231(H Non -Use Area Variance R D q153.231 (H Subdivision Reviews Page 1 of 21 153.066 — Review & Approval Procedures & Criteria City Council — March 26, 2012 New Text Hell... T. Pu t TABLE 153.066 -A: SUMMARY PROCEDURE TABLE R = Recommendation D = Decision A=A ministrative A eaI RF = Review & Feedback Type of Application ART ARB BZA Commission Council City Code Reference Preliminary Plat R I R D I Chapter 152 Final Plat R R D I Chapter 152 Other Approvals Administrative Appeals D A §153.231(F Building Code Appeal D 153.231M Bride Street Corridor Districts Pre-Application Review RF §153.066(C ARB Basic Plan Review R RF § 153.066(D)(3 Basic Plan Review Other BSC Districts R RF § 1 53.066 D ARB Development Plan Review R D A A q 153.066E 6 Development Plan Other BSC Districts D A A §153.066(E Development Plan Elective Review R A D A 153.066E 3 Development Plan Waiver Review R A D A § 153.066E 4 ARB Site Plan Review R D A A §153.066(F)(6 Site Plan Review Other BSC Districts D A A § 153.066(F Site Plan Review Elective Review R A D A §153.066(F)(3 Site Plan Review Waiver Review R A D A 153.066 F 4 Minor Projects D A A § 1 53.066 G Administrative Departure D A A 1 53.066 H Open Space Fee in Lieu R A D A §153.064(D) and E Minor Modification to Approved Plans D A A § 153.066(1 Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval Buildin and Site Modifications D A A §153.066(L)(3) ARB Master Si n Plan Review R D A A 153.065(H)(2 Master Sign Plan Other BSC Districts RLD A D A q 153.065(H)(2 (C) Pre - Application Review (1) Purpose and Applicability (a) A Pre- Application Review with the Administrative Review Team (ART) is required for any proposal that requires Development Plan or Site Plan Review approval under the provisions of §153.066(E) and (F). The purpose of the Pre - Application Review is to provide a potential applicant with a non - binding review of a development proposal and to provide information on the procedures and policies of the City, including the application review procedures that may be used. (b) Pre - Application Reviews may be submitted and processed simultaneously with a request for a Basic Plan Review as provided in § 153.066(D). (c) Pre - Application Reviews do not result in a development decision or permit, and shall not obligate the City or the developer to take any action on the proposal. (2) Review Procedure (a) A request for a Pre - Application Review shall be made in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). Page 2 of 21 153.066 — Review & Approval Procedures & Criteria City Council — March 26, 2012 New Text Hell... T (b) The City shall notify the applicant in writing at least five days prior to the Pre - Application Review meeting. (c) The ART and other applicable departments shall be promptly notified of the ART Pre - Application Review meeting. Prior to the meeting the Director shall distribute the submitted materials to the ART and other applicable City departments for input and recommendations. (d) The ART shall review the submitted materials and provide non- binding input and recommendations. The ART shall complete its review of the application not more than 14 days from the date the request was submitted. (e) A written summary of comments and suggestions made during the Pre - Application Review shall be provided to the applicant not more than 10 days after the Pre - Application Review meeting. (f) Prior to filing an application for the Basic Plan Review, the applicant shall be given the opportunity to revise the application in response to the ART's comments. The applicant may schedule additional Pre - Application Review meetings with the ART prior to filing a request for a Basic Plan Review. (g) The written summary of the Pre - Application Review shall be forwarded to the required reviewing body with the application for a Basic Plan Review. (D) Basic Plan Review (1) Purpose and Applicability (a1 The purpose of the Basic Plan Review is to outline the scone, character. and nature of the nronosed development. The process is intended to allow the required reviewing body to review evaluate the proposal for its general consistency with the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report and this Chapter. It is also intended to provide clear direction to the applicant and the ART in its review of an dapplication for Development Plan or Site Plan Review. (b) The Basic Plan Review is also intended , §1 53.05:7 g n,,.. a n d to provide an opportunity for public input at the earliest stages of the development process. (b�c) Except as provided in §153.066(1))(1)(eQ), a Basic Plan Review with the Planning and Zoning Commission is required for any proposal that requires Development Plan or Site Plan Review approval under the provisions of §153.066(E) and (F). (e�d) A Basic Plan Review with the Architectural Review Board for applications involving property within the boundaries of the Architectural Review District is at the option of the applicant, or may be required by the Page 3 of 21 153.066 — Review & Approval Procedures & Criteria City Council — March 26, 2012 New Text Hell... T au t ART if it concludes that the application includes major site or building improvements that would benefit from a Basic Plan Review by the ARB. (2) Review Procedure (a) An application for a Basic Plan Review shall be made in accordance with the provisions of § 153.066(L). (b) Public Review A public review of a Basic Plan application shall be held in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (c) The r@ :_ @a r@ > a_ °Planning and Zoning Commission shall approve, approve with conditions, or denv the Basic Plan Review based on the " 1 t he reqoiremefAq e4: 4 14A Development Plan Review Criteria of 053.066(E)(5) and/or the Site Plan Review Criteria ap F 5 ,: , w, . t,. t,.. n°°:p Pl n .,:.. ° —The decision on the Basic Plan Review rRRSFAFA R41 FiFiti 841 s hall be provided not more than 28 days from the filing of the Basic Plan Review application The Commission shall schedule meetings as necessary to meet the review period requirement. If denied the applicant shall be permitted to reapply for another Basic Plan Review. (d) The applicant may request additional Basic Plan Reviews, which shall be subject to a 28 day review period and the required public review. (e) The Basic Plan Review decision ^ wf t en st immafy of the eem me t provided by the required reviewing body shall be forwarded in writing to the applicant not less than 10 days following the review. The decision on the Basic Plan Review Cemmei4s shall also —be incorporated into the prw i-id e d to th ART- F,. : , :..: re;. ... , 44:44tw Development Plan and /or Site Plan Review applications. (f) If a Development Plan and/or Site Plan Review application is not submitted within one year from the date of the last Basic Plan Review for a site, the applicant shall be required to obtain an additional Basic Plan Review by the required reviewing body prior to submitting an application for a Development Plan and /or Site Plan Review involving the same site in accordance with §153.066(L). (E) Development Plan Review (1) Purpose and Applicability (a) The purpose of the Development Plan Review is to ensure that the street network and block framework meet the requirements of § §153.060 and 153.061, and §153.063 as applicable and to ensure that the proposed development is consistent with the general development requirements of the City with respect to such elements as infrastructure, transportation, and environmental considerations. The Development Plan review process is Page 4 of 21 153.066 — Review & Approval Procedures & Criteria City Council — March 26, 2012 New Text Hell... T au t not intended to be a review of the individual development regulations of §153.059 and § §153.062 through 153.065, which is intended for the Site Plan Review - pfeeess rn ocess (b) An application for a Development Plan Review is required in the following conditions: 1. The application involves the construction of more than one principal structure on one or more parcels; or 2. The application includes five or more gross acres of land; or 3. The application involves the design or construction of new streets, or a proposed realignment or relocation of any other street in the general pattern of street development conceptualized by the Bridge Street Corridor Street Network map in § 153.061 that is required or permitted by the City. (2) Review Procedure (a) An application for a Development Plan Review shall be made in accordance with the provisions of § 153.066(L). (b) The ART shall review the Development Plan application under the criteria of §153.066(E)(5) and render a decision not more than 28 days from the receipt of a completed application, except as provided for in §153.066(E)(6). A written summary of the ART's decision shall be provided to the applicant not more than 10 days after the Development Plan Review meeting. (c) Following the review, the applicant shall be given the opportunity to revise the application in response to the ART's comments if the application is not approved by the ART. The applicant may request additional subsequent meetings with the ART, which shall also be subject to a 28 day time limit for a decision. (3) Development Plan Elective Review (a) Rather than reaching a final determination under the provisions of §153.066(E)(2), the ART may elect to forward any Development Plan application to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a decision if it concludes that the application raises complex issues, such as the need for major infrastructure improvements and other neighborhood or community - wide effects, that would benefit from a Commission decision. (b) The ART shall submit its recommendation for consideration by the Commission under the procedures of §153.066(E)(2). (c) Public Review A public review of a Development Plan Elective Review application shall be held in accordance with the provisions of § 153.066(L). Page 5 of 21 153.066 — Review & Approval Procedures & Criteria City Council — March 26, 2012 New Text Hell... T (d) The Commission shall consider the application and render a decision under the criteria of §153.066(E)(5) not more than 28 days from the recommendation of the ART. (4) Development Plan Waiver Review (a) Except for those applications provided for in §153.066(E)(6), applications for Development Plan approval that deviate from one or more of the requirements of § §153.060 and 153.061, and that do not qualify for an Administrative Departure under the provisions of §153.066(H), may be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission as a Development Plan Waiver. (b) The applicant shall submit a list of proposed Waivers with the Development Plan application. Should other necessary Waivers be identified by the ART during its review, those Waivers may be included for review by the Commission. The ART shall review the requested Waivers and make recommendations to the Commission for their approval, denial, or approval with conditions in accordance with §153.066(E)(2). (c) The Commission shall review the recommendation of the ART and the specific Development Plan Waivers using the criteria of §153.066(E)(4)(e). Should other Waivers be necessary to resolve conflicts with other requirements of this Chapter resulting from the requested Waivers, those Waivers shall also be reviewed by the Commission. (d) The Commission shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the specific Development Plan Waiver request(s) not more than 28 days from the recommendation of the ART. (e) Criteria for Development Plan Waivers Each required reviewing body shall make its recommendation or its decision on an application for Development Plan Waivers based on each of the following criteria and the recommendation of the required reviewing body during the Basic Plan Review: 1. 1 The need for the Development Plan Waiver is caused by unique site conditions the use —or conditions on surrounding properties or other circumstance outside the control of the owner /lessee, including easements and rights -of -way. 2. The Waiver, if approved, will generally meet °-apse eemplies w4h- the spirit and intent of the Vision Report; 4- Waiver -at is not being requested sff+pI�-solely to reduce cost or as a matter of general convenience; and 3. 4-4 2 The other elements of the Development Plan not affected by the Waiver will be generally consistent with §153.060(A) and §153.061(A). Page 6 of 21 153.066 — Review & Approval Procedures & Criteria City Council — March 26, 2012 New Text Hell... T. (5) Review Criteria for Development Plans Each required reviewing body shall make its recommendation or its decision on an application for Development Plan approval based on each of the following criteria and the recommendation of the required reviewing body during the Basic Plan Review: (a) The Development Plan shall be substantiallv similar to the approved Basic Plan. kakhL The lots and blocks proposed are consistent with the requirements of §153.060; (43 application is consistent with the general pattern of street development conceptualized by the BSC Street Network as shown in §153.061, and the expected traffic from the development can be accommodated on existing or proposed streets consistent with that system; �LThe application is consistent with the requirements of §153.063, Neighborhood Standards, if applicable; (4)LLlf the development is to be implemented in phases, each phase is able to be considered independently, without the need for further phased improvements; t The application demonstrates consistency with the Vision Report, Community Plan and other related policy documents adopted by the City; and 04(gLThe application provides adequate and efficient infrastructure to serve the proposed development, consistent with the City's most recently adopted Capital Improvements Program. (6) Architectural Review Board (ARB) (a) Applications for Development Plan approvals for property within the boundaries of the Architectural Review District shall be reviewed by the ART and then forwarded to the ARB with a recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Applications for ARB approval shall be reviewed in accordance with §153.066(E)(5), as well as the provisions of §153.170 through §153.180. (b) Public Review A public review of a Development Plan application by the ARB shall be held in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (c) The ARB shall make a decision on the application not more than 28 days from the date of the ART's recommendation. (d) As part of the Development Plan approval, the ARB may review any Development Plan Waivers from the requirements of § §153.060 and 153.061 and Page 7 of 21 153.066 — Review & Approval Procedures & Criteria City Council — March 26, 2012 New Text Hell... T. Pu t approve, deny, or approve with conditions the specific provisions under review. Should other Waivers be necessary to resolve conflicts with other requirements of this Chapter resulting from the requested Waivers, those Waivers shall also be reviewed by the ARB in accordance with §153.066(E)(4)(e). (F) Site Plan Review (1) Purpose and Applicability (a) The purpose of the Site Plan Review is to confirm that the proposed development of an individual site and building is consistent with the BSC district regulations. The Site Plan Review process is intended as a review of the individual development regulations of §153.059 and § §153.062 through 153.065. Approval of the Site Plan Review includes assuring that the dimensions of a parcel meet the lot size requirements for the applicable building type(s) and that the surrounding street network meets the applicable requirements of § §153.060 and 153.061. (b) A Site Plan Review is required for any development application within the BSC districts, including those applications for which a Development Plan is required, with the exception of any application meeting the requirements for a Minor Project as provided in § 153.066(G). (2) Review Procedure (a) An application for a Site Plan Review shall be made in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (b) The ART shall review the Site Plan Review application under the criteria of §153.066(F)(5) and render a decision not more than 28 days from the receipt of a completed application, except for those applications provided for in §153.066(F)(6). A written summary of the ART's decision shall be provided to the applicant not more than 10 days after the Site Plan Review meeting. (c) Following the review, the applicant shall be given the opportunity to revise the application in response to the ART's comments if the application is not approved by the ART. The applicant may request additional subsequent meetings with the ART, subject to the same time limits of §153.066(F)(5)(b). (3) Planning and Zoning Commission Site Plan Review Elective Review (a) A Site Plan Review Elective Review shall be conducted by the Planning and Zoning Commission under the following conditions: 1. The ART may forward any Site Plan Review application to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a decision if it concludes that the application raises complex issues, such as the need for major infrastructure improvements and other neighborhood or Page 8 of 21 153.066 — Review & Approval Procedures & Criteria City Council — March 26, 2012 New Text Hell... T au t community -wide effects that would benefit from a Commission decision. 2. Should the ART determine that the number and scope of Site Plan Review Waivers requested by the applicant would have a detrimental effect on the intent of the district in which it is located and/or the Vision Report, it may forward the Site Plan Review application for Commission review, provided that any elements of the application meeting this Chapter remain unchanged. 3. Any applicant may request a Site Plan Review by the Commission to modify any provisions of §153.059 and § §153.062 through 153.065. The Commission shall approve the requested modifications only after reaching findings that all of the following are met: A. The development proposal as modified will otherwise meet the spirit and intent of the district in which it located and the Vision Report; B. The requested modification will result in a development of equal or greater quality with respect to design, material, and other similar development features; C. The requested modification would better be addressed through an individual modification rather than an amendment to the requirements of this Chapter; and D. The request for a modification is caused by unique site conditions or conditions on surrounding properties, and is not being requested simply to reduce cost or as a matter of general convenience. Page 9 of 21 153.066 — Review & Approval Procedures & Criteria City Council — March 26, 2012 New Text Hell... T. Pu t (b) Public Review A public review of a Site Plan Review Elective Review application shall be held in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (c) Review Determination 1. The ART shall review the Site Plan Review Elective Review application and submit its recommendation for consideration by the Commission under the procedures of §153.066(F)(2). 2. The Commission shall consider the application and render a decision under the criteria of §153.066(F)(5) not more than 28 days from the recommendation of the ART. (4) Site Plan Review Waiver Review (a) Except for those applications provided for in § 153.066(F)(6), applications for Site Plan Review approval that deviate from one or more of the requirements of §153.059 and § §153.062 through 153.065, and that do not qualify for an Administrative Departure under the provisions of § 153.066(H), shall be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. (b) The applicant shall submit a list of proposed Waivers with the Site Plan Review application. Should other necessary Waivers be determined by the ART during its review, those Waivers may be included for review by the Commission. The ART shall review the requested Waivers and make recommendations to the Commission for their approval, denial, or approval with conditions under the procedures of § 153.066(F)(2). (c) The Commission shall review the recommendation of the ART and the specific Site Plan Review Waivers using the criteria of §153.066(F)(4)(e). Should other Waivers be necessary to resolve conflicts with other requirements of this chapter resulting from the requested Waivers, those Waivers shall also be reviewed by the Commission. (d) The Commission shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the specific Site Plan Review Waiver request(s) not more than 28 days from the recommendation of the ART. (e) Criteria for Site Plan Review Waivers Each required reviewing body shall make its recommendation or its decision on an application for a Site Plan Review Waiver approval based on each of the following criteria, and with due consideration of the recommendation of the ARTfeEtuifed feviewi b a.._:ng the Basis W . 1. The need for the Site Plan Review Waiver is caused by unique site conditions the use of or conditions on surrounding properties, or other circumstance outside the control of the owner /lessee including easements and rights- of -wav Page 10 of 21 153.066 — Review & Approval Procedures & Criteria City Council — March 26, 2012 New Text Hell... T au t 2. The Site Plan Review Waiver is not being requested six solely to reduce cost or as a matter of general convenience; 3. The Site Plan Review Waiver does not have the effect of authorizing any use, htlildifig or open space type that is not otherwise permitted in that BSC district; and 4. The Site Plan Review Waiver, if approved, will ensure that the development is of equal or greater development quality with respect to design, material, and other similar development features than without the Waiver. (5) Review Criteria for Site Plan Review Each required reviewing body shall make its recommendation or its decision on an application for Site Plan Review approval based on each of the following criteria and the recommendation of the required reviewing body during the Basic Plan Review: (a) The Site Plan Review shall be substantiallv similar to the approved Basic Plan. ka)LbLIf a Development Plan has been approved that includes the property, the application is consistent with the Development Plan; (43 , ) Lc_LThe application meets all applicable requirements of §153.059 and § §153.062 through 153.065 except as may be authorized by Administrative Departure(s) pursuant to §153.066(H); k&)(dd) internal circulation system and driveways provide safe and efficient access for residents, occupants, visitors, emergency vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians; (4)Le)_The relationship of buildings and structures to each other and to other facilities provides for the coordination and integration of the development within the surrounding area and the larger community and maintains the image of Dublin as a high quality community; fe)Lf)_T`he application is consistent with the requirements for types, distribution, and suitability of open space in §153.064 and the site design incorporates natural features and site topography to the maximum extent practicable; (#)CgLThe scale and design of the proposed development allows the adequate provision of services currently furnished by or that may be required by the City or other public agency including, but not limited to, fire and police protection, public water and sanitary sewage services, recreational activities, traffic control, waste management, and administrative services; (g) h Stormwater management systems and facilities will not cause alterations that could increase flooding or water pollution on or off the site, and removal of surface waters will not adversely affect neighboring properties; Page 11 of 21 153.066 — Review & Approval Procedures & Criteria City Council — March 26, 2012 New Text Hell... T au t (k)LLlf the development is to be implemented in phases, each phase is able to be considered independently, without the need for further phased improvements; and (-iXjLThe application demonstrates consistency with the BSC Vision Report, Community Plan and other related policy documents adopted by the City. Page 12 of 21 153.066 — Review & Approval Procedures & Criteria City Council — March 26, 2012 New Text Hell... T. Pu t (6) Architectural Review Board (ARB) (a) Applications for Site Plan Review approvals for property within the boundaries of the Architectural Review District shall be reviewed by the ART and forwarded to the ARB with a recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Applications for ARB approval shall be reviewed using the criteria of § 153.066(F)(5), as well as the provisions of §153.170 through §153.180. (b) Public Review A public review of a Site Plan Review by the ARB shall be held in accordance with the provisions of § 153.066(L). (c) The ARB shall make a decision on applications for Site Plan Review approval not more than 28 days from the date of the ART's recommendation. (d) As part of the Site Plan Review approval, the ARB may review any requests for Site Plan Review Waivers from the requirements of §153.059 and § §153.062 through 153.065 and approve, deny, or approve with conditions the specific provisions under review. Should other Waivers be necessary to resolve conflicts with other requirements of this Chapter resulting from the requested Waivers, those Waivers shall also be reviewed by the ARB. (e) In the event of a conflict between the requirements of §153.059 and § §153.062 through 153.065 and the provisions of §153.170 through §153.180, the ARB shall determine the most appropriate provisions to apply to the specific application based on the criteria of §153.066(F)(5). (G) Minor Projects (1) Purpose and Applicability (a) The purpose of the Minor Project review is to provide an efficient review process for smaller projects that do not have significant community effects. The Minor Project review is necessary to ensure that applications meet the requirements of this chapter. (b) The following improvements are considered Minor Projects: 1. Single family detached dwelling units. 2. Multiple family and townhouse buildings of 8 or fewer dwelling units in a single building on an individual lot and not part of a larger development complex. 3. Development of mixed use and non - residential principal structures of 10,000 square feet or less gross floor area, and associated site development requirements. 4. Additions to principal structures that increase the gross floor area by not more than 25 %, or not more than 10,000 square feet gross Page 13 of 21 153.066 — Review & Approval Procedures & Criteria City Council — March 26, 2012 New Text Hell... T au t floor area, whichever is less, existing as of the effective date of this amendment, or when first constructed. 5. Exterior modifications to principal structures involving not more than 25% of the total fagade area of the structure. 6. Signs, landscaping, parking, and other site related improvements that do not involve construction of a new principal building. Parks when used to meet requirements as an open space type, as provided in §153.064, shall require Site Plan Review. 7. Accessory structures and uses. 8. Modifications to Existing Structures in accordance with §153.062(B). (2) Review Procedure (a) An application for a Minor Project Review shall be made in accordance with the provisions of § 153.066(L). (b) After accepting a complete application for a Minor Project, the ART shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the application not more than 14 days from the date the request was submitted, provided that the applicant has provided all materials required by the City. The City shall notify the applicant in writing not less than five days prior to the review meeting. (c) The ART shall review the application and approve, deny, or approve with conditions, based on the criteria of §153.066(F)(5)(e) applicable to Site Plan Review approvals. A written summary of the ART decision shall be provided to the applicant not more than 10 days after the Minor Project review meeting. (d) Following the review, the applicant shall be given the opportunity to revise the application in response to the ART's comments if the application is not approved by the ART. The applicant may request additional subsequent meetings with the ART, which shall also be subject to the 14 day time limit for a decision. (H) Administrative Departures (1) Purpose and Applicability The intent of §153.066(H) is to provide an administrative process to allow minor deviations from the strict application of the BSC district requirements caused by unusual site or development conditions or conditions unique to a particular use or other similar conditions that require reasonable adjustments, but remain consistent with the intent of this chapter. Examples include, but are not limited to, adjustments to building setbacks, parking requirements, landscaping, building materials, or other similar features or elements. (2) Review Procedure Page 14 of 21 153.066 — Review & Approval Procedures & Criteria City Council — March 26, 2012 New Text Hell... T au t (a) An application for Administrative Departure may be submitted with an application for a Development Plan, Site Plan Review, or Minor Project approval, or at any time after those applications have been submitted and before a decision or recommendation by the ART has been made. If an application for Administrative Departure is made after an application for a Development Plan, Site Plan Review, or Minor Project has been filed, the Director may require that the time period for ART review start over on the day the request for an Administrative Departure is received. (b) An application for an Administrative Departure may be processed simultaneously with the Development Plan, Site Plan Review, or Minor Project application to which it relates. The ART shall determine whether each requested Administrative Departure is approved, approved with conditions, or denied. Decisions on Administrative Departures shall be reported to the required reviewing body if a Development Plan, and /or Site Plan Review Waiver or Elective Review is conducted. (c) Should the ART find that the request does not meet the criteria for an Administrative Departure, the applicant may file for a Development Plan Waiver under the provisions of §153.066(E)(4) or a Site Plan Review Waiver under the provisions of §153.066(F)(4), or submit a new application for Development Plan or Site Plan Review. (3) Criteria for Administrative Departure Approval The ART shall make its decision on Administrative Departure based on the following criteria: (a) The need for the Administrative Departure is caused by unique site conditions, conditions on surrounding properties, and /or otherwise complies with the spirit and intent of the Vision Report, and is not being requested simply to reduce cost or as a matter of general convenience; (b) The Administrative Departure does not have the effect of authorizing any use, sign, building type, or open space type that is not otherwise permitted in that BSC district; (c) The Administrative Departure does not modify any numerical zoning standard related to building dimensions, lot dimensions or coverage, open space, landscaping, parking, fencing, walls, screening, or exterior lighting by more than 10% of the requirement; and (d) The Administrative Departure, if approved, will ensure that the development is of equal or greater development quality with respect to design, material, and other development features than without the Administrative Departure. (1) Minor Modifications (1) Purpose and Applicability Page 15 of 21 153.066 — Review & Approval Procedures & Criteria City Council — March 26, 2012 New Text Hell... T au t (a) The Director may authorize Minor Modifications to an approved Development Plan or Site Plan Review that are required to correct any undetected errors or omissions, address conditions discovered during the permitting process or construction, or that are necessary to ensure orderly and efficient development. Any approved Minor Modifications must be generally consistent with the approved Development Plan or Site Plan Review. (b) The following are considered Minor Modifications. 1. Adjustments to lot lines, provided no additional lots are created and required setbacks and/or RBZs are maintained; 2. Adjustments to the location and layout of parking lots provided the perimeter setbacks, yards and buffers, and required parking are maintained; 3. Adjustments for buildings up to 10% in total floor area of the originally approved building, building height(s) or floor plans, that do not alter the character of the use; 4. Substitution of landscaping materials specified in the landscape plan with comparable materials of an equal or greater size; 5. Redesigning and/or relocating stormwater management facilities provided that general character and stormwater capacities are maintained; 6. Relocating fencing, walls or screening (not including screening walls), provided that the same level and quality of materials and screening are maintained; 7. Modifications to sign location, sign face, landscaping and lighting, provided the sign number and dimensional requirements are maintained; 8. Changes in building material or colors that are similar to and have the same general appearance comparable to or of a higher quality as the material approved on the Site Plan Review; 9. Changes required by outside agencies such as the county, state, or federal departments; and /or 10. Other modifications deemed appropriate by the Director that do not alter the basic design or any specific conditions imposed as part of the original approval. (2) Review Procedure (a) An application for a Minor Modification shall be made in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). Page 16 of 21 153.066 — Review & Approval Procedures & Criteria New Text Hell... T. Pu t City Council — March 26, 2012 (b) The Director shall review the application and make a decision on the request for a Minor Modification not more than 14 days after receiving a complete application. (c) Following the decision, the applicant shall be given the opportunity to revise the application in response to the Director's comments and resubmit for further consideration. If a revised application is submitted, the 14 day review period shall start over on the day the revised request is received. (d) Requests not meeting the requirements for a Minor Modification shall require the filing and approval of a new application for a Development Plan Review, Site Plan Review, Minor Project Review, or other review, as applicable, in accordance with §153.066. (J) Other Applicable Reviews (1) Open Space Fee in Lieu The Planning and Zoning Commission shall determine whether a request for a payment of a fee in lieu of open space dedication is appropriate, as provided in § 153.064(D) and (E), after recommendation from the ART. (2) Conditional Uses The Conditional Use approval procedures in §153.236 shall apply in the BSC districts. In addition, a recommendation from the ART shall be submitted for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission. (3) Zoning Map or Teat Amendment The amendment procedures of §153.234 shall apply in the BSC districts. In addition, a recommendation from the ART shall be submitted for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. (4) Preliminary and Final Plats Reviews of Preliminary and Final Plats shall be governed by Chapter 152 of the Dublin Code of Ordinances. (5) Special Permit The Special Permit procedures in §153.23l(G) shall apply in the BSC districts. (6) Zoning Variance The zoning Variance procedures in §153.231(H) shall apply in the BSC districts. In addition, a recommendation from the ART shall be submitted for consideration by the Board of Zoning Appeals, and for City Council in the instance of a Use Variance. (7) Public Tree Permit The tree permit requirements of § 153.134(G) shall apply in the BSC districts. (8) Master Sign Plan Page 17 of 21 153.066 — Review & Approval Procedures & Criteria City Council — March 26, 2012 New Text Hell... T. Pu t The Planning and Zoning Commission or Architectural Review Board shall review all master sign plans in the BSC districts, as provided in §153.065(H). (K) Administrative Appeal (1) The Administrative Appeal provisions of §153.231(F) apply in the BSC districts. (2) Decisions on appeals are limited to those specific provisions or approvals that are the subject of the appeal. No other part of an application shall be modified by the Board of Zoning Appeals. (3) The decision of the BZA may be further appealed to City Council within 10 days of the BZA decision. (4) City Council must determine whether or not to hear the appeal, in its sole discretion and by a motion passed by a majority vote, no later than 21 days following the Clerk of Citv Council's receipt of the written notice of appeal, unless an extended time is agreed upon by City Council and the applicant. 5) Citv Council shall decide the anneal no later than 28 days followine the date of Council's decision to hear the appeal, unless an extended time is otherwise agreed upon by City Council and the applicant. In considering the appeal, Citv Council may consider anv evidence and may affirm, reverse, or otherwise modifv the decision of the BZA or any other part of the application. (I,) General Provisions (1) Applications (a) Each application required by §153.066 shall be made in writing on a form provided by the City and shall be accompanied by the fee as established by City Council. (b) Applications for approvals in the BSC districts shall include all information required by the City, unless some information is deemed unnecessary by the Director based on the nature and scale of the proposed development. No application shall be accepted by the City until it is complete. Any applicable time limits noted in §153.066 shall not begin until a complete application is accepted by the City. If found to be incomplete, the Director shall inform the applicant of any additional materials required to complete the application. (c) After acceptance of a complete application, the Director and/or required reviewing body may request additional materials if deemed necessary to evaluate the proposal. (d) Resubmission No application for a Development Plan or Site Plan Review which has been denied by the required reviewing body shall be resubmitted for a Page 18 of 21 153.066 — Review & Approval Procedures & Criteria City Council — March 26, 2012 New Text Hell... T. Pu t period of one year from the date of the decision, unless permitted by the Director after a demonstration by the applicant of a change of circumstances from the previous application that may reasonably result in a different decision. (e) Simultaneous Processing In cases where a Development Plan application is submitted, a Site Plan Review and /or a Minor Project may be reviewed simultaneously with that Development Plan, but a Site Plan Review or Minor Project approval shall not be effective until the Development Plan has been approved. If appropriate, other required reviews as provided in this section may be processed jointly with a Development Plan and /or Site Plan Review application. (f) Public Reviews Where public reviews are required by this section, a written notice of the public meeting shall be sent to the applicant, property owner, and owners of parcels of land within 300 feet of the subject parcel(s), as listed on the County Auditor's current tax list, not less than 10 days prior to the meeting. The notice shall, at a minimum, indicate the property that is the subject of the request, describe the nature of the request, the time, date and location of the meeting at which the application will be considered, and indicate when and where written comments will be received concerning the request. (2) Decisions (a) Any application required to be reviewed under §153.066 shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the required reviewing body based on the applicable review criteria as provided in §153.066. The recommending body and required reviewing body shall state the reasons for their decisions in the minutes and provide a written record of the decision to the applicant not more than 10 days after a recommendation or decision is made, unless otherwise provided in this section. (b) Prior to reaching a decision, if the required reviewing body determines that an application does not meet the applicable review criteria as provided in §153.066, but determines that the application could meet those criteria with modifications that could not be reasonably conditioned, the applicant may request that the application be tabled to provide the opportunity to make those modifications. If the request for tabling is granted, a new review period shall begin on the date the applicant submits a complete application with revised materials. (c) Following the approval of a Site Plan Review or Minor Project application, the applicant may proceed with the process for obtaining a Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval and building permit, consistent with the approval as granted. All construction and development under any Page 19 of 21 153.066 — Review & Approval Procedures & Criteria City Council — March 26, 2012 New Text Hell... T. Pu t building permit shall comply with the approved Site Plan Review and Development Plan, and any other approval, as applicable. (3) Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval A Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval issued by the Director verifying compliance with all applicable zoning requirements is required prior to modification, extension, or alteration of sites and structures, and/or change of use in BSC districts. (4) Code Administration The Planning and Zoning Commission and the Architectural Review Board may evaluate and monitor the application of the requirements and standards of § §153.057 through 153.066 by the ART. The Commission and the Architectural Review Board may advise the ART as to whether it finds that the requirements or standards (including requests for Administrative Departures) are being applied correctly, and recommend to City Council any changes needed in the BSC district standards and requirements to better implement the Vision Report. (5) Time Extensions (a) Where the provisions of §153.066 require that an action be taken by the City within a stated period of time, that time may be extended with the written consent of both the applicant and the Director prior to expiration of the required time period. (b) If the applicant submits a revised application during any required review period, and the Director determines that the revised application differs substantially from the previous application, a new review period shall begin and additional meetings of the required reviewing body may be scheduled if deemed necessary by the Director. (6) Duration of Approvals (a) An application shall be filed for a Development Plan and /or Site Plan Review approval within one year following the completion of the Basic Plan Review. If a Development Plan and /or Site Plan Review application is not filed within this period a new application for a Basic Plan Review shall be required in accordance with the requirements of §153.066(D). (b) All Development Plan, Site Plan Review, and Minor Project approvals made pursuant to §153.066 shall be valid for a period of two years. If an initial building permit for the approved development has not been issued within that two year period, the applicant shall be required to apply for a new Development Plan, Site Plan Review, or Minor Project approval, as applicable, pursuant to § 153.066 before obtaining a building permit. (c) Abandonment 1. Once a final approval is granted by the required reviewing body, if significant construction is not started within two years and Page 20 of 21 153.066 — Review & Approval Procedures & Criteria City Council — March 26, 2012 New Text Hell... T au t meaningfully continued, or the Director of Building Standards determines that work has been abandoned for a continuous period of six months, the approval shall lapse and cease to be in effect. 2. The Director of Building Standards shall establish the date of abandonment based on the presence of one or more of the following conditions: A. Removal of construction equipment or supplies; B. Expiration of an active building permit issued by the City; C. Evidence of a failure to maintain the property, such as overgrown weeds, failure to secure buildings, broken windows, or other evidence of lack of maintenance; D. Other actions documented by the Director of Building Standards and /or Director evidencing an intent to abandon the construction of the project. 3. If a new application is not submitted within 90 days from the date of abandonment as determined by the Director of Building Standards, the owner shall restore the site to its previous condition, and /or remove any structures or other evidence of work on the site, within 180 days from the date of abandonment. (7) Administrative Review Team (ART) (a) The purpose of the Administrative Review Team is to provide for review and approval authority for certain applications as defined by §153.066. The Administrative Review Team is responsible for the comprehensive review of each application, and making recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission, Architectural Review Board, or Board of Zoning Appeals where required. The ART is also responsible for making decisions in an efficient and timely manner based on evaluation of objective development standards and specific review criteria. While these objective standards and criteria must guide the decisions of the ART, it is recognized that some degree of subjectivity must be part of the ART's deliberations. (b) The Administrative Review Team shall consist of the Director (Chair), City Engineer, Fire Chief, Economic Development Manager, Parks and Open Space Director, Police Chief, and Chief Building Official, or their representatives, and any other members appointed by the City Manager as deemed necessary, either as permanent or temporary members. (c) The ART may use the services of other professionals, such as architectural, engineering, and other consultants as they deem necessary, to advise the ART on the application of the provisions of this chapter. Page 21 of 21 ORDINANCE 07 -12 1 ,2" d and 3 rd Reading MEETING MATERIALS FOLLOW City of Dublin Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 -1090 Phone: 614 - 410 -4400 • Fax: 614 - 410 -4490 To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Marsha I. Grigsby, City Manager Date: March 2, 2012 Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning Memo Re: Ordinance 07 -12 — Adding Sections 153.057 through 153.066 to the City of Dublin Codified Ordinances (Zoning Code) to Establish the New Bridge Street Corridor Zoning Districts, Development Standards and Approval Process, and Amending Section 153.002 of the City of Dublin Codified Ordinances (Zoning Code) to Add and Modify Definitions.(Case 11- 020ADM) Update Ordinance 07 -12 was introduced for first reading at the February 13, 2012, City Council meeting, and was considered by City Council at the second reading /public hearing on February 27, 2012. Council members requested additional information regarding several items, listed below. Additional information regarding each topic is attached. Attachments 1. Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria Analysis: An analysis of the two recommended review and approval processes as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Administration is provided, in addition to: a. Chart comparison b. Basic Plan Review summary, including the decision criteria c. Draft language for each version d. Presentation slides from the second reading Recommendation: Approval of the Review and Approval Procedures as recommended by the City Administration (BSC Zoning Code draft dated December 16, 2011). 2. Summary of Subjective Bridge Street Corridor Zoning Code Requirements: Information only. 3. Protection of Existing Uses and Structures: Information only. 4. Development Plan and Site Plan Review Waiver Criteria: Proposed Code modifications are attached. Recommendation: Approval of the modifications to the Waiver review criteria (Code Section 153.066(E)(3)(e) and 153.066(F)(3)(e)) as attached. 5. Rezoning Requests for Non -BSC Zone Districts: Proposed Code modifications are attached. Recommendation: Approval of the modifications to the BSC Districts Scope and Intent (Code Section 153.059). 6. Appeals to City Council: Proposed Code modifications are attached. Memo re. Ord. 07 -12 Bridge Street Corridor Districts Zoning Code Amendment March 2, 2012 Page 2 of 2 Recommendation: Approval of the modifications to Code Section 153.066(K) as requested by City Council. 7. Specific Land Use Limitations: Information only. Recommendation: That the land uses described in the memo remain as conditional uses in the BSC Commercial district, and the extent of the BSC Commercial district be limited to the locations previously recommended by Planning. S. Information re. Sexually - Oriented Business Establishments: Information only. Recommendation Staff recommends City Council approval of Ordinance 07 -12 with the modified review and approval procedures as recommended by the City Administration at the March 12, 2012 City Council meeting. Attachment 1 Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria Analysis 1. Cover Memo (Includes Comparison Chart) 2. Code Section 153.066 — as Recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission 3. Code Section 153.066 — as Recommended by the City Administration 4. Presentation Slides — February 27, 2012 I of Dublin ty ATTACHMENT 1 — Review and Approval Procedures Overview and Recommendation The public hearing for Ordinance 07 -12 was held on February 27, 2012 at which time Council requested additional information regarding the review and approval process for development applications in the Bridge Street Corridor (BSC). Planning has provided a comparison of the two recommended approval processes. In addition, the presentation from the second reading is attached (with explanatory notes), along with copies of the full review and approval procedures and criteria (Code Section 153.066) recommended by both the Administration and the Planning and Zoning Commission. Chart Comparison As part of the public hearing, Planning presented graphics to demonstrate the two recommended review and approval processes (see page 4). The first chart represents the process as recommended by the PZC, while the second represents the ART process as recommended by the City Administration. The charts identify the review steps, time frames, PZC and ART meetings, public notice periods, and review and approval outcomes. The review steps and Code established time frames are the same in both scenarios: Pre- Application Review - 14 days Basic Plan Review - 28 days Development Plan/ Site Plan Review - 28 days (may be reviewed concurrently or separately) The Pre - Application Review is the same under both scenarios and is conducted only by the ART. The difference in the two recommended processes occurs at the end of the Basic Plan Review. The Basic Plan Review requires a proposal to be reviewed for general consistency with the BSC Vision Report and the General Purpose and Districts Intent sections of the BSC Code (Sections 153.057 -058). The Basic Plan Review also provides an opportunity for public comment on a project early in the process, and allows the applicant to begin to identify where any Waivers may be needed based on the overall consistency with the BSC Code. Following the submission of a Basic Plan Review application, the ART will review the proposal for consistency with the BSC Code based on the information provided by the applicant. The ART will provide comments and feedback to the applicant and forward the proposal to the Planning and Zoning Commission for additional review and comment. In each recommended process, the Planning and Zoning Commission will conduct a similar review of the proposal based on the BSC Code requirements and will have the opportunity to review the comments and feedback provided by the ART, in addition to providing their own comments and feedback to the applicant regarding the proposal. The public also has the opportunity to comment on the proposal at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Process Recommended by the Plannina and Zonina Commission Under the process recommended by the PZC, following the Basic Plan Review, the Commission would vote to determine whether future Development Plan and /or Site Plan Review applications would be reviewed only by the ART, or would be required to return to the Commission for final review and decision for an additional public review. Attachment 1 — Review and Approval Procedures Overview and Recommendation Page 1 of 4 The criteria that the Planning and Zoning Commission would be required to use when making this determination follows: Code Section 153.066(D)(2)(c): As part of the Basic Plan Review the Commission shall determine whether the application for Development Plan or Site Plan Review will be conducted by the Commission or by the Administrative Review Team. This determination shall be based on the following criteria: 1. Whether the application raises complex issues, such as the need for major infrastructure improvements and other neighborhood or community -wide effects, that would benefit from a Commission decision; or 2. Whether the Development Plan or Site Plan Review submittal has the potential for one or more substantial deviations from the Vision Report or from the requirements of ,§153.060 — 153.065, or 3. Whether the application involves uses or structures that might be detrimental to existing uses or structures or impede the development of surrounding properties. The Commission must find that at least one of the three criteria are met to retain the review and approval of the Development Plan and /or Site Plan Review. If the Commission finds that none of the three criteria are met then the Development Plan and /or Site Plan Review will be conducted by the ART. Under this process the applicant will not know which entity will have final review authority over the Development Plan /Site Plan application until 42 days into the process. Process Recommended by the City Administration Under the process recommended by the City Administration, following the Basic Plan Review all Development Plan and Site Plan Review applications would be reviewed by the ART. The ART is however required to take the comments made by the Planning and Zoning Commission and members of the public into consideration, although they are not binding. The ART would also have the authority to "kick -up" a project to the Planning and Zoning Commission for final approval if the ART determines that a project would benefit from additional review and approval by the Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission maintains review authority over all Development Plan and Site Plan Review Waivers. Due to the level of detail and specificity inherent in the BSC Code requirements, more significant project information (such as the locations of buildings on a site and other site improvements) will be known earlier in the process, and the need for potential Waivers can be identified as early as the Pre - Application meeting. Development Plan /Site Plan Review Process Recommended by the Plannina and Zonina Commission If the PZC has required that it be the final approval authority, it must complete its review within 28 days. As noted on the chart included with this attachment, the ART must first complete its review and recommendation, a public notice sent out, and the meeting held for the Commission's review. Given the timing of meetings, the PZC will have only one opportunity to decide on the application. If it is unable to do so, there are three options: the PZC may approve the application (with conditions as needed), disapprove the application, or request additional time from the applicant. Attachment 1 — Review and Approval Procedures Overview and Recommendation Page 2 of 4 Process Recommended by the City Administration If the ART is the reviewing body, it may meet as often as necessary to stay within the time constraints placed in the Zoning Code. This process is similar to what takes place now for the Innovation Districts of the EAZ and for development in all of the standard zoning districts in the city. Administrative Appeals Currently, if an applicant is dissatisfied with the outcome of either the PZC or ART, an appeal may be filed with the Board of Zoning Appeals using the process already outlined in the Zoning Code (Section 153.231(F)). The Law Director has prepared an alternative appeal provision for Council's consideration as Attachment 6. Attachment 1 — Review and Approval Procedures Overview and Recommendation Page 3 of 4 Attachment 1— Review and Approval Procedures Overview and Recommendation Page 4 of 4 P 153.066 REVIEW AND APPROVAL ROCEDURES AND CRITERIA (A) INTENT The intent of §153.066 is to provide an efficient and predictable review process for applications for rezoning and/or development within the Bridge Street Corridor districts and to enhance Dublin's reputation for high quality development while allowing property owners to compete for development consistent with the Vision Principles and direction articulated in the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report. The review and approval procedures and criteria are also intended to ensure that new development and redevelopment is served by adequate and efficient infrastructure so as not to burden the fiscal resources of the City, and generally to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of residents, occupants, and users of property in the BSC districts and surrounding areas of the city. (B) REQUIRED REVIEWS (1) This section outlines the requirements and procedures for development review specifically within the BSC districts. The review types of §153.066 shall be used for all development applications in a BSC district. (a) Refer to Table 153.066 -A, Summary Procedure Table, for the list of reviews and procedures applicable in all BSC districts. (b) Refer to Figure 153.066 -A, Review and Approval Procedures for Planning and Zoning Commission Reviews. (c) Refer to Figure 153.066 -B, Review and Approval Procedures for Architectural Review Board Reviews. (d) Refer to Figure 153.066 -C, Other Review and Approval Procedures, illustrate the review and approval procedures for development in all Bridge Street Corridor districts. (2) The following abbreviations and terms are used in §153.066: ART — Administrative Review Team ARB — Architectural Review Board BZA — Board of Zoning Appeals Commission — Planning and Zoning Commission Council — City Council (C) PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW (1) Purpose and Applicability (a) A Pre - Application Review with the Administrative Review Team (ART) is required for any proposal that requires Development Plan or Site Plan Review approval under the provisions of §153.066(E) and (F). The purpose of the Pre - Application Review is to provide a potential applicant with a non - binding review of a development proposal and to provide information on the procedures and policies of the City, including the application review procedures that may be used. (b) Pre - Application Reviews may be submitted and processed simultaneously with a request for a Basic Plan Review as provided in §153.066(D). (c) Pre - Application Reviews do not result in a development decision or permit, and shall not obligate the City or the developer to take any action on the proposal. (2) Review Procedure (a) A request fora Pre - Application Review shall be made in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (b) The City shall notify the applicant in writing at least five days prior to the Pre - Application Review meeting. (c) The ART and other applicable departments shall be promptly notified of the ART Pre - Application Review meeting. Prior to the meeting the Director shall distribute the submitted materials to the ART and other applicable City departments for input and recommendations. (d) The ART shall review the submitted materials and provide non - binding input and recommendations. The ART shall complete its review of the application not more than 14 days from the date the request was submitted. (e) A written summary of comments and suggestions made during the Pre - Application Review shall be provided to the applicant not more than 10 days after the Pre - Application Review meeting. (f) Prior to filing an application for the Basic Plan Review, the applicant shall be given the opportunity to revise the application in response to the ART's comments. The applicant may schedule additional Pre - Application Review meetings with the ART prior to filing a request for a Basic Plan Review. (g) The written summary of the Pre - Application Review shall be forwarded to the required reviewing body with the application for a Basic Plan Review. (D) BASIC PLAN REVIEW (1) Purpose and Applicability (a) The purpose of the Basic Plan Review is to allow the required reviewing body to review the proposal for its general consistency with the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report, §153.057 General Purpose, and §153.058 Bridge Street Corridor Districts Intent, and to provide an opportunity for public input at the earliest stages of the development process. § 153.066 AS RECOMMENDED BY REVIEW & APPROVAL PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PROCEDURES & CRITERIA FEBRUARY 2, 2012 TABLE 153.066 -A: SUMMARY PROCEDURE TABLE R = Recommendation D = Decision A= Administrative Appeal RF = Review & Feedback Type of Application ART ARB BZA Commission Council City Code Reference Zoning Code Approvals Zoning Map or Text Amendment R R R D §153.234 Conditional Use R R D §153.236 Special Permit R D §153.231(G) Use Variance R R D §153.231 (H) Non -Use (Area) Variance R D §153.231 (H) Subdivision Reviews Preliminary Plat R R D Chapter 152 Final Plat R R D Chapter 152 Other Approvals Administrative Appeals D §153.231 (F) Building Code Appeal D §153.231 (1) Bridge Street Corridor Districts Pre - Application Review RF §153.066(C) ARB Basic Plan Review R RF RF §153.066(D)(3) Basic Plan Review Other BSC Districts R RF §153.066(D) ARB Development Plan Review R D A §153.066(E)(6) Development Plan Other BSC Districts R/D A D §153.066(E) Development Plan Waiver Review R A D §153.066(E)(4) ARB Site Plan Review R D A §153.066(F)(6) Site Plan Review Other BSC Districts R/D A D §153.066(F) Site Plan Review Waiver Review R A D §153.066(F)(4) Minor Projects D A §153.066(G) Administrative Departure D A §153.066(H) Open Space Fee in Lieu R A D §153.064(D) and (E) Minor Modification to Approved Plans D A §153.066(1) Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval (Building and Site Modifications) D A §153.066(L)(3) ARB Master Sign Plan Review R D A §153.065(H)(2) Master Sign Plan Other BSC Districts R A D §153.065(H)(2) BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.066 107 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE REVIEW & APPROVAL PROCEDURES & CRITERIA FIGURE 153.066 -A: REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES INCLUDING COMMISSION REVIEWS vzc Basic PVT ART Plan Review Pre -App PreA I¢a[ion Rewew vADay et�nd,�l °.y /4 Dori YpDayspuG //c Nalco ART or PZC PZC Development Appllotlon (Optional) Development Plan Plan Review Waiver -- aw naDan or Separate Building Pemnk rReview T or PZC PZC pRotion (Optional) Site Plan lan Waier Review B Dan 18 Days FIGURE 153.066 -B: REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES INCLUDING ARB REVIEWS ART Pre - Application ART Pre-App Review ARB Basic Plan Revlew Option 14 Days lalxy. )AMY'IAMrys Prrh /Ir Nntrm ART Development Application Plan —/ Review zDDays ARB Development Plan and Walvem or Separate ART Site Plan Application Review 1d Days Review Servieee Building Permit ARB Slte Plan and Walvem FIGURE 153.066 -C: OTHER REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES (b) The Basic Plan Review also permits the Planning and Zoning Commission to make a determination as to whether the Development Plan and/or Site Plan Review will be conducted by the Administrative Review Team or by the Commission, based on the criteria listed in § 153.066(D)(2)(c). (c) Except as provided in § 153.066(D)(1)(d), a Basic Plan Review with the Planning and Zoning Commission is required for any proposal that requires Development Plan or Site Plan Review approval under the provisions of § 153.066(E) and (F)' (d) A Basic Plan Review with the Architectural Review Board for applications involving property within the boundaries of the Architectural Review District is at the option of the applicant, or may be required by the ART if it concludes that the application includes major site or building improvements that would benefit from a Basic Plan Review by the ARB. (2) Review Procedure (a) An application for a Basic Plan Review shall be made in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (b) Public Review A public review of a Basic Plan application shall be held in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (c) Planning and Zoning Commission Review Determination As part of the Basic Plan Review the Commission shall determine whether the application for Development Plan or Site Plan Review will be conducted by the Commission or by the Administrative Review Team. This determination shall be based on the following criteria: 1. Whether the application raises complex issues, such as the need for major infrastructure improvements and other neighborhood or community -wide effects, that would benefit from a Commission decision; or 2. Whether the Development Plan or Site Plan Review submittal has the potential for one or more substantial deviations from the Vision Report or from the requirements of § 153.060 — 153.065; or 3. Whether the application involves uses or structures that might be detrimental to existing uses or structures or impede the development of surrounding properties. (d) A recommendation from the ART shall be provided for any Development Plan and/or Site 108 § 153.066 AS RECOMMENDED BY REVIEW & APPROVAL PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PROCEDURES & CRITERIA FEBRUARY 2, 2012 Minor Projects 14 Days ART Approval Administrative Departures Director Minor Modifications Approval 14 Days BZA ; Administrative Appeals (b) The Basic Plan Review also permits the Planning and Zoning Commission to make a determination as to whether the Development Plan and/or Site Plan Review will be conducted by the Administrative Review Team or by the Commission, based on the criteria listed in § 153.066(D)(2)(c). (c) Except as provided in § 153.066(D)(1)(d), a Basic Plan Review with the Planning and Zoning Commission is required for any proposal that requires Development Plan or Site Plan Review approval under the provisions of § 153.066(E) and (F)' (d) A Basic Plan Review with the Architectural Review Board for applications involving property within the boundaries of the Architectural Review District is at the option of the applicant, or may be required by the ART if it concludes that the application includes major site or building improvements that would benefit from a Basic Plan Review by the ARB. (2) Review Procedure (a) An application for a Basic Plan Review shall be made in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (b) Public Review A public review of a Basic Plan application shall be held in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (c) Planning and Zoning Commission Review Determination As part of the Basic Plan Review the Commission shall determine whether the application for Development Plan or Site Plan Review will be conducted by the Commission or by the Administrative Review Team. This determination shall be based on the following criteria: 1. Whether the application raises complex issues, such as the need for major infrastructure improvements and other neighborhood or community -wide effects, that would benefit from a Commission decision; or 2. Whether the Development Plan or Site Plan Review submittal has the potential for one or more substantial deviations from the Vision Report or from the requirements of § 153.060 — 153.065; or 3. Whether the application involves uses or structures that might be detrimental to existing uses or structures or impede the development of surrounding properties. (d) A recommendation from the ART shall be provided for any Development Plan and/or Site 108 § 153.066 AS RECOMMENDED BY REVIEW & APPROVAL PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PROCEDURES & CRITERIA FEBRUARY 2, 2012 Plan Review application reviewed by the Planning Street Network map in §153.061 that is and Zoning Commission. For applications the required or permitted by the City. Commission determines are to be reviewed by the (2) Review Procedure ART, the Commission shall provide comments to the applicant and the ART relating to the (a) An application for a Development Plan Review requirements of the Development Plan and/or shall be made in accordance with the provisions Site Plan Review application(s) as provided in of §153.066(L). §153.066(E) and (F). The Basic Plan Review, (b) The required reviewing body shall review the including the determination of the review process Development Plan application under the criteria by the Commission, shall be completed not more of §153.066(E)(4) and render a decision not more than 28 days from the filing of the Basic Plan than 28 days from the receipt of a completed Review application. application, except as provided for in §153.066(E) (e) The applicant may request additional Basic Plan (5). A written summary of the required reviewing Reviews, which shall be subject to a 28 day body's decision shall be provided to the applicant review period and required public review. not more than 10 days after the Development Plan Review meeting. (f) A written summary of the comments provided by the required reviewing body shall be forwarded (c) Following the review, the applicant shall be to the applicant and ART not less than 10 days given the opportunity to revise the application following the review. in response to the required reviewing body's comments if the application is not approved. (g) If a Development Plan and/or Site Plan Review The applicant may request additional subsequent application is not submitted within one year meetings with the required reviewing body, which from the date of the last Basic Plan Review for shall also be subject to a 28 day time limit for a a site, the applicant shall be required to obtain decision. an additional Basic Plan Review by the required reviewing body prior to submitting an application (d) The ART shall provide a recommendation on all for a Development Plan and/or Site Plan Review Development Plan Applications for which the involving the same site in accordance with Planning and Zoning Commission has reserved §153.066(L). for a decision under §153.066(D)(2)(c). (3) Development Plan Waiver Review (E) DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVI (a) Except for those applications provided for in § applications for Development (1) Purpose and Applicability Plan approval that deviate from one or more of the (a) The purpose of the Development Plan Review requirements of § §153.060 and 153.061, and that is to ensure that the street network and block do not qualify for an Administrative Departure framework meet the requirements of § §153.060 under the provisions of §153.066(Li), may be and 153.061, and §153.063 as applicable, and to reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission ensure that the proposed development is consistent as a Development Plan Waiver. with the general development requirements (b) The applicant shall submit a list of proposed of the City with respect to such elements as Waivers with the Development Plan application. infrastructure, transportation, and environmental Should other necessary Waivers be identified by considerations. The Development Plan review the ART during its review, those Waivers may process is not intended to be a review of the be included for review by the Commission. The individual development regulations of §153.059 ART shall review the requested Waivers and make and § §153962 through 153.065, which is recommendations to the Commission for their intended for the Site Plan Review process. approval, denial, or approval with conditions in (b) An application for a Development Plan Review is accordance with §153.066(E)(2). required in the following conditions: (c) The Commission shall review the 1. The application involves the construction of recommendation of the ART and the specific more than one principal structure on one or Development Plan Waivers using the criteria more parcels; or of § 1 53.066(E)(3)(e). Should other Waivers 2. The application includes five or more gross be necessary to resolve conflicts with other acres of land; or requirements of this Chapter resulting from the 3. The application involves the design or requested Waivers, those Waivers shall also be construction of new streets, or a proposed reviewed by the Commission. realignment or relocation of any other street (d) The Commission shall approve, deny, or approve in the general pattern of street development with conditions the specific Development Plan conceptualized by the Bridge Street Corridor BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.066 109 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE REVIEW & APPROVAL PROCEDURES & CRITERIA Waiver request(s) not more than 28 days from the recommendation of the ART. (e) Criteria for Development Plan Waivers Each required reviewing body shall make its recommendation or its decision on an application for Development Plan Waivers based on each of the following criteria and the recommendation of the required reviewing body during the Basic Plan Review: 1. The need for the Development Plan Waiver is caused by unique site conditions or conditions on surrounding properties and otherwise complies with the spirit and intent of the Vision Report, and is not being requested simply to reduce cost or as a matter of general convenience; and 2. The Development Plan Waiver, if approved, will be consistent with §153.060(A) and §153.061(A). (4) Review Criteria for Development Plans Each required reviewing body shall make its recommendation or its decision on an application for Development Plan approval based on each of the following criteria and the recommendation of the required reviewing body during the Basic Plan Review: (a) The lots and blocks proposed are consistent with the requirements of §153.060; (b) The application is consistent with the general pattern of street development conceptualized by the BSC Street Network as shown in §153.061, and the expected traffic from the development can be accommodated on existing or proposed streets consistent with that system; (c) The application is consistent with the requirements of §153.063, Neighborhood Standards, if applicable; (d) If the development is to be implemented in phases, each phase is able to be considered independently, without the need for further phased improvements; (e) The application demonstrates consistency with the Vision Report, Community Plan and other related policy documents adopted by the City; and (f) The application provides adequate and efficient infrastructure to serve the proposed development, consistent with the City's most recently adopted Capital Improvements Program. (5) Architectural Review Board (ARB) (a) Applications for Development Plan approvals for property within the boundaries of the Architectural Review District shall be reviewed by the ART and then forwarded to the ARB with a recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Applications for ARB approval shall be reviewed in accordance with §153.066(E)(5), as well as the provisions of § §153.170 through 153.180. (b) Public Review A public review of a Development Plan application by the ARB shall be held in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (c) The ARB shall make a decision on the application not more than 28 days from the date of the ART's recommendation. (d) As part of the Development Plan approval, the ARB may review any Development Plan Waivers from the requirements of § §153.060 and 153.061 and approve, deny, or approve with conditions the specific provisions under review. Should other Waivers be necessary to resolve conflicts with other requirements of this Chapter resulting from the requested Waivers, those Waivers shall also be reviewed by the ARB in accordance with §153.066(E)(4). (F) SITE PLAN REVIEW (1) Purpose and Applicability (a) The purpose of the Site Plan Review is to confirm that the proposed development of an individual site and building is consistent with the BSC district regulations. The Site Plan Review process is intended as a review of the individual development regulations of §153.059 and § §153.062 through 153.065. Approval of the Site Plan Review includes assuring that the dimensions of a parcel meet the lot size requirements for the applicable building type(s) and that the surrounding street network meets the applicable requirements of § §153.060 and 153.061. (b) A Site Plan Review is required for any development application within the BSC districts, including those applications for which a Development Plan is required, with the exception of any application meeting the requirements for a Minor Project as provided in § 153.066(G). (2) Review Procedure (a) An application for a Site Plan Review shall be made in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (b) The required reviewing body shall review the Site Plan Review application under the criteria of §153.066(F)(4) and render a decision not more than 28 days from the receipt of a completed application, except for those applications provided for in §153.066(F)(5). A written summary of the required reviewing body's decision shall be provided to the applicant not more than 10 days after the Site Plan Review meeting. § 153.066 AS RECOMMENDED BY REVIEW & APPROVAL PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PROCEDURES & CRITERIA FEBRUARY 2, 2012 (c) Following the review, the applicant shall be given the opportunity to revise the application in response to the required reviewing body's comments. The applicant may request additional subsequent meetings with the required reviewing body, subject to the same time limits of §153.066(F)(2)(b). (3) Site Plan Review Waiver Review (a) Except for those applications provided for in §153.066(F)(5), applications for Site Plan Review approval that deviate from one or more of the requirements of §153.059 and § §153.062 through 153.065, and that do not qualify for an Administrative Departure under the provisions of §153.066(H), shall be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. (b) The applicant shall submit a list of proposed Waivers with the Site Plan Review application. Should other necessary Waivers be determined by the ART during its review, those Waivers may be included for review by the Commission. The ART shall review the requested Waivers and make recommendations to the Commission for their approval, denial, or approval with conditions under the procedures of §153.066(F)(2). (c) The Commission shall review the recommendation of the ART and the specific Site Plan Review Waivers using the criteria of § I53.066(F)(3)(e). Should other Waivers be necessary to resolve conflicts with other requirements of this chapter resulting from the requested Waivers, those Waivers shall also be reviewed by the Commission. (d) The Commission shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the specific Site Plan Review Waiver request(s) not more than 28 days from the recommendation of the ART. (e) Criteria for Site Plan Review Waivers Each required reviewing body shall make its recommendation or its decision on an application for a Site Plan Review Waiver approval based on each of the following criteria and the recommendation of the required reviewing body during the Basic Plan Review: 1. The need for the Site Plan Review Waiver is caused by unique site conditions or conditions on surrounding properties; 2. The Site Plan Review Waiver is not being requested simply to reduce cost or as a matter of general convenience; 3. The Site Plan Review Waiver does not have the effect of authorizing any use, building type, or open space type that is not otherwise permitted in that BSC district; and 4. The Site Plan Review Waiver, if approved, will ensure that the development is of equal or greater development quality with respect to design, . material, and other similar development features than without the Waiver. (4) Review Criteria for Site Plan Review Each required reviewing body shall make its recommendation or its decision on an application for Site Plan Review approval based on each of the following criteria and the recommendation of the required reviewing body during the Basic Plan Review: (a) If a Development Plan has been approved that includes the property, the application is consistent with the Development Plan; (b) The application meets all applicable requirements of §153.059 and § §153.062 through 153.065 except as maybe authorized by Administrative Departure(s) pursuant to §153.066(H); (c) The internal circulation system and driveways -provide safe and efficient access for residents, ;t. a Occupants, visitors, emergency vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians; 1 (d) relationship of buildings and structures to each other and to other facilities provides for the coordination and integration of the development within the surrounding area and the larger community and maintains the image of Dublin as a high quality community; (e) The application is consistent with the requirements for types, distribution, and suitability of open space in §153.064 and the site design incorporates natural features and site topography to the maximum extent practicable; (f) The scale and design of the proposed development allows the adequate provision of services currently famished by or that may be required by the City or other public agency including, but not limited to, fire and police protection, public water and sanitary sewage services, recreational activities, traffic control, waste management, and administrative services; (g) Stormwater management systems and facilities will not cause alterations that could increase flooding or water pollution on or off the site, and removal of surface waters will not adversely affect neighboring properties; (h) If the development is to be implemented in phases, each phase is able to be considered independently, without the need for further phased improvements; and (i) The application demonstrates consistency with the BSC Vision Report, Community Plan and other related policy documents adopted by the City. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.066 111 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE REVIEW & APPROVAL PROCEDURES & CRITERIA (5) Architectural Review Board (ARB) (a) Applications for Site Plan Review approvals for property within the boundaries of the Architectural Review District shall be reviewed by the ART and forwarded to the ARB with a recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Applications for ARB approval shall be reviewed using the criteria of §153.066(F)(4), as well as the provisions of § §153.170 through 153.180. (b) Public Review A public review of a Site Plan Review by the ARB shall be held in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (c) The ARB shall make a decision on applications for Site Plan Review approval not more than 28 days from the date of the ART's recommendation. (d) As part of the Site Plan Review approval, the ARB may review any requests for Site Plan Review Waivers from the requirements of §153.059 and §§ 153.062 through 153.065 and approve, deny, or approve with conditions the specific provisions under review. Should other Waivers be necessary to resolve conflicts with other requirements of this Chapter resulting from the requested Waivers, those Waivers shall also be reviewed by the ARB. (e) to the event of a conflict between the requirements of §153.059 and § §153.062 through 153.065 and the provisions of § §153.170 through 153.180, the ARB shall determine the most appropriate provisions to apply to the specific application based on the criteria of §153.066(F) (4). (G) MINOR PROJECTS (1) Purpose and Applicability (a) The purpose of the Minor Project review is to provide an efficient review process for smaller projects that do not have significant community effects. The Minor Project review is necessary to ensure that applications meet the requirements of this chapter. (b) The following improvements are considered Minor Projects: 1. Single family detached dwelling units. 2. Multiple family and townhouse buildings of 8 or fewer dwelling units in a single building on an individual lot and not part of a larger development complex. 3. Development of mixed use and non- residential principal structures of 10,000 square feet or less gross floor area, and associated site development requirements. 4. Additions to principal structures that increase the gross floor area by not more than 25 %, or not more than 10,000 square feet gross floor area, whichever is less, . existing as of the effective date of this amendment, or when first constructed. 5. Exterior modifications to principal structures involving not more than 25% of the total fapade area of the structure. 6. Signs, landscaping, parking, and other site related improvements that do not involve construction of a new principal building. Parks when used to meet requirements as an open space type, as provided in §153.064, shall require Site Plan Review. 7. Accessory structures and uses. 8. Modifications to Existing Structures in accordance with §153.062(B). (2) Review Procedure (a) An application for a Minor Project Review shall be made in accordance with the provisions of N153 066 (b) After accepting a complete application for a Minor Project, the ART shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the application not more than 14 days from the date the request was submitted, provided that the applicant has provided all materials required by the City. The City shall notify the applicant in writing not less than five days prior to the review meeting. (c) The ART shall review the application and approve, deny, or approve with conditions, based on the criteria of §153.066(F)(4) applicable to Site Plan Review approvals. A written summary of the ART decision shall be provided to the applicant not more than 10 days after the Minor Project review meeting. (d) Following the review, the applicant shall be given the opportunity to revise the application in response to the ART's comments if the application is not approved by the ART. The applicant may request additional subsequent meetings with the ART, which shall also be subject to the 14 day time limit for a decision. (H) ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTURES (1) Purpose and Applicability The intent of §153.066(H) is to provide an administrative process to allow minor deviations from the strict application of the BSC district requirements caused by unusual site or development conditions or conditions unique to a particular use or other similar conditions that require reasonable adjustments, but remain consistent with the intent of this Chapter. Examples include, but are not limited to, adjustments § 153.066 AS RECOMMENDED BY REVIEW & APPROVAL PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PROCEDURES & CRITERIA FEBRUARY 2, 2012 to building setbacks, . parking requirements, development quality with respect to design, landscaping, building materials, or other similar material, and other development features than features or elements. without the Administrative Departure. (2) Review Procedure (a) An application for Administrative Departure (1) MINOR MODIFICATIONS may be submitted with an application for a (1) Purpose and Applicability Development Plan, Site Plan Review, or Minor (a) The Director may authorize Minor Modifications Project approval, or at any time after those to an approved Development Plan or Site Plan applications have been submitted and before a Review that are required to correct any undetected decision or recommendation by the ART has errors or omissions, address conditions discovered been made. If an application for Administrative during the permitting process or construction,. or Departure is made after an application for a that are necessary to ensure orderly and efficient Development Plan, Site Plan Review, or Minor development. Any approved Minor Modifications Project has been filed, the Director may require must be generally consistent with the approved that the time period for ART review start over Development Plan or Site Plan Review. on the day the request for an Administrative Departure is received. (b) The following are considered Minor Modifications. (b) An application for an Administrative Departure may be processed simultaneously with the 1. Adjustments to lot lines, provided no Development Plan, Site Plan Review, or Minor additional lots are created and required Project application to which it relates. The setbacks and/or RBZs are maintained; ART shall determine whether each requested 2. Adjustments to the location and layout of Administrative Departure is approved, approved parking lots provided the perimeter setbacks, with conditions, or denied. Decisions on yards and buffers, and required parking are Administrative Departures shall be reported to maintained; the required reviewing body if a Development 3. Adjustments for buildings up to 10% in total Plan, and/or Site Plan Review Waiver or Elective floor area of the originally approved building, Review is conducted. building height(s) or floor plans, that do not (c) Should the ART find that the request does not alter the character of the use; meet the criteria for an Administrative Departure, 4. Substitution of landscaping materials the applicant may file for a Development Plan specified in the landscape plan with Waiver under the provisions of §153.066(E)(3) or comparable materials of an equal or greater a Site Plan Review Waiver under the provisions of size; §153.066(F)(3), or submit anew application for Development Plan or Site Plan Review. 5. Redesigning and/or relocating stormwater management facilities provided that general (3) Criteria for Administrative Departure Approval character and stormwater capacities are The ART shall make its decision on Administrative maintained; Departure based on the following criteria: 6. Relocating fencing, walls or screening (not (a) The need for the Administrative Departure is including screening walls), provided that caused by unique site conditions, conditions on the same level and quality of materials and surrounding properties, and/or otherwise complies screening are maintained; with the spirit and intent of the Vision Report, and 7. Modifications to sign location, sign face, is not being requested simply to reduce cost or as landscaping and lighting, provided the sign a matter of general convenience; number and dimensional requirements are (b) The Administrative Departure does not have the maintained; effect of authorizing any use, sign, building type, g. Changes in building material or colors that or open space type that is not otherwise permitted are similar to and have the same general in that BSC district; appearance comparable to or of a higher (c) The Administrative Departure does not modify quality as the material approved on the Site any numerical zoning standard related to building Plan Review; dimensions, lot dimensions or coverage, open 9. Changes required by outside agencies such as space, landscaping, parking, fencing, walls, the county, state, or federal departments; and/ screening, or exterior lighting by more than 10% or of the requirement; and 10. Other modifications deemed appropriate by (d) The Administrative Departure, if approved, will the Director that do not alter the basic design ensure that the development is of equal or greater BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.066 113 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE REVIEW & APPROVAL PROCEDURES & CRITERIA or any specific conditions imposed as part of the original approval. (2) Review Procedure (a) An application for a Minor Modification shall be made in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (b) The Director shall review the application and make a decision on the request for a Minor Modification not more than 14 days after receiving a complete application. (c) Following the decision, the applicant shall be given the opportunity to revise the application in response to the Director's comments and resubmit for further consideration. If a revised application is submitted, the 14 day review period shall start over on the day the revised request is received. consideration by the Board of Zoning Appeals, and for City Council in the instance of a Use Variance. (7) Public Tree Permit The tree permit requirements of §153.134(G) shall apply in the BSC districts. (8) Master Sign Plan A master sign plan as described in §1 53.065(H) (2) shall be submitted with all Site Plan Review applications, subject to approval by the required reviewing body. (I) ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL (d) Requests not meeting the requirements for a Minor Modification shall require the filing and approval of a new application for a Development Plan Review, Site Plan Review, Minor Project Review, or other review, as applicable, in (L) accordance with §153.066. (J) OTHER APPLICABLE REVIEWS (1) Open Space Fee in Lieu The Planning and Zoning Commission shall determine whether a request for a payment of a. fee in lieu of open space dedication is appropriate, as provided in §153.064(1)) and (E), after recommendation from the ART. (2) Conditional Uses The Conditional Use approval procedures in §153.236 shall apply in the BSC districts. In addition, a recommendation from the ART shall be submitted for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission. (3) Zoning Map or Text Amendment The amendment procedures of § 153.234 shall apply in the BSC districts. In addition, a recommendation from the ART shall be submitted for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. (4) Preliminary and Final Plats Reviews of Preliminary and Final Plats shall be governed by Chapter 152 of the Dublin Code of Ordinances. (5) Special Permit The Special Permit procedures in §153.231(G) shall apply in the BSC districts. (1) The Administrative Appeal provisions of §153.23l(F) apply in the BSC districts. (2) Decisions on appeals are limited to those specific provisions or approvals that are the subject of the appeal No other part of an application shall be modified by the Board of Zoning Appeals. GENEAAL (1) Apptions (a) 'application required by §153.066 shall be made in writing on form provided by the City and shall be accompanied by the fee as established by City Council. (b) Applications for approvals in the BSC districts shall include all information required by the City, unless some information is deemed unnecessary by the Director based on the nature and scale of the proposed development. No application shall be accepted by the City until it is complete. Any applicable time limits noted in §153.066 shall not begin until a complete application is accepted by the City. If found to be incomplete, the Director shall inform the applicant of any additional materials required to complete the application. (c) After acceptance of complete application, the Director and/or required reviewing body may request additional materials if deemed necessary to evaluate the proposal. (d) Resubmission No application for a Development Plan or Site Plan Review which has been denied by the required reviewing body shall be resubmitted for a period of one year from the date of the decision, unless permitted by the Director after a demonstration by the applicant of a change of circumstances from the previous application that may reasonably result in a different decision. (6) Zoning Variance (e) Simultaneous Processing The zoning Variance procedures in §153.231(I) In cases where a Development Plan application shall apply in the BSC districts. In addition, a is submitted, a Site Plan Review and/or a Minor recommendation from the ART shall be submitted for Project may be reviewed simultaneously with that Development Plan, but a Site Plan Review 4 § 153.066 AS RECOMMENDED BY REVIEW & APPROVAL PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PROCEDURES & CRITERIA FEBRUARY 2, 2012 or Minor Project approval shall not be effective zoning requirements is required prior to modification, until the Development Plan has been approved. If extension, or alteration of sites and structures, and/or appropriate, other required reviews as provided change of use in BSC districts. in this section may be processed jointly with (4) Code Administration a Development Plan and/or Site Plan Review application. The Planning and Zoning Commission and the Architectural Review Board may evaluate and monitor (f) Public Reviews the application of the requirements and standards Where public reviews are required by this section, of § §153.057 through 153.066 by the ART. The a written notice of the public meeting shall be Commission and the Architectural Review Board sent to the applicant, property owner, and owners may advise the ART as to whether it finds that the of parcels of land within 300 feet of the subject requirements or standards (including requests for parcel(s), as listed on the County Auditor's current Administrative Departures) are being applied correctly, tax list, not less than 10 days prior to the meeting. and recommend to City Council any changes needed The notice shall, at a minimum, indicate the in the BSC district standards and requirements to property that is the subject of the request, describe better implement the Vision Report. the nature of the request, the time, date and (5) Time Extensions location of the meeting at which the application will be considered, and indicate when and where (a) Where the provisions of §153.066 require that written comments will be received concerning the an action be taken by the City within a stated request. period of time, that time may be extended with the written consent of both the applicant and the (2) Decisions Director prior to expiration of the required time (a) Any application required to be reviewed under period. §153.066 shall be approved, approved with (b) If the applicant submits a revised application conditions, or denied by the required reviewing during any required review period, and the body based on the applicable review criteria Director determines that the revised application as provided in §153.066. The recommending differs substantially from the previous application, body and required reviewing body shall state a new review period shall begin and additional the reasons for their decisions in the minutes meetings of the required reviewing body may be and provide a written record of the decision scheduled if deemed necessary by the Director. to the applicant not more than 10 days after a recommendation or decision is made, unless (6) Duration of Approvals otherwise provided in this section. (a) An application shall be filed for a Development (b) Prior to reaching a decision, if the required Plan and/or Site Plan Review approval within one reviewing body determines that an application year following the completion of the Basic Plan does not meet the applicable review criteria Review. If aDevelopment Plan and/or Site Plan as provided in §153.066, but determines that Review application is not filed within this period the application could meet those criteria with anew application for aBasic Plan Review shall modifications that could not be reasonably be required in accordance with the requirements conditioned, the applicant may request that the of §153.066(D). application be tabled to provide the opportunity (b) All Development Plan, Site Plan Review, and to make those modifications. If the request for Minor Project approvals made pursuant to tabling is granted, a new review period shall begin §153.066 shall be valid for a period of two years. on the date the applicant submits a complete If an initial building permit for the approved application with revised materials. development has not been issued within that (c) Following the approval of a Site Plan Review two year period, the applicant shall be required or Minor Project application, the applicant to apply for a new Development Plan, Site Plan may proceed with the process for obtaining a Review, or Minor Project approval, as applicable, Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval and building pursuant to §153.066 before obtaining a building permit, consistent with the approval as granted. permit. All construction and development under any (c) Abandonment building permit shall comply with the approved 1. Once a final approval is granted by the Site Plan Review and Development Plan, and any required reviewing body, if significant other approval, as applicable. construction is not started within two years (3) Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval and meaningfully continued, or the Director A Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval issued by the of Building Standards determines that work Director verifying compliance with all applicable has been abandoned for a continuous period BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.066 115 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE REVIEW & APPROVAL PROCEDURES & CRITERIA of six months, the approval shall lapse and to advise the ART on the application of the cease to be in effect. provisions of this Chapter. 2. The Director of Building Standards shall establish the date of abandonment based on the presence of one or more of the following conditions: A. Removal of construction equipment or supplies; B. Expiration of an active building permit issued by the City; C. Evidence of a failure to maintain the property, such as overgrown weeds, failure to secure buildings, broken windows, or other evidence of lack of maintenance; and/or D. Other actions documented by the Director of Building Standards and/or Director evidencing an intent to abandon the construction of the project. 3. If a new application is not submitted within 90 days from the date of abandonment as determined by the Director of Building Standards, the owner shall restore the site to its previous condition, and/or remove any structures or other evidence of work on the site, within 180 days from the date of abandonment. (7) Administrative Review Team (ART) (a) The purpose of the Administrative Review Team is to provide for review and approval authority for certain applications as defined by §153.066. The Administrative Review Team is responsible for the comprehensive review of each application, and making recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission, Architectural Review Board, or Board of Zoning Appeals where required. The ART is also responsible for making decisions in an efficient and timely manner based on evaluation of objective development standards and specific review criteria While these objective standards and criteria must guide the decisions of the ART, it is recognized that some degree of subjectivity must be part of the ART's deliberations. (b) The Administrative Review Team shall consist of the Director (Chair), City Engineer, Fire Chief, Economic Development Manager, Parks and Open Space Director, Police Chief, and Chief Building Official, or their representatives, and any other members appointed by the City Manager as deemed necessary, either as permanent or temporary members. (c) The ART may use the services of other professionals, such as architectural, engineering, and other consultants as they deem necessary, § 153.066 AS RECOMMENDED BY REVIEW & APPROVAL PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PROCEDURES & CRITERIA FEBRUARY 2, 2012 This page has been left blank intentionally. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.066 117 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE REVIEW & APPROVAL PROCEDURES & CRITERIA P 153.066 REVIEW AND APPROVAL ROCEDURES AND CRITERIA (A) INTENT The intent of §153.066 is to provide an efficient and predictable review process for applications for rezoning and/or development within the Bridge Street Corridor districts and to enhance Dublin's reputation for high quality development while allowing property owners to compete for development consistent with the Vision Principles and direction articulated in the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report. The review and approval procedures and criteria are also intended to ensure that new development and redevelopment is served by adequate and efficient infrastructure so as not to burden the fiscal resources of the City, and generally to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of residents, occupants, and users of property in the BSC districts and surrounding areas of the city. (B) REQUIRED REVIEWS (1) This section outlines the requirements and procedures for development review specifically within the BSC districts. The review types of §153.066 shall be used for all development applications in a BSC district. Refer to Table 153.066 -A, Summary Procedure Table, for the list of reviews and procedures applicable in all BSC districts. Figure 153.066 -A, Review and Approval Procedures including Planning and Zoning Commission Reviews, Figure 153.066 -13, Review and Approval Procedures including Architectural Review Board Reviews, and Figure 153.066 -C, Other Review and Approval Procedures, illustrate the review and approval procedures for development in all Bridge Street Corridor districts. (2) The following abbreviations and terms are used in §153.066: ART — Administrative Review Team ARB — Architectural Review Board BZA — Board of Zoning Appeals Commission — Planning and Zoning Commission Council — City Council (C) PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW (1) Purpose and Applicability (a) A Pre - Application Review with the Administrative Review Team (ART) is required for any proposal that requires Development Plan or Site Plan approval under the provisions of §153.066(E) and (F). The purpose of the Pre - Application Review is to provide a potential applicant with a non - binding review of a development proposal and to provide information on the procedures and policies of the City, including the application review procedures that may be used. (b) Pre - Application Reviews may be submitted and processed simultaneously with a request for a Basic Plan Review as provided in §153.066(D). (c) Pre - Application Reviews do not result in a development decision or permit, and shall not obligate the City or the developer to take any action on the proposal. (2) Review Procedure (a) A request for a Pre - Application Review shall be made in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (b) The City shall notify the applicant in writing at least five days prior to the Pre - Application Review meeting. (c) The ART and other applicable departments shall be promptly notified of the ART Pre - Application Review meeting. Prior to the meeting the Director shall distribute the submitted materials to the ART and other applicable City departments for input and recommendations. (d) The ART shall review the submitted materials and provide non - binding input and recommendations. The ART shall complete its review of the application not more than 14 days from the date the request was submitted. (e) A written summary of comments and suggestions made during the Pre - Application Review shall be provided to the applicant not more than 10 days after the Pre - Application Review meeting. (f) Prior to filing an application for the Basic Plan Review, the applicant shall be given the opportunity to revise the application in response to the ART's comments. The applicant may schedule additional Pre - Application Review meetings with the ART prior to filing a request for a Basic Plan Review. (g) The written summary of the Pre - Application Review shall be forwarded to the required reviewing body with the application for a Basic Plan Review. (D) BASIC PLAN REVIEW (1) Purpose and Applicability (a) The purpose of the Basic Plan Review is to allow the required reviewing body to review the proposal for its general consistency with the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report, §153.057 General Purpose, and §153.058 Bridge Street Corridor Districts Intent, and to provide an opportunity for public input at the earliest stages of the development process. (b) Except as provided in §153.066(D)(1)(c), a Basic Plan Review with the Planning and Zoning Commission is required for any proposal that § 153.066 DECEMBER 16, 2011 REVIEW & APPROVAL PROCEDURES & CRITERIA TABLE 153.066 -A: SUMMARY PROCEDURE TABLE R = Recommendation D = Decision A= Administrative Appeal RF = Review & Feedback Type of Application ART ARB BZA Commission Council City Code Reference Zoning Code Approvals Zoning Map or Text Amendment R R R D §153.234 Conditional Use R R D §153.236 Special Permit R D §153.231 (G) Use Variance R R D §153.231 (H) Non -Use (Area) Variance R D §153.231 (H) Subdivision Reviews Preliminary Plat R R D Chapter 152 Final Plat R R D Chapter 152 Other Approvals Administrative Appeals D §153.231(F) Building Code Appeal D §153.231 (1) Bridge Street Corridor Districts Pre - Application Review RF 1 §153.066(C) ARB Basic Plan Review R RF RF §153.066(D) (3) Basic Plan Review Other BSC Districts. R RF §153.066(D) ARB Development Plan Review R D A §153.066(E) (6) Development Plan Other BSC Districts D A §153.066(E) Development Plan Elective Review R A D §153.066(E) (3) Development Plan Waiver Review R A D §153.066(E) (4) ARB Site Plan Review R D A §153.066(F)(6) Site Plan Other BSC Districts D A §153.066(F) Site Plan Elective Review R A D §153.066(F)(3) Site Plan Waiver Review R A D §153.066(F)(4) Minor Projects D A §153.066(G) Administrative Departure D A §153.066(H) Open Space Fee in Lieu R A D §153.064(D) and (E) Minor Modification to Approved Plans D A §153.066(1) Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval (Building and Site Modifications) D A §153.066(L)(3) BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.066 105 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE REVIEW & APPROVAL PROCEDURES & CRITERIA FIGURE 153.066 -A: REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES INCLUDING COMMISSION REVIEWS ART P PreRApp p PZc l ic 1 Development A ART P P plan A Approval W Waivze1. � Im, FIGURE 153.066 -B: REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES INCLUDING ARB REVIEWS ART ART ARB Basic Pr App Plan Review Pre - Application Review Option tfmY. 10a' : Prrh /Ir Nntrm ART Development Application Plan —/ Review zeoap or Separate ART Site Plan Application Review 1da'” ARB Development Plan and Walvers Review Service audding PermR ARB Site Plan and Walvers FIGURE 153.066 -C: OTHER REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES Minor Projects 14 Days ART Approval Administrative Departures Director Minor Modifications Approval 14 Days BZA Administrative ; Appeals requires Development Plan or Site Plan approval under the provisions of § 153.066(E) and (F). (c) A Basic Plan Review with the Architectural Review Board for applications involving property within the boundaries of the Architectural Review District is at the option of the applicant, or may be required by the ART if it concludes that the application includes major site or building improvements that would benefit from ARB review. (2) Review Procedure (a) An application for a Basic Plan Review shall be made in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (b) Public Review A public review of a Basic Plan application shall be held in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (c) The required reviewing body shall provide a recommendation to the applicant and the ART relating to the requirements of the Development Plan and/or Site Plan application(s) as provided A in § 153.066(E) and (F), as applicable to the Basic Plan Review. The recommendation shall be provided not more than 28 days from the filing of the Basic Plan Review application. (d) The applicant may request additional Basic Plan Reviews, which shall be subject to a 28 day review period and the required public review. (e) A written summary of the comments provided by the required reviewing body shall be forwarded to the applicant not less than 10 days following the review. Comments shall also be provided to the ART for consideration in its review of future Development Plan and/or Site Plan applications. (f) If a Development Plan and/or Site Plan application is not submitted within one year from the date of the last Basic Plan Review for a site, the applicant shall be required to obtain an additional Basic Plan Review by the required reviewing body prior to submitting an application for a Development Plan and/or Site Plan involving the same site in accordance with § 153.066(L). (E) DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW (1) Purpose and Applicability (a) The purpose of the Development Plan Review is to ensure that the street network and block framework meet the requirements of § § 153.060 and 153.061, and §153.063 as applicable, and to ensure that the proposed development is consistent with the general development requirements of the City with respect to such elements as infrastructure, transportation, and environmental considerations. The Development Plan review 106 § 153.066 DECEMBER 16, 2011 REVIEW & APPROVAL PROCEDURES & CRITERIA ART Development Application Plan —/ Review zeoap or Separate ART Site Plan Application Review 1da'” ARB Development Plan and Walvers Review Service audding PermR ARB Site Plan and Walvers FIGURE 153.066 -C: OTHER REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES Minor Projects 14 Days ART Approval Administrative Departures Director Minor Modifications Approval 14 Days BZA Administrative ; Appeals requires Development Plan or Site Plan approval under the provisions of § 153.066(E) and (F). (c) A Basic Plan Review with the Architectural Review Board for applications involving property within the boundaries of the Architectural Review District is at the option of the applicant, or may be required by the ART if it concludes that the application includes major site or building improvements that would benefit from ARB review. (2) Review Procedure (a) An application for a Basic Plan Review shall be made in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (b) Public Review A public review of a Basic Plan application shall be held in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (c) The required reviewing body shall provide a recommendation to the applicant and the ART relating to the requirements of the Development Plan and/or Site Plan application(s) as provided A in § 153.066(E) and (F), as applicable to the Basic Plan Review. The recommendation shall be provided not more than 28 days from the filing of the Basic Plan Review application. (d) The applicant may request additional Basic Plan Reviews, which shall be subject to a 28 day review period and the required public review. (e) A written summary of the comments provided by the required reviewing body shall be forwarded to the applicant not less than 10 days following the review. Comments shall also be provided to the ART for consideration in its review of future Development Plan and/or Site Plan applications. (f) If a Development Plan and/or Site Plan application is not submitted within one year from the date of the last Basic Plan Review for a site, the applicant shall be required to obtain an additional Basic Plan Review by the required reviewing body prior to submitting an application for a Development Plan and/or Site Plan involving the same site in accordance with § 153.066(L). (E) DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW (1) Purpose and Applicability (a) The purpose of the Development Plan Review is to ensure that the street network and block framework meet the requirements of § § 153.060 and 153.061, and §153.063 as applicable, and to ensure that the proposed development is consistent with the general development requirements of the City with respect to such elements as infrastructure, transportation, and environmental considerations. The Development Plan review 106 § 153.066 DECEMBER 16, 2011 REVIEW & APPROVAL PROCEDURES & CRITERIA requires Development Plan or Site Plan approval under the provisions of § 153.066(E) and (F). (c) A Basic Plan Review with the Architectural Review Board for applications involving property within the boundaries of the Architectural Review District is at the option of the applicant, or may be required by the ART if it concludes that the application includes major site or building improvements that would benefit from ARB review. (2) Review Procedure (a) An application for a Basic Plan Review shall be made in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (b) Public Review A public review of a Basic Plan application shall be held in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (c) The required reviewing body shall provide a recommendation to the applicant and the ART relating to the requirements of the Development Plan and/or Site Plan application(s) as provided A in § 153.066(E) and (F), as applicable to the Basic Plan Review. The recommendation shall be provided not more than 28 days from the filing of the Basic Plan Review application. (d) The applicant may request additional Basic Plan Reviews, which shall be subject to a 28 day review period and the required public review. (e) A written summary of the comments provided by the required reviewing body shall be forwarded to the applicant not less than 10 days following the review. Comments shall also be provided to the ART for consideration in its review of future Development Plan and/or Site Plan applications. (f) If a Development Plan and/or Site Plan application is not submitted within one year from the date of the last Basic Plan Review for a site, the applicant shall be required to obtain an additional Basic Plan Review by the required reviewing body prior to submitting an application for a Development Plan and/or Site Plan involving the same site in accordance with § 153.066(L). (E) DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW (1) Purpose and Applicability (a) The purpose of the Development Plan Review is to ensure that the street network and block framework meet the requirements of § § 153.060 and 153.061, and §153.063 as applicable, and to ensure that the proposed development is consistent with the general development requirements of the City with respect to such elements as infrastructure, transportation, and environmental considerations. The Development Plan review 106 § 153.066 DECEMBER 16, 2011 REVIEW & APPROVAL PROCEDURES & CRITERIA process is not intended to be a review of the individual development regulations of §153.059 and § §153.062 through 153.065, which is intended for the Site Plan review process. (b) An application for a Development Plan Review is required in the following conditions: 1. The application involves the construction of more than one principal structure on one or more parcels; or 2. The application includes five or more gross acres of land; or 3. The application involves the design or construction of new streets, or a proposed realignment or relocation of any other street in the general pattern of street development conceptualized by the Bridge Street Corridor Street Network map in §153.061 that is required or permitted by the City. (2) Review Procedure (a) An application for a Development Plan Review shall be made in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (b) The ART shall review the Development Plan application under the criteria of §153.066(E)(5) and render a decision not more than 28 days from the receipt of a completed application, except as provided for in §153.066(E)(6). A written summary of the ART's decision shall be provided to the applicant not more than 10 days after the Development Plan Review meeting. (c) Following the review, the applicant shall be given the opportunity to revise the application in response to theART's comments if the application is not approved by the ART. The applicant may request additional subsequent meetings with the ART, which shall also be subject to a 28 day time limit for a decision. (3) Development Plan Elective Review (a) Rather than reaching a final determination under the provisions of §153.066(E)(2), the ART may elect to forward any Development Plan application to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a decision if it concludes that the application raises complex issues, such as the need for major infrastructure improvements and other neighborhood or community -wide effects, that would benefit from a Commission decision. (b) The ART shall submit its recommendation for consideration by the Commission under the procedures of §153.066(E)(2). (c) Public Review A public review of a Development Plan Elective application shall be held in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (d) The Commission shall consider the application and render a decision under the criteria of §153.066(E)(5) not more than 28 days from the recommendation of the ART. (4) Development Plan Waiver Review (a) Except for those applications provided for in §153.066(E)(6), applications for Development Plan approval that deviate from one or more of the requirements of § §153.060 and 153.061, and that do not qualify for an Administrative Departure under the provisions of §153.066(H), may be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission as a Development Plan Waiver. (b) The applicant shall submit a list of proposed Waivers with the Development Plan application. Should other necessary Waivers be identified by the ART during its review, those Waivers may be included for review by the Commission. The ART shall review the requested Waivers and make recommendations to the Commission for their approval, denial, or approval with conditions in accordance with §153.066(E)(2). (c) The Commission shall review the recommendation of the ART and the specific Development Plan Waivers using the criteria of § 1 53.066(E)(4)(e). Should other Waivers be necessary to resolve conflicts with other requirements of this Chapter resulting from the requested Waivers, those Waivers shall also be reviewed by the Commission. (d) The Commission shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the specific Development Plan Waiver request(s) not more than 28 days from the recommendation of the ART. (e) Criteria for Development Plan Waivers Each required reviewing body shall make its recommendation or its decision on an application for Development Plan Waivers based on each of the following criteria and the recommendation of the required reviewing body during the Basic Plan Review: 1. The need for the Development Plan Waiver is caused by unique site conditions or conditions on surrounding properties and otherwise complies with the spirit and intent of the Vision Report, and is not being requested simply to reduce cost or as a matter of general convenience; and 2. The Development Plan Waiver, if approved, will be consistent with §153.060(A) and §153.061(A). (5) Review Criteria for Development Plans (a) Each required reviewing body shall make its recommendation or its decision on an application for Development Plan approval based on each of the following criteria and the recommendation BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.066 107 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE REVIEW & APPROVAL PROCEDURES & CRITERIA of the required reviewing body during the Basic Plan Review: The lots and blocks proposed are consistent with the requirements of §153.060; (b) The application is consistent with the general pattern of street development conceptualized by the BSC Street Network as shown in §153.061, and the expected traffic from the development can be accommodated on existing or proposed streets consistent with that system; (c) The application is consistent with the requirements of §153.063, Neighborhood Standards, if applicable; (d) If the development is to be implemented in phases, each phase is able to be considered independently, without the need for further phased improvements; (e). The application demonstrates consistency with the BSC Vision Report, Community Plan and other related policy documents adopted by the City; and (f) The application provides adequate and efficient infrastructure to serve the proposed development, consistent with the City's most recently adopted Capital Improvements Program. (6) Architectural Review Board (ARB) (a) Applications for Development Plan approvals for property within the boundaries of the Architectural Review District shall be reviewed by the ART and then forwarded to the ARB with a recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Applications for ARB approval shall be reviewed in accordance with §153.066(E)(5), as well as the provisions of §153.170 through §153.180. (b) Public Review A public review of a Development Plan application by the ARB shall be held in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (c) The ARB shall make a decision on the application not more than 28 days from the date of the ART's recommendation. (d) As part of the Development Plan approval, the ARB may review any Development Plan Waivers from the requirements of § §153.060 and 153.061 and approve, deny, or approve with conditions the specific provisions under review. Should other Waivers be necessary to resolve conflicts with other requirements of this Chapter resulting from the requested Waivers, those Waivers shall also be reviewed by the ARB. (F) SITE PLAN REVIEW (1) Purpose and Applicability the BSC district regulations. The Site Plan Review process is intended as a review of the individual development regulations of §153.059 and § §153.062 through 153.065. Approval of the Site Plan includes assuring that the dimensions of a parcel meet the lot size requirements for the applicable building type(s) and that the surrounding street network meets the applicable requirements of § §153.060 and 153.061. (b) A Site Plan Review is required for any development application within the BSC districts, including those applications for which a Development Plan is required, with the exception of any application meeting the requirements for a Minor Project as provided in §153.066(G). (2) Review Procedure (a) An application for a Site Plan Review shall be made in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (b) The ART shall review the Site Plan application under the criteria of §153.066(F)(5) and render a decision not more than 28 days from the receipt of a completed application, except for those applications provided for in §153.066(F)(6). A written summary of the ART's decision shall be provided to the applicant not more than 10 days after the Site Plan Review meeting. (c) Following the review, the applicant shall be given the opportunity to revise the application in response to the ART's comments if the application is not approved by the ART. The applicant may request additional subsequent meetings with the ART, subject to the same time limits of §153.066(F)(5) (b). (3) Site Plan Elective Review (a) Rather than reaching a final determination under the provisions of §153.066(F) the ART may elect to forward any Site Plan application to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a decision if it concludes that the application raises complex issues, such as the need for major infrastructure improvements and other neighborhood or community -wide effects, that would benefit from a Commission decision. (b) The ART shall submit its recommendation for consideration by the Commission under the procedures of §153.066(F)(2). (c) Public Review A public review of a Site Plan Elective application shall be held in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (d) The Commission shall consider the application and render a decision under the criteria of (a) The purpose of the Site Plan Review is to §153.066(F)(5) not more than 28 days from the confirm that the proposed development of an recommendation of the ART. individual site and building is consistent with § 153.066 DECEMBER 16, 2011 REVIEW & APPROVAL PROCEDURES & CRITERIA (4) Site Plan Waiver Review (a) Except for those applications provided for in §153.066(F)(6), applications for Site Plan approval that deviate from one or more of the requirements of §153.059 and § §153.062 through 153.065, and that do not qualify for an Administrative Departure under the provisions of §153.066(1-1), shall be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. (b) The applicant shall submit a list of proposed Waivers with the Site Plan Review application. Should other necessary Waivers be determined by the ART during its review, those Waivers may be included for review by the Commission. The ART shall review the requested Waivers and make recommendations to the Commission for their approval, denial, or approval with conditions under the procedures of §153.066(F)(2). (c) The Commission shall review the recommendation of the ART and the specific Site Plan Waivers using the criteria of § 1 53.066(F)(4)(e). Should other Waivers be necessary to resolve conflicts with other requirements of this chapter resulting from the requested Waivers, those Waivers shall also be reviewed by the Commission. (d) The Commission shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the specific Site Plan Waiver request(s) not more than 28 days from the recommendation of the ART. (e) Criteria for Site Plan Waivers 1. Each required reviewing body shall make its recommendation or its decision on an application for a Site Plan Waiver approval based on each of the following criteria and the recommendation of the required reviewing body during the Basic Plan Review: The need for the Site Plan Waiver is caused by unique site conditions or conditions on surrounding properties and otherwise complies with the spirit and intent of the Vision Report, and is not being requested simply to reduce cost or as a matter of general convenience; 2. The Site Plan Waiver does not have the effect of authorizing any use, building type, or open space type that is not otherwise permitted in that BSC district; and 3. The Site Plan Waiver, if approved, will ensure that the development is of equal or greater development quality with respect to design, material, and other similar development features than without the Waiver. (5) Review Criteria for Site Plans Each required reviewing body shall make its recommendation or its decision on an application for Site Plan approval based on each of the following criteria and the recommendation of the required reviewing body during the Basic Plan Review: (a) If a Development Plan has been approved that includes the property, the application is consistent with the Development Plan; (b) The application meets all applicable requirements of §153.059 and § §153.062 through 153.065 except as may be authorized by Administrative Departure(s) pursuant to §153.066(I); (c) The internal circulation system and driveways provide safe and efficient access for residents, occupants, visitors, emergency vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians; (d) The relationship of buildings and structures to each other and to other facilities provides for the coordination and integration of the development within the surrounding area and the larger community and maintains the image of Dublin as a high quality community; (e) The application is consistent with the requirements for types, distribution, and suitability of open space in §153.064 and the site design incorporates natural features and site topography to the maximum extent practicable; (f) The scale and design of the proposed development allows the adequate provision of services currently famished by or that may be required by the City or other public agency including, but not limited to, fire and police protection, public water and sanitary sewage services, recreational activities, traffic control, waste management, and administrative services; (g) Stormwater management systems and facilities will not cause alterations that could increase flooding or water pollution on or off the site, and removal of surface waters will not adversely affect neighboring properties; (h) If the development is to be implemented in phases, each phase is able to be considered independently, without the need for further phased improvements; and (i) The application demonstrates consistency with the BSC Vision Report, Community Plan and other related policy documents adopted by the City. (6) Architectural Review Board (ARB) (a) Applications for Site Plan approvals for property within the boundaries of the Architectural Review District shall be reviewed by the ART and forwarded to the ARB with a recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Applications for ARB approval shall be reviewed using the criteria of §153.066(F)(5), as well as the provisions of §153.170 through §153.180. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.066 109 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE REVIEW & APPROVAL PROCEDURES & CRITERIA (b) Public Review provided in §153.064, which shall require A public review of a Site Plan Review by the Site Plan Review. ARB shall be held in accordance with the 7. Accessory structures and uses. provisions of § I53.066(L). 8. Modifications to Existing Structures in (c) The ARB shall make a decision on applications accordance with §153.062(B). for Site Plan approval not more than 28 days from (2) Review Procedure the date of the ART's recommendation. (a) An application for a Minor Project Review shall (d) As part of the Site Plan approval, the ARB may be made in accordance with the provisions of review any requests for Site Plan Waivers from §153.066(L). the requirements of §153.059 and § §153.062 through 153.065 and approve, deny, or approve (b) After accepting a complete application for a with conditions the specific provisions under Minor Project, the ART shall approve, deny, review. Should other Waivers be necessary to or approve with conditions the application not resolve conflicts with other requirements of this more than 14 days from the date the request Chapter resulting from the requested Waivers, was submitted, provided that the applicant has those Waivers shall also be reviewed by the ARB. provided all materials required by the City. The City shall notify the applicant in writing not less (e) In the event of a conflict between the than five days prior to the review meeting. requirements of §153.059 and § §153.062 through 153.065 and the provisions of §153.170 through (c) The ART shall review the application and §153.180, the ARB shall determine the most approve, deny, or approve with conditions, based appropriate provisions to apply to the specific on the criteria of §153.06b(F)(5)(e) applicable application based on the criteria of §153.066(F) to Site Plan approvals. A written summary of the (5) ART decision shall be provided to the applicant not more than 10 days after the Minor Project review meeting. (G) MINOR PROJECTS (d) Following the review, the applicant shall be (1) Purpose and Applicability given the opportunity to revise the application in (a) The purpose of the Minor Project review is to response to the ART's comments if the application provide an efficient review process for smaller is not approved by the ART. The applicant may projects that do not have significant community request additional subsequent meetings with the effects. The Minor Project review is necessary to ART, which shall also be subject to the 14 day ensure that applications meet the requirements of time limit for a decision. this chapter. (b) The following improvements are considered Minor Projects: 1. Single family detached dwelling units. 2. Multiple family and townhouse buildings of 8 or fewer dwelling units. 3. Development of mixed use and non- residential principal structures of 10,000 square feet or less gross floor area and associated site development requirements based on the original gross floor area of the principal structure. 4. Additions to principal structures that increase the gross floor area by not more than 25 %, or not more than 10,000 square feet gross floor area, whichever is less. 5. Exterior modifications to principal structures involving not more than 25% of the total fapade area of the structure. 6. Signs, landscaping, parking, and other site related improvements that do not involve construction of a new principal building, but excluding parks as an open space type, as (H) ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTURES (1) Purpose and Applicability The intent of §153.066(H) is to provide an administrative process to allow minor deviations from the strict application of the BSC district requirements caused by unusual site or development conditions or conditions unique to a particular use or other similar conditions that require reasonable adjustments, but remain consistent with the intent of this chapter. Examples include, but are not limited to, adjustments to building setbacks, parking requirements, landscaping, building materials, or other similar features or elements. (2) Review Procedure (a) An application for Administrative Departure maybe submitted with an application for a Development Plan, Site Plan, or Minor Project approval, or at any time after those applications have been submitted and before a decision or recommendation by the ART has been made. If an application for Administrative Departure is made after an application for a Development Plan, Site Plan, or Minor Project has been filed, the § 153.066 DECEMBER 16, 2011 REVIEW & APPROVAL PROCEDURES & CRITERIA Director may require that the time period for ART review start over on the day the request for an Administrative Departure is received. (b) An application for an Administrative Departure may be processed simultaneously with the Development Plan, Site Plan, or Minor Project application to which it relates. The ART shall determine whether each requested Administrative Departure is approved, approved with conditions, or denied. Decisions on Administrative Departures shall be reported to the required reviewing body if a Development Plan, and/or Site Plan Waiver or Elective Review is conducted. (c) Should the ART find that the request does not meet the criteria for an Administrative Departure, the applicant may file for a Development Plan Waiver under the provisions of §153.066(E)(4) or a Site Plan Waiver under the provisions of § I53.066(F)(4), or submit a new application for Development Plan or Site Plan Review. (3) Criteria for Administrative Departure Approval The ART shall make its decision on Administrative Departure based on the following criteria: (a) The need for the Administrative Departure is caused by unique site conditions, conditions on surrounding properties, and/or otherwise complies with the spirit and intent of the Vision Report, and is not being requested simply to reduce cost or as a matter of general convenience; (b) The Administrative Departure does not have the effect of authorizing any use, sign, building type, or open space type that is not otherwise permitted in that BSC district; (c) The Administrative Departure does not modify any numerical zoning standard related to building dimensions, lot dimensions or coverage, open space, landscaping, parking, fencing, walls, screening, or exterior lighting by more than 10 % of the requirement; and (d) The Administrative Departure, if approved, will ensure that the development is of equal or greater development quality with respect to design, material, and other development features than without the Administrative Departure. (1) MINOR MODIFICATIONS (1) Purpose and Applicability (a) The Director may authorize Minor Modifications to an approved Development Plan or Site Plan that are required to correct any undetected errors or omissions, address conditions discovered during the permitting process or construction, or that are necessary to ensure orderly and efficient development. Any approved Minor Modifications must be generally consistent with the approved Development Plan or Site Plan. (b) The following are considered Minor Modifications. 1. Adjustments to lot lines, provided no additional lots are created and required setbacks and/or RBZs are maintained; 2. Adjustments to the location and layout of parking lots provided the perimeter setbacks, yards and buffers, and required parking are maintained; 3. Adjustments for buildings up to 10% in total floor area of the originally approved building, building height(s) or floor plans, that do not alter the character of the use; 4. Substitution of landscaping materials specified in the landscape plan with comparable materials of an equal or greater size; 5. Redesigning and/or relocating stormwater management facilities provided that general character and stormwater capacities are maintained; 6. Redesigning and/or relocating fencing, walls or screening , provided that the same level and quality of screening is maintained; 7. Modifications to sign location, sign face, landscaping and lighting, provided the sign number and dimensional requirements are maintained; 8. Changes in building material or colors that are similar to and have the same general appearance comparable to or of a higher quality as the material approved on the Site Plan; 9. Changes required by outside agencies such as the county, state, or federal departments; and/ or 10. Other modifications deemed appropriate by the Director that do not alter the basic design or any specific conditions imposed as part of the original approval. (2) Review Procedure (a) An application for a Minor Modification shall be made in accordance with the provisions of §I53.066(L). (b) The Director shall review the application and make a decision on the request for a Minor Modification not more than 14 days after receiving a complete application. (c) Following the decision, the applicant shall be given the opportunity to revise the application in response to the Director's comments and resubmit for further consideration. If a revised application BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.066 111 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE REVIEW & APPROVAL PROCEDURES & CRITERIA is submitted, the 14 day review period shall start over on the day the revised request is received. (d) Requests not meeting the requirements for a Minor Modification shall require the filing and approval of a new application for a Development Plan Review, Site Plan Review, Minor Project Review, or other review, as applicable, in accordance with §153.066. (J) OTHER APPLICABLE REVIEWS (1) Open Space Fee in Lieu The Planning and Zoning Commission shall determine whether a request for a payment of a fee in lieu of open space dedication is appropriate, as provided in §153.064(D) and (E), after recommendation from the ART. (2) Conditional Uses The Conditional Use approval procedures in §153.236 shall apply in the BSC districts. In addition, a recommendation from the ART shall be submitted for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission. (3) Zoning Map or Text Amendment The amendment procedures of §153.234 shall apply in the BSC districts. In addition, a recommendation from the ART shall be submitted for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. (4) Preliminary and Final Plats Reviews of Preliminary and Final Plats shall be governed by Chapter 152 of the Dublin Code of Ordinances. (5) Special Permit The Special Permit procedures in §153.231(G) shall apply in the BSC districts. (6) Zoning Variance The zoning Variance procedures in §153.231(H) shall apply in the BSC districts. In addition, a recommendation from the ART shall be submitted for consideration by the Board of Zoning Appeals, and for City Council in the instance of a Use Variance. (7) Public Tree Permit The tree permit requirements of § 153.134(G) shall apply in the BSC districts. (I) ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL (1) The Administrative Appeal provisions of §153.231(F) apply in the BSC districts. (2) Decisions on appeals are limited to those specific provisions or approvals that are the subject of the appeal. No other part of an application shall be modified by the Board of Zoning Appeals. § 153.066 REVIEW & APPROVAL PROCEDURES & CRITERIA (L) GENERAL PROVISIONS (1) Applications (a) Each application required by §153.066 shall be made in writing on a form provided by the City and shall be accompanied by the fee as established by City Council. (b) Applications for approvals in the BSC districts shall include all information required by the City, unless some information is deemed unnecessary by the Director based on the nature and scale of the proposed development. No application shall be accepted by the City until it is complete. Any applicable time limits noted in §153.066 shall not begin until a complete application is accepted by the City. If found to be incomplete, the Director shall inform the applicant of any additional materials required to complete the application. (c) After acceptance of a complete application, the Director and/or required reviewing body may request additional materials if deemed necessary to evaluate the proposal. (d) Resubmission No application for a Development Plan or Site Plan Review which has been denied by the required reviewing body shall be resubmitted for a period of one year from the date of the decision, unless permitted by the Director after a demonstration by the applicant of a change of circumstances from the previous application that may reasonably result in a different decision. (e) Simultaneous Processing In cases where a Development Plan application is submitted, aSite Plan and/or a Minor Project may be reviewed simultaneously with that Development Plan, but a Site Plan or Minor Project approval shall not be effective until the Development Plan has been approved. If appropriate, other required reviews as provided in this section may be processed jointly with a Development Plan and/or Site Plan Review application. (f) Public Reviews Where public reviews are required by this section, a written notice of the public meeting shall be sent to the applicant, property owner, and owners of parcels of land within 300 feet of the subject parcel(s), as listed on the County Auditor's current tax list, not less than 10 days prior to the meeting. The notice shall, at a minimum, indicate the property that is the subject of the request, describe the nature of the request, the time, date and location of the meeting at which the application will be considered, and indicate when and where written comments will be received concerning the request. DECEMBER 16, 2011 (2) Decisions (a) Any application required to be reviewed under § 153.066 shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the required reviewing body based on the applicable review criteria as provided in §153.066. The recommending body and required reviewing body shall state the reasons for their decisions in the minutes and provide a written record of the decision to the applicant not more than 10 days after a recommendation or decision is made, unless otherwise provided in this section. (b) Prior to reaching a decision, if the required reviewing body determines that an application does not meet the applicable review criteria as provided in § 153.066, but determines that the application could meet those criteria with modifications that could not be reasonably conditioned, the applicant may request that the application be tabled to provide the opportunity to make those modifications. If the request for tabling is granted, a new review period shall begin on the date the applicant submits a complete application with revised materials. (c) Following the approval of a Site Plan or Minor Project application, the applicant may proceed with the process for obtaining a Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval and building permit, consistent with the approval as granted. All construction and development under any building permit shall comply with the approved Site Plan and Development Plan, and any other approval, as applicable. (3) Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval A Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval issued by the Director verifying compliance with all applicable zoning requirements is required prior to modification, extension, or alteration of sites and structures, and/or change of use in BSC districts. (4) Code Administration The Planning and Zoning Commission and the Architectural Review Board may evaluate and monitor the application of the requirements and standards of § §153.057 through 153.066 by the ART. The Commission and the Architectural Review Board may advise the ART as to whether it finds that the requirements or standards (including requests for Administrative Departures) are being applied correctly, and recommend to City Council any changes needed in the BSC district standards and requirements to better implement the Vision Report. (5) Time Extensions (a) Where the provisions of §153.066 require that an action be taken by the City within a stated period of time, that time may be extended with the written consent of both the applicant and the 1. Once a final approval is granted by the required reviewing body, if significant construction is not started within two years and meaningfully continued, or the Director of Building Standards determines that work has been abandoned for a continuous period of six months, the approval shall lapse and cease to be in effect. 2. The Director of Building Standards shall establish the date of abandonment based on the presence of one or more of the following conditions: A. Removal of construction equipment or supplies; B. Expiration of an active building permit issued by the City; C. Evidence of a failure to maintain the property, such as overgrown weeds, failure to secure buildings, broken windows, or other evidence of lack of maintenance; D. Other actions documented by the Director of Building Standards and/or Director evidencing an intent to abandon the construction of the project. 3. If a new application is not submitted within 90 days from the date of abandonment as Director prior to expiration of the required time period. (b) If the applicant submits a revised application during any required review period, and the Director determines that the revised application differs substantially from the previous application, a new review period shall begin and additional meetings of the required reviewing body may be scheduled if deemed necessary by the Director. (6) Duration of Approvals (a) An application shall be filed for a Development Plan and/or Site Plan approval within one year following the completion of the Basic Plan Review. If a Development Plan and/or Site Plan application is not filed within this period a new application for a Basic Plan Review shall be required in accordance with the requirements of §153.066(D). (b) All Development Plan, Site Plan, and Minor Project approvals made pursuant to §153.066 shall be valid for a period of two years. If an initial building permit for the approved development has not been issued within that two year period, the applicant shall be required to apply for a new Development Plan, Site Plan, or Minor Project approval, as applicable, pursuant to §153.066 before obtaining a building permit. (c) Abandonment BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.066 113 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE REVIEW & APPROVAL PROCEDURES & CRITERIA determined by the Director of Building Standards, the owner shall restore the site to its previous condition, and/or remove any structures or other evidence of work on the site, within 180 days from the date of abandonment. (7) Administrative Review Team (ART) (a) The purpose of the Administrative Review Team is to provide for review and approval authority for certain applications as defined by §153.066. The Administrative Review Team is responsible for the comprehensive review of each application, and making recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission, Architectural Review Board, or Board of Zoning Appeals where required. The ART is also responsible for making decisions in an efficient and timely manner based on evaluation of objective development standards and specific review criteria While these objective standards and criteria must guide the decisions of the ART, it is recognized that some _ degree of subjectivity must be part of the ART's deliberations. (b) The Administrative Review Team shall consist of the Director (Chair), City Engineer, Fire Chief, Economic Development Manager, Parks and Open Space Director, Police Chief, and Chief Building Official, or their representatives, and any other members appointed by the City Manager as deemed necessary, either as permanent or temporary members. (c) The ART may use the services of other professionals, such as architectural, engineering, and other consultants as they deem necessary, to advise the ART on the application of the provisions of this chapter. § 153.066 DECEMBER 16, 2011 REVIEW & APPROVAL PROCEDURES & CRITERIA This page has been left blank intentionally. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.066 115 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE REVIEW & APPROVAL PROCEDURES & CRITERIA _- -- - - ISM 114M OM OMID well Presentation from the second reading hearing. Contents Page Number 153.057 General Purpose 153.058 BSC Districts Scope and Intent 153.059 Uses 153.060 Lots and Blocks 153.061 Street Types 153.062 Building Types 153.063 Neighborhood Standards 153.064 Open Space Types 153.065 Site Development Standards 153.066 Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria 153.002 Definitions R=ning/Zo.hg Tex[ AmenE M i — CC: Febu 13, 2012 This shows the process currently in place for the Innovation Districts in the Economic Advancement Zone. The process is conducted by the Administrative Review Team. The maximum allotted time for most applications is 28 days. Should an applicant request the optional Pre - Application meeting the ART is required to complete it within 14 days. A full application is required to be completed within 28 days from the date of application. The Planning and Zoning Commission may be called upon to conduct a Site Plan Review if the submitted plan fails to meet one or more of the requirements of the Innovation District. The Commission may only review those elements that are not in compliance; they cannot require an applicant to change a part of the plan that already complies with the regulations. The ART may also choose to send an application to the ART if they determine that the project has a wider effect on the community. If the Commission receives an application for review, it must complete its work within 30 days. If an applicant is dissatisfied with the Commission's decision, it may appeal the request to City Council. 5 This describes the process proposed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and included as part of the ordinance under consideration by Council. The first part of the process is the same as recommended by the Administration. A mandatory Pre - Application meeting is held with the ART, and must be completed within 14 days. A "Basic Plan Review" is then required before the Commission, with the ART submitting its comments for the Commission's review. A 10 -day public notice period is required. The "P" highlighted by the black border indicates the meetings at which the Commission must complete its review. The ART, which meets weekly may have up to 3 meetings to complete its review and prepare its comments for the Commission. Given the timing of the public notice and Commission meeting dates, only one meeting will be available for the Commission to complete its review within the required 28 days. Following the Basic Plan Review (but at the same meeting) the Commission will vote to determine whether the Commission or the ART will be the approving body for a Development Plan or Site Plan Review application. Once the review process is determined, an applicant may submit a Development Plan and /or a Site Plan Review application. Similar to the Basic Plan Review, the Commission, if it is the required reviewing body, will have only one meeting to complete its review and vote to meet time requirements. A recommendation from the ART is required. At that meeting the Commission must either approve or disapprove the application, or the applicant must agree to a time extension. If the review time is extended, the period of time agreed to by the applicant governs the amount of time needed to complete the review. All other required reviews by the Commission remain intact. This includes Conditional Uses and Waivers (requests to depart from the requirements of the Code). No Council involvement is included. Decisions of the ART or the Commission may be appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals. This outlines the process preferred by the City Administration. It is identical to the Commission's recommendation through the Basic Plan Review, including the public notification and review. In this proposal, the Development Plan and /or Site Plan Review is conducted by the ART, which meets each week (and can meet more often if needed). The same 28 day time limits apply, unless a time extension is agreed to by the City and the applicant. This process includes a step that is similar to the Innovation District in that the ART can "kick -up" an application to the Commission if it determines that the project has wider community effects or unusual complexities (such as major infrastructure requirements, etc.). The Commission maintains its authority to review Waivers for either Development Plan or Site Plan Review requirements. Decisions of the ART or the Commission may be appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Recommendations 0 Attachment 2 Summary of Subjective Bridge Street Corridor Code Requirements I of Dublin ty ATTACHMENT 2 — Summary of Subjective Code Requirements The Bridge Street Corridor Zoning Code requirements that include a level of subjective analysis are listed below. Many of these regulations refer to the Required Reviewing Body (RRB), who may be the Administrative Review Team, the Planning and Zoning Commission, or the Architectural Review Board, depending on the application in which the standard is reviewed. Page Code opCode Text RRB = Required Reviewing Body; may be Administrative Review Team, Planning and Zoning Commission, or Architectural Review Board 153.059 - Uses 9 153.059(C)(1)(c)1 Use Specific Standard — No more than two non - resident employees are permitted in addition to the resident(s) of Live -Work Dwelling Units the dwelling. The RRB may ermit additional employees. 153.060 — Lots and Blocks 16 153.060(C)(9)(c) Subject to approval by the RRB, the street frontage requirements shall be maximized to the Street Frontage Requirements extent pra cticable along other principal frontage streets. 16 153.060(C)(9)(f) Where lot lines cannot be determined by the requirements of this section, the RRB shall designate which lot lines shall serve as the front and corner side pro lines... 153.061— Street Types Where a lot or block is fronted by multiple principal frontage streets, and where access from 19 153.061(D)(3) Multiple Principal Frontage a principal frontage street is determined to be necessary as permitted by §153.061(D)(2), Street Designation the following street family hierarchy shall be considered by the RRB in determining p ermitted vehicular access locations to the maximum extent practicable... 20 153.061(E) Typical Street Elements Appropriate street elements shall be determined by the RRB during the Development Plan or Site Plan Review process as may be applicable. 153.062 — Building Types 26 153.062(C)(1) Incompatible Building Incompatible building types are not permitted directly across the street from one another or Type Determination on the same block face, unless otherwise permitted by the RRB. The principal roof shall have a pitch appropriate to the architectural style. Roofs shall not be 27 153.062(D)(2)(b)1 Roof Pitch Measure sloped less than a 6:12 (rise:run) or more than 12:12, as determined to be architecturally appropriate b the RRB. 27 153.062(D)(2)(b)4 Roof Pitch Appropriateness Unless determined to be appropriate to the architectural style of the building, a pitch g reater than 3:12 is required on roofs of dormers porches balconies or other minor roofs. When appropriate to the architectural character of the building, and where the principal 27 153.062(D)(c) Parallel Ridge Line Design ridge line of any building type runs parallel to any street, gabled ends, perpendicular ridge lines or dormers shall be incorporated to interrupt the mass of the roof. 27 153.062(D)(d) Dormer Design Dormers shall be scaled and detailed appropriate to the architectural character of the building e. roofs without occupied space and /or dormers shall be a maximum of one and a half times 27 153.062(D)(2)(f)2 Pitched Roof Height the maximum floor height permitted for the building type on street - facing fagades, unless otherwise determined by the RRB to be appropriate to the building a and location. Attachment 2 — Summary of Subjective BSC Code Requirements Page 1 of 5 Page „ Code Section Topic Code „ RRB = Required Reviewing Body; may be Administrative Review Team, Planning and Zoning Commission, or Architectural Review Board 27 153.062(D)(2)(h)1 Gambrel and mansard roofs are permitted only for single family detached buildings, unless otherwise determined by the RRB to be architecturally appropriate for other building es. For all building types, when the ridge of a gambrel or mansard roof runs parallel to the 27 153.062(D)(2)(h)2 Gambrel and Mansard street, dormers or cross gables must be incorporated with spacing and scale appropriate to Roof Requirements the length and architectural character of the building. The primary roof material is required to be cedar shake, slate or metal. With examples of 28 153.062(D)(2)(h)3 successful, high quality installations in comparable climates, other high quality simulated examples of these materials may be approved during the Site Plan Review by the RRB. 28 153.062(D)(4)(a) Number of Permitted Where permitted by building type, only one tower is allowed per building unless otherwise Towers approved by the RRB. 28 153.062(D)(5) Determination of Other Other roof types not listed as a specific type but are generally consistent with the Permitted Roof Types surrounding buildings may be approved by the RRB during the Site Plan Review. For individual facades over 1,000 square feet, exclusive of windows and doors, a 28 153.062(E)(1)(b) permitted Facade combination of primary materials shall be used to meet the 80% requirement, unless Materials otherwise approved by the RRB. 28 153.062(E)(1)(f) Other high quality synthetic materials may be approved during the Site Plan Review by the RRB with examples of successful, high quality installations in comparable climates. 29 153.062(E)(3)(c) Permitted Roof Materials The RRB may approve engineered wood or slate during the Site Plan Review with examples of successful, high quality installations in comparable climates. 29 153.062(E)(4) Permitted Material Colors Colors for all painted structures shall be selected from appropriate historic color palettes from any major paint manufacturer or as determined appropriate b the RRB. Permitted Window Windows may be wood, anodized aluminum, metal -clad or vinyl -clad wood, steel, or 30 153.062(H)(1)(d) Materials fiberglass. The RRB may approve other high quality synthetic materials during the Site Plan Review with examples of successful high quality installations in comparable climates. 30 153.062(H)(2)(e) Window Design and Windows in masonry buildings shall have architecturally appropriate lintels and projecting Installation Requirements sills. 33 153.062(N)(1)(b)4 Lot Coverage Additional semi - pervious coverage may be permitted through methods such as use of semi- Requirements pervious materials green roofs or other methods approved by the ART or RRB. Facade Transparency [Vents, air conditioners and other utility elements] Where these elements are part of other 34 153.062(N)(4)(a)4 Requirements facades, particular care must be taken to render these elements less visible to public view through architectural integration or other means of screening as approved by the RRB. 34 153.062(N)(4)(b)4 Facade Divisions Minimum Required d Unless otherwise determined to be architecturally appropriate by the RRB, minimum Increments increments shall be provided pursuant to the building type tables. Single - Family Detached 36 153.062(0)(1) Building Type —Tower Towers — Permitted where architecturally appropriate Requirements 60 153.062(0)(13) — Note 2 Podium Apartment I In addition to the foundation planting requirements of §153.065(D)(7) the RRB ma Attachment 2 — Summary of Subjective BSC Code Requirements Page 2 of 5 Page „ Code Section Topic Code „ RRB = Required Reviewing Body; may be Administrative Review Team, Planning and Zoning Commission, or Architectural Review Board Building Type — Landscape require enhanced foundation plantings, including but not limited to vertical landscape Buffer Requirements materials, to add visual interest to the ground floor or exposed basement level parking facade. Podium Apartment 61 153.062(0)(13) — Note 5 Building Type — Blank wall limitations may be met using these architectural enhancements, as determined Architectural Detailing by the RRB. Requirements Podium Apartment The RRB may reduce the number of entrances along street fagades as functionally Building Type — Minimum appropriate to the apartment building with parking fully or partially below grade, provided 61 153.062(0)(13) — Note 6 Number of Street the building has an adequate number and frequency of entrances to be convenient for Entrances residents and visitors and the entrances are conducive to establishing a safe and attractive p edestrian realm. 153.063 — Nei hborhood Standards 64 153.063(C)(3)(d) BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District (Mid -Block Pedestrianway Requirement Exception) Blocks consisting entirely of residential uses that are located in predominantly residential development areas may be exempted 66 153.063(D)(3)(d) BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District from the mid -block pedestrianway requirements of §153.060(C)(6), subject to approval by the RRB, except where a block has frontage on a principal frontage street. 69 153.063(E)(4)(d) BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District §153.064 — Open Space Types An existing open space may be used to meet the area requirements for open space for an Existing Open Space individual development if approved by the RRB. The applicant shall either add to the 72 153.064(C)(5) Determination existing open space, create a new open space in accordance with §153.064, pay a fee in lieu of provision of open space as required by §153.064(E) where permitted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, or a combination thereof. Suitability of Open Space The ART or RRB shall review all proposed open space types during the Site Plan and 72 153.064(D)(1) Determination Development Plan application review processes to determine the suitability of the open s ace [4 factors listed] 74 153.064(G)(2)(b) Continuous Public Access For greenways, pedestrian and /or bicycle access points may be required by the ART or the to an Open Space Type RRB. 74 153.064(G)(4)(e)1 Design of Structures within an Open Space Structure consistency may be achieved through frontage, massing, and character similar to adjacent development, as determined by the RRB. Type 74 153.064(G)(4)(e)2.A Maximum Area of a Fully- Enclosed Structure within In no case shall an individual fully enclosed structure exceed 500 square feet in area unless an Open S ace Type approved by the RRB. 75 153.064(G)(4)(g)2 Location of Open Water Open water within an open space shall be located at least 20 feet from a property line within an Open Space unless the RRB determines that a lesser distance will ensure public safety. Attachment 2 — Summary of Subjective BSC Code Requirements Page 3 of 5 Page „ Code Section Topic Code „ RRB = Required Reviewing Body; may be Administrative Review Team, Planning and Zoning Commission, or Architectural Review Board Type Height of Fencing Fencing shall not exceed 42 inches, unless a higher or lower requirement is approved by the 75 153.064(G)(4)(h)1.A Permitted within an Open RRB for special circumstances such as proximity to highway right -of -way and /or use around Space Type swimming pools, ballfields, and ball courts. §153.065(B) — Site Development Standards — Parking and Loadin Adjustments to Required The maximum on -site parking requirements may not exceed that permitted by Table 81 153.065(B)(2)(b) Vehicle Parking 153.065 -A unless a parking plan meeting the criteria of §153.065(B)(2)(b)6, below is approved by the RRB. In addition to or in lieu of parking adjustments as described in §153.065(B)(2)(b)(1) -(5), 83 153.065(B)(2)(b)6 Demonstration of Parking the RRB shall be permitted to approve a parking plan for fewer than the minimum required Need parking spaces or more than the maximum permitted parking spaces based on a demonstration of parking need by the applicant. The RRB shall consider... 8 factors listed Minimum Number of Provided that bicycle parking is not completely eliminated, required bicycle parking may be 83 153.065(B)(3)(b)2 Required Bicycle Parking increased or reduced by the RRB when it is demonstrated that the level of bicycle activity at that location warrants a different amount. Subject to approval of a required parking plan, the required number of loading spaces may 87 153.065(B)(7)(c)2 be increased or reduced by the RRB when it is demonstrated that the frequency and type of Minimum Number of loading activities at that location warrant a different number. For principal structures of 25,000 square feet or less in gross floor area, loading and Required Loading Spaces delivery activities may be conducted using an alley or service street, on- street parking 87 153.065(B)(7)(c)3 spaces, or other on -site parking area as described in §153.065(B)(7)(b), unless the RRB determines that a dedicated off - street loading space is necessary based on the frequency and type of loading activities anticipated for the use. All off - street loading spaces shall be at least 12 feet wide and 30 feet long with a height 87 153.065(B)(7)(d)1 Design of Required clearance of 14 feet, unless, at the determination of the RRB, the typical delivery vehicle(s) Loading Spaces designated in an approved parking plan can be adequately accommodated by reduced loading space dimensions. IS4153.065(D) — Site Development Standards — Landscaping and Tree Preservation 91 153.065(D)(4)(b) Perimeter Landscape The RRB may require openings in the buffer to allow pedestrian passage if it determines Buffering Requirements that passaqe between the two properties is desirable. The tree preservation plan submitted as part of the Development Plan and /or Site Plan 94 153.065(D)(9)(a)2.D Tree Preservation Plan Review application shall identify all landmark trees and /or significant tree stands on the site, Requirement including critical root zones to establish the limits of tree preservation zones, as determined by the RRB. 95 153.065(D)(9)(b)3 Exemptions to Tree Replacement Removal of trees on any portion of a lot required to be occupied by a structure pursuant to Requirements the standards of §153.062 as approved by the RRB with a Site Plan Review application. 95 153.065(D)(11) I Alternative Landscaping an owner may ro ose alternative approaches consistent with the intent of Attachment 2 — Summary of Subjective BSC Code Requirements Page 4 of 5 Page „ Code Section Topic Code „ RRB = Required Reviewing Body; may be Administrative Review Team, Planning and Zoning Commission, or Architectural Review Board §153.065(D)(2) to accommodate unique site conditions, abutting or surrounding uses, or other conditions, as deemed appropriate by the RRB. Requests for alternative landscaping shall be reviewed by the RRB with the Site Plan Review application and approved only if the proposed alternative is equal to or better than the aesthetic, environmental, and buffering functions anticipated with the provisions of §153.065(D). §153.065(E) — Site Development Standards — Fencing, Walls, and Screenin 96 153.065(E)(1)(a) Permitted Fencing High quality synthetic materials may be approved with the Site Plan Review by the RRB Materials with examples of successful high quality installations. Street Wall Design and The RRB shall be permitted to approve or require specific or alternative street wall designs, 96 153.065(E)(2)(b)2 Location Requirements such as stacked stone walls, based on the design of the associated building and /or the development character of the lots surrounding the site. 96 153.065(E)(2)(b)3 Street Wall Design Requirements for the BSC Street walls in the Historic Core shall be constructed as stacked stone walls, unless Historic Core district otherwise approved by the RRB. 97 153.065(E)(3)(a) Permitted Screening High quality synthetic materials may be approved with the Site Plan Review by the RRB with Materials examples of successful, high quality installations. In lieu of compliance with the requirements of §153.065(E)(3), an alternative approach to 98 153.065(E)(3)(h) Alternative Screening accommodate unique site conditions or surrounding uses may be approved if the RRB determines that the proposed alternative achieves the aesthetic, environmental, and screening results better than compliance with the standards of §153.065 §153.065(H) — Site Development Standards — Signs The illumination of signs is strongly encouraged to help add a sense of liveliness and activity to the area. Unless otherwise noted, signs may be externally illuminated, provided that all 100 153.065(H)(4)(b) Sign Lighting exterior lighting meets the requirements of §153.065(F). Internally illuminated pan channel or cabinet signs are permitted, provided that the sign is creatively designed with high q uality materials and fabrication as determined by the RRB. Attachment 2 — Summary of Subjective BSC Code Requirements Page 5 of 5 Attachment 3 Protection of Existing Uses and Structures I of Dublin ty ATTACHMENT 3: Protection of Existing Uses and Structures PROTECTION OF EXISTING USES § 153.059 Uses, (A) General Provisions, (6) Existing Uses Pages 4 -5, February 2, 2012 The following language was crafted to provide the maximum protection for uses that were in operation at least 12 months prior to the adoption of the Bridge Street Corridor amendments. The language specifically states that these are permissible uses that may operate in their present condition until such time that the owner decides to change to a use that is specifically listed for that district. Further explanations are provided in note boxes below. (6) Existing Uses (a) The long range implementation of the Bridge Street Corridor Vision requires sensitive treatment of existing uses that represent significant investments in the City of Dublin. While it is the intent of the BSC districts for development to ultimately meet the building and use requirements of this chapter, it is the intent of this section to permit Existing Uses to continue and to be considered conforming to this Code, even if the use or the building type is not otherwise permitted in the district, provided that the following requirements are met All uses that were permitted or conditional uses under the zoning of a property immediately prior to its rezoning into a BSC district shall continue to be allowed as permitted or conditional uses on the property, including any expansions of uses within Existing Structures as permitted by §153.062(B) (2), in addition to the permitted and conditional uses under the applicable BSC district, provided that at least one of the permitted or conditional uses under the prior zoning has been operated continuously in an Existing Structure and/or associated use areas on the property within the 12 months prior to the rezoning of the property into the BSC district (b) Once a use that complies with the BSC district is established on a lot or parcel, no non -BSC use of the prior zoning district may be re- established. For multi - tenant buildings in Existing Structures, no non -BSC use permitted in the prior zoning district may be re- established once the entire multi - tenant building is abandoned, or all tenant spaces have established uses under the applicable BSC district (c) Abandonment of an Existing Use 1. If an Existing Use is abandoned for any reason for a period of more than 12 months, any subsequent use shall conform to the requirements of this Code. With regard to a multi - tenant building, the term "Existing Use" shall mean all of the existing uses in that building. 2. An Existing Use shall be determined by the Director to be abandoned if one or more of the following conditions exist: A. Utilities, such as water, gas or electricity to the property, have been disconnected, B. The property, buildings, or grounds have fallen into disrepair, C. Signs or other indications of the presence of the use have been removed, Attachment 3 — Protection of Existing Uses and Structures Page 1 of 2 D. Equipment or fixtures necessary for the operation of the use have been removed; or E. Other actions which, in the opinion of the Director, constitute an intention on the part of the property owner or lessee to abandon the use. (d) Expansions of Existing Uses An Existing Use may be enlarged, increased, or extended to occupy a greater area of buildings and lands only after a finding by the ART that the enlargement, increase or extension meets all of the following standards: 1. The expansion does not have a substantial detrimental effect on, or materially impair the use and enjoyment of, adjacent uses or lots, and does not limit the ability for adjacent lots to develop in accordance with this Chapter, 2. The buildings and area encompassing the expansion of the Existing Use complies with all parking sign, or other regulations applicable to the area affected by the proposed enlargement, increase or extension of use area, and 3. The buildings and area encompassing the expansion of the Existing Use complies with any reasonable conditions imposed by the ART that are necessary to ensure that the proposed enlargement, increase, or extension of use area will not prove detrimental to adjacent properties or the surrounding community. (e) Any Existing Use may be extended throughout any existing building or parts of a building which were manifestly arranged or designed for that use at the time of adoption of this amendment, but the Existing Use shall not be extended to occupy any land outside the existing building except as permitted by §153.059(A)(6)(d). (7) Existing Planned Development Districts All planned developments that are effective on the date of adoption of the applicable BSC rezoning shall continue in effect and be considered conforming under this Code in addition to the permitted and conditional uses under the applicable BSC district. This provision shall only apply to planned developments where no construction has commenced. The procedures for the implementation of these developments, including time limits for approval of final development plans or other time limits, must conform to the requirements of Chapter 153, to the extent the approved Planned Unit Development text does not address the requirements. Attachment 3 — Protection of Existing Uses and Structures Page 2 of 2 Attachment 4 Development Plan and Site Plan Review Waiver Criteria I of Dublin ty ATTACHMENT 4: Development Plan and Site Plan Review Waiver Criteria (e) Criteria for Development Plan Waivers Each required reviewing body shall make its recommendation or its decision on an application for Development Plan Waivers based on each of the following criteria and the recommendation of the required reviewing body during the Basic Plan Review: 1_4--.The need for the Development Plan Waiver is caused by unique site conditions uses or conditions on surrounding properties or other circumstance outside the control of the owner/lessee 2. The Waiver, if approved, will eenerally meet °-a " ° -' °° ° " the spirit and intent of the Vision Report; 4- The Waiver exJ-is not being requested 4 solely to reduce cost or as a matter of general convenience; and 2. The Development Plan Waiver, if approved, will be generally consistent with §153.060(A) and §153.061(A). (e) Criteria for Site Plan Review Waivers Each required reviewing body shall make its recommendation or its decision on an application for a Site Plan Review Waiver approval based on each of the following criteria and with due consideration of the recommendation of the F°"4@j - °- @wing b943 Administrative Review Team a. °iR�! Review= 1. The need for the Site Plan Review Waiver is caused by unique site conditions, uses or conditions on surrounding properties or other circumstance outside the control of the owner/lessee 2. The Site Plan Review Waiver is not being requested solely to reduce cost or as a matter of general convenience, 3. The Site Plan Review Waiver does not have the effect of authorizing any use 4'.4444t or open space type that is not otherwise permitted in that BSC district, and 4. The Site Plan Review Waiver, if approved, will ensure that the development is of equal or greater development quality with respect to design, material, and other similar development features than without the Waiver. Attachment 4— Development Plan and Site Plan Review Waiver Criteria Page 1 of 1 Attachment 5 Rezoning Requests for Non -BSC Zone Districts I of Dublin ty ATTACHMENT 5: Rezoning Requests for Non -BSC Zone Districts § 153.058 BSC DISTRICTS SCOPE AND INTENT (A) SCOPE The following Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) districts are hereby created. The districts described by §153.058 are intended to be used for all land within the Bridge Street Corridor. Unless otherwise specifically noted, after the effective date of this amendment all development and redevelopment within the BSC districts shall be consistent with the general purpose of the BSC districts as specified in § 153.057 and subject to the regulations of §§ 153.058 through 153.066. Other provisions of Chapters 152 and 153 of the Dublin Code of Ordinances apply in the BSC districts to the extent those provisions are not inconsistent with the provisions of §§ 153.058 through 153.066. Nothing contained herein shall prohibit an application for rezoning to anv non -BSC district provided in this Chapter. Attachment 5 — Rezoning Requests for Non -BSC Zone Districts Page 1 of 1 Attachment 6 Appeals to City Council 1. Summary and Proposed Language 2. City Council Meeting Minutes — May 9, 2011 3. Community Development Committee Meeting Minutes — February 14, 2011 4. Ordinance 23 -11 — Administrative Appeals I of Dublin ty ATTACHMENT 6: Appeals to City Council The Law Director has drafted a provision related directly to the Bridge Street Corridor regarding administrative appeals. Under this proposal, the Board of Zoning Appeals would first hear an administrative appeal from a decision by the Administrative Review Team or Planning and Zoning Commission. If an interested party was dissatisfied with the outcome from the BZA they would have the option of appealing that decision to City Council. Council may choose to hear the appeal, or to let the BZA's decision stand. Time limits are imposed for all decisions. Proposed Language ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS § 153.066 Administrative Appeal Pagel 14 (K) ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL (1) The Administrative Appeal provisions of § 153.231(F) apply in the BSC districts. (2) Decisions on appeals are limited to those specific provisions or approvals that are the subject of the appeal. No other part of an application shall be modified by the Board of Zoning Appeals. (3) The decision of the BZA may be further appealed to City Council within 10 days of the BZA decision. (4) City Council must determine whether or not to hear the appeal, in its sole discretion and by a motion passed by a majority vote, no later than 21 days following the Clerk of Citv Council's receipt of the written notice of appeal, unless an extended time is agreed upon by City Council and the applicant. 5) Citv Council shall decide the anneal no later than 28 days following the date of Council's decision to hear the appeal, unless an extended time is otherwise agreed upon by City Council and the applicant. In considering the appeal. Citv Council may consider anv evidence and may affirm, reverse, or otherwise modifv the decision of the BZA or any other part of the application. Attachment 6 — Appeals to City Council Page 1 of 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council May 9, 2011 Page 8 Darree Fields. With development to the north, the new entrance can de- emphasize that and there can be better control over access through the area. Vice Mayor Salay asked if the Eiterman and Shier -Rings Road intersection is contemplated to be a roundabout. Mr. Combs responded that, conceptually, it is shown as a roundabout until traffic levels are studied. This would also separate the neighborhoods to the south and create a more formalized entry. Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher asked about the timeframe for the new entrance to Darree Fields. Mr. Combs responded that the plan at this point, since this is more of a secondary level type of road that would be dependent upon creating this main reliever, is that is a long -term addition. This is all dependent upon the development that occurs in this area, unless a new entrance is specifically programmed in the CIP. As this development occurs, it could be extended to Cosgray and with development of the larger tract, it could be punched through to the park. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that the traffic in this location is already problematic. She understands that the timing is contemplated to be long term, but if there is something that could be phased in, it would help this exceptionally used area, which serves many sports teams. Mr. Combs stated that he understands that Engineering is working on a roundabout to be installed at Cosgray and Shier - Rings. This creates a short to medium -range solution to address the conflicting movements. If the need increases to the point that it impacts the residential areas, the City could consider this as a capital project. Ms. Grigsby noted that the design for the Cosgray and Shier -Rings intersection is complete. Right -of -way acquisition is underway, and the plan is to award a construction contract later this year or early in 2012. Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher agreed with Vice Mayor Salay that this is a great opportunity to take this area to market. In addition to the proposed Code, is there a marketing plan in place? Mr. McDaniel responded there is not a marketing plan in place, but it is staff's intent to develop this once the Plan, Code and rezoning are adopted. This new area Plan can certainly be promoted, but having the Code aligned and the area rezoning completed will be important to complete before investing in marketing. Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher asked if this can be accomplished in 2012. Mr. McDaniel responded affirmatively. There will be a second reading /public hearing at the May 23 Council meeting. Ordinance 23 -11 Amending Section 153.235 to the City of Dublin Codified Ordinances (Zoning Code) Regarding Appeals of Administrative Decisions to City Council. (Case 11- 001 ADM) Vice Mayor Salay introduced the ordinance. Mr. Smith stated that this ordinance was presented in draft form to the Community Development Committee of the Whole on February 14, 2011. Some suggestions were incorporated into the draft in follow -up, and it was forwarded to Planning and Zoning Commission for review and recommendation. Ms. Readier is present and can provide a brief presentation and /or respond to questions. Ms. Readler stated that staff had requested further policy direction before finalizing the draft of this ordinance, providing for a potential administrative appeal from Planning and Zoning Commission decisions to City Council. The ordinance that Council is considering tonight is the same as what was discussed at the Committee of the Whole meeting. Legal staff was directed to explore the need for an appeals process, based on litigation occurring because of certain administrative decisions. Staff felt it would be prudent to have a "safety valve" in terms of a Council review prior to an appeal Meetine RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting May 9, 2011 Page 9 being filed with the county court. The appeal process covers decisions by the Commission regarding conditional use applications, final development plans, and amended final development plans. The general outline of the appeals process calls for the applicant to file a request for an appeal with the Clerk of Council within 14 days of the Planning and Zoning Commission's adverse decision. Only the applicant can file such an appeal, and once filed, the Record of Action is stayed until Council makes a final decision on whether or not to hear the appeal. Council would then decide, at their total discretion, whether to hear the appeal. A majority vote of the entire Council is required on a motion to hear an appeal. Once Council decides to hear an appeal and the applicant decides to go forward, that appeal would be heard within 30 days. The same evidence submitted to Planning and Zoning Commission is submitted to Council. Council would apply the same criteria as applied by the Commission and determine whether to approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the application. At that point, Council's decision becomes a final administrative decision and that decision may be appealed to the county court via a Chapter 2506 appeal under the Ohio Revised Code. Planning and Zoning Commission had a detailed discussion regarding the proposed ordinance, and the minutes are included in the Council packet. The cover memo highlights the general objections of the Commission to the ordinance, which include: the developers would bypass the Planning Commission and go directly to Council; the process could be politicized; and Council could be in a difficult circumstance if they decide to grant an appeal for one corporate citizen and then do not allow another discretionary appeal for another corporate citizen. The Commission had many fundamental objections to the legislation. Legal staff requested a tabling at the first meeting of PZC to determine whether modifications could be made to address their concerns. However, because their concerns were so fundamental to the process, it was determined that modifications could not address their concerns adequately. At the next meeting of PZC, the vote was to recommend disapproval of the ordinance to Council. She offered to respond to any questions. Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher noted that she contacted Ms. Grigsby this morning and left her a voice mail message regarding her fundamental question about this legislation. What is Council trying to address? Ms. Readler responded that at the outset, when staff was asked to explore this, the potential of litigation and related costs without Council having the option of reviewing a decision was the driving factor. Ms. Chin nici-Zuercher asked staff for their opinion about why the applicants are going to court on these cases during the past three to five years. Is there a particular trend or factor involved? Ms. Readler responded that, generally, the disapproval by Planning and Zoning Commission has triggered the appeal to the courts. Ms. Chin nici-Zuercher asked if there are additional factors involved, such as a staff report recommending approval without conditions, and the Commission then disapproving the application — perhaps due to other considerations that should have been raised at the staff level. What is the fundamental reason that the Commission has taken a different stance than the staff in terms of what is trying to be addressed with this appeal process? Mr. Smith responded that the individual cases are "all over the board." Sometimes, PZC disagrees with the staff report and sometimes the developer believes that the staff report influenced the PZC who disapproved an application. There are a variety of reasons for this. Ms. Readler added that with some recent 2506 appeals, there have been examples on both sides of this — some where the staff recommended approval and the Commission took a different view, and vice versa. There have been conflicting opinions for pending cases in the past few years. Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher asked if there is an increase in this type of litigation, based on historical information, and why that is the case? RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of D ublin City Council Meetine May 9, 2011 Page 10 Mr. Smith responded that there has been an increase in the past two to three years, and the economy may be a factor in terms of an applicant's desire to have a quicker decision from the court. Some in the development community believe the judge may be more objective than the City in reviewing the record. In the last 12 months, there have been four to five cases taken to appeal. Legal staff was asked to review this matter several years ago, and what prompted this was the desire on Council's part to reduce litigation costs. Ms. Grigsby stated that other communities have such a process in place to keep the hearings at the local level versus having a court review the cases. She agrees that the economy is a factor as well as the increased competition in Central Ohio. In some cases, there have been concerns with the Code and the lack of clarity, making it more difficult to negotiate what the City desires. Some have chosen to go to court based upon this. If there is a need for discussions among Council, Planning Commission and staff to identify some of these issues and how improvements can be made, that can be scheduled as well. Mr. Gerber commented that the City's track record in the court appeals has been good. Mr. Smith responded that over the past 33 years of his experience with the City, it has been very good, but in the past few years, there have been some decisions that did not favor the City for various reasons. The costs of litigation have also increased. Mr. Gerber stated that, overall, the City's track record has been good. Personally, he will not support this legislation. Several years ago, in the PUD process discussion, this appeal process was discussed and there were concerns expressed about a developer not making the best effort at PZC due to the potential for an appeal to Council. If a developer can appeal an administrative decision of PZC to Council, it takes away a portion of the "teeth" of the review process. He does not believe that this legislation will remedy the situation, and that better communication is needed between staff, Planning Commission and Council. It is important to maintain the process as it exists, which brings the best outcome. Council's role is not to serve as another review body for Planning and Zoning Commission decisions. For all of these reasons, he will not support the ordinance. Mrs. Boring stated that she has not supported this in the past and will not support it now. In the Planning Commission minutes, Mr. Hardt commented that he is experienced with this appeal process and, although it appears workable as written, it does not function as expected. Recently, two applications were reviewed by Planning Commission and the Commission requested modifications; the applicant has already contacted Council about these cases, although the second hearing at PZC has not yet occurred. An applicant will not make modifications as requested, if an applicant believes they can appeal the decision to Council. Personally, she does not want to spend time hearing such appeals, and she does not want to take on the role of the Commission. She has already served many years on the Commission. Council selects seven citizens to serve on the Commission and this process would undermine their authority and their hard work on cases. It would be difficult for Council to be involved in cases involving corporate citizens, and this process would undermine the relationship between the Commission, Council and Planning staff. Having a balanced, well - planned community at times requires a "no" vote. Council is working hard to establish zoning districts where the process will be clearer, while maintaining the development standards. She cannot support the ordinance at this time and added that the Commission does outstanding work and has always done so. Mr. Gerber added that he agrees it is important to send a strong message to the community and to the Planning and Zoning Commission that Council does support the Commission. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council May 9, 2011 Meetina Page 11 Mr. Reiner agreed, noting he has always been a proponent of a strong Planning Commission. They do the tough job of development review in a non - political environment, and it should remain that way. His fear is that an appeal process would be a common path taken by developers, if it is available. If there are internal differences of opinion between staff and the Commission, that needs to be addressed. If litigation is occurring due to these factors, the situation should be addressed. He appreciates all of the hard work of the Commission over the past decades. Vice Mayor Salay noted that she appreciates the Commission's careful review of this and has thoroughly reviewed their minutes. She has much hesitation in supporting this legislation, based on all of this input. She views this process as a tool available to Council. The staff memo noted that most other communities have such a process available to enable Council to hear an appeal. She would be interested in hearing how such a process works in other communities and whether it becomes political. The appeal process is only available for conditional uses, final development plans, and amended final development plans, however, and not rezonings. In the end, Council does weigh in — whether it is in executive session as a litigation matter or other. The question is whether Council addresses this in a public meeting or in an executive session related to litigation. She agrees that there is a communication gap among the three bodies involved and is interested in how this can be improved, moving forward. A natural tension exists among Council, Planning Commission, and staff as they serve in three distinct roles. However, there are communication opportunities to take advantage of going forward. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that another distinguishing factor for Dublin versus other communities is that the others have always had such a process in place. Therefore, the likelihood of the process being utilized is less, given it has long existed in those communities versus having a new process in Dublin. Her major concern is that in changing the process, it sends a message that Council lacks confidence in the process in place. That is not a message she advocates. Developers already have access to Council Members and many take advantage of this for various reasons. There is already opportunity for open dialogue to understand the expectations of the community for development. She does not want to signal such a major change at this point in time. Council and the Commission are devoting much time to updating Codes and creating Districts to facilitate the development process. There is a need to allow these new Codes and Districts to be utilized and tweaked, if necessary, versus changing the process at this point. Mayor Lecklider stated that Mr. Smith was asked about the City's success over the years as well as the success in recent years with appeals. It has been recognized that there have been more appeals in recent years than in the past. In determining the rate of successful outcomes to these cases, would this include the settlements achieved? Mr. Smith responded that it has been rare that the City has settled a case once it is in the courts. Generally, the City has let the process proceed in the court system. The City has attempted to settle some of the cases, and some are still pending. When the City has negotiated a settlement, either because the case is in litigation or because a stay has been placed on the action, there has been success. At the time staff began to work on this legislation to provide an appeals process, the new Districts and Codes had not moved forward, although some of the work was in process. These should be helpful to the development process. Mayor Lecklider stated that in reviewing the minutes of the February 14, 2011 Committee of the Whole, indicating that Council Members expressed unanimous support for the legislation, he questions what has occurred over the past 60 days. He would have preferred to save the staff time spent on preparing this legislation. Mrs. Boring responded that there was not a formal vote taken at the Committee meeting. She has never been supportive of this type of legislation. In the future, she will ensure that her silence does not imply agreement. ry RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Meeting Dublin City Council May 9, 2011 Page 12 Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher commented that often, when Council meets in a committee format, the information and the dialogue are only a piece of the entire picture. It requires the staff to memorialize this in written form to enable the boards and commissions to have a more engaged dialogue. Council then can review the written document and understand the ramifications of it. Personally, she believes the work had merit, even if there is not support for the legislation. Council has learned much about what is important and what to avoid, potentially, in a public decision- making process at this point in time. Mr. Smith commented that the unanimity at the committee level, as he recalls, was to move the process forward to draft the legislation. That did not indicate a Member would support the legislation at a later date. Mayor Lecklider commented that he does not believe anyone is bound by a discussion that occurred in the past. This was merely an observation on his part. Based on the discussion, there is no need for continued effort on this matter. Procedurally, what is the next step? Mr. Smith responded that Council could withdraw the ordinance or vote to disapprove the ordinance at the second reading. Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher moved to withdraw Ordinance 23 -11 from consideration. Mr. Gerber seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes. Ordinance 24 -11 Authorizing the Provision of Financial Assistance to Avondale Woods Senior Housing Limited Partnership for the Construction of Avondale Senior Village, an Affordable Housing Project for Seniors, in the City; and Authorizing the Execution of Certain Loan Documents Evidencing Such Financial Assistance. Vice Mayor Salay introduced the ordinance. Mr. Thurman stated that National Church Residences has worked with the City for some period of time, and requested financial support from the City for this project. This legislation authorizes the City Manager to execute an agreement with Avondale Woods Senior Housing Limited Partnership to provide financial assistance to construct affordable senior housing in Dublin. The financial assistance will be in the form of an $800,000 loan at three percent interest per year, to be paid from the available cash flow as outlined in the loan agreement, with a balloon payment for any remaining principal and interest payable at the end of 40 years. Upon completion, the project will have an estimated value of over $11.3 million and will provide 100 units of affordable senior housing. The real estate transaction and loan agreements are scheduled for closing on June 7, with groundbreaking tentatively scheduled for June 17. The project is required to be completed within 18 months -- by the end of 2012. Aside from the financial considerations, the City's attorneys looked closely at provisions to ensure the completion of the project. Therefore, NCR, serving as the general partner, pledged their assets and provided a guarantee of construction completion. In addition, to ensure the City's liabilities were limited for the term of the loan, detailed language was added to the loan agreement. A detailed memo and copy of the loan agreement was provided in the packet, together with the promissory note, guarantee of construction completion, and other pertinent information, including the letter of support provided by the City to NCR. In addition, minutes from the Council Study Session from 2008 were included in the packet. Staff is recommending approval of Ordinance 24 -11 at the second reading /public hearing on May 23. Staff will recommend passage by emergency in order that the legislation is effective in time to allow the closing on June 7. He offered to respond to questions. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Monday, February 14, 2011 Minutes of Meeting Mr. Reiner, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:16 p.m. in Council Chambers. Council members present were Mr. Reiner, Vice Mayor Salay, Mrs. Boring, Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, Mr. Keenan, Mr. Gerber and Mayor Lecklider. Staff members present were: Ms. Grigsby, Mr. Smith and Ms. Readler. Mr. Reiner, Community Development Committee Chair, stated that the purpose of the meeting is to review a proposed Appeal Process to City Council for Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) administrative decisions. He asked Ms. Readler, Assistant Law Director, to present the background. Background Ms. Readler stated that Council has had previous discussions concerning implementation of an appeal venue for administrative decisions by PZC. The Law Director's office has prepared a draft ordinance. One reason an appeals process is being explored relates to the cost of litigation and the potential exposure the City could face from PZC decisions taken to court for appeal. Chapter 2506 of the Ohio Revised Code (ORC) relates to Administrative Appeals. Legal staff is seeking policy direction regarding certain policy matters related to this process. Overview of Process Ms. Readler presented a brief overview of the draft ordinance, which has been provided in Council's packet. There are three types of applications that could come to Council — conditional uses, final development plans, and amended final development plans. These constitute the majority of PZC cases that have been appealed. The process envisioned is as follows: The applicant files a written appeal with the Clerk of Council within 14 days of a PZC vote; Legal counsel would provide for a stay of PZC's Record of Action until Council has determined whether or not they will hear an appeal, which ensures an applicant of his /her 2506 appeals opportunities available from the PZC decision; Council would then decide in a public meeting by motion whether or not to hear the appeal. This decision is totally discretionary. If Council decides to hear an appeal, a full hearing would be set for 30 days later. A staff and an applicant presentation would be provided at that hearing, in addition to the staff report provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission. No new evidence would be presented at that hearing, which is consistent with what is available to an applicant in a 2506 appeal to court. However, new evidence could be presented if it is in response to an issue that was raised at the Commission hearing. The criteria that Council would use on each of the three applications would be the same criteria that the Code provides for PZC to use. A simple majority vote of the Council members present would be required to approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the application. Community Development Committee of the Whole February 14, 2011 Page 2 of 7 Policy Issues • Mandatory or Discretionary to Hear Appeal The first policy issue is whether the appeal should be mandatory, in that the applicant is entitled to take the appeal to Council, or discretionary. The proposed language provides for discretionary review to encourage the applicant to make their best effort at the PZC level, and not use the proposed process as a bypass, but rather as a safety valve. What is Council's preference? Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher requested clarification of the desire to make the process discretionary. Ms. Readler responded that it is not desirable to provide a mechanism whereby an applicant is automatically entitled to an appeal to City Council. It could be perceived as PZC not making the final decision, and therefore the applicant could merely undergo the PZC hearing in order to have the entire hearing before City Council. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher inquired if the discretion is available to Council. Ms. Readler confirmed that would be the case. Mrs. Boring inquired if a policy decision regarding even having such an appeals process is being discussed tonight, or is it assumed that all of Council is in agreement with providing an appeals process? Mayor Lecklider responded that he assumes the intent tonight is to obtain Council feedback for a draft ordinance to be considered at a later meeting. Mr. Smith affirmed that is the case. After Council's input is obtained, the proposed ordinance would be heard by PZC, then ultimately come back to Council for a final vote. Legal has developed this draft ordinance for consideration, based on previous Council direction. Mr. Reiner referred to the statement "no new evidence, unless to address issues raised at PZC hearing. Wouldn't that lead the applicant to present new evidence in response to the concern and negative vote of PZC, and essentially obtain a new hearing? Mr. Smith stated that the applicant does not have a right to a Council hearing. Mr. Reiner stated that he understands that, but he is concerned it would be a process whereby an applicant can improve the application they provided to PZC and obtain essentially a new hearing by Council. The applicant should instead focus on improving their application for the PZC hearing. Ms. Readler stated that it would be possible to limit the hearing to "the record below," which is consistent with the court standard for a 2506 appeal. The proposed ordinance is a practical approach, as many times issues are raised that could be easily clarified at a new hearing. The language only contemplates additional evidence in response to staff or PZC concerns that were raised at PZC. Community Development Committee of the Whole February 14, 2011 Page 3 of 7 Mrs. Boring stated that she is concerned with that aspect as well. She agrees that the additional evidence would address an issue previously raised, but Council is not sure how PZC would want that issue to be addressed. She shares Mr. Reiner's concern. Mr. Gerber stated that if Council would hear the appeal in lieu of the county court, then the same rules should apply in regard to new evidence. He would prefer not to waiver from that standard. Mayor Lecklider stated that is how he understands the ordinance as drafted — that it must be related evidence presented solely for the purpose of clarifying something that was presented at the PZC hearing. Mr. Smith noted that is correct. It would be only to clarify -- no new evidence would be presented. Mayor Lecklider stated that he does not believe that an applicant would not make their best effort at a PZC hearing, as the appeal to Council is discretionary. Council could choose not to hear the appeal. The language in the ordinance states that, "In considering the appeal, City Council shall only consider such evidence as was presented in the original hearing." It goes on to say, "City Council may consider new evidence..." That language indicates it is at Council's discretion. Mr. Smith concurred. Mr. Gerber stated Council would have the discretion not only of whether to hear the appeal, but also the discretion of whether they will permit any additional evidence to provide clarification of the facts. Council consensus was that the appeal be discretionary. • Who Can File An Appeal Ms. Readler stated that the next policy issue is that, as the ordinance is drafted, only the applicant can file the appeal. The applicant could include the City of Dublin. If the City is the applicant, theoretically, the City Manager could file the appeal. In a 2506 appeal, there is a broader definition of who can file an appeal. Included are people who are affected negatively by the decision, which could be adjacent property owners. Legal staff did not want to open the appeal process to residents or other developers, and therefore the proposed language provides for only the applicant to be able to file an appeal. There are some examples from other cities of City Councils being able to file an appeal. In that case, if PZC approved an application that Council disagreed with, a Council member could file an appeal. Legal staff is not advocating that, but it is an option. Vice Mayor Salay recalled a previous situation in which a neighborhood filed an appeal with the court. In that case, then, as in other cases, it is Council's view that the appeal would be better decided by Council than in the court. If Council has the discretion whether to hear an appeal, why wouldn't Council want to permit City residents or a developer to submit an appeal? Council has the discretion of whether or not to hear it. It would keep these kinds of cases local versus being filed in court. Community Development Committee of the Whole February 14, 2011 Page 4 of 7 Ms. Readler responded that Legal staff attempted to draft the language more narrowly. The primary objective was to avoid litigation. It is a rare situation in which a neighborhood pursues an appeal. The language would cover the majority of cases; however, the list can certainly be expanded to include other interested parties. Mr. Gerber inquired how an appeal hearing would be conducted before Council. Mr. Smith responded that rules would be drafted to address the hearing process. However, it is anticipated Council would be provided with the existing staff report; staff would highlight the facts of the case; the applicant would be permitted to do the same; Council would have an opportunity to ask questions; and a Council vote would be taken. Mr. Gerber inquired if Council is qualified /prepared to handle the multiple issues involved in such an appeal. Mr. Smith responded that various courts handle appeals differently. However, in this case, tighter rules would be written. He would not anticipate that there would be more than one or two such cases heard per year. Mr. Gerber indicated that he has somewhat conflicting opinions regarding who can file the appeal, because in some rare cases, Council might want to permit someone other than the applicant to do so. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she would be interested only in hearing appeals from an applicant. There is a public venue at P &Z in which everyone else can provide their comments and attempt to convince the Commission of their position. It is the applicant who would typically invest the money for an appeal. It is not wise to open the door for anyone to file an appeal. She perceived this process to be an option provided to the party who would typically be filing in court. Mrs. Boring concurred with Mr. Gerber. PZC is appointed by Council, so it could become quite political. How do other cities handle the issue of other interested parties who want to file an appeal? Ms. Readler responded that the City Code she is aware of permits only the City Council, the developer and the landowner to file appeals. It may also permit adjacent property owners to file, but does not extend the right to other interested parties. Mr. Reiner, Mr. Gerber and Mr. Keenan expressed support for limiting the right to file an appeal to the applicant only. Vice Mayor Salay stated that the City had this type of situation occur several years ago; the applicant eventually filed an appeal. The site was at the corner of Woerner Temple and Emerald Parkway — Emerald Town Center, which is now beginning to be developed. The outcome at this point is a nice neighborhood center. Had the adjacent property owners not been able to file that appeal, the City would now have a 10 -12 pump gas station on that corner. The neighborhood's ability to "massage the plan" resulted in a much better project. It can become political, but Council Members are elected officials, so that is to be expected. Community Development Committee of the Whole February 14, 2011 Page 5 of 7 This is Council's ultimate responsibility. The appeal process is discretionary, so Council is able to decide whether or not to hear an appeal. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher commented that therein lies the problem. What are the criteria that an elected body could legitimately use to deny hearing one appeal and agree to hear another? That type of situation is very difficult. In her view, with the example just provided, the City's current process should have been used to manage the case more effectively to result in the ultimate outcome. The Planning staff and Planning & Zoning Commission should have engaged those members of the public who "massaged" the project before the Commission approved it. Vice Mayor Salay concurred, but noted that the City currently has a Planning & Zoning Commission that does not like to engage the residents. Commission members have indicated to Council that they do not want to speak with the residents. Her preference is to permit adjacent property owners the right to an appeal. Mayor Lecklider asked for clarification. Is she stating that if the adjacent property owner in the example given would have had the right to an appeal, it would have come before the Council, and the City would have avoided the 2506 appeal that occurred? Vice Mayor Salay responded that would have been a possibility. She believes it was an unsatisfactory hearing with the PZC. The residents had information they wanted to present, but the meeting process was altered. The neighborhood made the decision that they absolutely could not accept the PZC's decision. They had no alternative but to file an appeal. A liquor option was involved. The residents spent a significant amount of money on the appeal. It was a difficult process experienced by the residents, which, in a city such as Dublin, should not have been necessary. Mayor Lecklider stated that he supports limiting the appeal to the applicant. He believes it would be an extraordinary situation in which Council would decide to hear an applicant's appeal. That would not foreclose anyone else from pursuing a 2506 appeal to the court. It is hoped that there are no other situations in the future for which a neighborhood must resort to the appeal process. Mr. Smith stated that in the example referenced, the neighborhood filed a 2506 appeal, and the City funded the attorney to appeal for them. It was the only time he recalls that ever occurred, and it was an extraordinary case. The City was involved in the appeal. Vice Mayor Salay stated that the neighborhood's position was that they had the ability to affect the liquor license permit for the gas station /convenience store. In response to their position, the applicant, UDF, withdrew their request. Mr. Reiner summarized that the majority of Council members support limiting the right to file an appeal to the applicant. • Should Council Have the Right to Appeal P &Z Decision Ms. Readler stated that another issue for discussion is whether City Council should have the right of appeal. Community Development Committee of the Whole February 14, 2011 Page 6 of 7 Mrs. Boring inquired if Council would hear its own appeal. Mr. Smith responded affirmatively. An example of a situation Council might want to appeal would be for a sign that involves a large corporation. Council may want to avoid a year -long delay for a judge to hear the case. Mr. Gerber stated that, several years ago, Council considered this issue in a discussion regarding PUDs. Their position at the time was that they wanted the applicants to present the best case possible, Council would trust PZC to make the right decision, and support their decision. He is fearful this process could begin to erode the confidence in that process. Mr. Smith responded that the draft language does not provide Council the ability to file an appeal. Legal staff is requesting Council's input on this. Council consensus was that Council not be permitted to file an appeal. • Evidence Presented at Hearing Ms. Readler asked if the record should be limited to the testimony at the PZC hearing, and that any additional evidence must be related to comments and concerns raised at that hearing. Mr. Smith suggested the language be revised to indicate any additional evidence must be limited to clarification of points raised in the record. Is that the consensus of Council? Council concurred. Ms. Readler noted that the language would be tightened accordingly. • Maiority versus Super Maiority Vote Requirement Mr. Readler stated that the draft ordinance provision for Council's vote is that on both the motion of whether to hear an appeal and the motion to approve or disapprove modifications, a simple majority is necessary. Would Council prefer to make that a super majority in either instance? A simple majority is the majority of Council members present. A super majority is a requirement for five votes, regardless of how many are present. Council consensus was for a simple majority to suffice in both cases. • Filing Fee Requirement Mr. Gerber stated that he supports a filing fee be required. Ms. Readler inquired if the fee would also be required for initially filing for consideration. Mr. Smith stated that his recommendation would be that there would be a fee imposed only if Council decides to hear the appeal. Council concurred. Ms. Readler inquired if Council members have any other issues to raise regarding the legislation. Recommendation Mr. Reiner inquired Council members' interest in pursuing this type of legislation. Community Development Committee of the Whole February 14, 2011 Page 7 of 7 Mr. Gerber stated that the previous discussion and position of Council was to be supportive of the PZC's decisions. However, in recent years, there seems to be a growing trend for applicant appeals. So perhaps this legislation is necessary. Mr. Smith noted that he envisions the process would be used rarely. This legislation would provide Council the option. Council can still refuse to hear an appeal and allow the case to proceed to court. Council members expressed unanimous support for pursuing the legislation. Mr. Reiner requested that the language be revised per tonight's discussion and provided to Council for review. Mr. Smith stated that the revised ordinance would be provided to Council in an interim packet. It can be reviewed at the next Council meeting, and then forwarded to PZC for review and a recommendation to Council. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that her recommendation is that when the legislation is heard by PZC, the Commission should engage in a thorough discussion in one evening, then forward a recommendation to Council without delay to avoid the potential for more court cases. Mr. Smith noted that there are a couple of developers who are monitoring the status of this proposed legislation in relation to pending cases. The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Clerk of Council SZU MEMORANDUM TO Dublin City Council Marsha Grigsby, City Manager FROM Stephen Smith, Law Director Jennifer Readler, Assistant Law Director DATE: May 5, 2011 RE: Ordinance 23 -11 — Code Amendment re. Appeals of Certain PZC Administrative Decisions to City Council SUMMARY The Law Department was directed by City Council to draft an ordinance that would provide a mechanism for Council review of appeals from certain Planning and Zoning Commission ( "PZC ") administrative decisions. On April 7, 2011, the draft ordinance was presented to PZC. The attached minutes of the meeting reflect the Commissioners' discussion of their significant concerns with the Ordinance, namely that: • There are enough checks and balances in the existing system (this references rezorungs where City Council and the Commissionboth review the same application). • Although it is believed that this process would be rarely used, there is nothing in the ordinance requiring it to be used sparingly. If it is used frequently, it could become a calculated method for developers to bypass PZC. • PZC trusts the current Council regarding appeals, but is concerned that future Councils may not be as committed to the intent of this process, particularly as it relates to the intent that it be rarely utilized. • This appeals process may politicize development. The Law Department requested a tabling at the April 7, 2011 meeting in order to review the ordinance with staff to determine whether any revisions could be made that would address PZC's concerns. Because the objections were so fundamental to the appeals process, we determined that it was not feasible to address PZC's concerns while still preserving the process. As a result, on April 21, 2011, PZC votedto disapprove the proposed Code amendment. RECOMMENDATION The Law Department recommends approval of Ordinance 23 -11 at the second reading /public hearing on May 23, 2011. RECORD OF ORDINANCES Blank, Inc. Ordinance No. 2 3 -11 Passed AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 153.235 OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN CODIFIED ORDINANCES (ZONING CODE) REGARDING APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS TO CITY COUNCIL (CASE 11- 001ADM). 20_ 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, Section 153.235 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances contains standards and processes that provide for appeals of Planning and Zoning Commission administrative decisions to City Council; and WHEREAS, certain Planning and Zoning Commission administrative decisions are subject to court review; and WHEREAS, City Council believes it is prudent to provide for an additional opportunity for review in situations involving City exposure to litigation; and WHEREAS, such additional review is necessary to mitigate litigation costs and provide for local review of zoning decisions; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this Ordinance on April 7, 2011 and on April 21, 2011 and recommended disapproval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, of the elected members concurring that: Section 1 . Section 153.235 is hereby amended and shall provide as follows: 153.235 APPEALS OF CERTAIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS TO CITY COUNCIL (A) Decisions that may be appealed. In the event the Planning and Zoning Commission disapproves or approves with modifications a conditional use, a final development plan or an amended final development plan ("the Application(s) "), an aggrieved Applicant may file an appeal with City Council. Such appeal shall be filed in writing with the Clerk of City Council no later than 14 days after the Planning and Zoning Commission vote on the Application(s). The filing of an appeal will stay the Planning and Zoning Commission's Record of Action for purposes of filing a 2506 appeal until after City Council makes its decision on whether to hear the appeal. (B) City Council decision to hear appeal. City Council must determine whether or not to hear the appeal, in its sole discretion and by a motion passed by an affirmative majority vote of its members, no later than 30 days following the Clerk of City Council's receipt of the written notice of appeal, unless an extended time is agreed upon by City Council and the applicant. (C) City Council review format. If City Council decides to hear the appeal, City Council shall review the Application(s) on the following terms: (1) City Council shall hold a public hearing, which shall be held no later than the date that is 30 days following City Council's motion to hear the appeal, unless an extended time is agreed upon by City Council and the applicant. In the event that City Council has no meetings scheduled during this 30 -day time period, then City Council shall hold the public hearing and vote on the appeal at the first regularly Form RECORD OF ORDINANCES Blank. Inc. Forth No. 30053 23 -11 Page 2 of 2 Ordinance No. Passed 1 20 scheduled City Council meeting following the expiration of the 30 -day period contemplated in the preceding sentence. (2) Both City Planning staff and the Applicant shall make presentations at the appeal hearing. In considering the appeal, City Council shall only consider such evidence as was presented in the original hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. City Council may consider new evidence, however, if such new evidence is produced to provide clarification of comments or concerns raised by Planning and Zoning Commission members, staff, or other interested parties at the original hearing. (3) City Council shall vote to approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the Application(s). In reviewing the Application(s), City Council shall use the review criteria for each respective Application set forth in the Dublin Codified Ordinances. City Council shall act through an affirmative majority vote of its members. City Council's vote shall become a final appealable order and the applicant shall have 30 days from the date of City Council's vote to file an administrative appeal pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2506. (D) Administrative rules. The City Manager or the Manager's designee may develop such rules and regulations as are necessary for the implementation of this Ordinance. Section 2. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force at the earliest date permitted by law. Passed this day of 2011. Mayor — Presiding Officer ATTEST: Clerk of Council a: t i] 011 ; 1 DO t o] 01 a W_1► [e 1 o 1_Te l 4 § 153.235 APPEALS OF CERTAIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS TO CITY COUNCIL (A) Decisions that may be appealed. In the event the Planning and Zoning Commission disapproves or approves with modifications a conditional use, a final development plan or an amended final development plan ( "the Application(s)"), an aggrieved Applicant may file an appeal with City Council. Such appeal shall be filed in writing with the Clerk of City Council no later than 14 days after the Planning and Zoning Commission vote on the Application(s). The filing of an appeal will stay the Planning and Zoning Commission's Record of Action for purposes of filing a 2506 appeal until after City Council makes its decision on whether to hear the appeal. (B) City Council decision to hear appeal. City Council must determine whether or not to hear the appeal, in its sole discretion and by a motion passed by an affirmative majority vote of its members, no later than 30 days following the Clerk of City Council's receipt of the written notice of appeal, unless an extended time is agreed upon by City Council and the applicant. (C) City Council review format. If City Council decides to hear the appeal, City Council shall review the Application(s) on the following terms: (1) City Council shall hold a public hearing, which shall be held no later than the date that is 30 days following City Council's motion to hear the appeal, unless an extended time is agreed upon by City Council and the applicant. In the event that City Council has no meetings scheduled during this 30 -day time period, then City Council shall hold the public hearing and vote on the appeal at the first regularly scheduled City Council meeting following the expiration of the 30 -day period contemplated in the preceding sentence. (2) Both City Planning Staff and the Applicant shall make presentations at the appeal hearing. In considering the appeal, City Council shall only consider such evidence as was presented in the original hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. City Council may consider new evidence, however, if such new evidence is produced to provide clarification of comments or concerns raised by Planning and Zoning Commission members, Staff, or other interested parties at the original hearing. (3) City Council shall vote to approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the Application(s). In reviewing the Application(s), City Council shall use the review criteria for each respective Application set forth in the Dublin Codified Ordinances. City Council shall act through an affirmative majority vote of its members. City Council's vote shall become a final appealable order and the applicant shall have 30 days from the date of City Council's vote to file an administrative appeal pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2506. a: t i] 011 ; 1 DO t o] 01 a W_1► [e 1 o 1_Te l 4 (D) Administrative rules. The City Manager or the Manager's designee may develop such rules and regulations as are necessary for the implementation of this ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. City Council Appeals 11- OOIADM Zoning Code Amendment Proposal: Modifications to Zoning Code Section 153.235 adding language regarding appeals of administrative decisions to City Council. Request: Review and recommendation of approval of a Zoning Code amendment under the provisions of Sections 153.232 and 153.234. Applicant: Marsha I. Grigsby, City Manager, City of Dublin. Planning Contact: Steve Langworthy, Director and Jennifer Readler, Assistant Law Director. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4653, slangworthy@dublin.oh.us (614) 462 -5027, jreadler@szd.com MOTION: To recommend City Council disapprove this Zoning Code Amendment. VOTE: 5-2 RESULT: Disapproval of this Zoning Code Amendment will be recommended to City Council. STAFF CERTIFICATION Gary Gunderman Planning Manager PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION CITY OF DUBLIN- Land Use and APRIL 21, 2011 Long Mange Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin. Ohio 43016-1236 Phone /TDD: 61"d 146D0 Fox: 614- 410 -4747 Web Site:w .dublin.oh.us Creating a L egacy The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. City Council Appeals 11- OOIADM Zoning Code Amendment Proposal: Modifications to Zoning Code Section 153.235 adding language regarding appeals of administrative decisions to City Council. Request: Review and recommendation of approval of a Zoning Code amendment under the provisions of Sections 153.232 and 153.234. Applicant: Marsha I. Grigsby, City Manager, City of Dublin. Planning Contact: Steve Langworthy, Director and Jennifer Readler, Assistant Law Director. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4653, slangworthy@dublin.oh.us (614) 462 -5027, jreadler@szd.com MOTION: To recommend City Council disapprove this Zoning Code Amendment. VOTE: 5-2 RESULT: Disapproval of this Zoning Code Amendment will be recommended to City Council. STAFF CERTIFICATION Gary Gunderman Planning Manager CITY OF ➢UBLQJ, m�a u» ova acv nov. Pmromv OubRn, Ohio d3J161YJ6 PhoneI ID : 61 aa16 Poe: 61 bd10.d]O W W W. www.tlublln.OM1Us DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES APRIL 21, 2011 City Council Appeals 11 -001 A DM Zoning Code Amendment Ms. Amorose Groomes said the following application involves modifying the Dublin Zoning Code to add language regarding appeals of administrative decisions to City Council, the Commission will need to make a recommendation to City Council for final action. She said they do not need a presentation as it has no additions or changes or modifications to this since the last time. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there was anyone Tom the general public that would like to speak to this application, but there Is nobody here It Is unlikely. She said hearing none, she read through the minutes and they made good record at the last meeting and if there are new items let us discuss them. Mr. Zimmerman said he is fine. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if everyone would like to stand by their previous comments. It was agreed. Motion and Vote Mr. Taylor made a motion to disapprove this application. Ms. Kramb seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Mr. Budde, no; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, no; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Taylor, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; and Mr. Hardt, yes. (Disapproved 5 -2.) Case Summary Agenda Item City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Ctr Planning Report Proposal Thursday, April 21, 2011 M R appeals of administrative decisions to City Council. Oho4 I OobRn.OFia <3JI6�136 Marsha Grigsby, City Manager, City of Dublin. PM1ane /ro. 6 1 16MW FO Zoning Code Modificafion - Appeal of Adminisfrafive wW Sile: w.w,duMin.oM1.us Decisions Case Summary Agenda Item 1 Case Number 11-001 ADM Proposal An amendment to Zoning Code Section 153.235 adding language regarding appeals of administrative decisions to City Council. Applicant Marsha Grigsby, City Manager, City of Dublin. Case Managers Steve Langworthy, Director 1 (614) 410-4653 1 slangworthy @dublin.oh.us Jennifer Peddler, Assistant Law Director 1 (614) 462 - .50271 jreadler @szd.com Request Zoning Code Amendment Review and recommendation of approval of a Zoning Code amendment under the provisions of Sections 153.232 and 153.234. Planning Recommendation Approval In Planning's opinion, the proposed amendment provides for appeals of administrative decisions to City Council, as recommended by the Law Director. Planning recommends approval to City Council for the amendment. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Zoning Code Amendment Case 11-001 ADM I Appeals Thursday, Apnl21, 2011 I Page 2 of 3 Update April 7, 2011 PZC Meeting Facts Case Summary ,I I Case Background I� Details Process The Planning and Zoning Commission tabled this case at their April 7, 2011 meeting to allow for potential modifications based on their comments. No ch anges have been made to the proposed Code at this point. This is a request for review amendment to the Dublin administrative decisions to reauirements and processes. and recommendation of approval for an Zoning Code to provide for appeals of City Council and establishing appropriate As stated, in the preamble of the ordinance being forwarded for Commission consideration, this case originated from City Council regarding an increase in litigation expenses when certain Planning and Zoning Commission administrative decisions were being subjected to court review. City Council thought it was prudent to provide for an additional layer of review in situations that could result in the City's exposure to litigation. It was determined that the additional review was necessary to mitigate litigation costs. City Council reviewed this topic with the Law Director, including a Committee of the Whole session with the Community Development Committee of Council, and approved language as drafted by the Law Director at their regular March 14, 2011 meeting. Zoning Code Amendme 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 make its recommendation. The draft amendments will be forwarded to City Council for final review. Proposed The stated intent of the Zoning Code amendment is to provide for appeals Amendments of administrative decisions to City Council and establish the requirements and process for those appeals. Those decisions that may be appealed include most of the ones for which the Commission currently has final approval authority, including conditional uses, and final and amended final development plans for Planned Unit Development Districts. Applications for the Corridor Development District review only are not included. Zoning Code Amendment Appeal Submission To be considered by Council, an applicant for the appealable approval must file the written appeal with the City Clerk within 14 days of the vote by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Once filed, the Record of Action by the Commission is placed on hold pending Council's decision whether to City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Zoning Code Amendment Case 11-001 ADM I Appeals Thursday, Apnl21, 2011 I Page 3 of 3 Details Zoning Code Amendment Council Consideration Council is not required to hear the appeal, and if they choose, may simply vote to reject the request. The decision on whether to accept the appeal must be made within 30 days of the receipt of the appeal, unless the applicant and City agree to a longer period. Appeal Review Council must hold a public hearing within 30 days of acceptance by Council. There are some provisions that could extend this time if no Council meetings are scheduled within the required period. Presentations are made by the City and by the applicant. Information presented is limited to that which was available to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its decision. The only additional information permitted is that which might help clarify the comments and concerns raised by the Commission, City staff, or interested parties in its action. Council Action After the hearing Council may either approve the application as submitted, modify the application, or disapprove the application. In making its decision Council is to use the same criteria used by the Commission in making its decision. The applicant then has 30 days to file any appeal as a 2506 action to the County. Implementation The ordinance provides that the City Manager or designee will set up the ad ministrative rules and procedures needed to implement this process. Recommendation Zoning Code Amendment Approval In Planning's opinion, the proposed amendment provides for appeals of administrative decisions to City Council, as recommended by the Law Director. Planning recommends approval to City Council for the amendm J a: t i] 011 ; 1 DO t o] 01 a W_1► [e 1 o 1_Te l 4 § 153.235 APPEALS OF CERTAIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS TO CITY COUNCIL (A) Decisions that may be appealed. In the event the Planning and Zoning Commission disapproves or approves with modifications a conditional use, a final development plan or an amended final development plan ( "the Application(s)"), an aggrieved Applicant may file an appeal with City Council. Such appeal shall be filed in writing with the Clerk of City Council no later than 14 days after the Planning and Zoning Commission vote on the Application(s). The filing of an appeal will stay the Planning and Zoning Commission's Record of Action for purposes of filing a 2506 appeal until after City Council makes its decision on whether to hear the appeal. (B) City Council decision to hear appeal. City Council must determine whether or not to hear the appeal, in its sole discretion and by a motion passed by an affirmative majority vote of its members, no later than 30 days following the Clerk of City Council's receipt of the written notice of appeal, unless an extended time is agreed upon by City Council and the applicant. (C) City Council review format. If City Council decides to hear the appeal, City Council shall review the Application(s) on the following terms: (1) City Council shall hold a public hearing, which shall be held no later than the date that is 30 days following City Council's motion to hear the appeal, unless an extended time is agreed upon by City Council and the applicant. In the event that City Council has no meetings scheduled during this 30 -day time period, then City Council shall hold the public hearing and vote on the appeal at the first regularly scheduled City Council meeting following the expiration of the 30 -day period contemplated in the preceding sentence. (2) Both City Planning Staff and the Applicant shall make presentations at the appeal hearing. In considering the appeal, City Council shall only consider such evidence as was presented in the original hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. City Council may consider new evidence, however, if such new evidence is produced to provide clarification of comments or concerns raised by Planning and Zoning Commission members, Staff, or other interested parties at the original hearing. (3) City Council shall vote to approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the Application(s). In reviewing the Application(s), City Council shall use the review criteria for each respective Application set forth in the Dublin Codified Ordinances. City Council shall act through an affirmative majority vote of its members. City Council's vote shall become a final appealable order and the applicant shall have 30 days from the date of City Council's vote to file an administrative appeal pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2506. a: t i] 011 ; 1 DO t o] 01 a W_1► [e 1 o 1_Te l 4 (D) Administrative rules. The City Manager or the Manager's designee may develop such rules and regulations as are necessary for the implementation of this ordinance. CITY OF DUBLIN- Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin. Ohio 43016 -1236 Rhona /TDD: 614- 410-4600 Fox: 614- 410 -4747 Web Site :w .dublin.oh.us Creating a L egacy PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION APRIL 7, 2011 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 8. City Council Appeals 11- OOIADM Zoning Code Amendment Proposal: Modifications to Zoning Code Section 153.235 adding language regarding appeals of administrative decisions to City Council. Request: Review and recommendation of approval of a Zoning Code amendment under the provisions of Sections 153.232 and 153.234. Applicant: Marsha I. Grigsby, City Manager, City of Dublin, 5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Planning Contact: Steve Langworthy, Director and Jennifer Readler, Assistant Law Director. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4653, slangworthy@dublin.oh.us (614) 462 -5027, jreadler@szd.com MOTION: To table this proposed Zoning Code Amendment as requested by Planning. VOTE: 5-2. RESULT: This proposed Zoning Code Amendment was tabled. STAFF CERTIFICATION Steve Langworthy Director Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2011 -Minutes Page 1 of 6 8. City Council Appeals 11 -001 ADM Zoning Code Amendment Chris Amorose Groomes introduced this amendment which involves modifications to the Dublin Zoning Code to add language regarding appeals of Administrative Decisions to City Council. She said that the Commission will be make a recommendation to City Council for action. Jennifer Readler, Assistant Law Director, asked the Commissioners to recall that they had experimented with some protocols when they have had potential litigation and 2506 Appeals, which were the Administrative Appeals from the Commission to Common Pleas Court. She explained that recently, they tried a protocol where the Commission had a public hearing and City Council took that into consideration in deciding whether to settle a couple of cases, and that was not very satisfying for anybody. Ms. Readler said that anytime somebody pursues litigation against the City, the City incurs fees to defend that action. She said something unusual with zoning cases is that judges are not familiar, for the most part with zoning laws, planning, and architectural issues. She said that most zoning decisions are very local and often have judges who may not be as familiar with this area as City Council would be. Ms. Readler said that City Council asked the Law Director's office to draft a potential appeals process. City Council held a Community Development Committee of the Whole meeting to give direction. She said there was a good discussion, and tonight's draft incorporates all of City Council's input on the procedure. Ms. Readler said that the potential appeal application i een limited to conditional uses, final development plans, and amended final development plans. She explained that the criteria that City Council has are the same criteria that the Commission uses in deciding the original application. She presented the general outline of the appeals process. She said the applicant, and only the applicant can file an appeal because City Council wants this to be a very limited, rarely used option. She said there are timelines for filing an appeal. She said City Council will, with the Planning Report and all of the materials the Commission had to review before them, have a limited discussion about it and decide by motion whether to hear the appeal. She emphasized that this is totally discretionary. Ms. Readler said what they were most concerned about was that they did not want developers coming in thinking that they can hold back potential changes for their appeal to City Council, or that they will have a second chance at it. She said there is no kind of criteria that City Council has to review in granting that, and they intend it to be used very sparingly. She said the developer needs to put their best foot forward at the Planning Commission level because there is absolutely no guarantee that City Council would hear an appeal. Ms. Readler explained that if City Council decides to hear the appeal, then the full appeal hearing has to be set for 30 days later. She said no new evidence can be submitted. She reiterated that it was all the record that the Commission reviewed in making their decision, and then City Council may have the discretion to allow clarifying evidence, that there were questions raised by the Commission or any interested citizens, if they want those issues clarified, then they have the discretion to add that limited additional evidence. Ms. Readler reiterated that the criteria and review is the same as the Planning Commission's and then it would take a majority vote of City Council to approve with modifications, or disapprove the application. Ms. Readler said that they are asking the Commission for a recommendation to City Council of approval of this ordinance. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2011 -Minutes Page 2 of 6 Ms. Amorose Groomes at 9:44 p.m. called a short recess, since she had not had the opportunity to read the ordinance. The meeting was reconvened at 9:47 p.m. Ms. Amorose Groomes invited public comments regarding this application. [There were none.] Warren Fishman said his initial concern was that everyone would want to appeal, but that has been addressed. He said he hoped it would be a rare occasion. He said it was well written. Todd Zimmerman said he concurred with Mr. Fishman's comments. Joe Budde said he had not been around long enough to experience any of the issues. He said it looked fine to him. Amy Kramb said it was somewhat concerning because she felt applicants might not give their best shot and just want a second opinion because the Commission's opinion is often different than City Council's. She said that City Council has their constituents and they want to get re- elected and if a project is in their district, then people who bring in an appeal feel that they at least have one vote and maybe three if the at -large City Council members are counted. She figured that constituents would only have to sway one members' opinion, and they get it. Ms. Kramb said on the Planning and Zoning Commission, they are all at large and looking at everything. She said she feared that it could be used by applicants who know how the Commission sees things and just want to get around it. Ms. Kramb said the Court system is a long process and very costly. She said she was a taxpayer and wanted to save taxpayers' dollars. John Hardt said this is something that looks good on paper, and it is a good document, but he had professional experience with things like this in practice. He said his experience has been that they do not pan out the way they think they will. He said his fear was that the premise that developers will put their best foot forward at the Commission because there is no guarantee of an appeal, again sounds right in logic, but is not necessarily true. Mr. Hardt said he was aware of instances where a developer, for example has gone through a zoning process where the requirement was for 9,000 square feet per acre, and they wanted 12,000. He said in another community where such a process existed, they took 12,000 forward, and if was a calculated gamble, but the payoff was huge, and they made very specific strategic decisions to go around the Commission. Mr. Hardt said he had seen instances where the lobbying of City Council members started even before the application was ever submitted. He said he understood the logic and he thought it was a good document, but he thought it was one of those things that we need to be careful what we wish for because he did not think it is going to be put into practice the way they think it is. Mr. Hardt said that he could not imagine a scenario where City Council would choose one appeal from a local corporate citizen, and then deny an appeal from the next corporate citizen. He said he thought they would find themselves having to hear every appeal. Mr. Hardt said he deferred to City Council's authority to enact this if they think it is the right thing to do, but he did not think he could recommend it. Richard Taylor said he thought this was completely unnecessary and that it will in fact encourage bypassing of the Commission. He said he thought the process in place worked well. He said in the specific case of getting to a final development plan in a typical fashion, they go through a preliminary development plan and rezoning process, and the Commission has the ability to keep an application in that process until they are satisfied with it. He said at the point the Commission is satisfied with it, and pass it on to City Council, Council votes and if they Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2011 -Minutes Page 3 of 6 approve that, it comes back to the Commission as a final development plan. He said that the primary criteria that the Commission uses to judge whether to accept the final is that it matches the preliminary. He said in the case of a large project in the southwest part of Dublin that did not happen recently, when the final came to the Commission, there were two significant issues that did not match the preliminary or were not addressed in the preliminary, and hence the holdup at the Commission. Mr. Taylor said Mr. Hardt was entirely correct in his fear that the greasing of the wheels is going to start before the application gets submitted. He said they both worked for developers and it was about money. Mr. Taylor said he thought this undermined the authority of the Commission. He said he understood that developers need confidence in the process, but the Commission does too. He said the Commission needs to know that their decisions have some weight. He said when the Commission is deliberating a final development plan or a conditional use, knowing that what they say may not matter in the end, when now it does, he thought would make it difficult to hear. Mr. Taylor said he thought that in spite of the best intentions of this legislation, that City Council is going to have an extremely difficult time not hearing appeals that they do not want to hear. He said they are going to have to justify why they hear one and not another. He said it was likely to be where a law suit will happen. He said if City Council feels that an application was appropriately judged by the Commission, then there is no point in the appeal process, and if City Council think it was not, then they go to court. Mr. Taylor said he was very disappointed that the Commission, given that they were a material party to this; that this affects how they do business in a big way, that this document could get to the point that it is now. He said the last evidence that he had that it had been considered was February 14, seven weeks ago before Council, and clearly there was a great deal of time and discussion in regards to it before then. He reiterated that he was very disappointed that this piece of legislation got this far and that City Council, Planning, and Legal, never even gave them a sniff that this was going on. He said he thought the Commission should have been consulted on this in the beginning and that it would have made a lot of sense to express the concern to the Commission about the cost of litigation, here is why is happening, and we would like your input on this. He said it was frustrating that this was the first time the Commission has seen this and they were told to read it, pass it, and send it forward to City Council. Ms. Readler explained that the two 2506 Appeal cases that most of them were all involved showed that even without an appeals ordinance, City Council take a case out of the 2506 realm and do something with it, and it was not a pretty process. She said at one time there were six 2506 cases pending, and they did that with two cases, so they are obviously not doing that with all of the Administrative appeals. She said this is just a cleaner process, and puts the burden of a Public Hearing on City Council, versus on the Commission, when Council went into Executive Session to discuss it, so it just makes that whole process cleaner and the decision more evident. Mr. Taylor said he got that, but it made the Commission irrelevant. He said the disconnect, if there was one, was between the Commission and Planning. He said if they were on the same page more, what the Commission thinks is approvable and what Planning thinks is approvable, they would have less situations. John Hardt said he thought one of the fundamental differences was that those were cases where he believed Council said that litigation was going on and they should try to do something about it, and it was the City's choice for them to take that path, as opposed to putting a mechanism in place where any applicant can say they want that appeal. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2011 -Minutes Page 4 of 6 Ms. Readler pointed out that it was still Council's choice. Mr. Fishman asked that it be explained why it would happen only on rare occasions Ms. Readler explained that Council had given the direction for this to be drafted. She said there were policy issues, so they went to a committee meeting, and Council expressed their intent that this would be rarely used and they wanted the Law Director's office to draft it in such a way that they had complete discretion to turn down any appeal and it was their intent to turn down most requests for appeal. Ms. Fishman asked on what bases could appeals be turned down by Council. Ms. Readler said for the decision whether to decide the appeal, there is no criteria. She said it was completely discretionary, so Council is not bound by any criteria if met, they have to grant the appeal. She said the extreme case where Council thinks that there is a potential for litigation and there are valid reasons for potential settlement, perhaps Council would grant a full appeal hearing. Mr. Fishman said for all the years he had been on the Commission, Council had always told the Commission that they were a non - political group; that they were kind of the firing line. He said the Commission cannot be lobbied, but Council members can be lobbied. He said when he read this, he thought if it was done on rare occasions, it would be okay, but he wondered what the buffer will be. Mr. Fishman said he was sure on cases they had heard, they were thinking to themselves, they were not even going to mess with the Commission, they will take the disapproval and lobby Council. He asked for reasons why it would be on rare occasions. Ms. Readler said she cannot guarantee what the actions of Council will be in the future, because the decision to hear the appeal is completely discretionary. She said most other communities do have a mechanism for some sort of appeal. She said other communities in central Ohio the Planning Commission is purely a recommending body to City Council. She said it is not unusual for City Council to have the final say on administrative decisions in cases where there is the potential to the court system. Ms. Amorose Groomes said code issues are a big deal, because the code is being modified not only for the current sitting Council members but for future Council members. She said the mechanism in place provides some checks and balances, the Commission is not a political body and we remove a lot of political charge from our decisions. She said it is in the bylaws that the Commission does not accept calls from anyone, we are to be impartial and think independently, and value a case on the information provided. She said when the checks and balances are removed and we go to a system like this there are no guarantees that this will not become a very politically charged environment. Ms. Amorose Groomes said there are big dollars on the line and she is not willing to expect the best from everyone, and this operates on the perception of everyone acting accordingly. She said she is willing to take Council's word that this plan is rarely used and executed; she is not willing to take that word of future Council members. She said when code is changed it is changed. She said this is a huge removal of the checks and balances system. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she firmly believes that some applicants will take calculated risks and it is impossible to foresee until the deal is done the risk was taken. She said there have been six Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2011 -Minutes Page 5 of 6 recent appeals, two of which they have handled themselves. She said that is 33 percent, which is more than a rarity. She said if it could be limited to the sitting Council she would be more willing. Ms. Readler asked if there are any modifications which can be made to the ordinance to make this body more comfortable or are the concerns about the entire concept of the appeals process. Mr. Fishman said it is well written and the system is trying to be streamlines. He said there needs to be something added to make it tougher to get an appeal. Ms. Readler said criteria can be added instead of making the appeal purely discretionary. She said Council could be given a more limited staple of cases they can review for potential appeal Mr. Taylor said the criteria in which Council decides to hear the appeal are based on the merits of the case. He said the case is being judged before it is ever heard. Ms. Kramb said perhaps a different protocol in the way information is presented to Council would resolve the issue, rather than put something like this in place. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she would like to see an appeal filed with the court system. She said putting a protocol in place to talk though it without spending legal dollars would be ideal. Ms. Kramb said maybe there can be a mediation requirement with the City prior taking the case to court. Mr. Taylor said he does not believe there is a mechanism that can correct this issue. He said this is a wedge between the Commission, Council and Planning. He said the solution is a form of open communication between the three bodies, where everyone comes together and has a joint session. He said this is the type of conversation that should be done without power points, these bodies need to come together to discuss what is proper and what is not. Dana McDaniel said the option to sit and talk with staff is always open. He said he is concerned with the issue, when the appeals are sent to a judge they are less controlled. He said Council does not want to see this system abused, they are concerned about loopholes and people faking advantage. He said there is the option to fable this to engage in more dialog to address this boards concerns, prior to voting if down, Mr. Fishman said the resident does not get any finality to the case. Ms. Readler said an affected resident can appeal to common pleas court. She said City Council wants this to be limited as much as possible, so only applicant would have that ability. She said after Council makes a decision if the residents still wants to file they can. She said a developer could appeal in court and the resident would never know; when the developer appeals with Council the resident will be notified. Steve Langworfhy said when staff makes a presentation they present the Planning Commission's decision, they are not appealing to the planning staff they are appealing the Planning Commission's decision. Mr. Hardf said his concern is as long as the decision to file an appeal is in the hands of applicants we have no assurance of what the frequency will be. He said although Council will grant the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2011 -Minutes Page 6 of 6 appeals on rare occasions they are going to be put in a situation they are not anticipating. He said the six cases which were appealed needed legal action, the proposed process is less expensive. He said there is not a down side to filing so appeals will be filed routinely. Ms. Amorose Groomes said everyone has come to their independent decision. Ms. Readler said there are issues which were raised that may need more exploration. She said she would like to request a tabling. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that a motion was needed to table this Zoning Code Amendment. Motion and Vote Ms. Kramb made a motion to table this Zoning *S%ndment as requested by the applicant. Mr. Fishman seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, No; Mr. Budde, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr. Hardt, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Taylor, No. (Tabled 5 - 2.) RI RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting tt N LEGAL BLANK WC FORM NO 10148 March 14, 2011 Page 18 Held 2 0 Mayor Lecklider stated that he personally enjoys biking and the City's bikepath system. He looks forward to the opportunity to have more east -west routes. He enjoys traveling Brand Road from Dublin Road to Avery Road on a regular basis. For Council to make a decision on this issue, a work session for the purpose of this discussion will probably be necessary. There will be substantial discussion in the future on this topic. STAFF COMMENTS • Appeals from Administrative Decisions of Planning & Zoning Commission Mr. Smith noted that a report was provided in Council's packet, in which staff attempted to respond to all of the concerns raised by Council during their previous discussion on this item. The next step would be to refer this to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Based on Council's direction, the intent is for the Commission to turn this around quickly so that the ordinance and the Commission's recommendation can be back on Council's agenda in the near future. Mr. Reiner moved to refer the draft ordinance to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review and recommendation to Council. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Vote on the motion Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, no; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes. Vice Mayor Salay explained that she does not support the motion because she believes this proposal misses the opportunity to permit residents to appeal a decision of the Commission to Council. She believes it is appropriate to allow residents to file an appeal, with Council having the discretion of whether or not to hear the appeal. • Historic Dublin Crosswalks Ms. Grigsby stated that at the last Council meeting, there was additional discussion regarding Historic Dublin crosswalks. There is a staff report in Council's packet regarding the options currently being studied. A more detailed report with the cost estimates Council had requested is anticipated to be prepared for the next Council meeting. • Public Art Ms. Grigsby stated that at the last Council meeting, Council also requested an update on the public art agreement. A memo was provided in Council packet with a recommendation. Staff seeks Council direction regarding: (1) staff exploration of ways in which to improve the site selection process for public art; and (2) potential Community Development Committee review of the draft public art agreement for recommendation to Council. She will be seeking Council direction tonight or at an upcoming meeting. Mrs. Boring stated that she would prefer to delay giving any direction about the public art agreement until the next Council meeting. However, in regard to the crosswalks and parking situation along High Street, she suggested that staff review the restaurant deliveries from large trucks. The view of the intersection and crosswalks are blocked when such trucks are parked in the "No Parking" zone to make deliveries. Ms. Grigsby responded that this issue has been discussed, and she is not sure there is a satisfactory option to address this. However, those deliveries are completed in a short time and therefore the trucks are not parked in these locations for a long period of time. Mrs. Boring responded that when they do park in this location, it is not possible to see a pedestrian in the crosswalk. This is very problematic. Ms. Grigsby responded that staff would review any possible options, and provide a report to Council. SZD MEMORANDUM TO: Dublin City Council Marsha Grigsby, City Manager FROM: Stephen J. Smith, Law Director Jennifer D. Readler, Assistant Law Director DATE: March 3, 2011 RE: Ordinance Regarding Appeals from Planning and Zoning Commission Administrative Decisions to City Council INTRODUCTION: At the Community Development Committee of the Whole meeting on February 14, 2011, City Council provided direction regarding several policy issues involved in the ordinance addressing appeals from certain Planning and Zoning Commission administrative decisions to City Council. Attached is a redline of the ordinance demonstrating the revisions made since that meeting. SIGNIFICANT POLICY ISSUES: A summary of the direction received at the February 14, 2011 meeting is as follows: • Should the appeal be mandatory (City Council must hear the appeal) or discretionary (City Council may consider the application and then vote via motion whether to hear the appeal or not)? Discretionary review. • Should only the applicant be able to file an appeal or should interested residents be permitted to appeal? Only the applicant may appeal. • Should City Council have the option of hearing an administrative case that the Planning and Zoning Commission approves if a majority of Council disagrees with the Planning and Zoning Commission decision? No. • Should the record that City Council considers in an appeal be limited to only the evidence that the Planning and Zoning Commission received at the original hearing, or may additional evidence be submitted if such additional evidence is related to comments and concerns expressed at the original hearing? Council may consider additional evidence only if such evidence is limited to clarifications of comments /concerns from the Planning and Zoning Commissioner or interested parties raised at the original hearing. • Should the Council vote to hear the appeal and then the vote on the decision on the application at the full hearing if the appeal is considered be a majority or a {HZ1541461 } supermajority? Affirmative majority vote of City Council (so, an affirmative vote of 4 Council members would be required for each decision). • A fee will be required for the appeal hearing if Council consents to hear the appeal. SUMMARY OF FORMAT FOR REQUEST FOR APPEAL We would anticipate a request for an appeal to be scheduled under "Other" on the Council agenda We would propose aformat as follows: • Short presentation by staff • Short presentation by applicant • Council discussion and motion as to whether to hear the appeal at a full hearing at a later date Council would receive the same packet of items as received by the Planning and Zoning Commission in the original case. SUMMARY OF FORMAT FOR FULL APPEAL HEARING If the appeal is granted, we would propose a format for the full appeal hearing as follows: • Presentation by staff • Presentation by applicant • Public comment • Council discussion and motion to approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the application Council would receive the same packet of items as received by the Planning and Zoning Commission in the original case as well as any additional information that serves to clarify the information discussed in the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. CONCLUSION: Should Council decide to proceed with the consideration of the adoption of the draft ordinance, we would recommend Council approve a motion to refer the ordinance to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review and recommendation. (H2,54145, } DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Monday, February 14, 2011 Minutes of Meeting Mr. Reiner, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:16 p.m. in Council Chambers. Council members present were Mr. Reiner, Vice Mayor Salay, Mrs. Boring, Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, Mr. Keenan, Mr. Gerber and Mayor Lecklider. Staff members present were: Ms. Grigsby, Mr. Smith and Ms. Readler. Mr. Reiner, Community Development Committee Chair, stated that the purpose of the meeting is to review a proposed Appeal Process to City Council for Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) administrative decisions. He asked Ms. Readler, Assistant Law Director, to present the background. Background Ms. Readler stated that Council has had previous discussions concerning implementation of an appeal venue for administrative decisions by PZC. The Law Director's office has prepared a draft ordinance. One reason an appeals process is being explored relates to the cost of litigation and the potential exposure the City could face from PZC decisions taken to court for appeal. Chapter 2506 of the Ohio Revised Code (ORC) relates to Administrative Appeals. Legal staff is seeking policy direction regarding certain policy matters related to this process. Overview of Process Ms. Readler presented a brief overview of the draft ordinance, which has been provided in Council's packet. There are three types of applications that could come to Council — conditional uses, final development plans, and amended final development plans. These constitute the majority of PZC cases that have been appealed. The process envisioned is as follows: The applicant files a written appeal with the Clerk of Council within 14 days of a PZC vote; Legal counsel would provide for a stay of PZC's Record of Action until Council has determined whether or not they will hear an appeal, which ensures an applicant of his /her 2506 appeals opportunities available from the PZC decision; Council would then decide in a public meeting by motion whether or not to hear the appeal. This decision is totally discretionary. If Council decides to hear an appeal, a full hearing would be set for 30 days later. A staff and an applicant presentation would be provided at that hearing, in addition to the staff report provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission. No new evidence would be presented at that hearing, which is consistent with what is available to an applicant in a 2506 appeal to court. However, new evidence could be presented if it is in response to an issue that was raised at the Commission hearing. The criteria that Council would use on each of the three applications would be the same criteria that the Code provides for PZC to use. A simple majority vote of the Council members present would be required to approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the application. Community Development Committee of the Whole February 14, 2011 Page 2 of 7 Policy Issues • Mandatory or Discretionary to Hear Appeal The first policy issue is whether the appeal should be mandatory, in that the applicant is entitled to take the appeal to Council, or discretionary. The proposed language provides for discretionary review to encourage the applicant to make their best effort at the PZC level, and not use the proposed process as a bypass, but rather as a safety valve. What is Council's preference? Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher requested clarification of the desire to make the process discretionary. Ms. Readler responded that it is not desirable to provide a mechanism whereby an applicant is automatically entitled to an appeal to City Council. It could be perceived as PZC not making the final decision, and therefore the applicant could merely undergo the PZC hearing in order to have the entire hearing before City Council. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher inquired if the discretion is available to Council. Ms. Readler confirmed that would be the case. Mrs. Boring inquired if a policy decision regarding even having such an appeals process is being discussed tonight, or is it assumed that all of Council is in agreement with providing an appeals process? Mayor Lecklider responded that he assumes the intent tonight is to obtain Council feedback for a draft ordinance to be considered at a later meeting. Mr. Smith affirmed that is the case. After Council's input is obtained, the proposed ordinance would be heard by PZC, then ultimately come back to Council for a final vote. Legal has developed this draft ordinance for consideration, based on previous Council direction. Mr. Reiner referred to the statement "no new evidence, unless to address issues raised at PZC hearing. Wouldn't that lead the applicant to present new evidence in response to the concern and negative vote of PZC, and essentially obtain a new hearing? Mr. Smith stated that the applicant does not have a right to a Council hearing. Mr. Reiner stated that he understands that, but he is concerned it would be a process whereby an applicant can improve the application they provided to PZC and obtain essentially a new hearing by Council. The applicant should instead focus on improving their application for the PZC hearing. Ms. Readler stated that it would be possible to limit the hearing to "the record below," which is consistent with the court standard for a 2506 appeal. The proposed ordinance is a practical approach, as many times issues are raised that could be easily clarified at a new hearing. The language only contemplates additional evidence in response to staff or PZC concerns that were raised at PZC. Community Development Committee of the Whole February 14, 2011 Page 3 of 7 Mrs. Boring stated that she is concerned with that aspect as well. She agrees that the additional evidence would address an issue previously raised, but Council is not sure how PZC would want that issue to be addressed. She shares Mr. Reiner's concern. Mr. Gerber stated that if Council would hear the appeal in lieu of the county court, then the same rules should apply in regard to new evidence. He would prefer not to waiver from that standard. Mayor Lecklider stated that is how he understands the ordinance as drafted — that it must be related evidence presented solely for the purpose of clarifying something that was presented at the PZC hearing. Mr. Smith noted that is correct. It would be only to clarify -- no new evidence would be presented. Mayor Lecklider stated that he does not believe that an applicant would not make their best effort at a PZC hearing, as the appeal to Council is discretionary. Council could choose not to hear the appeal. The language in the ordinance states that, "In considering the appeal, City Council shall only consider such evidence as was presented in the original hearing." It goes on to say, "City Council may consider new evidence..." That language indicates it is at Council's discretion. Mr. Smith concurred. Mr. Gerber stated Council would have the discretion not only of whether to hear the appeal, but also the discretion of whether they will permit any additional evidence to provide clarification of the facts. Council consensus was that the appeal be discretionary. • Who Can File An Appeal Ms. Readler stated that the next policy issue is that, as the ordinance is drafted, only the applicant can file the appeal. The applicant could include the City of Dublin. If the City is the applicant, theoretically, the City Manager could file the appeal. In a 2506 appeal, there is a broader definition of who can file an appeal. Included are people who are affected negatively by the decision, which could be adjacent property owners. Legal staff did not want to open the appeal process to residents or other developers, and therefore the proposed language provides for only the applicant to be able to file an appeal. There are some examples from other cities of City Councils being able to file an appeal. In that case, if PZC approved an application that Council disagreed with, a Council member could file an appeal. Legal staff is not advocating that, but it is an option. Vice Mayor Salay recalled a previous situation in which a neighborhood filed an appeal with the court. In that case, then, as in other cases, it is Council's view that the appeal would be better decided by Council than in the court. If Council has the discretion whether to hear an appeal, why wouldn't Council want to permit City residents or a developer to submit an appeal? Council has the discretion of whether or not to hear it. It would keep these kinds of cases local versus being filed in court. Community Development Committee of the Whole February 14, 2011 Page 4 of 7 Ms. Readler responded that Legal staff attempted to draft the language more narrowly. The primary objective was to avoid litigation. It is a rare situation in which a neighborhood pursues an appeal. The language would cover the majority of cases; however, the list can certainly be expanded to include other interested parties. Mr. Gerber inquired how an appeal hearing would be conducted before Council. Mr. Smith responded that rules would be drafted to address the hearing process. However, it is anticipated Council would be provided with the existing staff report; staff would highlight the facts of the case; the applicant would be permitted to do the same; Council would have an opportunity to ask questions; and a Council vote would be taken. Mr. Gerber inquired if Council is qualified /prepared to handle the multiple issues involved in such an appeal. Mr. Smith responded that various courts handle appeals differently. However, in this case, tighter rules would be written. He would not anticipate that there would be more than one or two such cases heard per year. Mr. Gerber indicated that he has somewhat conflicting opinions regarding who can file the appeal, because in some rare cases, Council might want to permit someone other than the applicant to do so. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she would be interested only in hearing appeals from an applicant. There is a public venue at P &Z in which everyone else can provide their comments and attempt to convince the Commission of their position. It is the applicant who would typically invest the money for an appeal. It is not wise to open the door for anyone to file an appeal. She perceived this process to be an option provided to the party who would typically be filing in court. Mrs. Boring concurred with Mr. Gerber. PZC is appointed by Council, so it could become quite political. How do other cities handle the issue of other interested parties who want to file an appeal? Ms. Readler responded that the City Code she is aware of permits only the City Council, the developer and the landowner to file appeals. It may also permit adjacent property owners to file, but does not extend the right to other interested parties. Mr. Reiner, Mr. Gerber and Mr. Keenan expressed support for limiting the right to file an appeal to the applicant only. Vice Mayor Salay stated that the City had this type of situation occur several years ago; the applicant eventually filed an appeal. The site was at the corner of Woerner Temple and Emerald Parkway — Emerald Town Center, which is now beginning to be developed. The outcome at this point is a nice neighborhood center. Had the adjacent property owners not been able to file that appeal, the City would now have a 10 -12 pump gas station on that corner. The neighborhood's ability to "massage the plan" resulted in a much better project. It can become political, but Council Members are elected officials, so that is to be expected. Community Development Committee of the Whole February 14, 2011 Page 5 of 7 This is Council's ultimate responsibility. The appeal process is discretionary, so Council is able to decide whether or not to hear an appeal. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher commented that therein lies the problem. What are the criteria that an elected body could legitimately use to deny hearing one appeal and agree to hear another? That type of situation is very difficult. In her view, with the example just provided, the City's current process should have been used to manage the case more effectively to result in the ultimate outcome. The Planning staff and Planning & Zoning Commission should have engaged those members of the public who "massaged" the project before the Commission approved it. Vice Mayor Salay concurred, but noted that the City currently has a Planning & Zoning Commission that does not like to engage the residents. Commission members have indicated to Council that they do not want to speak with the residents. Her preference is to permit adjacent property owners the right to an appeal. Mayor Lecklider asked for clarification. Is she stating that if the adjacent property owner in the example given would have had the right to an appeal, it would have come before the Council, and the City would have avoided the 2506 appeal that occurred? Vice Mayor Salay responded that would have been a possibility. She believes it was an unsatisfactory hearing with the PZC. The residents had information they wanted to present, but the meeting process was altered. The neighborhood made the decision that they absolutely could not accept the PZC's decision. They had no alternative but to file an appeal. A liquor option was involved. The residents spent a significant amount of money on the appeal. It was a difficult process experienced by the residents, which, in a city such as Dublin, should not have been necessary. Mayor Lecklider stated that he supports limiting the appeal to the applicant. He believes it would be an extraordinary situation in which Council would decide to hear an applicant's appeal. That would not foreclose anyone else from pursuing a 2506 appeal to the court. It is hoped that there are no other situations in the future for which a neighborhood must resort to the appeal process. Mr. Smith stated that in the example referenced, the neighborhood filed a 2506 appeal, and the City funded the attorney to appeal for them. It was the only time he recalls that ever occurred, and it was an extraordinary case. The City was involved in the appeal. Vice Mayor Salay stated that the neighborhood's position was that they had the ability to affect the liquor license permit for the gas station /convenience store. In response to their position, the applicant, UDF, withdrew their request. Mr. Reiner summarized that the majority of Council members support limiting the right to file an appeal to the applicant. • Should Council Have the Right to Appeal P &Z Decision Ms. Readler stated that another issue for discussion is whether City Council should have the right of appeal. Community Development Committee of the Whole February 14, 2011 Page 6 of 7 Mrs. Boring inquired if Council would hear its own appeal. Mr. Smith responded affirmatively. An example of a situation Council might want to appeal would be for a sign that involves a large corporation. Council may want to avoid a year -long delay for a judge to hear the case. Mr. Gerber stated that, several years ago, Council considered this issue in a discussion regarding PUDs. Their position at the time was that they wanted the applicants to present the best case possible, Council would trust PZC to make the right decision, and support their decision. He is fearful this process could begin to erode the confidence in that process. Mr. Smith responded that the draft language does not provide Council the ability to file an appeal. Legal staff is requesting Council's input on this. Council consensus was that Council not be permitted to file an appeal. • Evidence Presented at Hearing Ms. Readler asked if the record should be limited to the testimony at the PZC hearing, and that any additional evidence must be related to comments and concerns raised at that hearing. Mr. Smith suggested the language be revised to indicate any additional evidence must be limited to clarification of points raised in the record. Is that the consensus of Council? Council concurred. Ms. Readler noted that the language would be tightened accordingly. • Maiority versus Super Maiority Vote Requirement Mr. Readler stated that the draft ordinance provision for Council's vote is that on both the motion of whether to hear an appeal and the motion to approve or disapprove modifications, a simple majority is necessary. Would Council prefer to make that a super majority in either instance? A simple majority is the majority of Council members present. A super majority is a requirement for five votes, regardless of how many are present. Council consensus was for a simple majority to suffice in both cases. • Filing Fee Requirement Mr. Gerber stated that he supports a filing fee be required. Ms. Readler inquired if the fee would also be required for initially filing for consideration. Mr. Smith stated that his recommendation would be that there would be a fee imposed only if Council decides to hear the appeal. Council concurred. Ms. Readler inquired if Council members have any other issues to raise regarding the legislation. Recommendation Mr. Reiner inquired Council members' interest in pursuing this type of legislation. Community Development Committee of the Whole February 14, 2011 Page 7 of 7 Mr. Gerber stated that the previous discussion and position of Council was to be supportive of the PZC's decisions. However, in recent years, there seems to be a growing trend for applicant appeals. So perhaps this legislation is necessary. Mr. Smith noted that he envisions the process would be used rarely. This legislation would provide Council the option. Council can still refuse to hear an appeal and allow the case to proceed to court. Council members expressed unanimous support for pursuing the legislation. Mr. Reiner requested that the language be revised per tonight's discussion and provided to Council for review. Mr. Smith stated that the revised ordinance would be provided to Council in an interim packet. It can be reviewed at the next Council meeting, and then forwarded to PZC for review and a recommendation to Council. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that her recommendation is that when the legislation is heard by PZC, the Commission should engage in a thorough discussion in one evening, then forward a recommendation to Council without delay to avoid the potential for more court cases. Mr. Smith noted that there are a couple of developers who are monitoring the status of this proposed legislation in relation to pending cases. The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Clerk of Council RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council January 24, 2011 Page 8 Held 20 This proposal includes two parcels that coincide with the two phases of development. The first phase consists of the northern parcel of 11.8 acres and will include 100 units, the eastern half of the three -story buildings and the community center. The southern parcel is 5.2 acres and will be developed with the second phase of the project. The final plat also includes 2.6 acres of dedicated right -of -way for the new public road, Avondale Woods Boulevard (1.19 acres), which will provide access to the site. Right - of -way is also dedicated to the City of Dublin for the future improvement of Avery Road (1.5 acres). The Avery Road right -of -way will be dedicated to the City of Columbus when they are prepared to make improvements to Avery Road in this area. Columbus has not indicated a timeline for this improvement. Therefore, for the time being, the land will be dedicated to the City of Dublin. The traffic study for this development determined that turn lanes are required. A northbound left turn lane onto Avondale Woods Boulevard and a southbound right turn lane onto Avondale Woods Boulevard are needed. A stop sign will be placed on Avondale Woods Boulevard itself. The final plat includes bikepath easements along the northeast and south site boundaries, which will help reinforce the regional bicycle connections in this portion of the City. A stormwater management system is being proposed, ultimately to provide stormwater management for the surrounding area — the overall 140 acre tract. In the meantime, a stormwater management easement is provided to the north of the development site itself. The Commission recommended City Council approval of the final plat with the following two conditions: 1) That a bikepath easement be provided along the south property line; and 2) That the applicant coordinate with the property owner and Planning to finalize the new public street name prior to the final plat proceeding to City Council. All conditions have been met on the revised plans. Mrs. Boring noted that the City has asked developers to install fencing around the drip line of trees to prevent damage to existing trees during the development phase. Can this be incorporated into the conditions? Ms. Ray stated that tree protection fencing is proposed for this application with the final development plan. This should address the concern. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher moved approval of the final plat. Mr. Gerber seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes. • Appeals Process to City Council for Administrative Decisions of Planning & Zoning Commission Mr. Smith stated that a memo has been provided by Legal staff, as well as a draft ordinance. The draft includes a number of questions to be considered. Legal staff has been working on this for some period of time with the goal of providing this to Council in February. He recalls that Mr. Gerber had requested that this be brought forward so that it could be referred to the Community Development Committee for recommendation to Council. There are some policy issues involved, and more discussion is needed — either by a Committee or by Council tonight. Ultimately, the ordinance would be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission, but clear policy direction from Council is needed. This would significantly change the way that City conducts business; will provide Council with more control over managing litigation; will afford Council with the discretion to hear all matters; and facilitate handling of these matters more quickly and less expensively. Mr. Gerber stated that referral to Committee is his desire, but he is not certain of the other Council's members' intent. The draft is well done and thorough. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council January 24, 2011 Meeting Page 9 Vice Mayor Salay noted she did not recall that Council intended to refer this to the Community Development Committee. Perhaps a Committee of the Whole would be appropriate, as all of Council is very interested in this topic. It is a serious policy issue and needs input from all members. Mr. Smith added that the Planning staff would like to have input as well. It can be scheduled on an upcoming agenda, if Council desires. Vice Mayor Salay suggested this would be an appropriate topic for a study or workshop format. Mr. Reiner agreed. Mr. Smith and Ms. Grigsby agreed. Mrs. Boring suggested that this be reviewed in a Community Development Committee of the Whole, with Mr. Reiner as Chair.. Vice Mayor Salay agreed that this could be a Community Development Committee of the Whole meeting, with Mr. Reiner chairing it. Ms. Grigsby stated that staff would identify some dates for this meeting in the near future. STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Grigsby noted: 1. The packet included a memo regarding the leisure pool resurfacing. Staff plans to bring forward legislation at the next meeting requesting that Council waive the competitive bidding requirements, based on this information. 2. Earlier tonight, there was reference to the City of Dublin being named as one of the Top Seven International Intelligent Communities. 3. At the February 14 meeting, staff plans to have an Engineering presentation on the Brand Road multi -use path and bike lane preliminary alignment. 4. In the Council follow -up memo in the packet, there is reference made to the changes implemented to address the concerns expressed about the traffic signal timing at Emerald and Perimeter. Vice Mayor Salay noted that she has observed that 10 or more cars have been able to make the turn movement now. This has substantially improved the movement of traffic in this location. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS /COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Mr. Keenan that the packet included an update on the Emerald Ash borer in the street trees in various neighborhoods. Is the City taking any measures related to the mature Emerald ash trees in the woodland areas of the City? Mr. Hahn responded that the City is currently not taking any such action. The current program relates to the stand -alone specimen grade landscape trees. Mr. Keenan asked if the older trees are more or less at risk. Mr. Hahn responded that, typically, any pest preys upon weakened trees — whether mature or newly planted. Mr. Keenan suggested that perhaps trees of a certain circumference or size could be identified and treated if needed. Mr. Hahn responded that staff can provide more comprehensive information. There are some rare subspecies of ash in the woodlands that may warrant protection. Mr. Reiner commented favorably regarding the City being named again to the Top Seven Intelligent Communities list. Mr. McDaniel responded that this year's focus was on health and wellness. The City has some great initiatives underway in this area, and so staff decided to reapply this year. Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher: 1. Noted that she and Ms. Grigsby attended the MORPC Board meeting last week. The EcoSummit of the world will be held in Columbus in 2012. This is an extraordinary opportunity for MORPC, Ohio State and others that applied to Attachment 7 Specific Land Use Limitations I of Dublin ty ATTACHMENT 7: Protection of Existing Uses and Structures Council requested more information regarding specific land uses that will be permitted (as conditional uses) in the BSC Commercial district; specifically the three uses noted in a memo from David Dixon (dated January 12, 2012) as 'less appropriate' along Bridge Street /Dublin- Granville Road: • Fueling /service stations • Vehicle sales, rental and repair • Sexually- oriented business establishments (see Law Director's memo) BSC Commercial District Intent The BSC Commercial district is intended to accommodate uses and development intensities that will transition from the lower density development outside the Bridge Street Corridor to the urban development character envisioned for the core of the BSC. Two principal issues are of concern for the areas proposed for BSC Commercial in the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommended zoning map along West Dublin- Granville Road, east of the Shoppes at River Ridge. First, the BSC Commercial district permits the Commercial Center Building Type, a low- density, single -story building with a larger amount of parking permitted along the street frontage. While these uses and development intensities are appropriate in specific locations, allowing a long, linear expanse of this development form (regardless of land use) along additional portions of West Dublin- Granville Road will permit a traditional, 'suburban strip' retail development pattern that is inconsistent with the Vision Report. Second allowing the extension of BSC Commercial district (again, regardless of land use) will detract from the creation of a high-visibility 'address corridor' as described in the BSC Vision Report. This is a key point raised by David Dixon in his memo to the City: IT ... creating a cohesive walkable environment, rather than piecemeal redevelopment, would spur new investment of office and related jobso producing development —in effect, all property owners on and near Bridge Street will benefit from consistent zoning, appropriate zoning. " Accordingly, Planning has focused its recommended zoning not on what uses may be permitted, but on the location of those uses (and associated building types), and on the creation of the premier address street for West Dublin- Granville Road as first proposed in the Vision Report. Design of Fueling /Service Stations Fueling /service stations are proposed as a conditional use in the BSC Commercial district, with use specific standards to ensure that fuel pumps are located to the rear or side of a permitted building type and are appropriately buffered from streets and adjacent properties. With these design criteria, the impacts of this use on community character can be appropriately managed. This use will provide a needed service in limited portions of the Corridor, particularly in transitional areas, consistent with Planning's recommended locations for the BSC Commercial district. Attachment 7 — Limitation of Specific Uses Page 1 of 2 Memo re. Limitation of specific land uses in the Bridge Street Corridor, including fueling stations and sexually- oriented business establishments March 2, 2012 Page 2 of 2 Vehicle Sales, Rental and Repair These uses require a conditional use approval in the BSC Commercial district, with use specific standards to minimize street frontage of outdoor vehicle display areas. As with fueling stations, the sale, rental and repair of vehicles are appropriate transitional uses, consistent with the intent of the BSC Commercial district. In particular, vehicle rentals may become a desirable service in the future, should residents within the Bridge Street Corridor find it less necessary to own a personal automobile. Recommendation Planning recommends the land uses described above remain as conditional uses in the BSC Commercial district, and the extent of the BSC Commercial district be limited to the locations previously proposed by Planning for the purposes of preventing a suburban style strip development and to create a premier address street for West Dublin- Granville Road. Attachment 7 — Limitation of Specific Uses Page 1 of 2 Attachment 8 Information re. Sexually- Oriented Business Establishments I of Dublin ty Page 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Dublin City Council FROM: Stephen J. Smith Jennifer Readler Chris W. Michael DATE: February 29, 2012 VIM of Sexuallv Oriented Businesses Introduction A question has been raised as to whether Dublin may restrict sexually oriented businesses from operating within the Bridge Street Corridor. While it is clear that municipalities may restrict sexually oriented businesses to a certain degree, Dublin must be sure that such a restriction does not impermissibly infringe on First Amendment protections of sexually explicit expression. Accordingly, Dublin desires to gain a greater understanding regarding whether it may restrict sexually oriented businesses from operating within the Bridge Street Corridor, the degree to which it may restrict these uses, and the procedure for doing so. Summary Dublin may restrict sexually oriented businesses from operating within the Bridge Street Corridor so long as it leaves open reasonable alternative avenues of communication for sexually oriented businesses within Dublin. When determining whether reasonable alternative avenues are available, Dublin should consider the following: If classifying sexually oriented businesses as a conditional use, the City must expediently review the application, and adhere to clear decision - making guidelines. • Dublin will need to enact subsequent legislation allowing sexually oriented businesses to operate in other zoning districts in order to restrict them from the Bridge Street Corridor. Separation restrictions, such as 750 feet from any residential district, must be reviewed when determining the amount of land that must be available for potential use by sexually oriented businesses. Attachment 8 — Information re. Sexually- Oriented Business Establishments Page 1 of 5 Page 2 Sexually Oriented Business Ordinances & Regulations A. Zoning Restrictions on Operation of Sexually Oriented Businesses A municipality can control the incursion of sexually oriented businesses ( "SOB ") by regulation pursuant to the municipality's police powers for the health, safety and welfare of its citizens. In City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986), the United States Supreme Court outlined a multi - pronged test for determining whether a zoning ordinance regulating adults -only businesses violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court held that "content- neutral" time, place, and manner regulations are acceptable so long as they are designed to serve a substantial governmental interest and allow for reasonable alternative avenues of communication. Id. at 50. In Renton, the Court opined that a substantial governmental interest cannot be aimed at the content of the material involved, but may address the secondary effects of sexually oriented businesses. Id. at 49. Some examples of legitimate governmental interests include protecting societal norms, promotion of the general welfare, discipline, and peace and good order, preventing degradation, and preventing prostitution and pandering. Further, under Renton, it is not necessary that the sites in which a City permits location of adults -only businesses be economically viable; all that is required is that a City not foreclose persons who desire to operate such establishments from a reasonable opportunity to open such a facility in the city. Id. at 53 -54. While the Supreme Court has not articulated a bright -line test for determining whether a zoning ordinance restricting SOBS leaves open reasonable alternative avenues of communication, courts have generally held that an ordinance meets this threshold so long as it does not result in a complete ban of SOBS from the jurisdiction. Ordinances that require SOBS to be separated from other uses and/or limited to certain zoning areas have been upheld by various courts. See S & G News, Inc. v. Southgate, 638 F.Supp. 1060 (E.D. Mich. 1986), aff d without op. 819 F.2d 1142 (6th Cir.) (upholding City ordinance restricting SOBS since adult uses were permitted in C -3 commercial districts, which comprised 2.3% of the land area of the city); Plaza Group Properties, LLC v. Spencer Cty. Plan Comm'n, 877 N.E.2d 877 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (upholding county ordinance that restricted SOBS from operating within 1,000 feet of a residence because at least 34 alternative sites were available within the county on which an SOB could operate in compliance with the ordinance). However, similar ordinances that are more restrictive have been struck down by Ohio courts. See Wolfe v. Brice, 997 F.Supp. 939 (S.D. Ohio 1998) (holding that village ordinance that prohibited adult uses within 1,000 feet of churches and schools and 300 feet of any residential area effected a complete ban on adult uses within the village that violated the First Amendment); Brookpark News & Books, Inc. v. Cleveland, 66 Ohio App.3d 613, 585 N.E.2d 908 (8th Dist. 1990) (holding that a City ordinance that effectively limited the availability of adult uses to 3.6 acres in a city comprising 48,384 acres was unreasonable and violated the First Amendment). Attachment 8 — Information re. Sexually- Oriented Business Establishments Page 2 of 5 Page 3 Currently, SOBS are permitted uses in the Community Commercial District. The Community Commercial District will be effectively eliminated if the Bridge Street Code and subsequent rezonings are adopted. The proposed Bridge Street Code allows SOBS as conditional uses in the BSC Commercial district. If SOBS are eliminated in the Bridge Street Code, subsequent legislation will need to be introduced to permit SOBS in some manner in other zoning districts. While not entirely clear, some courts have required approximately 2% of a City's total land area be available for SOBS. As a result, if SOBS are eliminated in the Bridge Street Code and the Code and rezonings are adopted, Staff will need to review other possible locations for SOBS in Dublin and return to Council with legislation B. Licensing Requirements for Sexually Oriented Businesses Licensing requirements of SOBS have been upheld by various courts. Although any licensing requirement could be viewed as an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech, if there are sufficient safeguards, courts have upheld certain licensing requirements. hi the case of FW /PBS, Inc. v. City ofDallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990), the United States Supreme Court set forth three requirements for licensing ordinances governing sexually oriented businesses: • The regulation cannot place unbridled discretion in the hands of a government official or agency. • The licensor must decide whether to issue or deny the license within a specified and reasonable period of time. • There must be the possibility of prompt judicial review in the event that the license is erroneously denied. If a City requires an SOB to obtain a permit or license, it must be prepared to have a substantial justification for the requirement. These license requirements could be justified as being necessary to reduce or eliminate the secondary adverse impacts associated with adult uses, to facilitate the monitoring of adult uses, and to ensure that adult uses are established, managed, and operated in a legal manner at all times, among other reasons. The status quo must be maintained during the licensing process. The status quo for an existing business is to continue to operate during the licensing process. The status quo for a business seeking to obtain a permit is non - operation. C. Conditional Use Permits Similar to licensing requirements, various courts have upheld municipal ordinances that require an SOB to acquire a conditional use permit. In ATS Melbourne, Inc. v. Melbourne, 475 So.2d 1257 (F1a.App.1985), the Florida Court of Appeals upheld the validity of a City ordinance that restricted adult businesses to limited commercial zones, and required the businesses to Attachment 8 — Information re. Sexually- Oriented Business Establishments Page 3 of 5 Page 4 obtain a conditional use permit. The court stated that the zoning ordinance did not significantly restrict the locations in which adult businesses could operate, and that such businesses were expressly permitted in three zones. Id. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has also upheld a zoning ordinance that restricted adult businesses to light industrial zones and a portion of the city's central business district so long as the business obtained a conditional use permit. Lakeland Lounge, Inc. v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1255 (5th Cir.1992). The court concluded that the ordinance was valid as it provided reasonable alternative avenues of communication. Id. Further, the fact that some of the available alternative locations may have been undesirable for economic reasons did not matter. Id. Nevertheless, in Dia v. Toledo, 937 F. Supp. 673 (N.D. Ohio 1996), the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Ohio questioned the validity of a City's ordinance that limited adult uses and required a special use [conditional use] permit because the ordinance failed to comply with the licensing requirements articulated in FW /PBS, Inc. v. City ofDallas, supra. Id. Specifically, the ordinance failed to prescribe a timeline for rendering a decision regarding the permit, or provide for a method to compel the City to render such a decision. Id. As such, the ordinance resulted in an impermissible virtual ban on all adult entertainment centers within the city. Id. Consequently, any conditional use review of SOBS would need to be promptly made. Positive & Negative Consequences of Regulating Sexually Oriented Businesses Special license or permit requirements for sexually oriented businesses can be justified for a number of reasons. For example, the regulations can be required to reduce or eliminate the secondary adverse impacts associated with adult uses, to facilitate the monitoring of adult uses, and to ensure that adult uses are established and operated in a safe and legal manner. Courts will overturn licensing or permit requirements if the only apparent reason for them is to suppress the speech involved. Sexually oriented businesses may argue that they must be allowed to operate in certain zoning districts without first obtaining a permit. Given the many licensing requirements that have been upheld by courts, it is debatable as to whether this argument would succeed as long as a municipality imposes reasonable time restrictions for issuing the required permit. One of the negative consequences of allowing sexually oriented businesses in enumerated zoning districts as of right is that, according to some reports, the grouping of sexually oriented businesses in one area can exacerbate the adverse effect that these uses have on a community. However, if such uses are not permitted as of right, subject to reasonable regulations, SOBS can allege a violation of their First Amendment rights. Current zoning districts should be reviewed by any City to determine what districts a sexually operated business could operate in with the least amount of disruption. A City could explicitly allow sexually oriented businesses to operate in certain districts, such as industrial or commercial regions, subject to reasonable regulation. Without such explicit provisions, sexually Attachment 8 — Information re. Sexually- Oriented Business Establishments Page 4 of 5 Page 5 oriented businesses could argue that they should be allowed to locate in the same regions as other providers of whatever they list as their primary service. For example, an exotic dancing cabaret could argue that, because it offers food and drinks, it should be allowed to locate in any zoning district in which a restaurant or tavern could locate. Or, an adult bookstore could argue that it should be allowed to locate anywhere a bookstore can locate. Reasonable regulations can further limit permissible locations, such as a sexually oriented business cannot locate within 500 yards of a school, residence, church, etc. However, a City must be careful to allow alternative avenues of communication to a sexually oriented business. Conclusion Municipalities may regulate sexually oriented businesses via zoning legislation so long as the legislation complies with the three -part test set forth in Renton. So long as sexually oriented businesses are permitted to operate within a defined location or zone, municipal zoning regulations will generally be upheld. It is only when a regulation actually or effectively bans sexually oriented businesses entirely that it will deemed unreasonable. This determination is often a factual inquiry that is specific to the municipality. Therefore, in order to restrict sexually oriented businesses from operating within the Bridge Street Corridor, Dublin will have to introduce subsequent legislation that allows SOBS to locate in some manner in other zoning districts. Attachment 8 — Information re. Sexually- Oriented Business Establishments Page 5 of 5 ORDINANCE 07 -12 1 5t and 2nd reading MEETING MATERIALS FOLLOW City of Dublin Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 -1090 Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490 To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Marsha I. Grigsby, City Manager \ t` Date: February 23, 2012 Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning Re: Ordinance 07 -12 — Adding Sections 153.057 through 153.066 to the City of Dublin Codified Ordinances (Zoning Code) to Establish the New Bridge Street Corridor Zoning Districts, Development Standards and Approval Process, and Amending Section 153.002 of the City of Dublin Codified Ordinances (Zoning Code) to Add and Modify Definitions. (Case 11- 020ADM) Update Ordinance 07 -12 was introduced for first reading at the February 13, 2012, City Council meeting. Council members requested additional information regarding the review and approval process for development applications in the Bridge Street Corridor. At first reading, Council was presented with two recommendations regarding the review procedures in the Bridge Street Corridor Development Standards (Code Section 153.066): one from the Planning and Zoning Commission, which includes a higher degree of Commission involvement in the review procedures; and a second option recommended by the City Administration that places greater emphasis on project review and decision by the Administrative Review Team. Each option is subject to review and decision- making timelines to allow for expedited project review and ensure that the City's "speed to build" objectives are achieved. The following overview summarizes each step provided in Section 153.066 of the draft regulations and how each step may be administered under the two options of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Administration. Review and Approval Process Pre - Application: Administrative Review Team (ART) 14 days A "Pre- Application Review" is intended to allow a potential applicant to receive non - binding review of a development proposal from the ART and is required prior to the submission of a request for Basic Plan Review for any future Development Plan or Site Plan Review applications. Pre - Application Review meetings are permitted and will be encouraged prior to the submission of any application for development in the Bridge Street Corridor. The Pre - Application Review allows the ART and the applicant to ensure that all application requirements are adequately addressed in any application submission, which is critical to ensuring that all necessary information is available to maintain the expedited timelines for application review. The ART is required to schedule the Pre - Application Review meeting with the applicant within 14 days of receiving the request for a meeting. Following the Pre - Application Review, the applicant may proceed with submitting an application for Basic Plan Review. Normally, the pre - application meeting would include information for the applicant as to the review procedure that will be followed. Under the Commission's option this will not be possible. Instead, Memo re. Ord. 07 -12 Bridge Street Corridor Districts Zoning Code Amendment February 23, 2012 Page 2 of 3 the ART must tell the applicant that the actual review process will not be determined until the Commission makes that determination with the Basic Plan Review. Basic Plan Review: Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) 28 days The application process under either option (PZC or ART) includes a "Basic Plan Review." The Basic Plan Review is an opportunity for the Commission, with comments from the ART, to provide guidance to the applicant as to the City's standards and desired outcome with regard to the development proposal. The meeting is publicly noticed to nearby property owners, and a decision must be made within the 28 -day timeframe in either case. The principal differences between the two recommended procedures are summarized below: • Under the PZC's recommended process, following the Basic Plan Review, the Commission would vote to determine whether final review and approval for Site Plan Review or Development Plan Review applications would be conducted by the Planning and Zoning Commission or the ART, based on criteria in the Code. The Commission felt strongly that an additional public review process would be needed in the Corridor for projects meeting certain criteria, and that reviews should be conducted in a public setting and not in an administrative capacity. • The ART option would place further reviews in the administrative process. The administrative process includes options for forwarding applications to the Commission for either a full review (where the project includes major public improvements or significant community -wide impacts) or review of specific Waivers to particular requirements of the Code. The Administration's recommendation is based on some givens about the use of form based codes. Below is a comment from one of the attorneys that reviewed the Code and process for their client that captures well the intent of the Staff recommendation: "The whole point of a formed based code is to put the focus on complying with the form. Therefore there should not be a big public discussion about a project in which the form is followed. The public input has already taken place when the formed based code is approved; in other words the public and the planning commission has determined what is in the public interest by approving the form based code. From a developer /owner perspective the trade off of being required to comply with potentially more expensive building materials, frontage on the street with parking in the rear, etc. is that you get quick approval without being subjected to a lengthy public debate over whether your use (as opposed to the form) is positive. If the planning commission change is allowed to stand then the city is taking away the best part of this code from the developer /owner perspective. All you have done now is make it more expensive and lengthy to get what you get from a Euclid based zoning code." Development Plan and /or Site Plan Review (PZC or AR7) 28 days The Administration supports a review procedure that is consistent with the objectives that were previously set forth by City Council. The recommended process would require an initial review by the Planning and Zoning Commission with a Basic Plan Review, including public notification and input. Following the Basic Plan Review, final review and approval would be conducted by the ART, with certain exceptions. The review process recommended by the Administration would ensure Memo re. Ord. 07 -12 Bridge Street Corridor Districts Zoning Code Amendment February 23, 2012 Page 3 of 3 timely and predictable reviews for development applications, while providing opportunity for public review and comment during the early phases of development. Another aspect of the review by the Commission is meeting the time limits imposed by the Code. The Commission meets twice a month, and the review process recommended by the Commission requires a 10 day public notification, which effectively will permit only one meeting in which the Commission must make its decision. The complexity and level of technical detail that will be provided during the Development Plan and Site Plan Review stages is significant. If the Commission is unable to come to a resolution with the applicant at a single meeting, there must either be a disapproval vote, or an agreement with the applicant to extend the time deadlines. The ART is set up to meet every week and can react within a few days of receiving an application and will be able to have multiple meetings if needed and stay within the required 28 day review period. Each of the affected divisions (Parks and Open Space, Fire, Police, Planning, Engineering, and Building Standards) are developing an internal review and decision making process that will ensure a quick and coordinated reaction to applicant needs. Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission The Planning and Zoning Commission provided extensive review and feedback regarding the Bridge Street Corridor Districts regulations on the draft regulations dated October 6, 2011, with minor modifications and enhancements recommended on the two subsequent drafts (dated December 16, 2011 and January 2012). The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended approval to City Council of the Bridge Street Corridor Districts regulations with their recommended review and approval procedures at their February 2, 2012 meeting. Recommendation Staff recommends City Council approval of Ordinance 07 -12 with the modified review and approval procedures as recommended by the City Administration. A modified version of Section 153.066 of the Code can be prepared for Council's consideration if desired. Office of the City Manager City of Dublin Phone: 614 - 410.4400- Fax:b614 -0410 -4490 1090 To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Marsha I. Grigsby, City Manager W Date: February 9, 2012 Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning Memo Re: Ordinance 07 -12 — Adding Sections 153.057 through 153.066 to the City of Dublin Codified Ordinances (Zoning Code) to Establish the New Bridge Street Corridor Zoning Districts, Development Standards and Approval Process, and Amending Section 153.002 of the City of Dublin Codified Ordinances (Zoning Code) to Add and Modify Definitions.(Case 11- 020ADM) Background The Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report establishes a vision for a vibrant, walkable environment at the center of the City, with a dynamic mix of land uses and housing types that enhances the City's long -term sustainability and fiscal health while preserving and highlighting the natural features that tie the Corridor together. Following Council's adoption of the Vision Report on October 25, 2010, City Council directed staff to prepare a strategy for implementation, which included establishing special development regulations that would set the stage for implementing the vision. The Bridge Street Corridor Districts' regulations are unique, innovative, and specifically tailored to address the special development conditions of the Bridge Street Corridor. The proposed Zoning Code amendments align with the Vision Principles of the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report and ensure that development is coordinated with the expected street network and infrastructure for the Corridor. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the draft Bridge Street Corridor Districts' regulations at a series of regular and special meetings held between October 13, 2011 and February 2, 2012. The Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation to City Council includes the Zoning Code amendment and an area rezoning map (refer to Ordinance 08 -12) to align properties in the Bridge Street Corridor with the new Code requirements. Bridge Street Corridor Districts Regulations Summary The Bridge Street Corridor Zoning Code amendments are written to respond to the needs of today's property owners, while providing the necessary foundation to allow development that implements the vision for the Bridge Street Corridor put forth by the Dublin City Council. The Code amendment comprises Sections 153.057 through 153.066 of Chapter 153 of the City of Dublin Code of Ordinances (the Zoning Code), in addition to amendments to Zoning Code Section 153.002 for new and modified definitions. Refer to the attached Planning Report dated February 2, 2012 for more information about the specific Bridge Street Corridor Districts regulations. Memo re. Ord. 07 -12 Bridge Street Corridor Districts Zoning Code Amendment February 9, 2012 Page 2 of 2 Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission The Planning and Zoning Commission provided extensive review and feedback regarding the Bridge Street Corridor Districts draft regulations dated October 6, 2011, with minor modifications and enhancements recommended on the two subsequent drafts (dated December 16, 2011 and January 2012). The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Bridge Street Corridor Districts regulations to City Council at its February 2, 2012 meeting. Of particular note are the draft Code provisions forwarded by the Planning and Zoning Commission that include review procedures that authorize the Commission to vote on a review process at the Basic Plan Review. The vote would determine whether final review and approval for development applications would be conducted by the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Administrative Review Team (ART). The Commission felt strongly that a more public review process would be needed in the Corridor and that reviews should be conducted in a public setting and not in an administrative capacity. The Administration supports a review procedure that is consistent with the objectives that were previously set forth by City Council. The recommended process would require an initial review by the Planning and Zoning Commission with a Basic Plan Review, including public notification and input. Following the Basic Plan Review, final review and approval would be conducted by the ART, with certain exceptions. The administrative review process as recommended by the Administration would ensure timely and predictable reviews for development applications, while providing opportunity for public review and comment during the early phases of development. Recommendation Planning recommends City Council approval of Ordinance 07 -12 at the second reading /public hearing on February 27, 2012 with the modified review and approval procedures as recommended by staff. RECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Ordinance No. Passed 20 AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTIONS 153.057 THROUGH 153.066 TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN CODIFIED ORDINANCES (ZONING CODE) TO ESTABLISH THE NEW BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR ZONING DISTRICTS, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND APPROVAL PROCESS, AND AMENDING SECTION 153.002 OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN CODIFIED ORDINANCES (ZONING CODE) TO ADD AND MODIFY DEFINITIONS. (CASE 11- 020ADM) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, of its elected members concurring, that: WHEREAS, it is necessary from time to time to amend Dublin's Zoning Code to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Dublin; and WHEREAS, the proposed regulations crafted for the Bridge Street Corridor require development that is vibrant, high - quality, pedestrian- oriented, and consistent with the Vision Principles stated in the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report adopted by Dublin City Council on October 25, 2010; and WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning Code amendments align with the planning themes and objectives for the Bridge Street Corridor and ensure that development is coordinated with the expected street network and infrastructure and for the entire Corridor; and WHEREAS, proposed Sections 153.057- 153.066 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances are unique, innovative, and tailored to address the special development conditions present in the Bridge Street Corridor; and WHEREAS, the City's desired goal is to create zoning districts that set high quality design and development requirements to ensure that buildings and uses in the districts will adhere to uniform provisions that address the unique needs of specialized industries and uses while ensuring consistency with the high quality image of the City; and WHEREAS, amended Section 153.002 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances provides for updated and current definitions for terms used within the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed Ordinance on October 13 and 20, 2011; November 3 and 10, 2011; December 1 and 8, 2011; January 5, 12, 19, and 24, 2012; and recommended its adoption on February 2, 2012 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 153.002 of the City of Dublin Zoning Code is hereby amended and shall provide as follows: § 153.002 DEFINITIONS For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning, as determined by the Director. (A) Uses Defmitions (1) Uses Definitions — A 07 -12 (a) Accessory Structure or Building RECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043 07 -12 Page 2 of 38 Ordinance No. Passed . 20 A subordinate structure or building, the use of which is incidental to and customarily used in connection with the principal structure or use and which is located on the same lot with the principal structure or use. (b) Accessory Use A subordinate use which is incidental to and customarily used in connection with the principal structure or use and which is located on the same lot with a principal structure or use, unless otherwise permitted by this chapter. (c) Animal Care General Services A facility providing grooming, daycare, boarding, and training for household pets. 2. Veterinary Offices A facility for medical, dental, or other health services related to the diagnosis and treatment of animals' illnesses, injuries, and physical ailments, but not including crematory services. 3. Veterinary Urgent Care and Animal Hospitals A facility for emergency care for the treatment of animal illnesses, injuries, or physical ailments, but not including crematory services. (d) ATM, Walk -Up An automated teller machine installed on the exterior face of a building accessible only by pedestrians. (e) Attached Accessory Use /Structure Any use and/or structure that is integrated visually, structurally and architecturally with the principal structure, has an attached roof with similar design to the principal structure, permits access between the principal structure and the addition either internally or under the roof, and/or shares a common wall with the principal structure or is connected to the principal structure by an enclosed space. (f) Auto - oriented Commercial Facility A facility where a service is rendered or a sales transaction is made while the patron is typically not required to exit a vehicle, or a facility that includes services rendered directly on, to, or for vehicles. Auto - oriented commercial facilities include, but are not limited to establishments with drive- in/drive- through services, drive -up ATMs (automated teller machines), car washes (all types), fueling/service stations, facilities specializing in vehicle maintenance (oil changes, installation of car accessories, and other similar minor vehicle service facilities), and stand -alone parking lots. The sale of vehicles (new or used) is not included within this definition. (2) Uses Definitions — B (a) Bed and Breakfast A private home providing accommodations to the traveling public in habitable units for compensation, and is generally limited to short-stay facilities. This use includes the provision of related accessory and incidental services such as eating and drinking, meeting rooms, and the sale of gifts and convenience goods. (b) Bicycle Facilities Any amenity or element including, but not limited to, bicycle racks, lockers, and showers intended for use by either recreational or commuter cyclists. RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordinance No. Im Form No. 30043 07 -12 (3) Uses Definitions — C Page 3 of 38 Passed 20 (a) Civic Use A use in a building or location that provides for community meetings and/or activities including, but not limited to, government administration, school administration, recreation center (public or private), Chamber of Commerce, Arts Council, public library, or other public buildings owned or operated by the City. (b) Community Activity An activity that is open to the general public and sponsored by a public, private nonprofit or religious organization that is educational, cultural, or recreational in nature. This use includes but is not limited to school plays and church fairs. (See also Special Event.) (c) Community Center A public or not - for -profit facility offering meeting, activity, and/or recreation space and facilities that is available to the public with or without a fee charged. This definition may include space within a commercially used building, provided that the facility is available to the public. (d) Community Garden An area for cultivation of fruits, flowers, vegetables, or ornamental plants by more than one person or family generally organized and managed by a public or not - for -profit organization. Incidental sales are permitted. (e) Conference Center A facility designed to accommodate and support meetings or conferences. The facility may be either freestanding or incorporated into a hotel or office facility, and may include eating and drinking facilities but excluding overnight lodging if not part of a hotel. (f) Construction and Contract Service Trades Facilities used for the repair of machinery, equipment, products or by- products. May include outdoor storage of materials, supplies or equipment as an accessory use. (g) Construction Trailer /Office A trailer or portable building used to provide temporary work space for construction management personnel during the construction of a building or facility. (h) Corporate Residence An accessory use integrated as part of a principal structure or in an accessory structure available in conjunction with a nonresidential use that provides temporary housing for personnel or visitors and is not available to the general public. (4) Uses Definitions — D (a) Data Center A facility with typically lower employee counts than general office uses that houses computer systems and associated data and is focused on the mass storage of data. (b) Day Care, Child or Adult RECORD OF ORDINANCES Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043 07 -12 Page 4 of 38 Ordinance No. Passed 20_ An adult day care facility offers social, recreational and health - related services in a protective setting to individuals who cannot be left alone during the day because of health care and social need, confusion or disability. A child day care is a facility providing non - medical care and supervision outside the home for minor children, provided the supervision is less than 24 hours per day and the facility is licensed by the State of Ohio. This definition includes preschools, nursery schools, and other similar facilities. (c) Dish Antenna An outside accessory antenna that is linked to a receiver located on the same lot and used for the reception of signals transmitted by stations licensed by the Federal Communications Commission in the Radio Broadcast Services including AM, FM and TV. (d) District Energy Plant A facility that is not a public utility and that generates electrical energy for distribution to a defined area containing 10 or more structures. (e) Drive- in/Drive- through A structure or building feature, including but not limited to a service window, automated device, or other equipment that is designed to provide sales and service to patrons who remain in their motor vehicles, including associated driveways and driving aisles by which patrons reach the structure or building feature. (f) Dwelling 1. Accessory Dwelling A dwelling unit for occupancy by an individual who is providing services to a principal use of the property, such as watchmen, maintenance personnel, or temporary guests, including corporate residences; or an accessory dwelling associated with a single - family dwelling, two - family dwelling, or townhouse dwelling. 2. Dwelling Administration, Rental, or Sales Offices A permanent or temporary building or office used to administer a building containing dwelling units or to market the rental or sale of dwelling units on or near the property within a defined development site. Live -Work Dwelling A structure including residential dwelling units connected with principal non - residential uses listed as Permitted Uses within a particular zoning district. The predominant character of the structure is intended to be harmonious with residential areas. 4. Multiple - Family Dwelling A building arranged or intended for three or more households living independently of each other in separate dwelling units, any two or more of which may be provided with a common entrance or hall. Dwellings located on upper stories of a structure with non - residential uses on other stories are included in the definition of multiple - family dwelling. 5. Single - Family Dwelling A detached or attached building arranged or designed to be occupied by one family, the structure having only one principal dwelling unit. 6. Townhouse RECORD OF ORDINANCES Blank, Inc. 07 -12 Page 5 of 38 Passed 20 Ordinance No. A building consisting of three or more dwelling units attached to each other through the use of shared party walls on one or both sides, with each unit having a ground floor and a separate entrance. 7. Two - Family Dwelling A building arranged or designed to be occupied by two families, the structure having only two dwelling units with separate entrances. (5) Uses Definitions — E (a) Eating & Drinking A facility that prepares or serves food or beverages directly to the public for on- or off - premise consumption. This use includes but is not limited to sit down or take -out restaurants, cafes or coffee shops, ice cream parlors, and may also include uses such as taverns, brewpubs, or wine bars. (b) Eating & Drinking (Accessory) Eating & drinking when accessory to a principal use of the property, and when the facilities are designed and intended for use primarily by residents or occupants of the principal use of the property. (c) Educational Facility A facility offering classes, training courses, or skill development to the public or to members of an organization. This use includes but is not limited to vocational, business, or technical schools, training centers, colleges, and universities, but does not include an elementary, middle, or high school. (d) Elementary or Middle School A facility providing education to students in kindergarten through 8th grades using a curriculum recognized by the State of Ohio, and including related assembly, sports, and activity areas, but not including facilities regularly used for housing or sleeping of students. (e) Entertainment/ Recreation, Indoor A facility or area providing opportunities for physical exercise, physical training or improvement of health for the general public or members of an organization. This use includes but is not limited to: theaters, bowling alleys, dance halls, game centers, gymnasiums, health clubs, exercise and fitness facilities, and climbing wall centers. (f) Essential Utility Services Facilities used to provide utility services to a building or property, including but not limited to water pipes, sewer pipes, electric lines and boxes, telecommunication lines or fiber optic equipment, gas regulator stations, and storm drainage pipes. This use does not include major utilities such as water or sewer treatment plants, electric generating plants, and other facilities that are primary rather than accessory uses of the sites on which they are located. Wireless communication facilities are also not included in this definition. (g) Exercise and Fitness A facility or area providing opportunities for exercise or fitness for the general public or members of an organization, including but not limited to health or exercise rooms and swimming pools, when accessory to a principal use of the property. (6) Uses Definitions — F (a) Farmers Market RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordinance No. 07 -12 Inc. Page 6 of 38 Passed . 20_ An area, which may or may not be in a completely enclosed building, where on designated days and times, growers and producers of horticultural and agricultural products may sell those products and/or other incidental items directly to the public. (b) Fueling/Service Station A facility used primarily for the sale of vehicle fuels, oils or accessories. Services may include maintenance and lubrication of automobiles and replacement or installation of minor parts and accessories but shall not include major repair work such as engine or transmission replacement, body and fender repair or spray painting. This use may include the retail sales of convenience goods. (7) Uses Definitions — G (a) Government Services 1. General A facility providing the administration of local, state, or federal government services or functions. 2. Safety A facility providing police, fire, or emergency medical services to the surrounding community. 3. Service A facility providing government services that includes vehicle and equipment parking and/or service or maintenance yards. (b) Group Residence A facility occupied by two or more individuals meeting the definition of handicapped in the federal Fair Housing Act Amendments, and living as a single housekeeping unit with shared common facilities. The facility may also provide food, shelter, personal care, assistance or supervision and supplemental health care services. For purposes of this definition, the term handicapped does not include persons currently using or addicted to alcohol or controlled substances who are not in a recognized recovery program, and does not include facilities or half -way houses for individuals in the criminal justice system. (8) Uses Definitions — H (a) Helipad/Heliports An aviation accessory devoted to the landing, takeoff and storing of helicopters. (b) High School A facility providing education to students from 9 through 12 grades using a curriculum recognized by the State of Ohio and including related assembly, sports and activity areas, but not facilities regularly used for the housing or sleeping of students. (c) Home Occupation A business or occupation incidental and subordinate to a principal residential use conducted within a dwelling. Examples include but are not limited to: artist's studio, office, teaching, or consultancy. (d) Hospital RECORD OF ORDINANCES Inc. Ordinance No. 07 -12 Passed Page 7 of 38 20 Any facility in which in- patients are provided diagnostic, medical, surgical, obstetrical, psychiatric, or rehabilitation care for a continuous period longer than 24 hours, or a medical facility operated by a health maintenance organization. (e) Hotel A building or series of buildings providing accommodations to the traveling public in habitable units for compensation, and includes but is not limited to both short-stay and extended stay facilities. This use includes the provision of related services such as eating and drinking, meeting rooms, and the sale of gifts, and convenience goods. (9) Uses Definitions — I (Reserved for future use) (10) Uses Definitions — J(Reserved for future use) (11) Uses Definitions — K(Reserved for future use) (12) Uses Definitions — L (a) Large Format Retail A retail or wholesale use of 20,000 square feet or more of gross floor area as a single use area. (b) Library, Museum, Gallery Facilities containing collections of books, manuscripts, and similar materials for study and reading, or exhibiting works of art or objects in one or more of the arts and sciences. (13) Uses Definitions — M (a) Manufacturing and Assembly A facility used for the fabrication, assembly, finishing, packaging or processing of components and/or finished goods. (b) Medical and Diagnostic Laboratory A facility for sampling, photographing, analyzing or testing bodily fluids and other medical specimens. These facilities may not include laboratories for the sole purpose of research. (c) Mini- Storage A facility of leased or owned structures available to the general public for the storage of goods. (d) Mixed Use A mixed use development consists of two or more principal uses such as residential and commercial uses, and where the arrangement of buildings and uses share internal and external vehicular and pedestrian circulation, open spaces, and other similar development features. A mixed use development may occur either vertically within a structure, or horizontally within multiple structures as part of a coordinated development. (e) Motor Vehicle Repair, Major A facility or area where major mechanical (engine, transmission or other major mechanical systems) or body work is conducted on vehicles and /or trailers. (14) Uses Definitions — N RECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Ordinance No. 07 -12 Page 8 of 38 Passed . 20_ (15) Uses Definitions — O (a) Office 1. Call Center A facility providing customer service or sales requests by telecommunication or other data means. 2. Flex A facility including office, research, laboratory, manufacturing, clean assembly, warehousing, or other related activities whose configurations and construction methods allow for easy conversion of interior and exterior space. 3. General A facility providing executive, management, administrative, or professional services. This use includes corporate offices, law offices, architectural firms, insurance companies and other executive, management or administrative offices for businesses or corporations. General office uses may include the administration of local, state, or federal government services or functions. This facility does not include medical offices, call centers, or flex offices. 4. Medical A facility providing medical, dental, or other health services relating to the diagnosis and treatment of human illnesses, injuries, and physical ailments treated in an office setting. This includes outpatient surgery, rehabilitation, incidental laboratories and other related activities, but does not include overnight patient stays. (b) Outdoor Dining and Seating An area accessory to an eating and drinking facility or a retail business in which food and beverages are served, offered for sale, or are available for consumption outside of the principal structure. (c) Outdoor Display or Seasonal Sales The display of goods outside the principal structure on the site for the purpose of marketing or sales for a temporary period of time typically not exceeding three months in any calendar year, when accessory to a principal use of the property. (d) Outdoor Seasonal Plant Display An area adjacent to a retail business that, as an outdoor accessory use, displays live garden plant material for sale by the adjacent principal retail business. Display may include live plants such as flowers and trees suitable for planting or landscaping. (e) Outdoor Service Facility If not otherwise defined as Outdoor Seasonal Plant Display, an area that is not fully enclosed by solid walls and a roof and where services are rendered or goods are displayed, sold, or stored. Outdoor service facilities may include, but are not limited to outdoor dining areas, restaurant patios, outdoor storage areas, open -air markets, garden stores, and stand -alone parking lots. (16) Uses Definitions — P (a) Parks and Open Space Public or private land that has been identified for active or passive parks or property to be left in a generally natural state. RECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043 07 -12 Page 9 of 38 Ordinance No. Passed 20_ (b) Parking 1. Municipal Parking A parking lot or structure owned or controlled by the City of Dublin or other public entity available for use by the general public. 2. Parking, Accessory Parking that is provided to comply with minimum off-street parking requirements in this Chapter for a principal use of the property or a designated nearby property, and that is provided exclusively to serve occupants of or visitors to a principal and/or accessory use. 3. Parking Structure A facility used for vehicle parking and where there are a number of floors or levels on which parking takes place, either freestanding or integrated into a building. 4. Parking Structure, Accessory A structure that contains parking provided to comply with minimum off - street parking requirements in this Chapter for a principal use of the property or a designated nearby property, and that is provided exclusively to serve occupants of or visitors to a principal and/or accessory use. 5. Surface Parking Lot The use of land to provide off - street parking for vehicles. For the purposes of the BSC districts in § § 153.057 to 153.066, surface parking does not include driveways for single - family attached or detached residential units. (c) Personal, Repair, & Rental Services A facility or establishment that provides services associated with personal grooming, personal instruction or education, the maintenance of fitness, health and well- being, or the rental, servicing, maintenance, or repair of consumer goods. This use includes but is not limited to yoga centers, beauty salons, barbers and hairdressers, meditation centers, massage centers, dry cleaning shops, tailors, shoe repair, and electronics repair shops. This facility does not include motor vehicle, recreational vehicle, or heavy equipment repair or rental. (d) Portable Classroom A manufactured structure not permanently attached to the ground, used on a temporary basis in conjunction with a permanent structure to provide educational services. (e) Portable Nonresidential Structures A building(s) or similar structure(s) designed for occupation which is not placed on a permanent foundation. The definition shall include construction trailers, portable classrooms, tents, trailers and any other uses which may be proposed for these structures. (f) Principal Use The primary or predominant use of a lot, parcel, or structure. (g) Public Safety Facility A facility used to provide police, fire, or emergency medical services to the community. (16) Uses Definitions — Q (17) Uses Definitions — R RECORD OF ORDINANCES Blank, Inc. 07 -12 Page 10 of 38 Ordinance No. Passed 20_ (a) Religious or Public Assembly A facility in which the public or members of an organization gather to engage in collective activities, which may include worship, study, relaxation, service activities, assembly space, or recreation. This use includes but is not limited to churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, clubs, meeting halls, and social organizations. (b) Renewable Energy Equipment or Alternative Energy Equipment Equipment for the collection of solar, wind or geothermal energy or its conversion to electrical energy or heat for use on the same property or for incidental sale to a utility when that equipment is accessory to a permitted or approved conditional principal use of the property. (c) Renewable Wind Equipment Equipment for the collection of wind energy or its conversion to electrical energy or heat for use on the same property or for incidental sale to a utility when that equipment is accessory to a permitted or approved conditional use of the property. Includes both building mounted and ground mounted units. Ground mounted units have a foundation and are not dependent on a building for structural support. (d) Research and Development A facility or area for conducting scientific research, synthesis, analysis, investigation, testing, or experimentation, and including the fabrication of prototypes, assembly, mixing and preparation of equipment and components incidental or necessary to the conduct of such activities. Research and development includes support facilities, but not including facilities for the manufacture or sale of products except as may be incidental to the main purpose of the laboratory. (e) Residential Model Home A residential structure used by a licensed homebuilder /developer, real estate worker or realtor to demonstrate construction, display built -in amenities and color selection charts to prospective home buyers and promote the sale or lease of housing units. (f) Retail, General A facility or area for the retail sale of general merchandise or food to the general public for direct use and not for wholesale. This use includes but is not limited to sale of general merchandise, clothing and other apparel, flowers and household plants, dry goods, convenience and specialty foods, hardware and similar consumer goods. (g) Retail or Personal Services (Accessory) General retail, as defined, when accessory to a non - retail or personal service principal use of the property. (18) Uses Definitions — S (a) Sexually Oriented Business Establishment A commercial establishment including adult cabaret, adult store, or adult theater primarily engaged in persons who appear nude /semi -nude, live performances, films or other visual representations, adult booths, or sale or display of adult material. (b) Special Event A temporary outdoor use of land for the purposes of a gathering, including but not limited to a fair, festival, celebration, or fundraiser. RECORD OF ORDINANCES Blank, Inc. 07 -12 Page 11 of 38 Ordinance No. Passed 20 (c) Swimming Pool Any confined body of water, with a rim/deck elevation less than one foot above the existing finished grade of the site, exceeding 100 square feet in water surface area, and 24 inches in depth, designed, used, or intended to be used for swimming or bathing purposes. (19) Uses Definitions — T (a) Transportation 1. Park- and -Ride A facility providing parking and shelter for transit passengers or carpooling that typically includes parking lots and associated structures located along or near public transit routes. 2. Transit Station When a transit station is the principal use of the property, it is a facility where public transit vehicles load and unload patrons, and where patrons may transfer between public transit lines,. This use does not include park and ride or ride- sharing facilities, transit vehicle repair or maintenance facilities, bus stops located on public property, or bus stops accessory to a principal use of the property. 3. Transit Stop An incidental area, either along the public right -of -way or on a private site, with shelters or other related amenities for patrons waiting for buses or other forms of public transportation. A transit stop shall not include a transit station, park- and -ride, or other major transit facility. (20) Uses Definitions — U (a) Utilities 1. Electric Substation A facility where electricity generation, transmission and distribution system is managed through the use of transformers. 2. Renewable Energy Facilities. Commercial -scale operations for the collection of solar, wind, or geothermal energy and its conversion to electrical energy for sale to a public utility. (21) Uses Definitions — V (a) Vehicle Sales, Rental, and Repair A facility or area used for the retail sale of vehicles (new or used) and related vehicle service facilities, renting of vehicles, repairing vehicles or the sale and installation of tires, batteries, and other minor accessories and services for vehicles. This use does not include supplies, tires, or parts unrelated to repairs being performed on the premises, or a fueling/service station. (b) Vehicle Charging Station When accessory to a permitted or approved primary use of the property, vehicle charging stations are facilities or areas at which electric powered or hybrid powered motor vehicles can obtain electrical current to recharge batteries. (2 1) Uses Definitions — W (a) Warehousing and Distribution RECORD OF ORDINANCES Inc. Ordinance No. 07 -12 Page 12 of 38 Passed . 20 Facilities and accessory uses for the mass storage and movement of goods as well as transportation, logistics, maintenance and fleet parking. (b) Wholesaling and Distribution. Facilities and accessory uses for the mass storage and movement of goods as well as transportation, logistics, maintenance and fleet parking. (c) Wireless Communication Wireless communications facilities and related terms are defined in §99.04 (B) General Definitions For the purpose of this Chapter, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning, as determined by the Director. (1) General Definitions — A (a) Abandoned Sign A sign associated with an abandoned use, a sign that remains after the termination of the business, or a sign on its immediate premises not adequately maintained and not repaired within the specified time under § 153.162. (b) Aboveground Pool Any confined body of water, with a rim/deck elevation more than one foot above the existing finished grade of the site, exceeding 100 square feet in water surface area, and 24 inches in depth, designed, used, or intended to be used for swimming or bathing purposes. (c) Administrative Official The official charged with the administration and enforcement of this chapter. For the City, the Administrative Official is the Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning. (d) Administrative Review Team or ART An administrative body of City and Washington Township officials responsible for certain administrative reviews and approvals as designated in this chapter. (e) Aggregate Diameter The combined diameter of a multiple trunk tree measured at breast height (see diameter breast height). (f) Aisle That portion of the off - street parking and loading area that provides access to parking, stacking or loading spaces, exclusive of driveways and parking and loading spaces. (g) Alley A secondary access way typically not less than 20 feet in width available for public use or transportation and affording vehicular access to abutting property. (h) Alteration Any change, addition or modification in construction or any change in the structural members of a building, such as walls or partitions, columns, beams or girders, the consummated act of which may be referred to in this chapter as "altered" or "reconstructed." Any action to change, modify, reconstruct, remove or demolish any exterior features of an existing structure or of the site. RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordinance No. Inc. Page 13 of 38 Passed . 20_ 07 -12 Ordinary maintenance to correct any deterioration, decay or damage to a structure or site and to restore the structure as nearly as practicable to an original state prior to its deterioration, decay or damage is excluded from the definition of alteration, provided the work does not involve a change in type and/or color of building materials. (i) Animated Sign Any sign that uses or has the appearance of movement or change of artificial and natural lighting or noise to depict action or create a special effect or scene. (j) Applicant Any person who applies for a zoning approval through the provisions of this chapter. (k) Arcade A roofed or built structure, extending over the sidewalk or square, open to the street except for supporting columns, piers, or arches. (1) Architectural Character The architectural style, general design, and general arrangement of the exterior of a building or other structure intended to recreate a period of history, architectural theme or other similar effect. (m) Architectural Review Board or ARB The Architectural Review Board of the City, as created in § 153.172. (n) Architectural Review District, or Historic District The Architectural Review District of the City. The term may also be used to refer to Ohio Historic Inventory Properties as provided in § 153.170, where appropriate. (o) Architectural Style The predominant historic architectural styles within given areas of the Historic District, as described in § 153.174(B)(4), or in other defined areas. (p) Articulation Detailing, decoration, expression lines, shadow lines, and other similar techniques used to provide architectural interest. (q) Automated Teller Machine (ATM) An electronically operated device used to conduct financial transactions on site, by means of direct computerized access. These devices may be accessible by vehicle and/or pedestrians. (r) Auto -share Parking Space A parking space designated for use only by a vehicle owned or leased by an entity and made available to members of the entity for their shared use. Examples of this use include spaces reserved for a ZipCar or Flexcar vehicle. (s) Awning A roof -like covering, often adjustable, over a door, window, or other opening in a structure, designed to provide protection against the elements such as sun, wind, or rain. (t) Awning Sign A sign painted on or affixed to an awning. (2) General Definitions — B RECORD OF ORDINANCES D ayt on L eg a l Wan? Inc. 07 -12 Ordinance No. Page 14 of 38 Passed — 20— (a) Banner A non -rigid cloth, plastic, paper, or canvas sign, used on a temporary basis, typically related to a special event or promotion that is cultural, educational, charitable, or recreational in its function, under the sponsorship of a for - profit establishment or business, or a public, private nonprofit or religious organization. (b) Bench Sign Any sign painted on, located on, or attached to any part of the surface of a bench, seat, or chair placed on or adjacent to a public roadway. (c) Bicycle Circulation Plan A detailed plan showing the location of all site access points, bicycle facilities, and travel routes expected to be used by bicyclists. (d) Bicycle Facilities All amenities or elements including bicycle racks, lockers, and showers intended to assist either recreational or commuter cyclists. (e) Billboard An off - premise sign directing attention to a specific business, product, service, entertainment or other activity sold, offered, or conducted off -site. (f) Bland Elevation An elevation that lacks the minimum required openings and architectural features, such as windows, doors, exterior chimneys, or other similar architectural features. (g) Blank Wall A facade or portion of a fagade with no windows or doors or other elements of transparency. (h) Block The aggregate of lots, pedestrianways and alleys or service lanes, whether public or private, typically surrounded on all sides by public streets. (i) Block Face The aggregate of all the building facades on one side of a block. Lots with their front property line and buildings with their front fagade along the block face are referred to as "fronting" on the block or street. (j) Block Perimeter The horizontal distance around the boundaries of the block. (k) Board of Zoning Appeals, or BZA The Board of Zoning Appeals of the City. (1) Board Order The official document issued by the Architectural Review Board or Board of Zoning Appeals containing the official record of a final action or recommendation on an application for a review required by the ARB or BZA in accordance with this chapter. (m)Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) A planned area of the city generally bounded on the east by Sawmill Road, on the north and west by I -270, and including land within the Architectural Review District boundaries and along the north and south sides of SR 161. RECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Ordinance Na. 07 -12 Passed Page 15 of 38 20 (n) Buildable Area Portions of a site or lot where development is permitted. (o) Building A structure intended for shelter, housing or enclosure of persons, animals or chattel. When separated by dividing walls without openings, each internal portion of the structure so separated shall be deemed a separate building. (p) Building Activity Area The area of a lot in which construction and building activities occur. . (q) Building Entrance An access door into the building primarily intended for pedestrian use. (r) Building Fagade See Fagade. (s) Building, Height The vertical distance measured from the grade to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof; to the deck line of a mansard roof; or to the mean height level between the eaves and ridge of a gable, hip or gambrel roof, unless otherwise specified by this chapter. (t) Building Identification Sign A type of wall sign which is physically attached to a building fagade and intended to provide an identity for buildings with three or more stories and high visibility along a street. Building identification signs are typically used to communicate a general name or address for a building or associated development, or to identify a major commercial tenant within the building. (u) Building- Mounted Sign A sign which is physically attached to a building fagade or associated appurtenance, and intended to provide visibility for either pedestrians or motorists. Building - mounted signs are typically used to identify commercial tenants within the building or to identify the general name of a residential building or associated development. Within the Bridge Street Corridor Districts, building - mounted signs include wall signs, projecting signs, awning signs and window signs, but do not include other types of signs that may be attached to a building, such as building identification signs and directory signs. (v) Building Type Required building forms for new construction and renovated structures within districts specified in this chapter. (w) Bus Shelter Sign Any sign painted on or affixed to any bus shelter. (3) General Definitions — C (a) Caliper The diameter of a tree trunk six inches above the existing grade or proposed planted grade. This measurement is used for nursery-grown trees. (b) Canopy A freestanding or connected roof -like structure designed to offer protection from the weather. (c) Change RECORD OF ORDINANCES Inc. Ordinance No. 07 -12 Page 16 of 38 Passed Forth No. 30043 20 Any new construction, alteration, demolition, or removal or other construction involving any property subject to the provisions of this chapter including signs, landscaping, and tree removal. Change shall not include ordinary maintenance or repair of any property if no change in material, design, color, or outward appearance is undertaken. (d) Changeable Copy Sign A sign or portion thereof with characters, letters, or illustrations that can be changed or rearranged by mechanical, electronic or manual means without altering the face or surface of the sign. (e) Channel Letters The outline of a letter, border, or similar object with a vertical side wall to confine the lighting on the face either to restrict vision at an angle or to prevent light spillage over adjacent areas. (f) Chapter Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances of Dublin, unless otherwise specified. (g) 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. Cantilevered Chimney A chimney that projects from the exterior wall and does not have a foundation or extension to the ground. 2. 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. (h) Cistern An underground storage component of a rainwater harvesting system typically larger than 80 gallons. (i) City The City of Dublin, Ohio. (j) City Council, or Council The legislative body of the City. (k) Commercial Vehicle Any vehicle used or designed to be used for business or commercial purposes including but not limited to: bus, cement truck, commercial tree trimming equipment, construction equipment, dump truck, garbage truck, panel truck, semi - tractor, semi - trailer, or any other non - recreational trailer used for commercial purposes, stage bed truck, step van, tank truck, tar truck, or other commercial type vehicle licensed by the Ohio State Bureau of Motor Vehicles as a commercial vehicle or commercial truck. (1) Commission The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City. (m) Community Plan The current adopted Community Plan of the City and any amendments thereto. (n) Compact Parking Space RECORD OF ORDINANCES A vehicle parking space, with dimensions smaller than a standard vehicle parking space, that is intended to be occupied by smaller vehicles. (See §153.065(B) (4)). (o) Concept Plan A plan that generally indicates the overall design of a proposed PUD project with sufficient information to enable the applicant and the City to discuss the concept for the proposed development and to determine if the proposal is generally consistent with the Community Plan and other applicable plans of the City. (p) Conditional Use A use allowed in a zoning district after approval is granted by the Commission according to the provisions of §153.236. (q) Construction Sign A sign that identifies the project and, if desired, owners, lenders, contractors, architects, and engineers of a project under construction. (r) 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. (s) Corner Fagade Any building face generally oriented along a corner side property line, either within the corner required building zone or behind the corner setback. (t) Corner Side Property Line For corner lots occupied by a single building, the corner side property line is the lot line abutting the street right -of -way from which the corner required building zone (RBZ) or corner side setback, as applicable, is measured. (u) 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. Molded projections which crown or finish the part of the roof to which they are affixed are included in the definition of cornice. (v) Courtyard An outdoor area enclosed by a building on at least three sides. (w) Critical Root Zone The area inscribed by an imaginary line on the ground beneath a tree having its center point at the center of the trunk of the tree and having a radius equal to one foot for every inch of diameter breast height. (x) Crosswalk Designated paths intended for pedestrians to use for crossing the street right - of -way, typically at intersections and sometimes at mid - block. (y) Curb Line The face of a curb along a curbed public or private street. (4) General Definitions — D Inc. Ordinance No. 07 -12 -- — - Page 17 of 38 Passed 20_ (a) Day Calendar day. RECORD OF ORDINANCES Blank, Inc. 07 -12 Form No. 30043 dell 013 Page 18 of 38 Passed . 20 (b) Decking (Pool) The concrete, cement, wood, metal, brick, or other material surrounding or immediately adjacent a swimming pool. (c) Demolition The complete or substantial removal or planned destruction of any structure. (d) Deterioration The impairment of value or usefulness of a structure or site through action of the elements or lack of maintenance or upkeep. (e) Development Sign A temporary sign indicating such things as the names of the architects, engineers, landscape architects, contractors, or similar artisans, and the owners, financial supporters, sponsors and similar public or private individuals or firms having a role or interest with respect to the development, structure, or project, whether public or private. (f) Diameter Breast Height (DBH) The diameter of a tree measured at four and one -half feet above the existing grade at the base of the tree. This measurement is used for existing forest trees. (g) Directional Sign A temporary or permanent sign that provides information regarding location, instructions for use, or functional/directional data, but not used for advertising or identification. (h) Director The Director of Planning of the City of Dublin. (i) Directory Sign Small signs or placards affixed to a wall or elevation adjacent to the main entrance to a multiple -tenant building typically used to list tenants located within the building. (j) 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. (k) Dispensing Station The point of service for a fuel station at which a vehicle is fueled. A dispensing station is that location serving one vehicle, regardless of the number of individual fueling pumps or nozzles at the point of service. (1) Display Sign Signs incorporated into the window display of a business intended to advertise the goods and/or services associated with businesses and intended to change frequently. Display signs may be attached to or located within three feet of a window and may include restaurant menus or products for sale or display. (m) Dormer A window set vertically in a structure projecting through a sloping roof; also the roofed structure containing that window or a ventilating louver. (n) Double- Frontage Lot A lot having frontage along two public streets. (o) Driveway RECORD OF ORDINANCES Inc. Ordinance No. 07 -12 Passed Form No. 30043 Page 19 of 38 zo The hard paved surface of a lot that is specifically designated and reserved for the movement of motor vehicles to and from a public or private street. This definition includes the area from the street providing access to and from the lot and any maneuvering areas. (p) Driveway Apron A solid area of approved paving material immediately adjacent to and connecting a public or private street to a parking lot, parking structure, or driveway. (5) General Definitions — E (a) Eave The lower edge of a pitched roof; it typically overhangs beyond the side of a building. (b) Electronic Scoreboard An electronically - controlled changeable copy sign used to display scoring information for sporting events, typically located on a sports field. (c) 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. (d) Entry Feature Sign An on- premises ground- mounted sign that graphically identifies a residential subdivision and/or multiple - family development. For commercial uses, see Joint Identification Sign. (e) Epiphytotic The sudden and destructive development of a plant disease, usually over large areas. (f) Established Grade Line The average finished grade for a site. All references to sign height are from the established grade line unless otherwise noted. (g) Existing Structure For the purposes of §153.062, Existing Structures are structures that are lawfully existing but may not comply with the requirements of the Chapter because of restrictions such as front property line occupation, lot coverage, required build zone, buildable area, height, or other requirements related to the structure. (h) Existing Use For the purposes of §153.059, Existing Uses are uses that are lawfully existing at the effective date of this amendment. (i) Expression Line An architectural treatment extending or offset from the surface plane of the building wall. Expression lines typically delineate the transition between floor levels and the base - middle -top of a building. (j) Exterior Architectural Feature A prominent or significant part or element of a building, structure, or site. Features include the architectural style and general arrangement of the exterior of the structure including building materials, windows, doors, lights, signs, dry-laid stone fences and other fixtures appurtenant thereto. Features shall RECORD OF ORDINANCES Blank, Inc. Ordinance No. 07 -12 Page 20 of 38 Passed Form No. 30043 20_ include the style, material, color, height, area, and lighting, and location of a sign regulated by this chapter. (6) General Definitions — F (a) Fagade The exterior face of a building, including but not limited to the wall, windows, windowsills, doorways, and architectural elements. May also be referred to as the building fagade. (b) 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. (c) Fence Any permanent or temporary partition, structure, or other material erected as a dividing structure, barrier or enclosure, and not an integral portion of a structure requiring a building permit. (d) Final Development Plan A detailed plan showing the location of all site improvements, including easements, utilities, buildings, parking areas, circulation routes, points of ingress and egress, transportation and other public improvements (both on- and off - site), landscaping, architectural drawings, loading and unloading zones, service areas, ground signs, directional signs, location of refuse containers, lighting and accessory structures, and other similar improvements, and may include a subdivision plat. Critical dimensions are shown unless otherwise required. (e) Flag Any fabric or bunting containing the officially recognized and adopted colors, patterns, or symbols used as the official symbol of a government, political, or corporate entity. (f) Flag Lot An interior lot located generally to the rear of another lot but with a narrow portion of the lot extending to the public street. (g) Flashing Sign Any directly or indirectly illuminated sign that exhibits changing natural or artificial light or color effects by any means whatsoever. (h) Flat Roof A roof with no visible slope and no parapet. (i) Floor Area, Gross (GFA) The sum of the gross horizontal area of the several floors of the building measured from the exterior faces of the exterior walls or from the center line of walls separating two buildings. The gross floor area of a building shall include the basement floor area only if more than one -half of the basement height is above finish lot grade and/or is otherwise considered to be a half -story. Areas excluded from the definition of GFA include any space devoted to off - street parking or loading, areas of basements (except as provided above), breezeways, porches, or attached garages. (j) For Sale/For Lease Sign A sign indicating the sale, rental, or lease of a structure or property. RECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Ordinance No. Passed 20 (k) Foundation Cladding An aesthetic enhancement to the foundation concealing exposed portions with an approved material. (1) Freestanding Sign See Ground Sign. (m)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. (n) Frontage The orientation of a lot line or building facade along, and typically parallel to, a street, block face or open space type. This term may also refer to the orientation of an open space type along a street. (o) Front Fagade Any building face generally oriented along a front property line, either within the front required building zone (RBZ) or behind the front setback. (p) Front Property Line (FPL) The boundary of a lot within a BSC district abutting the street right -of -way, from which the front required building zone (RBZ) or front setback, as applicable, is measured. (q) Furnishings Zone A hardscape area that extends to the sidewalk from the back of curb, edge of pavement or edge of a cycletrack, in which street trees in tree wells, street furniture, lighting, and street signs may be located. Furnishings zones are typically used adjacent to commercial buildings. (See also, Planting Zone). (7) General Definitions — G (a) Gable The vertical triangular end of a building from cornice or eaves to ridge; the similar end of a gambrel roof; the end wall of a building; and/or a triangular part of a structure. (b) Garage An accessory building or part of a principal structure used primarily for the storage of passenger vehicles as an accessory use. 07 -12 Page 21 of 38 1. Alley - loaded garage A garage with vehicular access from a public or private alley or drive typically from the rear of the property. 2. Courtyard -style garage A garage with vehicular access through an enclosed or partially enclosed pavement area that is located to the front of a principal structure typically providing access to a side - loaded garage. 3. Front - loaded garage A garage with vehicular access doors primarily oriented toward the same street right -of -way or private street as the front facade of the principal structure. 4. Side - loaded garage RECORD OF ORDINANCES Blank, Inc. Ordinance No. 07 -12 Form No. 30043 Page 22 of 38 Passed 20 A garage with vehicular access doors primarily oriented toward one of the side lot lines or a secondary public right -of -way or private street. (c) Gas - inflatable Sign/Device Any device which is capable of being expanded by any gas and used on a permanent or temporary basis to attract attention to a product or event. This definition includes both hot and cold -air balloons tethered or otherwise anchored to the ground. (d) Gateway Sign A sign, typically placed along a major roadway at or near the edge of a significant city attraction or land use, used to introduce the entry to the attraction. (e) Governmental Sign A sign erected and maintained pursuant to and in discharge of any government functions or required by law, ordinance, or other governmental regulations. (f) Green Roof A green roof, or `living roof,' system is an extension of the existing roof which involves a high quality water proofing and root repellant system, filter cloth, a lightweight growing medium, and plants. Green roofs may be flat or low -slope and serve such purposes as absorbing rainwater, providing insulation, creating a habitat for wildlife, urban agriculture, as well as helping to lower urban air temperatures. (g) Ground Sign Any sign which is physically attached to a foundation. These are commonly known as freestanding, pole, pylon, or monument signs. (8) General Definitions — H (a) Hard Surfaced or Paved Area Includes but is not limited to patios, driveways, courtyards, tennis courts, basketball courts, volleyball courts, swimming pool decks and walkways (water area excluded), and bicycle paths. Hard Surfaced or Paved Areas may be constructed of pervious or semi - pervious materials, which are typically not counted toward lot coverage or are counted at a reduced percentage due to water absorption capabilities. (b) Highly Transparent Low Reflectance Windows, doors, or other openings in a structure allowing light and clear views between the interior and exterior of the structure a majority of the time. (c) Historic District The portion of the Architectural Review District generally referred to as Historic Dublin, and as defined by § 153.170. (d) Historic Site The location, structures, features or other integral part of a city, state, or United States designated archaeological or historic site. (9) General Definitions — I (a) Illuminated Sign Any sign lighted by or exposed to artificial lighting either by light on or in the sign or directed toward the sign. RECORD OF ORDINANCES Bunk, Inc. Ordinance No. Form No. 30043 Page 23 of 38 Passed 20 07 -12 (b) Impervious Surface Any hard surface, man-made area that does not absorb water, such as principal and accessory structure roofs, sidewalks, parking, driveways, and other surfaces constructed with impermeable material. (c) Incidental Sales Sale of goods or services that are clearly secondary to the principal use of the property, generally provided for the convenience of customers and occupying less than 5% of the gross floor area of the principal use. (d) Information Sign A sign displaying necessary information for the convenience and safety of residents and visitors, and containing no advertising. (e) Interior Landscaping The use of landscape materials within the innermost boundaries of the landscape buffer zone and perimeter landscaping. (f) Interior Tree Lawn A continuous lawn area between rows of parking spaces. (g) Interrupting Vertical Wall A wall used to define and break up vertical building increments to reduce the overall scale of the building fagade. (10) General Definitions — J (a) Joint Identification Sign A sign that identifies the name, through type, graphics, or other symbols, of a shopping center, office park, industrial park, or other building complex more than one use on the same lot or in the same structure, occasionally allowed in addition to the permitted signs of the individual occupants. (11) General Definitions — K (12) General Definitions — L (a) Landmark Any property or site which has special character, archaeological, historical, aesthetic or architectural value as part of the heritage, development or cultural characteristics of the city, state, or the United States designated as a Landmark pursuant to the provision of this chapter, and including all property located in the city listed on the National Register of Historic Places. (b) Landscaped Area An area that is permanently devoted and maintained to the growing of shrubbery, grass and other plant material. (c) Landscaping The planning, installation and maintenance of a combination of trees, shrubs, vines, ground covers, flowers (annuaWperennials), and turf. May include natural features (e.g. stone, ponds, naturalized areas) and structural features, including fountains, reflecting pools, sculptures /art work, walls (retaining/ freestanding), fences, trellis /pergolas, and seating areas (benches /tables /chars). Exposed soil or other non - living organic material such as mulch shall not constitute landscaping. (d) Large Format Retail RECORD OF ORDINANCES Bunk, Inc. Ordinance No. 07 -12 Page 24 of 38 Passed 20 A retail or wholesale use of 20,000 square feet or more of GFA. (e) Large Tree Any tree species which normally attains a full -grown height equal to or greater than 50 feet. (f) Lighting Trespass A condition in which light is cast in a location that is not permitted or at a level that is higher than permitted by this chapter. (g) Livable Area The total square footage of the livable area of a residential principal use or structure for all rooms meeting Council of American Building Officials (CABO) requirements for sleeping, living, cooking, or dining purposes, but excluding such places as attics, basements (unless finished and meeting the aforementioned CABO requirements), garages, and similar spaces. (h) Living Wall A hedge, hedgerow, or wall that is partially or completely covered with vegetation. (i) Loading Facility The portion of the building, structure, or site where access is permitted for loading and unloading activities related to building uses. (j) Loading Space A space dedicated for use by vehicles loading and unloading within or adjacent to a building as required by this chapter. (k) Logo See Primary Images and Secondary Images. (1) Lot Includes the words "plot" and "parcel." A lot may or may not be specifically designated as such on public records. A lot may also include a condominium unit and any limited common element under and surrounding the condominium unit, which together meet the minimum yard and area requirements of this chapter. (m)Lot, Corner A lot where the interior angle of two adjacent sides at the intersection of two streets is less than 135 degrees. A lot abutting on a curved street shall be considered a comer lot for the purposes of this Chapter if the arc has a radius of less than 150 feet and the tangents to the curve form an interior angle of less than 135 degrees. The tangents are measured at the two points where the lot lines meet the curve, or the straight street line is extended. (n) Lot Coverage The part or percentage of the lot occupied by impervious surfaces and semi - pervious surfaces. (o) Lot Depth The average horizontal distance between front and rear lot lines. (p) Lot Line 1. General A line bounding or demarcating a plot of land or ground as established by a plat of record. Includes the words "property line." RECORD OF ORDINANCES Blank, Brc. Ordinance No. 07 -12 Fom No. 30043 Page 25 of 38 Passed 20 2. Front Lot Line In the case of an interior lot, the front lot line is the line separating the lot from the street right -of -way. In the case of a corner lot, or double frontage lot, the front lot line is the line separating the lot from either street, unless otherwise designated by a plat, PUD or other lot line requirements of this chapter. (See also, Front Property Line). front lot line and wholly within the lot. 3. Rear Lot Line Typically, the rear lot line is the lot line opposite the front lot line that separates the lot from an alley, rear lane, or from the rear of another lot. In the case of a lot pointed at the rear, the rear lot line, for purposes of measuring the rear yard setback, shall be an imaginary line parallel to the front lot line that is not less than ten feet long and lies farthest from the 4. Side Lot Line Any lot line other than the front lot line or rear lot line. A side lot line separating a lot from another lot is an interior side lot line. (See also, Corner Side Property Line). (q) Lot, Minimum A parcel of land occupied or to be occupied by a principal structure or group of structures and accessory structures together with any yards, open spaces, lot width and lot area required by this chapter. (r) Lot Width In BSC districts only, the horizontal distance between side lot lines as measured along the front property line. Lot widths meet the minimum distance required by the building type(s) located on the lot. In all other districts, the horizontal distance between side lot lines as measured at the two points where the building line or setback line intersects the side lot lines. The lot widths meet the minimum distance required by the district in which the lot is located, excluding easements for public or private streets. (s) Lumen The amount of light equal to one footcandle of light falling on one square foot of area. (13) General Definitions —M (a) Main Entrance The primary door for pedestrians into the building that provides access to the majority of the uses within the building. It is generally located on the front fagade. (b) Masonry Natural or natural- appearing stone or brick. (c) Medium Tree Any tree species which normally attains a full -grown height of between 30 and 50 feet. (d) Mid -Block The portion of the block located approximately within the middle third of the block length. (e) Mid -Block Pedestrianway RECORD OF ORDINANCES Blank, Inc. 07 -12 Page 26 of 38 Ordinance No. Passed . 20_ A defined pathway, dedicated to pedestrians and separated from vehicles, that extends through a block from a street to a parallel or nearly parallel street or alley. (i) Mid - Building Pedestrianway A pathway, dedicated to pedestrians, intended to provide safe, well -lit, and convenient access through buildings from the public sidewalk to the rear or side of a building. Mid - building pedestrianways may coincide with mid -block pedestrianways. (g) Minor Plan Modification or Minor Modification A nominal deviation from, or clarification of, the adopted plan and/or text of a planned development, Development Plan, or Site Plan Approval, as provided in this chapter. (h) Monument Sign A ground sign attached to a wall or a base constructed specifically for the display of the sign. A common example is a permanent subdivision sign. (i) Multi -Tenant Building A building consisting of multiple tenant spaces, typically separated by common walls within a fully enclosed portion of the building, and which may or may not share a corridor, lobby area or other internal common space. (14) General Definitions —N (a) National Register of Historic Places A list of properties by the National Park Service that includes districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. (b) National Trust for Historic Preservation A private, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to saving historic places and revitalizing America's communities. (c) No -Build Zone (NBZ) An open area where construction is prohibited. All structures including, but not limited to buildings, parking, driveways, sidewalks, sheds, swimming pools, patios, decks or other accessory structures, fences, antennae and basketball courts or other sport courts are prohibited in order to preserve open space. (d) No Disturb Zone (NDZ) An area designated on a subdivision plat required to remain free of any structures including, but not limited to, drives, walks, buildings and outbuildings, sheds, fences, swimming pools, decks, swing sets /play structures, satellite dish antennae, basketball courts, etc., and an area with existing natural features that cannot be disturbed, removed, or physically altered. (e) Nonconforming Structure A structure or portion thereof lawfully existing at the effective date of this ordinance or amendments thereto, which does not conform to the provisions of this chapter for the district in which it is located. (f) Nonconforming Sign A sign lawfully existing at the effective date of this ordinance or amendments thereto which does not conform to the requirements set forth in this chapter for the district in which it is located. RECORD OF ORDINANCES Blank, Inc. Form No. 39043 07 -12 Page 27 of 38 Ordinance No. Parsec! 20 (g) Nonconforming Use A use of land or a structure lawfully existing at the effective date of this ordinance or amendments thereto which does not conform to the use requirements set forth in this chapter for the district in which it is located of a building. (h) Non - Street Fapade Any building face not fronted along a street or open space type. (15) General Definitions —0 (a) Occupancy The use or intended use of a building or structure. (b) Occupied Space Interior building space regularly occupied by the building users. It does not include storage areas, utility space, or parking. (c) Off - street Loading Space A cubical area for parking one commercial vehicle for pickups and deliveries, located in a building or in the open on the same lot as the use the space is intended to serve. (d) Off - street Parking Space A quadrangular area for parking one motor vehicle, which is located in a structure or in the open, which has access to a public street and is exclusive of the right -of- way of any public or private street or any driveway, aisle, circulation drive or off - street loading space. (e) Ohio Historic Inventory A program of the State of Ohio developed to serve as an accurate and continuing record of the architectural and historic properties existing in the state. (f) Opacity An imaginary vertical plane extending from the established grade to a required height in which a required percent of the vertical plane acts as a visual screen from adjacent property use. (g) Opaqueness The degree to which a wall, fence, structure or landscaping is solid or impenetrable to light or vision in a generally uniform pattern over its surface, usually expressed in terms of percentage of area. (h) Open House A temporary public showing of a structure available for sale, rental, or lease. (i) Open Space Type A park or open space as required by § 153.064. (j) Open Space Type Frontage The orientation of a lot line, building fagade or block face directly adjacent to an open space type, with no intervening public or private street. (k) Ordinary Maintenance Exterior work which does not involve any change in material, texture or color, design, or arrangement. Examples include repainting a house with the same color; residing a wood building with wood- siding and painting the same color. RECORD OF ORDINANCES Inc. Ordinance No. 07 -12 Passed Page 28 of 38 20 (1) Owner The legal person(s) of record having ownership of or valid legal interest in a property. (16) General Definitions —P (a) Parallel Ridge Line A main roof ridge line parallel to an adjacent street. (b) Parapet Roof A roof type with a low vertical wall projecting above the building roof line along the perimeter of the building. (c) Parking Setback Line A line specifically established by the City, zoning district, or subdivision plat which determines the minimum distance that parking, loading or maneuvering may be located from a street right -of -way line. (d) Pedestrian Circulation Plan A detailed plan showing the location of all site access points, sidewalks, walkways, bicycle facilities, and travel routes expected to be used by pedestrians. (e) Pedestrian Facilities All amenities or elements including sidewalks, walkways, benches, pedestrian lighting, and other similar facilities intended to assist or be used by pedestrians. (f) Pedestrian Lighting Lighting that improves walkway illumination for pedestrianways. (g) Pedestrian Path A sidewalk, path, walkway or other similar facility that is intended for ordinary use by pedestrians. (h) Pedestrian Realm That portion of the street right -of -way typically comprised of the streetscape, including pedestrian facilities, such as a sidewalk, path/trail, or off - street bicycle facility, and a street buffer such as a planting zone or furnishings zone. (i) Pedestrianway A pathway designed for use by pedestrians, located mid -block or within the middle -third of a building or structure, allowing pedestrian movement from one street to another without traveling along the block's perimeter. (j) Pennant A flag or banner often longer at one end that then other, usually tapering to a point(s). (k) Perimeter Landscape Buffer Zone That area adjacent to any vehicular use area or along common boundaries in which the perimeter landscape requirements of this chapter are to be met. (1) Perimeter Landscaping The use of landscape materials within the perimeter landscape buffer zone to achieve the required opacity. (m) Permanent Sign RECORD OF ORDINANCES yton Legal Blank. Inc. 07 -12 Ordinance No. Passed Page 29 of 38 20 Any sign permanently attached or affixed to a building or the ground, as permitted by this chapter. (n) Permanent Structure Any structure that is not a temporary structure. (o) Person Includes any association, firm, partnership, trust, governmental body, corporation, or organization, as well as an individual. (p) Personal Automobile Any vehicle that seats fewer than ten passengers, is registered as a passenger vehicle or a non - commercial truck, and is used for the sole purpose of transporting resident(s) and guests(s) to and from daily activities. (q) Pervious Surface A paved or non -paved area that allows water to filter into the ground. (r) Pitched Roof A roof with a slope that includes, but is not limited to, hipped, gable, mansard and gambrel roofs. (s) Planned Unit Development (PUD) A form of a planned development that includes one or more uses permitted by right or as conditional uses and which is established according to the requirements of §153.052, or was approved as a PUD prior to the adoption of these regulations. (t) Planning and Zoning Commission, or Commission The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City. (u) Planting Zone A landscape area that extends to the sidewalk from the back of curb, edge of pavement or edge of a cycletrack, in which street trees, swales, lighting, and street signs may be located. Sidewalks may cross the planting zone. Planting zones are typically used adjacent to residential buildings. (See also, Furnishings Zone). (v) Plinth A continuous, usually projecting course of stone or brick forming the base or foundation of a wall. (w) Pole Sign See Ground Sign. (x) Political Sign A sign concerning candidates for elective office, public issues and similar matters to be decided by the public at an election. (y) Portable Sign Any sign that is designed to be or capable of being moved or transported, and not permanently affixed or attached to any building, structure, or grounds. (z) Preliminary Development Plan A plan, submitted at the time of rezoning, outlining permitted and conditional land uses, development sites, major circulation patterns, critical natural areas to be preserved, open space areas and linkages, buffer areas, entryways, and major utilities and their relationship with surrounding uses. For the purposes of RECORD OF ORDINANCES Blank, Inc. Ordinance No. 07 -12 Page 30 of 38 Passed 20 § §153.050 through 153.056, a preliminary development plan shall include a composite plan and any other development plan adopted prior to effective date of these regulations that are still in force. (aa) Preserve or Preservation The process, including maintenance, of treating an existing building to arrest or slow future deterioration, stabilizing the structure and providing structural safety without changing or adversely affecting the character or appearance of the structure. (bb) Primary Fagade Material The permitted building material or materials used for the majority of the facades of a building. (cc) Primary Image The name of the use or business identified on a sign. (See also Secondary Image.) (dd) Principal Frontage Street A street designated to establish the street frontage orientation of lots and building facades. Principal frontage streets are intended to create pedestrian- oriented block faces by establishing continuous street - facing facades with limited driveway interruptions. Front lot lines and front facades are oriented along principal frontage streets, and the building address is typically designated along these frontages. (ee) Principal Entrance The primary door into the building for pedestrians for which access is available to the majority of the uses within the building. It is generally located on the front fagade. (ff) Principal Structure Any building or structure in which the principal use of the lot or parcel takes place. (gg) Principal Use The main or primary use of a property, building, or site. (hh) Product Sign A sign typically located in a window, advertising a product or service offered by a business. (ii) Projected Image An image projected onto a building, structure, or sign. 6j) Projecting Sign A sign that is wholly or partly dependent upon a building for support or suspended from a pole attached to a building and extending 14 inches or more from the building or structure. Projecting signs are typically installed perpendicular to the building face upon which they are attached. (kk) Projection Any component of a structure that extends out from the principal structure. 01) Promotional Signs A temporary sign that provides information regarding time, place, and the like of a special event, community activity or similar activity. RECORD OF ORDINANCES Blank, Inc. Ordinance No. 07 -12 Fmm No. 30043 Page 31 of 38 Passed 20 (mm) Protected Tree A protected tree is any tree having a diameter of six inches DBH or larger or having an aggregate diameter of 15 inches DBH or larger or a tree which has been designated by the City to be of high value or interest to the City because of its location or historic association, or other professional criteria. (nn) Pylon Sign See Ground Sign. (17) General Definitions —Q (a) Quoin Corner stones that anchor the edge of the building wall or decorative feature to imitate corner stones, which wrap around the comer of an elevation and join two abutting walls. (18) General Definitions —R (a) Raceway An elongated metal enclosure used to mount individual channel lettering and to conceal related transformers and wiring. (b) Rain Barrel An above - ground prefabricated storage receptacle with an automatic overflow diversion system that collects and stores storm water runoff from the roof of a structure that would have been otherwise routed into a storm drain. (c) Recreational Vehicle Any motorized vehicle and/or associated non - motorized equipment used for camping, traveling, boating, or other leisure activities including, but not limited to campers, boats, travel trailers, motor buses (more than nine passengers), motor homes, snow mobiles, wave runners, and other vehicles designed for traveling on water (motorized and non - motorized). Trailers used for transporting this type of vehicle are also included within this definition. (d) Refacing Any alteration to the face of a sign involving the replacement of materials or parts. Refacing does not refer to replacing the entire sign structure or the removal of the sign. (e) Remove or Removal (Trees) The causing or accomplishing of the actual physical removal of a tree, or the effective removal through damaging, poisoning, or other direct or indirect action resulting in, or likely to result in, the death of a tree. (f) Required Building Zone (RBZ) An area in which the front or corner fagade of a building is required to be placed. The zone dictates the minimum and maximum distance a structure may be placed from a property line. (g) Required Reviewing Body The Administrative Review Team, City Council, Planning and Zoning Commission, Architectural Review Board, or Board of Zoning Appeals when required by §153.066 to render a final decision on any application required for development within the BSC districts. (h) Roof RECORD OF ORDINANCES 07 -12 Ordinance No. Form Page 32 of 38 Passed 20 Principal Roof The roofed area of a building enclosed by the main rafters, as opposed to the common rafters. 2. Roof Deck In a typical roof system, the roof deck is the roofing material layer between the primary structural components (trusses & joists) and either insulative layers or weatherproofing layers. 3. Roof Height The height of a roof as required to be measured by this chapter. 4. Roof Line The uppermost line or point of the fagade or parapet of a flat roof structure, or the lower edge of an eave, gable or rake of a sloped roof structure. (i) Roof Sign Any sign erected on or above the roof line of a building. (19) General Definitions —S (a) Sandwich Board Sign A sign with two hinged boards which is intended to be placed on the ground. (b) Seats The number of seating units installed or indicated on plans, or each 30 lineal inches of stands, benches or pews. Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, it is assumed that a seating unit occupies seven square feet of floor area for fixed seating and 15 square feet of floor area for uses without fixed seating, exclusive of aisles and assembly areas. (c) Secondary Fagade Material The permitted material or materials used to accent a building's primary fagade materials. (d) Secondary Image Any and all text, graphics, or images displayed on a sign in addition to the name of the use or business, including but not limited to registered/copyrighted images or text, pictorial representations, tag lines, products and phone numbers. (e) Section In the text, the term Section refers to the numeral under which it appears in this subchapter. (f) Semi - Pervious Surface A material that allows for absorption of water into the ground or plant material, such as pervious pavers, permeable asphalt and concrete, or gravel. (g) Service Structures Structures including, but not limited to, loading docks, storage tanks, dumpsters, electrical transformers, utility vaults which extend above the surface, cooling towers, roof top units and other equipment or elements providing service to a building or a site. (h) Setback The minimum distance required by this chapter from the property line and/or right -of -way line to the nearest part of the applicable building, structure, or RECORD OF ORDINANCES Blank, Inc. 07 -12 Page 33 of 38 Ordinance No. Passed 20 sign, measured perpendicularly to the property line and/or right -of -way line. May also be referred to as the building line. (i) Shadow Line A decorative, three dimensional, linear architectural element, horizontal or vertical, protruding or indented from the exterior fagade of a building enough to create a shadow. It is typically utilized to delineate stories of a building. (j) Shall Is mandatory. (k) Shopping Corridor Continuous mixed use street frontage with retail uses occupying the ground floor of buildings located on streets with a highly articulated pedestrian realm. (1) Sign A sign is defined as any name, number, symbol, identification, description, display, illustration, object, graphic, sign structure, or part thereof, whether permanent or temporary, which is affixed to, painted on, represented directly or indirectly upon, or projected onto a building, structure, lot, or other device, whether mobile or affixed to the ground, and which directs attention to any object, product, place, activity, person, institution, organization, or business. Signs regulated by this chapter includes all signs visible from any public right - of -way or adjacent property, including interior signs oriented towards the exterior fagade of any building or structure as well as back - lighted translucent panels or strip lighting affixed to any wall or roof which serves to identify and attract attention rather than illuminate space for human activity. (m) Sign Face The surface intended for the display of information on the sign. (n) Sign Structure The supporting unit of a sign face, including, but not limited to, frames, braces and poles. (o) Site Any defined space or ground, including ground occupied by buildings, parking areas, service areas, undeveloped lands, and ground adjacent to structures. (p) Site Plan Includes the documents and drawings required by this chapter to ensure that a proposed land use or activity is in compliance with City requirements and state and federal statutes. (q) Small Tree Tree species which normally attains a full -grown height of under 30 feet. (r) Soffit The exposed undersurface of any overhead component of a building. (s) Stacking Space A space designed to be occupied by a vehicle while waiting to order or to be served at a drive- through window or drive -up ATMs, or while waiting to enter a parking lot, parking structure, fuel station, dispensing station, or loading area. (t) Storefront The portion of a building fagade serving as the front elevation of an individual tenant space, including an entrance and windows providing physical and visual RECORD OF ORDINANCES Bunk, Inc. 07 -12 Page 34 of 38 Passed 20 access into the tenant space, typically limited to the ground story and located along a street- facing facade. (u) Story A habitable level within a building measured from finished floor to finished floor. 1. Ground story The first floor of a building that is level to or elevated above the finished grade on the front and corner facades, excluding basements or cellars, accessible from the established grade through the use of a ramp or steps. 2. Half story A story either in the base of the building, partially below and partially above grade (visible basement), or a story fully within the roof structure with transparency facing the street. 3. Upper story The floors located above the ground story of a building, including any half- stories within the roof structure. (v) Streamer A ribbon - shaped or cord -like rope which may have pennants and/or banners attached and which is stretched or hung between two or more supports. (w) Street Fapade A building face with frontage along and typically parallel to a public street. Street facades are designated as either front or corner facades, and are oriented in relation to the front or corner side property lines. (x) Street Frontage The orientation of a lot line, building facade, block face or open space type along, and typically parallel to, a public street. A building facade oriented along a street frontage is also referred to as the street facade. (y) Streetscape The various components that make up the pedestrian realm, both in the right - of -way and along private lot frontages within required building zones, including tree lawns, pavement, parking spaces, planting areas, street furniture, street trees, streetlights, sidewalks, front yard fences, etc. (z) Street Right -of -Way The public or private right -of -way permitting associated streetscape elements and typically consisting of both a vehicular and pedestrian realm. (aa) Street Right -of -Way Line A line that separates the street right -of -way from a contiguous property. (bb) Street Termination The point at which a street ends, requiring vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians to turn the corner of a block. (cc) Street Type Required street configurations with specific combinations of right -of -way, pavement width, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, travel lanes, and parking lanes intended to result in a desired street character. Ordinance No. (dd) Street Wall RECORD OF ORDINANCES Blank. Inc. Ordinance No 07 -12 Page 35 of 38 Passed 20 An opaque, freestanding wall or an opaque combination of landscaping and fencing, built along the frontage line, or along the same building line as the building fagade, typically intended to screen vehicular use areas or service areas and/or to define the pedestrian realm. (ee) Structure Anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires permanent location on the ground, or attachment to something having permanent location on the ground, including advertising signs, billboards, mobile homes (located for occupancy on a permanent foundation) and other construction or erection with special function or form, except fences or walks. Includes the word "building." (ff) Structure, Principal A structure in which is conducted the principal use of the lot on which it is situated. (gg) 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) General Definitions —T (a) Tenant Space A designated area within a building dedicated to an individual tenant, whether by condominium ownership or a contractual relationship between an owner and renter or lessee, where the renter or lessee is considered a primary tenant. Typically, a tenant space is not directly accessible to other tenant spaces through an internal doorway, but may be accessible via a common corridor or lobby area. (b) Terminal Vista The result of a "T ", "L ", or "Y" shaped street intersection or a change in street alignment or topography where the views down a street terminate at a lot or parcel instead of continuing down the street. (c) Through Lot A lot, with the exception of a corner lot, that has frontage on two public streets, not including alleys or service lanes. (d) Tower A vertical element of a building or structure, generally rectilinear or cylindrical in plan, which extends above the rest of the building or structure. Communication towers and wireless communication structures are not included in this definition. (e) Trailblazer Sign A government sign typically within the public right -of -way identifying company logos for lodging, gasoline stations, restaurants and other such establishments. (f) Trailer Sign Any sign which is attached to, supported by, or part of a structure which is designed to move on trailer wheels, skids, or other similar devices, or transported, pushed, or pulled by a motor vehicle. (g) Transparency RECORD OF ORDINANCES Blank. Inc. 07 -12 Page 36 of 38 Passed . 20 Ordinance No The ability to see through with clarity. An opening in the building wall allowing light and views between interior and exterior for a majority of the time. Measured as glass area for buildings and as open area for parking structures. (h) Tree Any self - supporting woody plant together with its root system, growing upon the earth usually with one trunk, or multi- stemmed trunk system, supporting a definitely formed crown. (i) Tree Lawn That part of a street not covered by sidewalk, bikepath, or other paving, lying between the property line and that portion of the street right -of -way that is paved and usually used for vehicular traffic. (j) Tree Preservation Area The area of a parcel of land in which all trees shall be protected during all phases of construction. (k) Tree Preservation Plan A proposal which includes a tree survey and a written plan with text and/or graphic illustrations indicating the methods which are to be used to preserve existing trees during construction, and methods for ongoing maintenance, including fertilizing and pruning. (1) Tree Preservation Zone An area designated on a subdivision plat with restrictions noted regarding the removal of trees. (m)Tree Removal Permit The permit required by this chapter to be issued in order to remove any protected tree within the corporate limits of the city. (n) Tree Survey A graphic display drawn to scale, not to exceed 1" = 50', showing all existing trees on a site with a six -inch DBH or greater, species, conditions, and outline of the critical root zones. (o) Tree Well An opening in a sidewalk to accommodate street trees and other understory plantings such as perennials, groundcover, ornamental grass, and low growing shrubs. Tree wells are typically covered by an approved grate or other covering. (p) 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. (q) Turret A small tower, characteristically corbelled from a corner. (2 1) General Definitions —U (a) Used or Occupied As applied to any land or structure intended, arranged or designed to be used or occupied. (22) General Definitions —V RECORD OF ORDINANCES Inc. Ordinance No. 07 -12 Page 37 of 38 Passed Forth No. 30013 20_ (a) Vehicular Realm That portion of the street right -of -way comprised of vehicle travel lanes, on- street bicycle facilities, and on- street parking lanes. (b) Vehicular Use Area Any open or unenclosed area containing more than 1,800 square feet of area and/or used by six or more vehicles of any type, whether moving or at rest, including, but not limited to, driveways, parking lots, loading and unloading areas, parking and maneuvering areas within manufactured home parks, and sales and service areas. (c) Vertical Garden See Living Wall. (d) Vinyl Siding Accessories Exterior secondary design elements that serve to provide more visual interest and complement the primary home design. (e) Visible Basement A half story partially below grade and partially exposed above grade with required transparency provided on the street fagade. (f) Vision Report The Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report adopted by City Council and as amended. (23) General Definitions —W (a) Wall Lighting Accent, emergency, or safety lights intended to illuminate portions of a building fagade. (b) Wall Sign Any sign attached to or erected against the inside or outside wall of a building or structure, with the exposed display surface of the sign in a plane parallel to the plane of the building or structure and extending less than 14 inches from the building or structure. (c) Water Table A projecting brick or stone stringcourse, molding or ledge placed to divert rainwater from a building. (d) Window Sign Any signs, posters, symbols and other types of identification or information about the use or premises directly attached to the window of a building or erected on the inside of the building and visible from any public area or adjacent property. (24) General Definitions —X (25) General Definitions —Y (a) Yard 1. Front yard An area extending the full width of the lot, the depth of which is the minimum horizontal distance between the front lot line and the nearest point of a principal structure. RECORD OF ORDINANCES Blank, Inc. 07 -12 Ordinance No. Passer! Page 38 of 38 2. Rear yard An area extending the full width of the lot the depth of which is the minimum horizontal distance between the rear lot line and the nearest point of the principal structure. 3. Side yard An area between the side line of the lot and the principal structure extending from the front lot line to the rear lot line. (26) General Definitions —Z (a) Zoning District A portion of the city within which certain uses of land and/or structures are permitted and within which certain regulations and requirements apply under the provisions of this chapter. 1. Residential District The Restricted Suburban Residential District, the Limited Suburban Residential District, the Suburban Residential District (R -3), the Suburban Residential District (R -4). The Two - Family Residential Distract, the Urban Residential District, the BSC Residential District, the BSC Historic Residential District and all Planned Districts with predominantly residential uses. 2. Non - Residential District All districts not listed under Residential District. (b) Zoning Ordinance, or Zoning Code, or Code This chapter. Section 2. Sections 153.059 through 153.066 of the City of Dublin Zoning Code are hereby amended and shall provide as attached to this Ordinance: Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective on the earliest date permitted by law. Passed this day of 2012. Mayor - Presiding Officer Clerk of Council BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR Bridge Street Corridor Districts Sections 153.057 through 153.066 w BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR AS RECOMMENDED BY DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARV2,2012 BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR DISTRICTS § 153.057 GENERAL PURPOSE § 153.058 BSC DISTRICTS SCOPE AND INTENT (A) The primary purpose of the Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) districts is to implement the Vision Principles for development and redevelopment of the corridor consistent with the directions articulated in the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report. This is with the full recognition that the Report may be revised and acknowledging that the illustrations in the Report are conceptual and not regulatory. The Vision Report identifies the Bridge Street Corridor as the centerpiece of the city with a focus on historic and cultural acknowledgement, preservation and creation of outstanding open spaces, and the presence of mixed use districts. These features allow for a wider range of choices for housing and employment, create interesting places and walkable districts, and enable buildings of lasting, memorable architecture. (B) The Bridge Street Corridor districts are intended to bring to life the five Vision Principles of the Vision Report by enhancing economic vitality, integrating the new center into community life, embracing Dublin's natural setting and celebrating a commitment to environmental sustainability, expanding the range of choices available to Dublin and the region, and creating places that embody Dublin's commitment to community. (C) Specific Purpose (1) ( (3) (4) More specifically, the purpose of the Bridge Street Corridor districts is to promote development that creates an emerging center for urban lifestyles within a walkable, mixed use urban environment that will enhance central Dublin's image as an exceptional location for high quality business investment. These districts are further intended to create places that embody Dublin's commitment to community through the preservation of those areas having architectural landmarks and traditional design, creating complete neighborhoods, and providing designs that honor human scale in their details. In addition, the Bridge Street Corridor will continue to serve as a center of community for current and future Dublin residents. The BSC districts also provide a simplified, but thorough, development review process that provides a high degree of predictability and consistency. The process also sustains Dublin's reputation for high quality development while allowing BSC property owners to compete efficiently and effectively in the marketplace. Because the Vision Report is a transform ative redevelopment concept designed for long -term implementation, a secondary purpose of the Bridge Street Corridor districts is to allow property owners the flexibility to take advantage of new and innovative business opportunities that are consistent with the Vision Report. (A) SCOPE The following Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) districts are hereby created. The districts described by §153.058 are intended to be used for all land within the Bridge Street Corridor. Unless otherwise specifically noted, after the effective date of this amendment all development and redevelopment within the BSC districts shall be consistent with the general purpose of the BSC districts as specified in §153.057 and subject to the regulations of §§ 153.058 through 153.066. Other provisions of Chapters 152 and 153 of the Dublin Code of Ordinances apply in the BSC districts to the extent those provisions are not inconsistent with the provisions of §§ 153.058 through 153.066. (B) INTENT The Bridge Street Corridor zoning districts are generally based on the District Framework of the Vision Report. The purpose of the Framework is to allow development regulations to be adapted to the unique conditions present in each area. Although each district is unique, the five Vision Principles are intended to create a cohesive area, based on the concepts of walkability and urban vitality to support the quality of life for residents of all generations. The titles of each district are intended to describe the predominant land use character and/or special geographic locations rather than a single type of use. The following further describes the intent of each BSC district. (1) BSC RESIDENTIAL The intent of this district is to accommodate single - family, two - family, townhouse, live -work and multiple - family uses in mid -rise development. The BSC Residential district integrates existing and new residential developments to create true neighborhoods and add to the population base needed to help support nearby retail and office development. Uses are generally limited to residential and small -scale residential support uses, as listed in Table 153.059 -A. (2) BSC OFFICE RESIDENTIAL The intent of this district is to accommodate a mix of office and multiple- family residential development at higher densities and in larger buildings. This district offers great flexibility to take advantage of visibility and access for office uses, with opportunities to create residential neighborhoods to support the adjacent BSC districts. Uses include a mix of residential, personal service, and commercial uses, as listed in Table 153.059 -A. 2 § 153.057 AS RECOMMENDED BY GENERAL PURPOSE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2012 (3) BSC OFFICE The intent of this district is to allow a mix of offices and retail support uses, as listed in Table 153.059 -A. The BSC Office district provides significant additional development capacity and redevelopment opportunities that foster office uses with a walkable design along signature streets, and provides increased accessibility and an improved roadway network to ease traffic pressure along major roadways. (4) BSC COMMERCIAL This district applies generally to existing retail centers and other low -rise commercial uses, including single use freestanding retail buildings, as listed in Table 153.059 -A. Properties initially zoned into this district may be eligible for rezoning to the BSC Vertical Mixed Use District or to other surrounding BSC districts when future redevelopment to higher densities is desired. (5) BSC HISTORIC CORE This district applies to the historic center of Dublin and reinforces the character of this area as the centerpiece of the Bridge Street Corridor. The district focuses on ensuring sensitive infill development and redevelopment and providing an improved environment for walking while accommodating vehicles. The district accepts building types that are consistent with the historic development pattern of Historic Dublin, subject to review by the Architectural Review Board, and permit similar uses that support a highly walkable setting, as listed in Table 153.059 -A. (6). BSC HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL The intent of this district is to permit the preservation and development of homes on existing or new lots that are comparable in size, mass, and scale, while maintaining and promoting the traditional residential character of the Historic Dublin area. The purpose of these regulations is to protect the scale and character of the original platted village by maintaining regulations consistent with the previous Historic Residential zoning in place prior to the adoption of this amendment, as listed in Table 153.059 -A. (7) BSC SAWMILL CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD This district applies to the majority of the commercial areas at the east end of the Corridor. The standards of the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood create an active, walkable destination through integration of a strong mix of uses. Development within this district relies on the provision of physical and visual connections through improved access and enhanced visibility from Sawmill Road, and links to adjacent neighborhoods and open spaces. This district accommodates a wide variety of building types and permitted uses, as listed in Table 153.059 - A. Redevelopment of the BSC Sawmill Center area creates a walkable, mixed use core as the east anchor of the Corridor. The district is subject to the specific neighborhood standards defined in §153.063(0), establishing open space patterns, location requirements for building types, and permitting pedestrian - oriented, mixed use shopping areas. (8) BSC HISTORIC TRANSITION NEIGHBORHOOD This district complements the BSC Historic Core district by accommodating a variety of building types within a finer grained street and block network and uses consistent with that district. It accommodates uses similar to those in the BSC Historic Core district, as listed in Table 153.059 -A. Development allows an extension of the walkable mixed use character of the BSC Historic Core district on the larger parcels within this district. The district is subject to the specific neighborhood standards defined in §153.063(D). These requirements establish open space patterns and location requirements for building types, provide additional residential opportunities, and extend the small scale commercial activities of the BSC Historic Core district. (B) BSC INDIAN RUN NEIGHBORHOOD This district applies to the larger parcels north and west of the Indian Run and south of I -270, including adjacent properties fronting the north side of Bridge Street. The BSC Indian Run Neighborhood district is intended to develop as a new walkable, mixed use district that takes advantage of excellent highway visibility, an improved road network, and proximity to Historic Dublin and the natural areas flanking the Indian Run. Development within the district relies on a comprehensive road network providing connections within the Indian Run district and to the rest of the Corridor, as well as sensitivity of development at its edges given its proximity to Historic Dublin and the Indian Run. This district accommodates a wide variety of building types and permitted uses, as listed in Table 153.059 - A. Redevelopment of the area creates a walkable, mixed use core as the west anchor of the Corridor. The district is subject to specific neighborhood standards defined in §153.063(E). These regulations are intended to establish natural and man -made open space patterns, build pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular networks, provide location requirements for building types, and foster a pedestrian - oriented, neighborhood scale mixed use shopping area. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR §153.058 3 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE BSC DISTRICTS INTENT (10)BSC VERTICAL MIXED USE The intent of this district is to allow a wide variety of mid -rise, mixed use development, including vertical mixed use with ground floor retail, and large format retail with liner buildings, as listed in Table 153.059 - A. It is intended to be available for areas initially zoned into the BSC Indian Run Neighborhood, and BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood districts, once these areas are developed and the applicable neighborhood standards are no longer needed to establish the organization and hierarchy of places. The district may be applied to areas initially zoned to the BSC Commercial District or elsewhere in the Bridge Street Corridor as may be deemed appropriate when future redevelopment to higher densities is desired. Accordingly, the district is not intended to be mapped at the time the BSC districts are initially adopted. (11)BSC PUBLIC This district applies to a variety of public spaces and facilities, including but not limited to schools, parks, open spaces, and places that accommodate more intensive recreation, such as outdoor entertainment venues, as listed in Table 153.059 -A. It also applies to lands in and adjacent to rivers and creeks on which development is limited due to inclusion in a Federal Emergency ManagementAgency (FENIA) designated floodplain as regulated by this Chapter, or lands that have special cultural or environmental sensitivity. 4 § 153.058 AS RECOMMENDED BY BSC DISTRICTS INTENT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2012 § y 53.059 USES (A) GENERAL PROVISIONS (1) Permitted and conditional uses available in each BSC district are shown in Table 153.059 -A. (2) Table 153 -059 -A - Explanation of Terms (a) Listed uses are defined in §153.002(A). (b) A "P" in a cell indicates a permitted use that is allowed by right in that BSC district, subject to compliance with the use- specific standards referenced in the Use Table and the applicable provisions of Chapter 153. (c) A "U" in a cell indicates an upper floor use that is allowed by right in that BSC district on any floor of the structure other than the ground floor, subject to compliance with the use- specific standards referenced in the Use Table and the applicable provisions of Chapter 153. (d) A "C" in a cell indicates a conditional use that is allowed in that BSC district only upon approval of a Conditional Use as described in §153.236 and compliance with any use - specific standards referenced in the Use Table and the applicable provisions of Chapter 153. (e) An "S" in a cell indicates a size limited use that is allowed in that BSC district only if limited in size, subject to compliance with the use- specific standards referenced in the Use Table and the applicable provisions of Chapter 153. (f) A "T" in a cell indicates a time limited use that is allowed in that BSC district for a limited period of time pursuant to a permit from the City, subject to compliance with the use- specific standards referenced in the Use Table and the applicable provisions of Chapter 153. (g) A blank cell indicates that the use is prohibited in that district (3) Use Specific Standards (a) Whether a land use is a permitted or a conditional use in a BSC district, there may be additional standards that apply to that use. These additional standards are cross - referenced in the last column of Table 153.059 -A as Use Specific Standards. The cross - referenced standards are in §153.059(C). (b) In some cases, additional restrictions on uses apply to specific building types as noted in §153.062(0) and to development in the Bridge Street Corridor neighborhood districts as noted in §153.063. (4) Similar Use Determination (a) When a proposed land use is not explicitly listed in Table 153.059 -A, the Director shall determine whether it is reasonably included in the definition of a listed use, or that the proposed use meets the The long range implementation of the Bridge Street Corridor Vision requires sensitive treatment of existing uses that represent significant investments in the City of Dublin. While it is the intent of the BSC districts for development to ultimately meet the building and use requirements of this chapter, it is the intent of this section to permit Existing Uses to continue and to be considered conforming to this Code, even if the use or the building type is not otherwise permitted in the district, provided that the following requirements are met (a) All uses that were permitted or conditional uses under the zoning of a property immediately prior to its rezoning into a BSC district shall continue to be allowed as permitted or conditional uses on the property, including any expansions of uses within Existing Structures as perm ittedby §153.062(B) (2), in addition to the permitted and conditional uses under the applicable BSC district, provided that at least one of the permitted or conditional uses under the prior zoning has been operated continuously in an Existing Structure and/or associated use areas on the property within the 12 months prior to the rezoning of the property into the BSC district. (b) Once a use that complies with the BSC district is established on a lot or parcel, no non -BSC use of the prior zoning district maybe re- established. For multi - tenant buildings in Existing Structures, no following criteria to the extent that it should be treated as a permitted or conditional use in the district. 1. The use is not specifically listed in any other BSC district. 2. The use is generally consistent with the intent of the BSC district and this chapter. 3. The use will not impair the present or potential use of other properties within the same district or bordering districts. 4. The use has no greater potential impact on surrounding properties than those listed in the district, in terms of aesthetics, traffic generated, noise, potential nuisances, and other impacts related to health, safety and welfare. 5. The use will not adversely affect the relevant elements of the Vision Report or Community Plan. (b) This determination shall be made available to the applicant and may be appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals. (5) Existing Structures Refer to § I 53.062(B)(2) for requirements related to Existing Structures. (6) Existing Uses BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.059 5 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE USES non -BSC use permitted in the prior zoning district may be re- established once the entire multi- tenant building is abandoned, or all tenant spaces have established uses under the applicable BSC district. (c) Abandonment of an Existing Use 1. If an Existing Use is abandoned for any reason for a period of more than 12 months, any subsequent use shall conform to the requirements of this Code. With regard to a multi - tenant building, the term "Existing Use" shall mean all of the existing uses in that building. 2. An Existing Use shall be determ tried by the Director to be abandoned if one or more of the following conditions exist: A. Utilities, such as water, gas or electricity to the property, have been disconnected, B. The property, buildings, or grounds have fallen into disrepair; C. Signs or other indications of the presence of the use have been removed, D. Equipment or fixtures necessary for the operation of the use have been removed, or E. Other actions which, in the opinion of the Director, constitute an intention on the part of the property owner or lessee to abandon the use. (d) Expansions of Existing Uses An Existing Use may be enlarged, increased, or extended to occupy a greater area of buildings and lands only after a finding by the ART that the enlargement, increase or extension meets all of the following standards: 1. The expansion does not have a substantial detrimental effect on, or materially impair the use and enjoyment of, adjacent uses or lots, and does not limit the ability for adjacent lots to develop in accordance with this Chapter, 2. The buildings and area encompassing the expansion of the Existing Use complies with all parking, sign, or other regulations applicable to the area affected by the proposed enlargement, increase or extension of use area, and 3. The buildings and area encompassing the expansion of the Existing Use complies with any reasonable conditions imposed by the ART that are necessary to ensure that the proposed enlargement, increase, or extension of use area will not prove detrimental to adjacent properties or the surrounding community. (e) Any Existing Use may be extended throughout any existing building or parts of a building which were manifestly arranged or designed for that use at the time of adoption of this amendment, but the Existing Use shall not be extended to occupy any land outside the existing building except as permitted by § I 53.059(A)(6)(d). (7) Existing Planned Development Districts All planned developments that are effective on the date of adoption of the applicable BSC rezoning shall continue in effect and be considered conforming under this Code in addition to the permitted and conditional uses under the applicable BSC district. This provision shall only apply to planned developments where no construction has commenced. The procedures for the implementation of these developments, including time limits for approval of final development plans or other time limits, must conform to the requirements of Chapter 153, to the extent the approved Planned Unit Development text does not address the requirements. (B) USE TABLE Refer to Table 153.059 -A. § 153.059 AS RECOMMENDED BY USES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2012 TABLE 153.059 -A: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN BSC DISTRICTS P = Permitted U = Permitted on upper floor(s) only C= Conditional S= Size Limited T =Time Limited BSC Districts Use Standards See §153.059 (C) m ;� c •p y It ri y tY v w d w m v E 0 U v U N_ 2 y 0) N_ �( 24: y >= F N_ 2 a 3 t Ca L =_ v Ca W NU X `y N >7 c 3 a Use PRINCIPAL USES Residential Dwelling, Single - Family P P (1)(a) Dwelling, Two - Family P Dwelling, Townhouse P P P P P (1)(b) Dwelling, Live -Work C P P P P P P P (1)(c) Dwelling, Multiple - Family P P P U U P P P P Group Residence S P (1)(d) Civic/PublicAnstitutional Cemetery P Community Center C C P P P P (2)(a) Community Garden P P P P P P P P P P P (2)(b) Day Care, Adult or Child P P P P P P P P (2)(c) District Energy Plant C C C C C C C C C (2)(d) Educational Facility P P P P P P P P P Elementary or Middle School P - •, P P P P P P P P P Government Services, Safety c Q C C C C C C P High School P P 11 P P P P P P Hospital 'G3f S C/S C/S C/S C/S C/S (2)(e) Library, Museum, Gallery P P P P P P P P P P (2)(f) Municipal Parking Lot P P P P P P P P P Religious or Public Assembly C/S C/S C/S C/S C/S C/S C/S C/S (2)(9) Parks and Open Space P P P P P P P P P P P Transportation, Park & Ride C C C C C C Transportation, Transit Station C C P P C C Animal Care, General Services, Veterinary Offices, and Veterinary Urgent Care and Animal Hospitals P P P P P P P (3)(a) Bank P P P P P P P I P Bed and Breakfast P (3)(b) Conference Center C P P P U Eating and Drinking C/S P/S P/S P P P P P P (3)(c) Entertainment / Recreation, Indoor P/S P/S P/S P/S P P P C (3)(d) Fueling / Service Station C I (3)(e) Hotel P P P P P P I P I P Office, General P P P P P P P U Office, Medical P P P P P P P P Parking, Structure P/C P/C P/C C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C (3)(f) BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.059 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE USES TABLE 153.059 -A: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN BSC DISTRICTS P = Permitted U = Permitted on upper floor(s) onl C= Conditional S =Size Li T= Time Limited BSC Districts Use Standards See §153.059 (C) ;� r •0 y y It v w v w v E 0 U v U N_ 2 y it N_ X 2`: = F N_ 2 3 It '0 = =_ w R W NU k `y N >7 c 3 a Use Parking, Surface Lot C P C C P P C (3) (g) Personal, Repair, &Rental Services C/S P/S P/S P/S P/S P/S P P P/S (3)(h) Research &Development P P P P P P P U Retail, General C/S P/S P/S P P/S P/S P P P (3)(i) Sexually Oriented Business Establishment C (3)(j). Vehicle Sales, Rental and Repair C C (3)(k) Wireless Communications Refer to Chapter 99 of Dublin Code of Ordinances ACCESSORY AND TEMPORARY USES Accessory uses are permitted only in connection with a permitted or approved conditional use on the same property, . and must be clearly subordinate and incidental to that use. No accessory use may be operated when a permitted or approved conditional use does not exist on the property. Temporary uses are governed by time limits as provided by this Code. ATM, Walk -Up P P P P P P P P P Bicycle Facilities P P P P P P P P P P P Community Activity and Special Event T T T T T T T T T T T (4) (a) Construction Trailer /Office T T T T T T T T T T (4) (b) Day Care, Adult or Child P P P P P P P P P P P (2)(c) Drive -in /Drive- through C C C C C C (4) (c) Dwelling, Accessory P P P P P P P P P (4) (d) Dwelling Administration, Rental, or Sales Office P P P P P P P P P (4)(e) Eating & Drinking P P P P P P P P P Essential Utility Services P P P P P P P P P P P Exercise and Fitness P P P P P P P P P P Farmers Market P P P P P P P P Heli pad /Heliports C C C C C Home Occupation P P P P P P P P P (4) (f) Outdoor Dining and Seating P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C (4) (g) Outdoor Display or Seasonal Sales T T T T T T T T T (4) (h) Parking, Structure P/C P/C P/C P/C C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C (3) (f) Parking, Surface Lot P P P P P P P P P P (4)(i) Renewable Energy Equipment P P P P P P P P P P P (4)(j). Renewable Energy Equipment, Wind C C C C C C C C (4)(k) Residential Model Home T T T T T T T T (4)(1) Retail or Personal Services P P P P P P P P Swimming Pool P P P P P P P P Transportation, Transit Stop P P P P P P P P P P Vehicle Charging Station P 1 P P P P P P P P P Wireless Communications Refer to Chapter 99 of Dublin Code of Ordinances 8 § 153.059 AS RECOMMENDED BY USES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2012 (C) USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS (1) Residential Uses (a) Dwelling,. Single - Family 1. No Development Plan or Site Plan application shall contain more than 35 detached single - family dwelling units. 2. No Development Plan or Site Plan application containing detached single - family dwelling units may be approved if any of the proposed units would be located within 400 feet of any single - family detached dwelling constructed or approved within the BSC Residential district after the effective date of this amendment. 3. No single - family detached dwelling unit may be constructed within 500 feet of the I -270 right -of -way. (b) Dwelling, Townhouse 1. If single- family attached residential units are located across the street from existing single - family detached dwellings, no more than eight attached units may be permitted in a building. 2. Ground floor residential uses are not permitted on Bridge Street in the BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District. (c) Dwelling, Live -Work 1. No more than two non- resident employees are permitted in addition to the resident(s) of the dwelling. The required reviewing body may permit additional employees. 2. The non- residential use must be operated by a resident of the live -work dwelling unit. (d) Group Residence No more than six residents are permitted per dwelling, not including caregivers, in the BSC Residential district. (2) Civic/Public/Institutional Uses (a) Community Center Incidental sales of such products as refreshments, athletic supplies for activities conducted on the premises, and similar products are permitted. (b) Community Garden Incidental sales of items grown on the premises are permitted. Areas used for sales shall be located at least 10 feet from the edge of the pavement of any street. Parking shall be located off - street or in permitted on- street locations. One, 24 square foot sign shall be permitted, located at least 10 feet from the edge of the street and not within the public street right -of -way. 2. Refuse and compost bins must be constructed to be rodent - resistant and located as far as practicable from abutting residential uses. Refuse must be removed from the site at least once a week. 3. No outdoor work activity that involves power equipment or generators may occur after 9:00 pm or prior to 7:00 am. 4. One accessory building, not exceeding 100 square feet in gross floor area, may be permitted, provided the location meets all setback requirements applicable to accessory buildings as provided in § 153.074. (c) Day Care, Adult or Child 1. The use shall at all times comply with the requirements of O.R.C. §5104. 2. Outdoor recreation areas shall be located to the side or rear of the principal structure and be enclosed with a permitted fence. The outdoor recreation area shall be screened using fencing and/or landscaping to provide a minimum 50% opaque screen. 3. All outdoor play equipment and shade structures visible from the right -of -way or adjacent properties shall use subdued, earth toned colors. 4. Adult and/or child day care uses are prohibited in civic building types as the sole principal use. (d) District Energy Plant Incidental sales of electrical energy to public utilities are permitted. (e) Hospital Hospitals shall be limited to no more than 75,000 square feet of gross floor area per structure, not including associated parking structures. (f) Library, Museum, Gallery Incidental sales of refreshments and items related to exhibits or activities at the facility are permitted. (g) Religious or Public Assembly Religious or public assembly structures shall be limited to no more than 100,000 square feet of gross floor area, not including associated parking structures. (3) Commercial (a) Animal Care, General Services, Veterinary Offices, and Veterinary Urgent Care and Animal Hospitals All activities shall be conducted indoors. No outdoor animal exercise or activity areas shall be permitted. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.059 9 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE USES (b) Bed and Breakfast 1. The property owner shall reside on the property and/or manage the facility. No more than eight guest units are permitted. 2. Guest accommodations are limited to short- term stays of no more than 14 days. (c) Eating and Drinking The indoor gross floor area of the eating and drinking facility shall be limited to no more than 10,000 square feet in single tenant buildings in the BSC Office, BSC Office Residential, and BSC Residential districts. For multi- tenant buildings in the same districts, the indoor gross floor area of the eating and drinking facility shall be limited to no more than 10,000 square feet or 20% of the ground floor of the principal structure, whichever is smaller. (d) Entertainment or Recreation, Indoor 1. Indoor entertainment or recreation uses shall be limited to no more than 25,000 square feet of gross floor area in the BSC Office, BSC Office Residential, BSC Commercial, and BSC Vertical Mixed Use districts. 2. In the BSC Public district, the use must be owned and operated by either a public or non- profit organization. (e) Fueling/Service Station 1. Fuel pumps shall be located on the same lot as a permitted building type. 2. Fuel pumps are not permitted between the principal structure and an adjacent principal frontage street 3. Where pumps are facing any street type except for an alley or service street, a street wall at least three feet high shall be placed between the pumps and associated vehicular circulation area and the street. Refer to § I 53.065(E)(2) for street wall requirements. 4. Each fueling /service station shall be buffered from adjacent properties as required in §153.065(D)(4) and meet the applicable requirements of §153.065(D)(5). 5. Motor vehicles may be continuously stored outdoors on the property for no more than 24 hours. 6. Refer to §153.062(L) for vehicular canopy requirements. (f) Parking, Structure Parking structures that meet the building type requirements of §153.062(0)(12) are permitted uses; all other parking structures are conditional uses. 2. When constructed as a principal use, either as a public or a private parking structure, no 10 § 153.059 USES more than 75% of the parking spaces shall be used to provide the required accessory parking for other principal uses located within 600 feet of the structure, unless otherwise approved with a parking plan in accordance with §153.065(B)(1)(f). (g) Parking, Surface Lot 1. All surface parking lots shall meet the surface parking lot design requirements of §153.065(B)(6). 2. When constructed as a principal use, surface parking lots shall not have frontage on or have direct access from a principal frontage street unless permitted by the City Engineer. (h) Personal, Repair, and Rental Services 1. Personal, repair, and rental service establishments shall be limited to no more than 10,000 square feet for single tenant buildings in the BSC Office, BSC Office Residential, and BSC Residential districts. For multi- tenant buildings in the same districts, the indoor gross floor area of the personal, repair, and rental services shall be limited to no more than 10,000 square feet or 20% of the gross floor area of the principal structure, whichever is smaller. 2. Personal, repair, and rental service uses shall be limited to no more than 25,000 square feet of gross floor area in all other BSC districts except the BSC Indian Run Neighborhood and BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood. (i) Retail, General General retail uses shall be limited to no more than 20,000 square feet of gross floor area in all BSC districts except the BSC Indian Run Neighborhood, BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood, BSC Commercial, and BSC Vertical Mixed Use districts. O Sexually Oriented Business Establishment 1. Sexually Oriented Business Establishments shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 120 of the Dublin Code of Ordinances. 2. No person shall operate, locate, or permit the location of a sexually oriented business establishment within 750 feet (as measured from property line to property line) of any residential use or district, school, preschool, adult or child care, religious or public assembly, or any other civic /public/ institutional use (within the City of Dublin or other municipality), or another sexually oriented business establishment. (k) Vehicle Sales, Rental, and Repair 1. There shall be not more than one full access driveway for each 100 feet of lot frontage or portion thereof. AS RECOMMENDED BY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2012 2. Vehicular use areas are not permitted between the principal structure and a principal frontage street. In other locations where vehicular use areas are located between a principal structure and any other street type, a street wall at least three feet high shall be installed along that portion of the lot line between the vehicular use areas and the street. Refer to § I 53.065(E)(2) for street wall requirements. (4) Accessory and Temporary Uses (a) Community Activity and Special Event 1. The site of the activity or event shall be adequately served by utilities and sanitary facilities. 2. The activity or event shall not become a safety hazard or public disturbance and shall not cause substantial adverse impacts on surrounding properties or land uses by creating excessive noise, glare, heat, dust, odors, or pollutants as determined by the Director and Fire Marshal. 3. A permit shall be obtained for the Community Activity or Special Event from the City of Dublin Events Administration. (b) Construction Trailer /Office Construction trailers and/or offices shall comply with the setbacks applicable to principal structures on the property, but are not required to comply with street frontage requirements for building types. Construction trailers and/or offices shall comply with the provisions of §153.097. (c) Drive- in/Drive- through 1. Drive - in/drive - throughs are conditionally permitted only for banks in the BSC Office, Vertical Mixed Use, and BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood districts. 2. Drive -in /drive - through vehicular stacking areas and associated service locations shall not be on the side of a building facing a principal frontage street. Where drive -in/ drive- through access lanes are facing a non - principal frontage street, a street wall at least three feet high shall be placed between the access lanes and the street Refer to §153.065(E)(2) for street wall requirements. 3. No menu boards, speakers, or service windows shall be located between any fagade of the principal structure and a front or comer side property line. 4. Drive - in/drive- through vehicle stacking spaces shall be at least 20 feet long. Stacking spaces may not impede on -site or off -site vehicular, bicycle, or pedestrian circulation. Where five or more stacking spaces are provided, the individual stacking lanes shall be clearly delineated. The number of stacking spaces and a traffic and pedestrian circulation plan shall be submitted by the applicant with the Conditional Use application and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 5. Uses with drive - in/drive- through facilities shall be buffered from adjacent properties as required in §153.065(D)(5). 6. Audible electronic devices such as loudspeakers, service order devices, and similar instruments shall not be located within 25 feet of the lot line of any residential district or use and shall be subject to §132.03(A)(6). 7. Refer to §153.062(L) for vehicular canopy location and design requirements. 8. Drive- in/drive- throughs shall not have frontage on any shopping corridor. (d) Dwelling,. Accessory An accessory dwelling located in a single- family, two- family, or townhouse dwelling must comply with the following standards: 1. No more than one accessory dwelling unit is permitted on a lot with a single - family, two- family, or townhouse dwelling. Where townhouse dwellings do not have individual lots, no more than one accessory dwelling unit is permitted for each townhouse unit in the development. 2. An accessory dwelling unit shall be limited to no more than 800 square feet of gross floor area. 3. When accessory to a single - family dwelling, the accessory dwelling unit may be located either within the single- family dwelling structure or in a permitted accessory structure. 4. When accessory to a townhouse dwelling, the accessory dwelling unit may only be located in a permitted accessory structure or within the basement level of the principal dwelling. 5. When accessory to a single- family dwelling or two - family dwelling, the accessory dwelling unit shall have a separate entrance from the principal dwelling unit, and that entrance shall not face the front lot line and shall not be located on the same building fagade as the principal building entrance closest to the street. 6. The owner of the dwelling must occupy either the principal dwelling unit or the permitted accessory dwelling unit. 7. Ownership of the accessory dwelling unit may not be separate from the ownership of the principal dwelling unit. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.059 11 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE USES (e) Dwelling Administration, Rental, or Sales Office Dwelling sales or rental offices shall comply with the setbacks applicable to principal structures on the property, but are not required to comply with street frontage requirements for building types unless the use is conducted within a permanent principal structure. Dwelling sales or rental offices shall comply with the provisions of §153.073(D). (f) Home Occupation All home occupations shall comply with the provisions of §153.073 in the BSC Historic Residential district. In all other BSC districts, home occupations shall comply with the following standards. 1. The use must be conducted entirely within the principal dwelling or accessory buildings. 2. No business involving retail sales of goods on the premises is permitted. 3. No person not a member of the household residing on the premises shall work on the premises. 4. Not more than 25% of the ground floor gross floor area of the principal dwelling shall be devoted to the home occupation. 5. The exterior of the structure shall not be modified to accommodate the home occupation. 6. No display or signs pertaining to the home occupation shall be visible from the street. 7. No equipment shall be used that creates noise, vibration, sound, smoke, dust, odors, heat, glare, X -Ray or electrical disturbance to radio or television that is discernable in adjacent dwelling units or at the property line. 8. All home occupations that require a license from the state or City shall maintain a valid license at all times and shall operate in compliance with the terms of that license and all applicable regulations of the state or City at all times. 9. Home occupations shall not include or involve motor vehicle or equipment repair, the sale of weapons or hazardous materials, or other activities that would constitute a nuisance in a residential area. (g) Outdoor Dining and Seating 1. Outdoor dining and seating areas, furniture, and enclosures shall be set back at least five feet from the curb and at least five feet from all street trees and street furniture. 2. The use of outdoor speakers shall require Conditional Use approval. Outdoor speakers shall comply with the provisions of §132.03(A)(6) of the Dublin City Code. 3. Advertising is not permitted on dining furniture, accessories, or other similar amenities. 4. Dining furniture shall be of the same design, material and color for all furniture associated with the use. When not in regular use, outdoor furniture shall be stored in a location that is not visible to the public, unless the patio furniture is all- weather material, set up for use and not covered in any way, and weather conditions make the use of furniture possible. (h) Outdoor Display or Seasonal Sales 1. Outdoor seasonal plant display shall comply with the provisions of §153.099. 2. Outdoor sale of merchandise is permitted, and shall comply with the provisions of § I53.099(C)(2). Merchandise shall only be displayed during the hours of operation for the principal use. No permit is required. 3. Outdoor sales of Christmas trees and pumpkins shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 116 of the Dublin City Code. (i) Parking, Surface (Accessory) I. Where the non - residential gross floor area of the principal structure is 100,000 square feet or more and the principal structure is on a lot that is four acres or less, surface parking shall not be used to provide required parking. However, surface parking may be used for a maximum of 5% of the required spaces provided the parking lot is located to the side or rear of the principal structure and not fronting on a public street. 2. This requirement applies only to principal structures constructed after the effective date of this amendment. 0) Renewable Energy Equipment 1. In the BSC Historic Core and BSC Historic Residential districts, only equipment for the collection of solar and geothermal energy is permitted. 2. Ground - mounted equipment for the collection of geothermal energy is permitted only to the rear of and within five feet of the principal structure. Ground- mounted equipment for the collection of solar energy is permitted to the side or rear of the principal structure, but not within five feet of a side or rear property line. Rooftop equipment for the collection of solar energy is permitted provided it extends no more than 18 inches beyond the maximum permitted height of the principal structure. 12 § 153.059 AS RECOMMENDED BY USES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2012 4. Building - mounted renewable energy equipment shall be integrated into the architectural character of the principal structure. 5. Ground- mounted renewable energy equipment shall be sited to minimize view from the public right -of -way and adjacent properties, and shall be camouflaged to the extent that the equipment can function norm ally. (k) Renewable Energy Equipment, Wind 1. Ground- mounted equipment for the collection of wind energy is permitted to the rear of the principal structure, may not exceed the maximum permitted height of the principal structure by more than 40 feet, and must be set back from each property line a distance equal to the height of the equipment that exceeds the height of the principal structure. 2. As an exception, within 200 feet of the I -270 right -of -way, ground - mounted wind energy equipment shall be limited to 150 feet, and must be setback from each property line a distance equal to the height of the equipment. 3. Height of the equipment is measured to the farthest extent of any part of the equipment. 4. Building- mounted equipment for the collection of wind energy must be integrated into the architectural character of the principal structure. 5. Rooftop- mounted equipment for the collection of wind energy shall be permitted to exceed t h e m aximum permitted height of the principal structure by no more than 15 feet. (1) Residential Model Home Residential model homes shall comply with the provisions of §153.073(D). BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.059 13 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE USES § 153.060 LOTS AND BLOCKS (A) INTENT The intent of §153.060 is to establish a network of interconnected streets with walkable block sizes, organized to accommodate multiple modes of transportation. The street network includes certain streets designated as principal frontage streets to create continuous, pedestrian- oriented block faces of front building fagades and limited driveway interruptions. (B) APPLICABILITY The requirements of this section apply to all new developments within all BSC districts. (C) GENERAL BLOCK AND LOT LAYOUT (1) Interconnected Street Pattern The network of streets within the Bridge Street Corridor is intended to form an interconnected pattern with multiple intersections and resulting block sizes as designated in §153.060(0)(2). (a) Where practicable, the arrangement of streets shall provide for the continuation of existing or planned streets from adjoining areas into new developments. This provision shall not be construed as prohibiting the termination of streets at public street intersections where appropriate, provided that the overall connectivity of the street network is maintained, and intersections are adequately spaced as determined by the City Engineer. (b) Cul -de -sac and dead end streets are not permitted, except as specified in §153.060(C)(1)(0. (c) Wherever practicable, streets should be designed to follow natural features rather than interrupting or dead - ending at the feature. (d) Streets shall terminate at either an open space type or a front or corner side building fagade. Refer to §153.0620 for building requirements at these locations. (e) Refer to §153.061 for the general locations and configurations of existing and planned streets within the Bridge Street Corridor. (f) Exceptions Where an existing barrier limits the extension of the street network, streets shall be created to match the above requirements to the maximum extent practicable. Existing barriers include such features as a highway, waterway, open space, utility line, roadways with limited access restrictions, or development that is expected to remain. (2) Maximum Block Size (a) Required Subdivision Developments meeting any of the following criteria shall subdivide to meet the maximum block sizes as required by Table 153.060 -A, Maximum Block Dimensions: 1. All developments within the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District, BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District, or BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District, 2. Any developments requiring approval of a Development Plan as required in §153.066(E). MAXI BSC Districts Length (ft) Perimeter (ft) Residential 500 1,750 Office Residential 500 1,750 Office 500 1,750 Commercial 500 1,750 Historic Residential 200 800 Historic Core 200 800 Historic Transition Neighborhood 300 1,000 Indian Run Neighborhood 500 1,750 Sawmill Center Neighborhood 500 1,750 Vertical Mixed Use 500 1,750 Public 300 1,000 (b) Measurement 1. Block length shall be the distance along one side of a block measured between two parallel or approximately parallel property lines on the opposite sides of the block. 2. Block perimeter shall be the aggregate block length along all sides of a block measured along the property lines. (c) Shopping Corridors Additional block requirements for shopping corridors are noted in § 153.063., Neighborhood Standards. (d) Exception When existing barriers limit extension of the street network, blocks shall be created to match the above requirements to the maximum extent practicable. Barriers may include such features as a highway, waterway, open space, utility line, 14 § 153.060 AS RECOMMENDED BY LOTS & BLOCKS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2012 roadways with limited access restrictions, or development that is expected to remain. (3) Block Configuration Refer to Figure 153.060 -A for an illustration of typical block elements. (a) The shape of a block shall be generally rectangular, but may vary due to natural features or other site constraints. (b) Blocks shall be arranged with front property lines along at least two sides. (4) Principal Frontage Streets Principal frontage streets are designated to ensure certain streets are lined with continuous, pedestrian - oriented block faces of front building fagades or public open space, with limited conflicts between pedestrians and vehicular traffic. (a) Principal frontage streets are as designated in § 153.061, Street Types. Additional principal frontage streets may be designated as development progresses within the neighborhood districts as described in §153.063, Neighborhood Standards. (b) Where a principal frontage street is designated, access to blacks shall be located to comply with principal frontage street requirements as described in §153.060(C)(5). (c) Where a principal frontage street is designated, the principal frontage street shall be used to determine lot frontage orientation, as described in §153.060(C)(9). FIGURE 153.060 -A. TYPICAL BLOCK ELEMENTS Block Penmeter m U ED Q Block Length (5) B1ockAccess Configurations (a) Vehicular access shall not be permitted from a principal frontage street, unless the City Engineer determines that access from any other street is impracticable as described in §153.061(D). The determination shall be based on locations of existing and proposed vehicular access points of other developments along the principal frontage street and the number of principal frontage streets for the property. (b) Blocks may include alleys /service streets or driveway entrances with the following recommended configurations. See Figure 153.060 - B, Typical Block Access Configurations. 1. Mid- Block Access. This configuration includes an alley or drive running through or near the center of the block. 2. "T" Configuration. This configuration includes two perpendicular alleys or drives within a block, forming a "T," allowing development to front on three block faces. 3. "H" Configuration. Similar to the "T" configuration, this configuration allows development to front on all four block faces. FIGURE 153.060 -B. TYPICAL BLOCK ACCESS CONFIGURATIONS Mid -Block Access Lot j I Lot � j. I• a 1 1 ; i. a � I aa) I to j F °U I: Lot i Lot I; 0 o u N Ia) I• � a I r � wt I Lot Lot 5 i 1 is Block Length (5) B1ockAccess Configurations (a) Vehicular access shall not be permitted from a principal frontage street, unless the City Engineer determines that access from any other street is impracticable as described in §153.061(D). The determination shall be based on locations of existing and proposed vehicular access points of other developments along the principal frontage street and the number of principal frontage streets for the property. (b) Blocks may include alleys /service streets or driveway entrances with the following recommended configurations. See Figure 153.060 - B, Typical Block Access Configurations. 1. Mid- Block Access. This configuration includes an alley or drive running through or near the center of the block. 2. "T" Configuration. This configuration includes two perpendicular alleys or drives within a block, forming a "T," allowing development to front on three block faces. 3. "H" Configuration. Similar to the "T" configuration, this configuration allows development to front on all four block faces. FIGURE 153.060 -B. TYPICAL BLOCK ACCESS CONFIGURATIONS Mid -Block Access a) N (n m m m 0 LL a a a I N (n a) 01 m 0 0 tl a a U a Principal Frontage StreE r I 3 F , � ro ` I a � a 1 S�ruTc�reet _ Principal Frontage Street "T" Configuration f F I mIl U I )I �I I __ IIIII L Service _ II I - IIIi l' Principal Frontage Street "H" Configuration rincipal Frontage Street I V I II I I Principal Frontage Street BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.060 15 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE LOTS & BLOCKS I - I� I r 1 11 I pock lri nw m I � a) N (n m m m 0 LL a a a I N (n a) 01 m 0 0 tl a a U a Principal Frontage StreE r I 3 F , � ro ` I a � a 1 S�ruTc�reet _ Principal Frontage Street "T" Configuration f F I mIl U I )I �I I __ IIIII L Service _ II I - IIIi l' Principal Frontage Street "H" Configuration rincipal Frontage Street I V I II I I Principal Frontage Street BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.060 15 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE LOTS & BLOCKS (c) Wherever practicable, as determined by the City Engineer, vehicular access to blocks shall be aligned with other access points on opposite sides of the same block as well as aligned across the street from vehicular access points to other blocks. (6) Mid-Block Pedestrianways Mid -block pedestrianways are required on all blocks exceeding 400 feet in length, unless otherwise required for exempted by §153.063, Neighborhood Standards. (a) When combined with mid -block street crossings, pedestrianways shall align as nearly as practicable to facilitate continuous pedestrian pathways. (b) Mid -block pedestrianways shall be publicly accessible at all times and shall be located within the middle third of a block with access from the sides of a block exceeding 400 feet. Refer to Figure 153.060 -A, Typical Block Elements, for an illustration of the middle third of a block. (c) Design 1. Mid -block pedestrianways shall be a minimum of 14 feet in width, with a minimum five foot sidewalk, and designed as a continuation of the streetscape, including materials and furnishings. 2. The mid -block pedestrianway shall be lighted using footlights, bollard lights, building lights, and/or adjacent street lights to provide for safety and visibility. 3. The mid -block pedestrianway shall be landscaped and include shade trees spaced at 30 to 35 feet on center. Trees may be staggered, except as required by §153.060(C) ( (d) Amid - building pedestrianway, as described in §153.062(F), may serve as a mid -block pedestrianway provided it meets the applicable design and location requirements of mid -block pedestrianways described in this section in addition to other applicable requirements for mid - building pedestrianways, however, landscaping shall not be required. (e) Alternatively, the pedestrianway requirement may be fulfilled by a permitted alley when located in the middle third of a block and when a minimum five foot sidewalk is provided. Design requirements shall be based on the applicable street type specifications, as described in §153.061, Street Types. (7) Typical Lot Dimensions (a) Any lot shall be created to meet the requirements of one or more of the building types permitted by the district in which it is located, as provided in §153.062, Building Types. (b) Minimum lot width shall be measured at the front property line. (8) Typical Lot Configuration (a) To avoid creating irregular lots, interior side lot lines shall be perpendicular to the street right -of- way to the extent practicable. (b) Flag lots are prohibited. (9) Street Frontage All lots shall have at least one lot frontage along a public street. (a) Front Property Line 1. A lot line bordering a single street right -of- way shall be the front property line. 2. A lot line bordering a principal frontage street shall be the front property line unless otherwise specified in this section. (b) Comer Side Property Lines 1. For comer lots occupied by a single building, one lot line shall be the front property line and one lot line shall be the comer side property line. 2. For comer lots occupied by multiple buildings, lot lines shall be designated as front or comer side property lines as necessary to meet the building type street frontage requirements along both frontages. (c) Lots bordering more than two principal frontage streets shall meet the street frontage requirements as provided in § I53.062(N) along at least two of the streets. Subject to approval by the required reviewing body, the street frontage requirements shall be maximized to the extent practicable along the other principal frontage streets. (d) Lot lines along alleys or service streets or I -270 are not permitted to be designated as front or comer side property lines. (e) Alleys or service streets shall not be considered street frontage and shall not be subject to street frontage requirements described elsewhere in § §153.059 through 153.065. (f) Where lot lines cannot be determined by the requirements of this section, the required reviewing body shall designate which lot lines shall serve as the front and comer side property lines. To designate lot lines, the required reviewing body may consider all relevant factors and information, including but not limited to 1. The street types and the intended character of existing or proposed streets on which the lot has, or is proposed to have, frontage; 2. The proximity of existing or proposed principal frontage streets; and 3. The locations of front and comer side property lines on adjacent lots or lots located on the opposite side of the street. 16 § 153.060 AS RECOMMENDED BY LOTS & BLOCKS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2012 This page has been left blank intentionally. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.060 17 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE LOTS & BLOCKS § 153.061 STREET TYPES (A) INTENT The intent of §153.061 is to develop a comprehensive network of streets throughout the Bridge Street Corridor that are configured to accommodate multiple modes of transportation, organized by a hierarchy of street character families, and consistent with the placemaking principles of the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report. (B) APPLICABILITY The requirements of §153.061 apply to all new and existing streets and alleys or parts thereof as developed or reconfigured in the Bridge Street Corridor, whether public or private. (C) STREET NETWORK Streets shall form an interconnected street pattern with walkable block sizes as required in §153.060, Lots and Blocks. (1) Street Families Existing and planned streets within the Bridge Street Corridor are classified by street families. The intent of the street family designation is to provide a wide range of street configurations to accommodate different land use contexts and transportation needs while establishing a broader framework of street character throughout the area. The purpose and intended application of each street family is described below. (a) Corridor Connector Streets The corridor connector street family provides a series of street types that balance non - motorized and vehicular travel options along high- capacity thoroughfares. This street family serves multiple types of development and provides crosstown connections, while accommodating various transitions in land use and street character. (b) District Connector Streets The district connector street family provides a series of high to medium capacity street types that serve a wide variety of uses and development densities. District connector streets provide connections between districts throughout the Bridge Street Corridor along high- visibility frontages, and typically serve as prime locations for destination - oriented development such as shopping corridors. (c) Neighborhood Streets The neighborhood street family provides a series of low to medium capacity street types applicable to a wide variety of land use contexts, but often to residential areas or neighborhood- serving commercial uses. Neighborhood streets provide a finer- grained network of street connections that allow for multiple, interconnected travel routes, but typically serve more localized destinations rather than cross - corridor travel. (d) Alleys and Service Streets Alleys and service streets are very low capacity, low speed streets located to the rear of lots that minimize driveway interruptions in the pedestrian realm. Alleys and service streets provide access to parking facilities, loading facilities, and service areas for refuse and utilities. Alleys may also serve as mid -block pedestrianways if designed according to the requirements of §153.060(0)(6). (2) Street Types Street Families are comprised of multiple street types, each configured to accommodate specific transportation needs while reinforcing the intended character and function of the applicable street family. New streets shall be designed using the principles and characteristics defined by each street type. The City Engineer may require additional right -of -way, pavement width, or additional street infrastructure elements depending on unique site characteristics. Options for available street type configurations shall be reviewed with the applicant during the Pre - Application Review process, as described in §153.066. Appropriate street types shall be determined by the required reviewing body during the Development Plan or Site Plan Review process, as may be applicable. (3) Existing Streets Where existing streets are planned to be realigned, relocated or removed, the City shall reserve the right to maintain those rights -of -way and to incorporate them into the planned street network. The City Engineer shall designate the street family and street type(s) appropriate for these streets. (4) Street Network Map Refer to Figure 153.061 -A for a map of the planned Bridge Street Corridor street network and street family designations. The Street Network Map shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate locations and alignments of new streets during the Development Plan approval process as required in §153.066. As noted below, actual alignments and locations will be determined as individual properties are developed. (a) Graphic Intent The street network depicted Figure 153.061 -A is intended to illustrate one result of the block size and connectivity requirements in §153.060 and is representative of a general development pattern for the Bridge Street Corridor. Figure 153.061 -A is not intended to represent all requirements or actual development, nor is it intended to designate the precise locations for specific street types. (b) Illustrated Corridor Connector Streets Corridor connector streets illustrated in Figure 153.061 -A include existing high - capacity 18 § 153.061 AS RECOMMENDED BY STREET TYPES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2012 thoroughfares in existing and potentially realigned (1) Street Frontage Requirements configurations. These alignments maybe subject (a) All lots and blocks with frontage along a principal to change pending further engineering analysis frontage street shall meet the requirements of and land use programming. Actual locations §153.060(0)(4) and all development requirements of realigned corridor connector streets will associated with principal frontage streets be determined through the Development Plan described elsewhere in this Chapter, as may be Review and the City's capital improvements applicable. program process, as applicable. Where existing alignments are shown to remain, these streets may (b) In addition to the principal frontage streets be subject to improvements necessary to bring depicted in Figure 153.061 -A, all lots, blocks and them into conformance with a permitted street associated development with frontage along a $'Pe street or street segment which also has any open space type frontage as listed in §153.064, Open (c) Illustrated District Connector Streets Space Types, with the exception of pocket park District connector streets illustrated in Figure and pocket plaza open space types, shall meet all 153.061 -A include existing, realigned and applicable principal frontage street requirements. potential new streets representing major street (c) Alleys and service streets shall not be designated connections necessary to ensure connectivity as principal frontage streets. throughout the Bridge Street Corridor. These alignments, including the locations of future (2) Vehicular Access bridge crossings over the Scioto River, may be (a) Vehicular access shall not be permitted from a subject to change pending farther engineering principal frontage street, unless the City Engineer analysis and land use programming. Actual determines that access from any other street is locations of realigned district connector streets impracticable. Where this determination is made, will be determined through the Development all other applicable principal frontage street Plan Review and the City's capital improvements requirements described elsewhere in this Code program process, as applicable. Where existing shall continue to apply. alignments are shown to remain, these streets may (b) Vehicular access refers to private driveways or be subject to improvements necessary to bring lanes and to alleys or service streets whether them into conformance with a permitted street public or private. Other public street intersections type. are not restricted by principal frontage street (d) Illustrated Neighborhood Streets designations, but may be subject to access Neighborhood streets illustrated in Figure management limitations as determined by the City 153.061 -A include existing and potential new Engineer. street connections generally consistent with the (c) Alleys and service streets are the preferred means block size requirements of §153.060. Actual of vehicular access to lots and blocks. If utilized, locations of new neighborhood streets will alleys and service streets shall provide access be determined through the Development Plan from a non - principal frontage street wherever Review process. Where existing neighborhood practicable. Refer to §153.060(C)(5) for block streets are shown to remain, these streets may be access configurations. subject to improvements necessary to bring them (3) Multiple Principal Frontage Streets into conformance with a permitted street type. Where a lot or block is fronted by multiple principal (e) Alleys and Service Streets frontage streets, and where access from a principal The locations of new alleys and service streets frontage street is determined to be necessary as are subject to the block access requirements permitted by §153.061(D)(2), the following street of §153.060 and are not illustrated on Figure family hierarchy shall be considered by the required 153.061 -A. Actual locations of new alleys reviewing body in determining permitted vehicular and service streets will be determined through access locations t o t h e m aximum extent practicable: the Development Plan and Site Plan Review (a) Neighborhood streets shall be the preferred means processes. of providing vehicular access for alleys, or for driveways where no alley is present. Where a (D) PRINCIPAL FRONTAGE STREETS neighborhood street is designated as a principal Principal frontage streets are designated to ensure certain frontage street, any other neighborhood street street types are lined with continuous, pedestrian- oriented shall be used to provide vehicular access wherever block faces of front building fagades, and to limit conflicts practicable. between pedestrians and vehicular traffic. Refer to Figure (b) District connector streets shall take precedence 153.061 -A for principal frontage street designations in the over neighborhood streets in maintaining the planned Bridge Street Corridor street network. principal frontage street character. Vehicular BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.061 19 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE STREET TYPES access shall not be permitted from a district connector street if suitable alternative access from a neighborhood street is available. (c) Corridor connector streets shall take precedence above all other street types in maintaining the principal frontage street character. Vehicular access shall not be permitted from a corridor connector street if a suitable alternative access location is available. (E) TYPICAL STREET ELEMENTS Typical elements of a street right -of -way are divided into the vehicular and pedestrian realm. Each street type outlines which facilities are applicable and provides typical design specifications. Options for the required types and configurations of street elements for specific street types shall be reviewed with the applicant during the Pre - Application Review process, as described in §153.066. Appropriate street elements shall be determined by the required reviewing body during the Development Plan or Site Plan Review process, as may be applicable. (1) Bicycle Facilities A variety of bicycle accommodations are permitted in the street right -of -way, including cycletracks, bicycle lanes, and shared lanes. Appropriate bicycle facilities for specific street types shall be determined during the application review process. (2) Vehicular On- Street Parking On- street parking may be permitted or required on designated street types. The appropriate configuration and dimensions of on- street parking for specific street types shall be determined during the application review process. (a) On- street parking spaces may be counted toward the minimum required parking for a parcel, subject to the requirements of §153.065(B)(2). (b) On- street parking spaces may be used for loading and delivery, subject to the requirements of §153.065(B)(7). (3) Crosswalks Crosswalks shall be required at the stop - controlled legs of unsignalized intersections and all legs of signalized intersections. Crosswalks may be permitted at mid- block locations for areas where heavy pedestrian traffic is anticipated, such as shopping corridors, at the determination of the City Engineer. The locations of mid -block crosswalks should be aligned with the locations of mid -block pedestrianways where practicable. (a) Crosswalks shall be a minimum of eight feet in width, measured from mid - stripe to mid - stripe. (b) Crosswalks shall be appropriately indicated on the finished street surface with painted markings and/ or textured or colored pavement or pavers. All signs and markings shall meet the requirements of the Ohio Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. (c) To encourage pedestrian activity, typical crosswalks shall not exceed 38 feet in length without a landscape median, curb extension and/or other pedestrian refuge to mitigate the effects of vehicular traffic on crossing and increase pedestrian safety and comfort. These design measures shall be implemented wherever practicable, as determinedby the City Engineer. (d) Crosswalks shall be constructed of asphalt, concrete or concrete pavers rated for truck traffic. The City Engineer may require alternate materials to better distinguish the crosswalk from the street where deemed necessary for safety and convenience. (F) CURB RADII AT INTERSECTIONS Curb radii at intersections shall be minimized to the greatest extent practicable to shorten pedestrian crossing distances, reduce vehicle turning speeds, and improve sight distance between pedestrians and motorists, balancing the ease of vehicular and pedestrian travel. (1) Typical Design Vehicle Intersections shall be designed for the typical design vehicle as opposed to the maximum design vehicle, as determined by the City Engineer. When the design vehicle requires a larger curb radius, approval of the City Engineer is required. (2) Permitted Radii The maximum curb radius for intersections along West Dublin- Granville Road, Riverside Drive, and Sawmill Road is 35 feet. Curb radii at all other intersections may range between 15 and 25 feet, as approved by the City Engineer. (G) FIRE ACCESS Street configurations have been calculated to provide appropriate fire track access. Where applicable, the following fire access accommodations shall also be required. (1) Room to Pass Where the total width of all travel lanes is narrower than 22 feet, the following shall apply: (a) Unless otherwise required by the Fire Chief, each block shall provide at least one 22 -foot opening in the on- street parking or a 22 -font dedicated pull -off space on each side of the street to allow vehicles to pull over for a fire truck to pass. (b) A driveway, alley entrance, bus stop, building access zone or fire hydrant zone maybe used to fulfill this requirement. 20 § 153.061 AS RECOMMENDED BY STREET TYPES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2012 (2) Building Access Zone Building access zones provide dedicated space within the street right -of -way for fire trucks and other emergency vehicles to position necessary equipment and to access adjacent buildings. (a) A building access zone of 40 feet in length shall be provided for buildings with a height of 30 feet or greater, unless this requirement is waived by the Fire Chief where sufficient alternate access is available. (b) Building access zones should be located as close as practicable to the structure's principal entrance. Where possible, building access zones should be located to provide access to multiple buildings. (c) Where present, fire hydrant zones may be included within the building access zone. (d) A building access zone shall be striped and signed as a fire lane to restrict on- street parking within the zone. (e) Where on- street parking is provided, building access zones should be designed and located to minimize the reduction of parking spaces to the greatest extent practicable by co- locating with other zones or facilities in the street right -of- way, such as intersection visibility triangles and dedicated bus stops. (f) All or portions of a building access zone are encouraged to be designed as a curb bump -out, expanding the width of the street buffer into the on- street parking lane. This design should be co- located with mid -block pedestrian crossings where present. (g) Hardscape areas within building access zones shall be designed and constructed to provide sufficient physical support for emergency vehicles as required by the Fire Chief. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.061 21 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE STREET TYPES RGURE 153.061 -A. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR STREET NETWORK GRAPHIC INTENT The street network depicted In this map Is Intended to Illustrate one result of the block size and connectivity requirements In §153.060 and Is representative of a general development pattern for the Bridge Street Corridor. This map Is not Intended to represent all requirements or actual development, nor Is It Intended to designate 1 745 the precise locations for specific street types. le tr _ , y ~ f � I IND /qN pVNO0. Refer to §153.063(E)for dwelopment intent in the 'ry B6Ci Ind Ran R o ry INDIAN Neighborhood District I = I = os \ Rr �Na /4N .. �i r 7 7 developme Intent in the h BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District B WEST BRIDGE ST ass�'� I a p pER Z F Street Families Existing Potential aiiiiiiiiiiiiiio en sm = Corridor Connector Streets District Connector Streets Neighborhood Streets (Not Depicted) Alleys /Service Streets Refer to §153.061(C) for a description of the purpose and intended application of each street family. Principal Frontage Streets Refer to §153.060(C)(4) and §153.061(D) for principal frontage street requirements. 1 l 257 1 P ut < I i Z 5. 22 § 153.061 AS RECOMMENDED BY STREETTYPES PLANNING &ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2012 z�a f 1 T `Intersections with Corridor Connector Streets may be subject to access restrictions as determined by the City Engineer. N 0 500 1,000 smm=� Feet G C F = RePorto $153.013tC) for o , pmem imam im Ae BSC Sawmill Center NelphborhoaE Olahlot v Z $ F U Z C m ` Q 0 4Nk ER flR W D UBLIN- _ GRANVILLE RD 161 _7 STONERIOC R ti n m 2 M m a 0 a BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.061 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE STREET TYPES 23 § 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (A) INTENT The building types detailed in §153.062 outline the required building forms for new construction and renovated structures within the BSC districts. The intent of these building types is to provide a range of high quality residential, commercial, mixed -use and civic building options to reinforce the character of each district. (B) GENERAL BUILDING TYPE REQUIREMENTS (1) Applicability (a) As provided in §153.062, the building type standards shall be applied to all new development within the Bridge Street Corridor. (b) Structures constructed after the date of this amendment that are subsequently made nonconforming by an amendment to this Chapter shall meet the requirements of §I53.004(C). (2) Existing Structures (a) At the effective date of this amendment where one or more lawful structures exist on a site that do not comply with the requirements of this Code because of restrictions such as front property line occupation, lot coverage, required building zone or setback, buildable area, height, or other requirements related to siting, the structure(s) may be continued as existing at the effective date of this amendment if the requirements of §153.062(B)(2) are met (b) Existing Structures may be extended, enlarged, altered, remodeled or modernized after approval by the Administrative Review Team (ART) upon finding that all of the following conditions are met: 1. That the Existing Structure meets all height area, and/or parking and loading provisions that were applicable immediately prior to the rezoning of the property into a BSC district. 2. That the enlargement or extension is limited to the same parcel on which the Existing Structure was located at the time of the adoption of this amendment. 3. That the improvement does not interfere with the use of other properties located contiguous to or directly across the street from the parcel on which the Existing Structure is located. 4. That the enlargement or extension does not exceed 50% of the gross floor area of the Existing Structure at the time of the adoption of this amendment. (c) Parking for Existing Structures is governed by § 153.065(B)(1)(a). (d) Reconstruction or Movement 1. Should an Existing Structure be damaged or destroyed by an act of God, or other action outside the control of the owner /lessee, that Existing Structure may be repaired or reconstructed as it existed prior to the action causing it to be damaged or destroyed. 2. Any permitted reconstruction shall be started within 12 months of the time of damage and shall be continued until completed. If this requirement is not met, the structure shall either be removed or reconstructed to meet the requirements of a new building. 3. Should the property/building owner or lessee demolish more than 50% of the gross floor area of an Existing Structure then all of the improvements on the property associated with the Existing Structure must be constructed and/or brought into conformance with the requirements of this Code for the building types required for the district. (e) Determination of Building Type The ART may designate an Existing Structure as a specific building type upon a finding that the structure is substantially similar in character and form to one of the permitted building types for the district in which the structure is located. (f) Exceptions 1. Where subsequent modifications bring the Existing Structure into compliance with specific building type requirements for the designated building type, the Existing Structure shall not be modified in a manner that brings the Existing Structure out of compliance with those specific requirements. 2. For Existing Structures within the Historic Core district the Architectural Review Board shall determine if the building type requirements apply to specific buildings. All new construction within this district shall meet the requirements of §153.062, § §153.170 through 153.180, and the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines. 3. For Existing Structures within the BSC Historic Residential District the Architectural Review Board shall determine if the building type requirements apply to specific buildings. All new construction within this district shall meet the requirements of §I53.063(B), § §153.170 through 153.180 and the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines. (g) Refer to §153.059(A)(6) for requirements for Existing Uses. 24 § 153.062 AS RECOMMENDED BY BUILDING TYPES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2012 (3) General Requirements All building types shall meet the following requirements. (a) Zoning Districts Each building type shall be constructed only within its designated BSC district. Table 153.062 -A, Permitted Building Types in Each BSC District, outlines which building types are permitted in which BSC districts. Refer to §153.058, BSC Districts Scope and Intent, for a description of each district. (b) Uses Each building type may house the uses allowed in the district in which it is located. Refer to Table 153.059 -A, Permitted and Conditional Uses in BSC Districts. Additional use restrictions may apply based on the specific building type requirements. (c) No Other Building Types Principal buildings shall meet the requirements of the building types permitted within the appropriate BSC district. (d) Permanent Structures All buildings constructed, including principal structures and accessory structures, shall be permanent constructions without a chassis, hitch, wheels, or other features that would make the structure mobile. (e) Accessory Structures Accessory structures shall be permitted to be constructed in the buildable area of the lot in locations not required to be occupied by a principal structure. Accessory structures shall be constructed to comply with §153.062(E), or as otherwise approved by the required reviewing BUILDING TYPES IN EACH BSC DISTRICT • • • BSC DISTRICTS a r Loft Building • • • F ' • Z Corridor Building • • • • • O J_ Mixed Use Building • • • • • • 7 O m Commercial Center • • • O s W Large Format Commercial Building • • • • c `O a v m -< O s m n 7 c i y v C O 2 0O W 'y R R 'O O Rs O Wt M W OC r OC `W U O F oo O U — _O O U O O R Et V O E �m ia 3m r a t (r O O U Nz > a x x xz Single Family Detached • Single Family Attached • • • • • W Apartment Building • • • • • • a r Loft Building • • • F • • • Z Corridor Building • • • • • 6 J_ Mixed Use Building • • • • • • 7 m Commercial Center • • • O W Large Format Commercial Building • • • • F F Historic Mixed Use Building • • It W a Historic Cottage Commercial • Civic Building • • • • • • • • 1 I • Parking Stwcture • • • • • • • • 1 ■ I • Podium Apartment Building • • • J— " Building Types do not apply to the Historic Residential District. Refer to §163.063(B). BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.062 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING TYPES body, except that more than one primary fagade material is not required. All other applicable provisions of §153.074, Accessory Uses and Structures, shall be met. (C) GENERAL BUILDING TYPE LAYOUT AND RELATIONSHIPS The following outlines how BSC districts and building types shall relate to one another. (1) Incompatible Building Types Incompatible building types are not permitted directly across the street from one another or on the same block face, unless otherwise permitted by the required reviewing body. Refer to Table 153.062 -13 for building types considered to be incompatible. (2) Shopping Corridors At least one street or street segment shall be designated as a shopping corridor in the BSC Indian Run and BSC Sawmill Center neighborhood districts, meeting the requirements of §153.063, Neighborhood Standards. Shopping corridors shall include building types that accommodate retail uses on ground floors, such as mixed use, large format commercial, loft, or corridor buildings. (a) These building types shall be TACT, shall be no less than two feet and no more than six feet high. Where a six -foot parapet is insufficient to screen rooftop mechanical equipment a screening structure shall be required as provided in §153.065(E)(3). (b) Parapets shall wrap the building along all facades. (c) Horizontal Shadow Lines 1. Expression lines are encouraged to define the parapet from the upper stories of the building and to define the top of the parapet. 2. In the BSC Historic Core district, a projecting comice is required. (d) Occupied space or a half story shall not be incorporated within this roof type. FIGURE 153.062 -A. PARAPET. Parapet Height ik�. of building � Expression Il it II II II II II II Line 153., ''_ -B. INCOMPATIBLE BUILDING TYPES Existing Building Type clustered into street frontages Nf- -- Not - errnk,ed uninterrupted by other building types NPI ='vat I rmitted for a minimum of 300 linear feet, as unless accessory O a) N E measured along the sidewalk. Street to the residential O) Z rn Y E frontages may turn the comer and buildings, wrapped by T T 3 `o U m m m - x m o t[ m continue along an intersecting street. occupied space, or m E 3 �- E o- m m 0 p `o p U ;' a N otherwise permitted a (D� E E E - m O E ° (b) The required shopping corridor by the required m Z z - - E a) 3 s be designated along a principal reviewing body. m� O 0 a o o x o m o o 0 `m o frontage street. n n¢ ¢ U U U S 1:0 U a- a- m Single Family Detached (D) ROOF TYPE REQUIREMENTS Single Family All buildings shall utilize one or a Attached combination of the following roof types y Apartment as permitted per building type. Refer to 0. Building §153.062(0) for specific building type - ° y Loft Building requirements. y Corridor NP NP NP L Building (1) Parapet Roof Type (Refer to Figure Mixed Use NP NP 153.062 - A) (a) Parapet Height Commercial Center NP NP NP NP 1. Parapet height is measured from N >,Large Format NP NP NP the highest point of the roof l' Commercial deck adjacent to the parapet to c Historic Mixed top of the parapet '0 Use 2. Parapets shall be high enough M Historic Cottage to screen the roof and any roof Commercial appurtenances from view from Civic Building the street(s) and any adjacent Parking NP' NP' NP' building of similar height or Structure lower, provided that parapets Podium NPI Apartment Bldg. 26 § 153.062 AS RECOMMENDED BY BUILDING TYPES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2012 (2) Pitched Roof (Refer to Figures 153.062 -B through 153.062 -D) (a) Roof Structure Hipped and gabled roofs are permitted, in addition to roofs with combinations of hips and gables with or without dormers. (b) Pitch Measure 1. The principal roof shall have a pitch appropriate to the architectural style. Roofs shall not be sloped less than a 6:12 (rise:run) or more than 12:12, as determined to be architecturally appropriate by the required reviewing body. 2. Slopes greater than 12:12 maybe utilized on pitched roofs without a closed ridge used to screen flat roofed mechanical areas. This determination shall be based on the appropriateness to the architectural style and building type. 3. Where pitched roofs without closed ridges are used, the roof ridge must be designed to appear closed as viewed from ground level FIGURE 153.062 -B. PITCHED ROOF (GABLE ROOF). Roof Slope and, to the extent practicable, from buildings of similar height in adjacent BSC districts. 4. Unless determined to be appropriate to the architectural style of the building, a pitch greater than 3:12 is required on roofs of dormers, porches, balconies, or other minor roofs. (c) Parallel Ridge Line (See Figure 153.062 -D) When appropriate to the architectural character of the building, and where the principal ridge line of any building type runs parallel to any street, gabled ends, perpendicular ridge lines, or dormers shall be incorporated to interrupt the mass of the roof. (d) Dormer Design Dormers shall be scaled and detailed appropriate to the architectural character of the building type. Dormer windows should be sized in relation to the windows used in the upper story, and dormers should be no wider than necessary to accommodate the window and coordinated trim. (e) Gable Ends An architecturally appropriate element such as a vent, window or other decorative element is required on street- facing gable ends. (f) Roof Height 1. In the BSC Historic Core District, roofs Roof without occupied space and/or dormers shall e Height have a maximum height on street - facing elevations equal to the maximum floor height permitted for the building type, or upper floor o ui 5ng as otherwise approved by the Architectural In - Review Board. Roof Height 2. In all other districts, roofs without occupied space and/or dormers shall be a maximum of one and a half times the maximum floor height permitted for the building type on street- facing fapades, unless otherwise determined by the required reviewing body to be appropriate to the building type and location. (g) A half story of occupied space may be incorporated within a pitched roof type. (h) Gambrel and Mansard Roofs FIGURE 153.062 -D. PARALLEL RIDGE LINE. Ridge Parallel to 1. Gambrel and mansard roofs are permitted only for single family detached buildings, unless otherwise determined by the required reviewing body to be architecturally appropriate for other building types. ❑ 2. For all building types, when the ridge of Gable a gambrel or mansard roof runs parallel End to the street, dormers or cross gables must m be incorporated with spacing and scale T appropriate to the length and architectural character of the building. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.062 27 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING TYPES FIGURE 153.062 -C. LOW PITCH ROOF (HIP ROOF). 3. The primary roof material is required to be cedar shake, slate or metal. With examples of successful, high quality installations in comparable climates, other high quality simulated examples of these materials may be approved during the Site Plan Review by the required reviewing body. (3) Flat Roof (Refer to Figure 153.062 -E) (a) Flat roofs are permitted in all districts except the BSC Historic Core District (b) Eaves are encouraged on street facing fapades. (c) Interrupting vertical walls may interrupt the eave and extend above the top of the eave with no discernible cap. (d) Not more than one -half of the front fapade can consist of an interrupting vertical wall. (e) Flat roof sections located behind parapets or pitched roofs to screen mechanical equipment are not considered flat roofs. roof deck to the base of the parapet or eave of the tower's roof, and the tower shall not be greater than the height of one additional upper floor of the building to which the tower is applied. The width of a tower shall not exceed its height. (c) Occupied Space Towers may be occupied by the same uses allowed in upper stories of the building type to which they are applied. (d) Towers maybe capped by any permitted roof type. (5) Other Roof Types Other roof types not listed as a specific type but are generally consistent with the surrounding buildings may be approved by the required reviewing body during the Site Plan Review. (E) MATERIALS (1) Fapade Materials (4) Towers (Refer to Figure 153.062 -F) (a) A minimum of 80% of each fagade, exclusive (a) Quantity of windows and doors, shall be constructed of Where permitted by building type, only one tower primary materials. is allowed per building unless otherwise approved (b) For individual fagades over 1,000 square feet, by the required reviewing body. exclusive of windows and doors, a combination of (b) Tower Height primary materials shall be used to meet the 80% Towers may exceed the maximum building height requirement, unless otherwise approved by the and do not count as an additional story. Maximum required reviewing body. tower height shall be measured from the top of the (c) Permitted primary building materials shall be high quality, durable, natural materials such as FIGURE 153.062 -E. FLAT ROOF. stone, cultured stone, full depth brick, glass, wood or fiber cement siding. To provide visual depth Eave Depth Vertical and strong shadow lines, clapboard siding must Wall Plane have a minimum butt thickness of a quarter of an inch. Refer to §153.062(0) for permitted primary Eave building materials for individual building types. Thickness (d) Permitted secondary materials are limited to T details and accents and include gypsum reinforced III 71 fiber concrete, metal, and exterior architectural metal panels and cladding. Exterior insulated finishing system (EIFS) is permitted for trim only, FIGURE 153.062 -F. TOWER. except as provided in 153.062(E)(1)(e). Tower (e) EIFS and architectural metal panels and cladding Width shall not be utilized in the BSC Historic Core District. Tower Roof (f) Other high quality synthetic materials may be approved during the Site Plan Review by m the required reviewing body with examples of successful, high quality installations in Height Tower comparable climates. (2) Fagade Material Transitions (a) Vertical transitions in fagade materials shall occur at inside comers. upper floor of building ression (b) Where more than one fagade material is proposed Line vertically, the `heavier' material in appearance 28 § 153.062 AS RECOMMENDED BY BUILDING TYPES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2012 shall be incorporated below the' ighter' material (e.g. masori y below si(Eng). (3). Roof NGterials (a) Pennuied roof mahn a] s include 300 pound or better dimensional asphalt composite shingles, wood shingles and shakes, metal tiles or standing seam, slate, and ceramic tile. (b) Flatroofs are pernrittedto use arty roofmateriah appropriate to maintain proper drainage. (c) The required reviewing bodymay approve engineered wood or slate dining the Site Plan Review with examples of successful, high quality installations in comparable climates. (d) Roofpenetrations (fans, exhaust, vents, etc) shall be finished to match the color of the roof and shall not be visible from principal frontage streets. (e) Gem roofs and roof gardem are encouraged. (4) Color Colors for all painted structures shall be selected from appropriate historic color palettes from army major paint manufacturer, or as determined appropriate by the required reviewing body. (F) ENTRANCES &PEOESTRIANWAYS Also see §153.062(I). (1) Entrance quantities and locations are required according to building types outlined in §153.062(0). (2) Recessed Entrances Entry doors shall be recessed aminimum of three feet from the property line, except as required for specific bnildim types outlined in §153.062(0). (3) Entrance Design O principal entrances on all binding types shall be of a pedestrian scale, shall effectively address the street and be given prominence on the building facade. Thi s may be satisfied through the use of architectural features including but not limited to entranceway roofs; sidelight windows, transom window, or other adjacent windows; additional mouldings with expression lines; a bay of unique width,; or raised stoop of 9least three steps and minimum depth of five feet and width of five feet. Refer to Figure 153.062 -G for one example of this requirement (b) Principal entrances on all single famfily detached and single firmly attached building types shall incorporate open porches or stoops as required by §153.062(I). (c) Doors for conunerci a] uses along all street frontages shall be consistent with the design of principal entrances and include glass and fill operating hardware in the design of the door. Exterior doors for residential uses shall also include glass, but this requirement may be met through the use oftransom armd/or sidelight windows. (d) Roll -up security grilles shall not be permitted. (e) Building Entrances 1. A principal building entrance shall be on any principal frontage street or the front facade of the building. principal entrance doors shall be fully functioning during regular business hours and shall connect to the public sidewalk along the street. 2. The number and spacing of entrances on a binding facade with street frontage and on re ar facade facing a parking lot shall be provided as required according to building t (4) Mil-Bnildint Pedestrlanways (a) Ivfid- building pedestrianways are intended to provide safe, well -lit, and attractive paths providing convenient pedestrian access to and from areas such as parking lots, parking structures, and/or service streets from the opposite side of a building. (b) Access trough buildings to parking lots behind buildings with a pedestrian walkway through the first Floor of the building is required based on building types. The walkway shall be a minimum of eight feet wide. One door, window, or opening shall be provided along the pedestriamvay for every fid130 feet of length. A mirinrwm of 20% ground Floor transparency, measured along the length of the walkway, shall be provided on building facades facing pedestrianways in shopping corridors. (c) Amid - binding pedestrisaway may serve as mid -block pedestrianway as described in §153.06)(C)(6)(d). (G) ARTICULATION OF STORIES ON STREET FACADES Facades shall be designed to follow the stories of the buildings with fenestration organized along and occupying each Floor. Floor to Floor heights are set to limit areas of I : ON IMA 0 INS11@T3.9 M OR BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR §153.062 29 DRAFT 0 EVELOPM ENT CODE BUILDINGTYPES the facade without fenestration. Refer to Figure 153.062 -H for an example illustration of this requirement (H) WINDOWS, SHUTTERS, AWNINGS AND CANOPIES (1) Windows (a) Transparency percentage is required according to building type as outlined in §153.062(0). (b) Highly reflective glass is prohibited. For the purposes of this section, highly reflective glass has an exterior visible reflectance percentage greater than 20%. (c) Spandrel glass, or heavily tinted glass that impedes views into the interior of the building, cannot be used to meet the minimum transparency requirements. (d) Windows may be wood, anodized aluminum, metal -clad or vinyl -clad wood, steel, or fiberglass. The required reviewing body may approve other high quality synthetic materials during the Site Plan Review with examples of successful, high quality installations in comparable climates. (e) To highlight the wall thickness as an important architectural feature conveying a substantial, high - quality appearance flush - mounted windows are prohibited for single - family detached single - family attached, apartment building podium apartment building historic mixed use, and historic cottage commercial building types. Windows in masonry buildings shall have architecturally appropriate lintels and projecting sills. Windows within siding -clad walls shall have a projecting sill to serve as a base for either a minimum one by four (nominal) trim or brick mould casing. FIGURE 153.062 -H. ARTICULATION OF STORIES ON STREET FACADES & BUILDING VARIETY. (f) Windows in single- family detached, single - family attached, apartment building, podium apartment building historic mixed use, and historic cottage commercial building types shall have vertical proportions with architecturally or historically appropriate window divisions. Windows oriented horizontally are permitted for these building types only on non -street facing building facades. (2) Shutters (a) If installed, shutters shall be sized to provide complete coverage to the windows when closed and shall include functioning hardware, whether the shutters are operated or not (b) Shutters shall be wood or engineered wood. Other materials may be approved during the Site Plan Review with examples of successful, high quality installations in comparable climates. (3) Awnings and Canopies [Also see §153.062(Q)(1)(a)] (a) General 1. Awnings and canopies may be used if they function as suitable protection from the elements. To provide suitable protection an awning or canopy may encroach over the sidewalk, provided the lowest portion is at least eight feet above the sidewalk. 2. Awnings and canopies may be mounted inside frames, above openings and/or below transoms, but installation methods shall be consistent on a building. 3. Awnings and canopies shall be designed to be consistent with the architecture of the building and other existing awnings and canopies on a building. (b) Awnings 1. Awnings shall be open on the underside 2. Awnings may be made of canvas or decorative metal with metal used for the internal structure If canvas is used, the material shall be durable and fade - resistant 3. Awnings shall not be internally illuminated, but may be lighted from above by downcast fixtures mounted to the building wall. (c) Canopies 1. Canopies may be clad with glass, metal, wood, or a combination of these materials. 2. Canopies may be cantilevered or supported from the building wall by metal cables or rods. 3. Canopies may include downward casting light fixtures and may be lighted from above by downcast fixtures mounted to the building wall. 30 § 153.062 AS RECOMMENDED BY BUILDING TYPES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2012 (D BALCONIES, PORCHES, STOOPS, AND CHIMNEYS The following provisions apply where balconies, open porches, stoops, and/or chimneys me incorporated into the facade design facing any street or parking lot (1) Balconies (a) Size Balconies shall be minimum of six feet deep and five feet wide. (b) Connection to Building Balconies may be recessed into a building facade Balconies that are not integral to the facade shall be independently secured and unconnected to other balconies above and below. (c) Facade Coverage A maximum of 40% of the front and comer side facades, as calculated separately, may be covered with balconies. (d) Juliet Balconies (b) Street Frontage Stoops and steps shall not be used to meet the front or comer RBZ requirement Stoops and steps are permitted to extend forward of the RBZ but shall not encroach within the right -of -way. (4) Chimneys Chimneys shall extend full height from the ground and vertically past the eave line and must be finished in masonry. Cantilevered and shed -type chimneys are prohibited. (J) TREATMENTS AT TERMINAL VISTAS When a street terminates at a parcel or otherwise creates a terminal view at a parcel, the parcel shall be occupied by one of the following: (1) If the terminus occurs at an open space, any open space type shall be used and a vertical element shall terminate the view. Acceptable vertical elements include, but are not limited to, a stand or grid of trees, a sculpture, or a fountain. Refer to § 153.064 for additional open space requirements. If the terminus does not occur at an open space type, the front or comer side of a building, whether fronting on a principal frontage street or not, shall terminate the view. The building shall incorporate one of the following treatments to terminate the view: a tower, a bay window, a courtyard with a sculpture, or other Similar treatment incorporating a distinct vertical element Refer to Figure 153.062 -I for an example illustration of this requirement 1. Juliet balconies are permitted only on upper floors of buildings where windows extend to the floor or where doors are present (2) 2. Juliet balconies built in conjunction with doors may project up to 24 inches and may be up to five feet wide. 3. Juliet balconies built in conjunction with windows may not exceed the width of the windows. 4. Juliet balconies used with windows must be secured to the window jamb. (2) Open Porches For the purposes of §153.062, an open porch shall mean a porch that is not enclosed by walls, windows, or screens greater than 24 inches above the porch level on street facing facades of the building. Open porches may be covered with a roof. (a) Size Porches shall be appropriate to the architectural style of the building and have a minimum clear depth of six feet and sufficient width as necessary to be functional for use. (b) Street Frontage Porches shall not be used to meet the front or comer required building zone (RBZ) requirement Porches are permitted to extend forward of the RBZ but shall not encroach within the right -of- way. (3) Stoops (a) Size Stoops shall have a minimum width and depth of five feet and be located on the front facade of the building. (10 BUILDING VARIETY Refer to Figure 153.062 -H for an example illustration of this requirement Building design shall vary from adjacent buildings by the type of dominant material or color, scale, or orientation of that material. Building design shall also vary through at least two of the following: (I) The proportion of recesses and projections. (2) A change in the location of the entrance and window placement If storefronts are used, no change to the FIGURE 153.062 -I. BUILDINGS AT TERMINAL VISTAS. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR §153.062 31 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING TYPES entrance and window placement is required and one of the criteria is satisfied. (3) Changes to the roof design, including roof type, plane, or material, unless otherwise stated in the building type requirements. (L) VEHICULAR CANOPIES (N) INDIVIDUAL BUILDING TYPE REQUIREMENTS The following defines the requirements included in the tables for each building type listed in §153.062(0). Not all line items listed below appear within every building type's individual requirements table. The following requirements shall be met unless otherwise noted in the building types of §153.062(0). (1) For buildings facing a principal frontage street, (1) Building Siting General Requirements vehicular canopies shall be located on the rear fagade (a) Street Frontage of the principal structure or in the rear of the lot 1. More than one principal building is permitted behind the principal structure, where permitted by use. on one lot for those building types indicated. Refer to Figure 153.062 -J for an example illustration Unless otherwise noted, all requirements of of this requirement. the building type shall be met for all principal (2) If attached to the principal structure, design of the structures. vehicular canopy shall be coordinated with the 2. Where specified, front fagades of principal architecture of the principal structure to which it buildings are required to cover a minimum is associated. Regardless of whether the canopy is portion of the front property line within the attached to or detached from the principal structure, required building zone (RBZ). A street wall supporting columns shall be coordinated with the may be used to meet up to 10% of the front design of the principal structure. property line coverage requirement. Front (3) Canopies shall not exceed the maximum ground floor property line coverage is determ tried by height permitted for the specific building type, and measuring the width of the principal structure in no case shall the canopy exceed the height of the and length of a street wall within the RBZ principal structure to which it is associated. divided by the maximum width of the front RBZ (not including side setbacks). (M) SIGNS 3. Unless otherwise permitted, a comer of (1) All signs attached to the principal structure shall be the principal structure, a street wall, or a coordinated with the architecture of the building in permitted open space type shall be located terms of design, color scheme, and lighting. at the intersection of the front and comer RBZs. Refer to §153.065(E)(2) for street wall (2) Locations of all signs intended to be affixed to the requirements and §153.064 for open space principal structure and/or on an attached awning requirements. or canopy initially, or at any time in the future 4. The fagade of the principal building shall by subsequent tenants, shall be identified on the be located within the RBZ. When noted as architectural elevations submitted with the Site Plan a setback rather than an RBZ, the principal application. structure shall be located at or behind the (3) Other sign requirements not specified in §153.062 setback line. shall meet the requirements of §153.065(H). 5. Any part of the front or comer RBZ or FIGURE 153.062 -J. VEHICULAR CANOPIES. setback not occupied by building shall have a landscape, patio, or streetscape treatment. Refer to §153.065(D)(6) for RBZ treatment requirements. 6. Subject to approval of the City Engineer or aa) ® City Council where required, certain building m components, such as awnings and canopies, maybe permitted to extend beyond the m front property line and encroach within the 0 o right -of -way to within five feet of the curb. LL If permitted, these building components m shall maintain a minimum eight -foot height Vehicular Canopy clearance above the public sidewalk and a- shall not conflict with required street trees or landscaping. Porches and stoops are not o I perm nttedto encroach into the right -of -way. - �. Front Property Line Principal Frontage Street 32 § 153.062 AS RECOMMENDED BY BUILDING TYPES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2012 (b) BuildableArea 1. The side and rear yard setbacks apply to principal and accessory structures. 2. Unless otherwise noted, the side and rear yard setbacks are required to be landscaped and/or paved for pedestrian paths. 3. Driveways are permitted within the side and rearyard setbacks only in the following conditions: A. One drive, a maximum of 22 feet wide, is permitted to connect adjacent parking lots or alleys /service streets. B. Unless shared with the adjacent property, the drive shall be at least three feet from the property line. C. Refer to §153.065(B)(7) for loading area requirements. 4. Each lot is subject to the requirements of this Chapter for impervious surface coverage, measured as shown in Figure 153.062 -K. Additional semi - pervious coverage may be permitted through methods such as use of semi - pervious materials, green roofs or other methods approved by theART or required reviewing body. (c) Parking Location and Loading 1. Permitted locations for parking and loading facilities on development parcels and within buildings are specified for individual building types. Refer to §153.065(B) for additional parking requirements. 2. Parking may be located within the front or comer RBZ where consistent with the permitted parking locations for the applicable FIGURE 153.062 -K. MEASURING IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE. •uuuuuuuuuuuuuui Parking Maximum Impervious Cove :Building Coverage+ :Impervious Surfaces. • u Front Property Line building type. Such parking is subjectto the street wall requirements of §153.065(E) (2), except that surface parking shall not be located in any portion of an RBZ required to be occupied by a principal structure. 3. Parking shall not be located within a required setback, except as permitted by §153.065(13) ( 4. Alleys or service streets, when present, shall always be the primary means of vehicular access to parking lots or buildings. Refer to §153.060(C)(5) for block access requirements. 5. When alleys are not present, driveways may be permitted from streets not identified as principal frontage streets, except as permitted by §153.061(f)), and subject to the access management requirements of the City Engineer. Refer to §153.065(13)(6) for additional driveway requirements. (2) Height (a) Required minimum and maximum numbers of stories are provided for all building types. The minimum number of required stories shall be provided for all building facades within the RBZ, except as required in §153.062(N)(2)(d). (b) Half stories are located either completely within the roof structure with street- facing windows or in a visible basement exposed a maximum of one half story above grade (c) A building incorporating both a half story within the roof and a visible basement shall count the height of the two half stories as one full story. (d) Each building type includes a permitted range of height in feet for each story. 1. Unless otherwise specked, story height is measured in feet between the floor of a story to the floor of the story above it 2. For single story buildings and the uppermost story of a multiple story building, story height shall be measured from the floor of the story to the eave line on pitched roofs and to the tallest point of the roof deck on parapet and flat roofs. 3. Story height requirements apply only to street facing facades; however, no portion of the building shall exceed the maximum permitted height of any street facing facade 4. Accessory building height shall not exceed the height of the principal building. (3) Uses and Occupancy Requirements (a) Certain building types have limitations or requirements for uses which may occupy the ground story of a building or are permitted only BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR §153.062 33 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING TYPES •aeurec: r�.om Additional Building : Seml- Pervious Footprint Coverage • u Front Property Line building type. Such parking is subjectto the street wall requirements of §153.065(E) (2), except that surface parking shall not be located in any portion of an RBZ required to be occupied by a principal structure. 3. Parking shall not be located within a required setback, except as permitted by §153.065(13) ( 4. Alleys or service streets, when present, shall always be the primary means of vehicular access to parking lots or buildings. Refer to §153.060(C)(5) for block access requirements. 5. When alleys are not present, driveways may be permitted from streets not identified as principal frontage streets, except as permitted by §153.061(f)), and subject to the access management requirements of the City Engineer. Refer to §153.065(13)(6) for additional driveway requirements. (2) Height (a) Required minimum and maximum numbers of stories are provided for all building types. The minimum number of required stories shall be provided for all building facades within the RBZ, except as required in §153.062(N)(2)(d). (b) Half stories are located either completely within the roof structure with street- facing windows or in a visible basement exposed a maximum of one half story above grade (c) A building incorporating both a half story within the roof and a visible basement shall count the height of the two half stories as one full story. (d) Each building type includes a permitted range of height in feet for each story. 1. Unless otherwise specked, story height is measured in feet between the floor of a story to the floor of the story above it 2. For single story buildings and the uppermost story of a multiple story building, story height shall be measured from the floor of the story to the eave line on pitched roofs and to the tallest point of the roof deck on parapet and flat roofs. 3. Story height requirements apply only to street facing facades; however, no portion of the building shall exceed the maximum permitted height of any street facing facade 4. Accessory building height shall not exceed the height of the principal building. (3) Uses and Occupancy Requirements (a) Certain building types have limitations or requirements for uses which may occupy the ground story of a building or are permitted only BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR §153.062 33 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING TYPES on upper stories. Refer to Table 153.059 -A for additional use requirements. (b) The area(s) of a building in which parking is permitted within the structure of the building type shall meet the following requirements: 1. Basement parking shall meet street facade transparency requirements, unless otherwise permitted for individual building types. 2. Freestanding parking structures are addressed by the parking structure building type 3. When parking is permitted within the building an active, occupied space must be incorporated along the building facade, unless otherwise permitted for individual building types. Occupied space does not include storage areas, utility space, or parking. (4) Facade Requirements (a) Facade Transparency 1. Facade transparency percentages required for a building type shall be met with highly transparent, low reflective (minimum 60% visible light transmittance) glass windows (Figure 153.062 -L). 2. Ground story transparency is measured between two and eight feet above the sidewalk elevation. One example illustration of storefront transparency is shown in Figure 153.062 -M. 3. Blank, windowless walls shall have a rectangular area of not more than 30% of each building facade per story, as measured from floor to floor, and no horizontal distance greater than 15 feet per story shall be blank or windowless. 4. Vents, air condifioners and other utility elements shall not part of any street - facing building facade, unless otherwise permitted for individual building types. Where these elements are part of other facades, particular care must be taken to render these elements less visible to public view through architectural integration or other means of screening as approved by the required reviewing body. (b) Facade Divisions 1. Architectural elements or forms shall be used to divide the surface of the facade into pedestrian - scaled increments appropriate to the architectural character of the building type Acceptable divisions include, but are not limited to A. A.recess or projection along the building facade for a minimum of 18 inches in depth. B. Use of an architectural element pronding from or recessed into the facade a minimum of three inches, including pilasters, entranceways, or storefronts. Architectural elements, forms, or expression lines may be used to divide portions of the facade into horizontal divisions. Elements may include a cornice, belt course, corbelling with table, moulding, stringcourses, pediment, or other continuous horizontal omamentation with a minimum one -and -a -half inch depth. Where changes in roof plane are required by the building type, they shall be used to divide the roof mass into increments no greater than the dimensions permitted for each building type and shall correspond to recesses and projections in building mass. Permitted changes include a change in roof type and/ or horizontal or vertical variations in the roof plane. Unless otherwise determined to be architecturally appropriate by the required reviewing body, minimum increments shall be provided pursuant to the building type tables. MEASURING TRANSPARENCY PER STORY 34 § 153.062 AS RECOMMENDED BY BUILDING TYPES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2012 FIGURE 153.062 -M. STOREFRONT TRANSPARENCY ON GROUND STORY. One Story m Area of Each Story L Blank Wall Limitations Each Window Opening 34 § 153.062 AS RECOMMENDED BY BUILDING TYPES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2012 FIGURE 153.062 -M. STOREFRONT TRANSPARENCY ON GROUND STORY. (Q) BUILDING TYPES The following defines the building types permitted in the BSC districts. Refer to Table 153.062 -C for the list of symbols used on the building type tables to illustrate the individual building type requirements. Because some of the individual building type requirements do not apply to every building type, not every symbol is represented on every building type. TABLE 153.062 -C. BUILDING TYPE TABLE LEGEND Symbol Building Type Requirement Symbol Building Type Requirement A Multiple Principal Buildings W Upper Story B Front Property Line Coverage X Parking within Building C Occupation of Comer Y Occupied Space D Front Required Building Zone (RBZ) Z Ground Story Street Facade Transparency E Corner Side RBZ AA Upper Story Transparency F Front Setback BB Transparency (Street Facing Facades) G Corner Side Setback CC Blank Wall Limitations (Street Facing Facades) H Side Yard Setback DD Garage Openings I Rear Yard Setback EE Parking Lot Ground Story Transparency J Minimum Lot Width FF Transparency (Non- Street Facing Facades) K Maximum Lot Width GG Blank Wall Limitations (Non- Street Facing Facades L Maximum Building Length or Depth HH Principal Entrance Location M Minimum Lot Depth 11 Number of Street Facade Entrances N Parking Location JJ Number of Parking Lot Entrances O Loading Facility Location KK Mid - Building Pedestrianway P Entry for Parking Within Building LL Facade Divisions Q Access MM Vertical Increments R Minimum Building Height NN Horizontal Facade Divisions S Maximum Building Height 00 Required Change in Roof Plane or Type T Accessory Structure Height PP Permitted Roof Types U Minimum Finished Floor Elevation QQ Tower V Ground Story BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.062 35 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING TYPES (1) Single - Family Detached (a) Building Siting (d) Fagade Requirements 1. Street Frontage O Minimum Finished. Floor Elevation 2.5 ft. above the adjacent sidewalk elevation Refer to §153.062(D) through §153.062(N) for design requirements Ground Story No additional requirements general to all buildings. Parking within Permitted in the rear of the first floor and Building fully in any basement(s) Multiple Principal Buildings Not permitted 1. Street Fagade Transparency Front Property Line Coverage Minimum 65% _ Transparency Minimum 25% -�-� Occupation of Corner Not required Front RBZ 5 -20 ft. O Blank Wall Limitations Required Corner side RBZ 5 -15 ft. © 2 . Non - St Fagade T ransparency Transparency Minimum 15% Landscape; Porches RBZ Treatment are permitted in the Wall Limitations Required RBZ 3. Building Entrance Right -of -Way Encroachment None 2. Buildable Area Principal Entrance Location required co rner, or side; porches are Minimum Side. Yard Setback 5 ft. © Street Facades: Number of 1 minimum per unit Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5 ft. O Entrances Parking Lot Facades: Not applicable Minimum Lot Width 30 ft. O Number of Entrances Maximum Lot Width 60 ft. © Mid - Building Pedestrianway Not required Minimum Lot Depth 100 ft. © 4. Fagad ''Visions Maximum Building Length Not applicable Vertical Incre None Maximum Impervious Coverage 50% Horizontal Facade Divisions None Additional Semi - Pervious Coverage 20 % 3. Parking Location &Access Required Change in Roof Pla or Type None Parking Location Rear yard Fagade Materials. Entry for Parking within Building Rear Permitted Primary Materials Stone, Brick, Wood, and Fiber Cement Siding Access Re fer 53.062(N)(1)(c) 6. Roof Types (b) Height Permitted Types Pitched roof; other types may be permitted with approval (refer to Minimum Height 1.5 stories Q §153.062(D)) Maximum Height 3 stories Stories: Minimum Height 9 ft. Ma Height 12 ft. Accessory. Structure Height 2 stories maximums O Minimum Finished. Floor Elevation 2.5 ft. above the adjacent sidewalk elevation O (c) Uses & Occupancy Requirements Ground Story No additional requirements Upper Story No additional requirements Parking within Permitted in the rear of the first floor and Building fully in any basement(s) Occupied Space Minimum 15 ft. depth from the front facade Tower Permitted where architecturally appropriate Notes; 1 Garage doors shall be no taller than nine feet. No single garage door shall be wider than 18 feet. 36 § 153.062 (0) (1) AS RECOMMENDED BY BUILDING T P S - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SINGLE - FAMILY DETACHED FEBRUARY 2, 2012 Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one result of one or more of the general requirements and do not represent all requirements or actual development. ■ PwmitWd Parking within Building Required Building Zone 9m1l; PS111*E 0 F9 N M 11�9-A Ti II Wa@1 K-AQ: X03 :1111■F1NC WA 111 rl reR;T_A T BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR §153.062(0)(1) 37 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDINGTYPES- SINGLE- FAMILY DETACHED (2) Single - Family Attached (a) Building Siting Transparency 1. Street Frontage Wall Limitations Required Multiple Principal Buildings Permitted Principal Entrance Location Front Property Line Coverage Minimum 75 % 1 per unit minimum Occupation of Corner Required Mid - Building Pedestrianway Front RBZ 5 -20 ft. O Corner Side RBZ 5 -15 ft. Permitted on facades only at RBZ Treatment Landscape; Porches or stoops are permitted in the RBZ Right -of -Way Encroachment None adjacent to an open space type 2. B uildable Area Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 ft., 10 ft. between buildings Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5 ft. O Minimum Lot Width 16 ft. per unit O Maximum Lot Width None Maximum Length None Maximum Impervious Coverage Additional Semi - Pervious Coverage 70% 20% 3. Parking Location & Loading Parking Location Rear yard or within building (refer to (c) Us Entry for Parking within Building Rear or 4 corner side facade (b) Height Minimum Height 1.5 stories 0 Maximum Height 4 stories Stories: Minimum Height Maximum Height 8 ft. 12 ft. Accessory Structure Height 2 stories maximum 0 Minimum Finished Floor Elevation 2.5 feet above the adjacent sidewalk elevatio O (c) Uses & Occupancy Requirements Ground Story No additional requirements Upper Story No additional requirements Parking within Permitted in the rear of the first floor and Building fully in any basement(s) Occupied Space Minimum 10 ft. depth from the front facade Q (d) Facade Requirements Refer to §153.062(D) through §153.062(N) for design requirements general to all buildings. 1. Street Fagade Transparency Transparency. Minimum 20 %�-_� Blank Wall Limitations Required 2. Non - Stree Fagade T ransparency Transparency Minimum 15% Wall Limitations Required 3. Building Entrance 5. Fagade Materials Principal Entrance Location Front, corner, or side; porches or stoops required Street Facades: Number of Entrances 1 per unit minimum Parking Lot Facades: Number of Entrances If parking lot or detached garage,. 1 per unit Mid - Building Pedestrianway Not required 4. Fagade Divisions Vertical Increments Every two units or no greater than 40 ft. Horizontal Facade Divisions No ne Required Change in Roof None Plane or Type 5. Fagade Materials Permitted Primary Materials Stone, Brick, Wood and Fiber Cement Siding 6. Roof Types Parapet, pitched roof, flat roof; Permitted Types other types may be permitted with approval (refer to §153.062(D)) Permitted on facades only at Tower terminal vistas, corners at two principal frontage streets, and /or adjacent to an open space type Notes: 1 One of every five principal buildings may front an open space type or a courtyard with a minimum width of 30 feet. 2 A landscaped courtyard, when enclosed by building on three sides, may contribute up to 35% of the front property line coverage requirement. 3 1f single - family attached residential units are located across the street from existing single - family detached dwellings, no more than eight attached units may be permitted in a building. 4 Garage doors shall be no taller than nine feet. No single garage door shall be wider than 18 feet. 38 § 153.062 S O� (2) AS RECOMMENDED BY BUILDING T P S - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SINGLE - FAMILY ATTACHED FEBRUARY 2, 2012 Note: Graphic figures are Intended to Illustrate one result of one or more of the general requirements and do not represent all requirements or actual development. king within Building ding Zone FIGURE 153.062 -0: SINGLE - FAMILY ATTACHED BUILDING TYPE DIAGRAM. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.062 (0) (2) 39 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDINGTYPES- SINGLE- FAMILY ATTACHED (3) Apartment Building (a) Building Siting 1. Street Frontage 1 required for buildings longer than 250 ft. Refer to §153.062(D) through §153.062(1) for design requirements general to all buildings. Multiple Principal Buildings Permitted O Front Property Line Coverage Minimum 75 % O Occupation of Corner Required O Front RBZ 5 -20 ft. O Corner Side RBZ 5 -20 ft. Parking Location Landscape or less than Street Facades: Number of E ntrances 1 per 75 ft. of facade minimum RBZ Treatment 50% Patio; porches, Entry for Parking within Building stoops, and balconies are permitted in the RBZ Right -of -Way Encroachment None 2. Buildable Area 1 required for buildings longer than 250 ft. Refer to §153.062(D) through §153.062(1) for design requirements general to all buildings. Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 ft. No greater than 40 ft. Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5ft. A Minimum Lot Width Maximum Lot Width 50 ft. N one O Maximum Impervious Coverage Additional Semi - Pervious Coverage 70% 20% Blank Wall Limitations Required 3. Parking Location & Lo 3. Building Entrance Parking Location Rear yard 2 ; within building (refer to (c) Use & Occ.Req.) Street Facades: Number of E ntrances 1 per 75 ft. of facade minimum Loading Facility Location Rear Entry for Parking within Building Rear & side facade (d) Facade Requirements 1 required for buildings longer than 250 ft. Refer to §153.062(D) through §153.062(1) for design requirements general to all buildings. 1. Street Facade Transparency No greater than 40 ft. Transparency Minimum 20% On buildings 3 stories or taller, Blank Wall Limitations Required required within 3 ft. of the top of 2. Non - Street Facade Transparency the ground story Transparency Minimum 15% No greater than every 80 ft. .. Blank Wall Limitations Required 3. Building Entrance Principal Entrance Location Primary street facade of building �1 Street Facades: Number of E ntrances 1 per 75 ft. of facade minimum Parking Lot Facades: Not required Number of Entrances Mid- Building Pedestrianway 1 required for buildings longer than 250 ft. 4. FagadeQ visions Vertical Incre ` -ts No greater than 40 ft. On buildings 3 stories or taller, Horizontal Facade Divisions required within 3 ft. of the top of the ground story Required Change in Roof Plane or Type No greater than every 80 ft. .. 5. Facade Materi Access Refer to Permitted Primary Materials Stone, Brick, Wood, Fiber Cement §153.062(N)(1)(c) Siding and Glass (b). Height 6. Roof Types Minimum Height 2 stories Parapet, pitched roof, flat roof; Permitted Types other types may be permitted with Z_ Maximum Height 4.5 stories approval (refer to §153.062(D)) Stones: Minimum Height 9ft. Maximum Height 14 ft. 2.5 ft. above the Minimum Finished Floor Elevation adjacent gidewalk IO elevation Permitted on facades only at Tower terminal vistas, corners at two principal frontage streets, and /or adjacent to a n open space type (c) Uses & Occupancy Requirements Notes: A landscaped courtyard, when enclosed by building on three sides, may Ground Story No additional requirements contribute up to 35% of the front property line coverage requirement. Upper Story No additional requirements Parking within Permitted in the rear of the first 3 floors Building and fully in any basement(s) Occupied Space Minimum 20 ftPpth for the ground story O facing street(s) 2 Basement level structured parking is permitted to extend between buildings, screened from the street and covering a maximum of 10% of the length of the RBZ. Structured parking visible between principal buildings must be set back a minimum of 15 ft. from the street facing facades. 3 Where the principal building entrance is a lobby or other common space, the minimum finished floor elevation is not required. 40 § 153.062 S Op" (3) AS RECOMMENDED BY BUILDING T P S - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APARTMENT BUILDING FEBRUARY 2, 2012 Note: Graphic figures are Intended to Illustrate one result of one or more of the general requirements and do not represent all requirements or actual development. u To Q © 7 ■Permitted Parking within Buildinc FIGURE 153.062 -P: APARTMENT BUILDING TYPE DIAGRAM. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.062 (0) (3) 41 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING TYPES - APARTM ENT BUILDING (4) Loft Building (a) Building Siting 1. Street Frontage Multiple Principal Buildings Permitted Front Property Line Coverage Minimum 75% O Occupation of Corner Required O Front RBZ 0 -15 ft. Oi Corner Side RBZ 0 -15 ft. frontage ss Landscape, Patio, or Access Refer to Streetscape; along West §153.062(N)(1)(c) Dublin- Granville Road, RBZ Treatment Streetscape required; where Minimum Height 2 stories residential uses are located Maximum Height 4.5 stories on the ground floor, porches Ground Story: Minimum Height 12 ft. or stoops are permitted in Maximum Height 16 ft. the RBZ Right -of -Way Encroachment Awnings, canopies, eaves, patios & projecting signs 2. Buildable Area Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 ft. W Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5 ft. Minimum Lot Width 50 ft. O Maximum Lot Width None Maximum Impervious Coverage 80% Additional Semi - Pervious Coverage 10% 3. Parking Location & Loading Rear yard; within building Parking Location (refer to (c) Uses & Occupancy Requirements) Loading Facility Location Rear & side facade Rear & side facade, corner Where non- residential uses are Entry for Parking within Building side on non ancipal Ground Story Street frontage ss Access Refer to O §153.062(N)(1)(c) (b) Height Minimum Height 2 stories Q Maximum Height 4.5 stories Blank Wall Limitations Ground Story: Minimum Height 12 ft. Maximum Height 16 ft. Upper Stories: Minimum Height 9 ft. 1 Minimum 20% Maximum Height 16 ft. Blank Wall Limitations Where residential uses are located Minimum Finished Floor Elevation on the ground floor, 2.5 ft. above the adjacent sidewalk elevation where residential uses are located (c) Uses & Occupancy Requirements Principal Entrance Location Ground Story No additional requirements Upper Story No additional requirements or stoops are required at each Parking within Permitted in the rear of the first 3 floors Building and fully in any basement(s) Occupied Space Minimum 30 ft. depth from the front facade Where ground story dwelling units (d) Fagade Requirements Refer to §153.062(D) through §153.062(1) for design requirements general to all buildings. 1. Street Fagade T Where non- residential uses are Ground Story Street incorporated on the ground floor, Facing Transparency minimum 60% required; otherwise minimum 20% Transparency Minimum 20% == Blank Wall Limitations Required 2. Non - Street Fagade Transparency Transparency Minimum 20% Blank Wall Limitations Required 3. Buil Entrance Primary street facade of building; where residential uses are located Principal Entrance Location on the ground floor, porches or stoops are required at each entrance Where ground story dwelling units Street Facades; Number of or tenant spaces are incorporated, Entrances. 1 per full 30 ft.; otherwise, 1 per 75 ft. Parking Lot Facades: Number of Entrances 1 per 100 ft. of facade (minimum) Mid- Building Pedestrian Not Required 4. Fagade Divisions Vertical Increments No greater than 40 ft. On buildings 3 stories or taller, required within 3 ft. of the top of the ground story and any visible Horizontal Facade Divisions basement. When 14 to 16 -foot upper stories are used, horizontal divisions are required between each floor. Required Change in Roof No greater than every 80 ft. for Plane or Type pitched roof type; none for other roof types. 5. Fagade Materials Permitted Primary Materials Stone, Brick, Glass 6. Roof Types Parapet, pitched roof, flat roof; Permitted Types other types may be permitted with ��- approval (refer to §153.063(D)). Permitted on facades only at Tower terminal vistas, corners at two principal frontage streets, and /or adjacent to an open space type. Notes: 1 Sixteen foot height in an upper floor counts as 1.5 stories. 42 § 153.062 S Op" (4) AS RECOMMENDED BY BUILDING T P S - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION LOFT BUILDING FEBRUARY 2, 2012 Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one result of one or more of the general requirements and do not Building BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 1 WD62 (0) tm 43 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILOINGTYPES - LOFT BUILDING FIGURE 19.062 -0: LOFT BUILDING TYPE DIAGRAM. (5) Corridor Building (a) Building :Siting Awnings, canopies, eaves, 1. Street Frontage 10% patios & projecting signs Multiple Principal Buildings Permitted Rear yard 2 ; within building (refer to (c) Uses & Front Property Line Coverage Minimum 75 %1 O Occupation of Corner Required O Front RBZ 0 -15 ft. O Corner Side RBZ 0 -15 ft. None O Landscape, Patio, or RBZ Treatment Streetscape; along West Dublin- Granville Road, Streetscape required Right -of -Way Encroachment Awnings, canopies, eaves, Additional Semi - Pervious Coverage 10% patios & projecting signs length 2. Buildable Area Rear yard 2 ; within building (refer to (c) Uses & Vertical IncreM Minimum Side Yard Setback. 5 ft. Rear & side facade Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5 ft. O Minimum Lot Width 50 ft. frontaae streets Maximum Lot Width None O Maximum Impervious Coverage 80% Additional Semi - Pervious Coverage 10% 3. Parking Location & Loading length Parking Location Rear yard 2 ; within building (refer to (c) Uses & Vertical IncreM Occupancy Requirements) Loading Facility Location Rear & side facade Horiiontal Facade Divisions Rear & side facade; corner Entry for Parking within Building side facade on non - principal Required Change in Roof frontaae streets Access Refer to §153.062(N)(1)(c) (b) Height Minimum Height 3 stories Q 5.5 stories. For buildings with residential uses fronting on Riverside Drive or any building located on Maximum Height a parcel within 600 ft. of the 1 -270 right -of -way, an additional 2 stories are permitted with an 8 ft. step -back from each front facade. Ground Stories: Minimum Height 12 ft. Maximum Height 16 ft. Stories: Minimum Height 9 ft. Maximum Height 14 ft. (c) Uses & Occupancy Requirements Ground Story Residential and general office uses are prohibited in shopping corridors Upper Story No additional requirements Parking within Permitted in the rear of the first 3 floors and Building f in any basemem(s) Occupied Space Minimum 30 ft. depth facing street(s) 0 (d) Facade Requirements Refer to §153.062(D) through §153.062(1) for design requirements general to all buildings. 1. Street Facade Transparency Ground Story Street Minimum 60% required Facing Transparency Transparency Minimum 30% == Blank. Wall Limitations Required 2. Non- Street Facade Transparency Transparency Minimum 15% Blank Wall Limitations Required 3. Building Entrance Principal Entrance Location Primary street facade of building. Street Facades: Number of 1 per 75 ft. of facade minimum Entrances Parking Lot Facades: 1 per 100 ft. of facade minimum Number of Entrances Permitted Primary Materials Stone, Brick, Glass 6. Roof Types Parapet, pitched roof, flat roof; Permitted Types other types may be permitted with approval (refer to §153.062(D)). Permitted on facades only at Tower terminal vistas, corners at two principal frontage streets, and /or adjacent to an open space type. Notes 1 A courtyard covering up to 35% of the front or corner RBZ is permitted. The courtyard, when enclosed by building on 3 sides, may contribute to the front property line coverage. 2 Parking decks are permitted to extend between buildings, screened from street and covering a maximum of 10% of the length of the RBZ. Parking decks visible between principal buildings must be set back a minimum of 15 feet from the street facing facades. 44 § 153.062 S Op" (5) AS RECOMMENDED BY BUILDING T P S - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CORRIDOR BUILDING FEBRUARY2, 2012 In shopping corridors, required for Mid - Building Padestrianway buildings greater than 250 ft. in length 4. Fagade Divisions Vertical IncreM No greater than 45 ft. On buildings 3 stories or taller, Horiiontal Facade Divisions required within 3 ft. of the top of the ground story. Required at any building step -back. Required Change in Roof None Plane or Type 5. Facade Materials Permitted Primary Materials Stone, Brick, Glass 6. Roof Types Parapet, pitched roof, flat roof; Permitted Types other types may be permitted with approval (refer to §153.062(D)). Permitted on facades only at Tower terminal vistas, corners at two principal frontage streets, and /or adjacent to an open space type. Notes 1 A courtyard covering up to 35% of the front or corner RBZ is permitted. The courtyard, when enclosed by building on 3 sides, may contribute to the front property line coverage. 2 Parking decks are permitted to extend between buildings, screened from street and covering a maximum of 10% of the length of the RBZ. Parking decks visible between principal buildings must be set back a minimum of 15 feet from the street facing facades. 44 § 153.062 S Op" (5) AS RECOMMENDED BY BUILDING T P S - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CORRIDOR BUILDING FEBRUARY2, 2012 Note: Graphic figures are Intended to Illustrate one result of one or more of the general requirements and do not represent all requirements or actual 'king within Building ding Zone BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.062 (0) (5) 45 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDINGTYPES- CORRIDOR BUILDING FIGURE 153.062 -R: CORRIDOR BUILDING TYPE DIAGRAM. (6) Mixed Use Building (a) Building Siting 1. Street Frontage Refer to §153.062(D) through §153.062(N) for design Multiple. Principal Buildings Permitted Front Property Line Coverage Minimum 95% O Occupation of Corner Required O otherwise, 65% 0 -10 ft. with up to 25% Upper Story Transparency Front RBZ of the front fagade O Required permitted between 2. Non - Street Fagade Transparency 1 0 -20 f Minimum 15% Corner RBZ 0 -10 ft. Required RBZ Treatment Patio or Streetscape Projecting signs, eaves, Principal frontage street fagade of Right -of -Way Encroachment awnings, patios, & building canopies Entrance must be recessed 2. Buildable Area Entrance Requirements if located within 5 ft. of front Minimum Side Yard Setback 0 ft. property line Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5ft. O Minimum Lot Width 50 ft. O Maximum Lot Width None Minimum of 1 Maximum Impervious Coverage 85% Additional Semi - Pervious Coverage 10% In shopping corridors, 1 required 3. Parking Location & Loading Mid - Building Pedestrianway for buildings greater than 250 ft. Rear; within building in length Parking Location (refer to (c) Uses & Occupancy No greater than 45 ft. Requirements) On buildings 3 stories or taller, or Loading Facility Location Rear where the maximum ground floor Rear, side, or corner height is used, required within 3 ft. Entry for Parking within Building fagade on non - principal of the top of the ground story frontage streets No greater than every 80 ft. (b) Heig Plane or Type Minimum Height 2 stories Q Maximum Height 5 stories Permitted Primary Materials Ground Story: Minimum Height 16 ft. 6. Roof Types Maximum H eight 24 ft. Upper Stories: Minimum Height 10 ft. Permitted Types Maximum Height 14 ft. (c) Uses & Occupancy Requirements Ground Story Residential and general office uses Permitted on fagades only at prohibited in shopping corridor Upper Story No additional requirements Parking within Permitted in the rear of all floors and fully principal frontage streets, adjacent Building in any basement to an open space type, and /or Occupied Space Minimum 30 ft. depth from the front and /or O corner side fagades (d) Fagade Requirements Refer to §153.062(D) through §153.062(N) for design requirements general to all buildings. 1. Street Fagade Transparency Ground Story Street Storefront with minimum 70 %; Facing Transparency otherwise, 65% Upper Story Transparency Minimum 30% Blank Wall Limitations Required 2. Non - Street Fagade Transparency Transparency Minimum 15% G Blank Wall Limitations Required 3. Building Entrance Principal Entrance Location Principal frontage street fagade of building Entrance must be recessed Entrance Requirements if located within 5 ft. of front property line Street Fagades: Number of 1 per 75 ft. of fagade minimum Entrances Parking Lot Fagades: Minimum of 1 �J Number of Entrances In shopping corridors, 1 required Mid - Building Pedestrianway for buildings greater than 250 ft. in length 4. Fagade Divisions Vertical Increments No greater than 45 ft. On buildings 3 stories or taller, or Horizontal Fagade Divisions where the maximum ground floor height is used, required within 3 ft. of the top of the ground story Required Change in Roof No greater than every 80 ft. Plane or Type 5. Fagade Materials Permitted Primary Materials Stone, Brick, Glass 6. Roof Types Parapet, pitched roof, flat roof; Permitted Types other types permitted with approval (refer to §153.062(D)) Permitted on fagades only at terminal vistas, corners at two Tower principal frontage streets, adjacent to an open space type, and /or with a civic use 46 § 153.062 S Op" (6) AS RECOMMENDED BY BUILDING T P S - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MIXED USE BUILDING FEBRUARY 2, 2012 Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one result of one or more of the general requirements and do not represent all requirements or actual ■Permitted Parking within Building FIGURE 153.062 -S: MIXED USE BUILDING TYPE DIAGRAM. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 1 WD62 (0) (6) 47 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING TYPES - MUED USE BUILDING (7) Commercial Center (a) Building Siting None 1. Street Frontage 2. Buildable Are (b) Height Multiple Principal Buildings Permitted O Front Property Line Coverage Minimum 45% O Occupation of Corner Required 50 ft. Front RBZ 5 -25 ft. ■ Corner Side RBZ 5 -25 ft. Parking Lot Ground Story Transparency RBZ Treatment Landscape, Patio, or Streetscape Transparency Right -of -Way Encroachment None Residential uses prohibited 2. Buildable Are (b) Height Minimum Height Minimum Side. Yard Setback 5 ft. 3 stories Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5 ft. Maximum Height Minimum Lot Width 50 ft. O Maximum Lot Width None 2. Non - St Facade T ransparency Maximum Impervious Coverage 75% Additional Semi- Pervious 15% Coverage 3. Parking Location & Loading Rear & side yard; within building (refer to (c) Uses & Occupancy Requirements). Parking may be forward of Parking Location principal buildings provided the minimum front property line coverage and RBZ treatment requirements are met by other principal buildings. Loading Facility Location Rear Side, rear, or corner side Entry for Parking within Building facades on non - principal frontaae streets Access Refer to Residential uses prohibited §153.062(N)(1)(c) (b) Height Minimum Height 1 story Q Maximum Height 3 stories Ground Story: Minimum Height 12 ft. Maximum Height 18 ft. Upper Stories: Minimum Height 9 ft. Maximum H eight 1 ft. (c) Uses & Occupancy Requirements Ground Story Residential uses prohibited Upper Story No additional requirements Parking within Building Permitted in the rear of the first floor and fully in any basement(s) Occupied Space Minimum 30 ft. depth from the front and/ or corner side elevations if the side is a principal frontage street (d) Facade Requirements Refer to §153.062(D) through §153.062(N) for design requirements general to all buildings. 1. Street Facade Transparency Ground Story Street Facing Transparency Storefront with minimum 65% Q Upper Story Transparency Minimum 20% QD Blank Wall Limitations Required 2. Non - St Facade T ransparency Parking Lot Ground Story Transparency Storefront with minimum 50% I� Transparency Minimum 15% G Required on parking lot facing: Blank Wall Limitations facades; Not required on other facades 3. Building Entrance Principal Entrance Location Not Applicable Street Facades: Number of 1 per 75 ft. of principal frontage Entrances street facade Parking Lot Facades: Number of Entrances 1 per 100 ft. of facade minimum Im Mid - Building Pedestrianway Not required 4. Fagade Divisions Vertical Increments No greater than 45 ft. On 3 -story buildings, required Horizontal Facade Divisions within 3 ft. of the top of the ground story Required Change in Roof None Plane or Type 5. Fagade Materials Permitted Primary Materials Stone, Brick, Glass 6. Roof Types Permitted Types Parapet, pitched roof, flat roof; other types permitted with approval (refer to §153.062(D)) Permitted on facades only at Tower terminal vistas, corners at two principal frontage streets, and /or adjacent to an open space type Notes: 1 Minimum front property line coverage shall be met, but not all principal buildings must be located within a Required Building Zone. 48 § 153.062 S Op" (7) AS RECOMMENDED BY BUILDING T P S - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION COMMERCIAL CENTER FEBRUARY 2, 2012 Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one result of one or more of the general requirements and do not represent all requirements or actual development. -Permitted Parking within Building FIGURE 153.062 -T: COMMERCIAL CENTER BUILDING TYPE DIAGRAM. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.062 (0) (7) 49 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING TVPES- COMMERCIAL CENTER (8) Large Format Commercial (a) Building Siting 1. Street Frontage Storefront with minimum 65 %; Residential uses prohibited; Residential Multiple Principal Buildings Permitted principal frontage street: minimum Front Property Line Coverage Minimum 95% O Occupation of Corner Required O in any basement 0 -10 ft. with up to 25% Minimum 30 ft. depth from the front and /or O Front RBZ of the front facade O permitted between 10 -20 ft. Corner Side RBZ 0 -10 ft. RBZ Treatment Patio or Streetscape Projecting signs, eaves, Right -of -Way Encroachment awnings, patios, & canopies 2. Buildable Area Minimum Side Yard Setback 0 ft. Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5 ft. O Minimum Lot Width 250 ft. O Maximum Lot Width None Maximum Impervious Coverage 85% Additional Semi - Pervious Coverage 10% 3. Parking Location & Loading Rear yard; within Parking Location building (refer to (c) Uses & Occupancy Requirements) Loading Facility Location Rear Rear, side, or corner Entry for Parking within Building side facade on non- principal frontage O streets (b) Height Minimum Height 2 stories Maximum Height 5 stories Ground Story: Minimum Height 15 ft. 1 Maximum Height 24 ft. ; Additional height may be permitted with Site Plan approval for theaters and other special indoor entertain ment /recreation uses Upper Stories: Minimum Height 9 ft. Maximum Height 14 ft. (c) Uses & Occupancy Requirements Storefront with minimum 65 %; Residential uses prohibited; Residential Ground Story and general office uses prohibited in principal frontage street: minimum shopping corridors Upper Story No additional requirements Parking within Permitted in the rear of all floors and fully Building in any basement Occupied Space Minimum 30 ft. depth from the front and /or O corner side facades (d) Facade Requirements Refer to §153.062(D) through §153.062(1) for design requirements general to all buildings. 1. Street Fagade Transparency Blank Wall Limitations Required 3. Building Entrance Principal Entrance Location Principal frontage street facade of building Street Facades: Number of Minimum of 1 per 75 ft. of facade m Entrances Parking Lot Facades: Minimum of 1 per 150 ft. Number of Entrances Mid - Building Pedestrianw Storefront with minimum 65 %; Ground Story Street corner side facade on non - Facing Transparency principal frontage street: minimum 30% Upper Story Transparency Minimum 20% Blank Wall Limitations Required 2. Non - Street Facade Transparency Transparency Minimum 15°1 Blank Wall Limitations Required 3. Building Entrance Principal Entrance Location Principal frontage street facade of building Street Facades: Number of Minimum of 1 per 75 ft. of facade m Entrances Parking Lot Facades: Minimum of 1 per 150 ft. Number of Entrances Mid - Building Pedestrianw Not required 4. Fag ade Divisions Vertical Increments No greater than 45 ft. On buildings 3 stories or taller or Horizontal Fagade Divisions where the maximum ground floor height is used, required within 3 feet of the top of the ground story Required Change in Roof Plane or Type No greater than every 80 ft. 5. Facade Materials Permitted Primary Materials. Brick, Stone, Glass 6. Roof Types Parapet, pitched roof, flat roof; Permitted Types other types permitted with approval (refer to §153.062(D)) Permitted on facades only at terminal vistas, corners at two Tower principal frontage streets, adjacent to an open space type, and /or with a theater use Note: 1 Any ground story height of 20 feet or taller counts as two stories. 50 § 153.062 S Op" (8) AS RECOMMENDED BY BUILDING T P S - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION LARGE FORMAT COMMERCIAL FEBRUARY 2, 2012 Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one result of one or more of the general requirements and do not represent all requirements or actual development. lO HP ■Permitted Parking within Building ' Required Building Zone FIGURE 153.062 -U: LARGE FORMAT COMMERCIAL BUILDING TWE DIAGRAM. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.062 (0) (8) 51 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING WPES- LARGE FORMAT COMMERCIAL (9) Historic Mixed Use (a) Building Siting 1. Street Frontage Multiple Principal Buildings Permitted Refer to §153.062(D) through §153.062(N) for design requirements general to all buildings. Front Property Line Coverage Minimum 80% O Occupation of Corner Required O Front RBZ 0 -20 ft.1 O Corner Side RBZ 0 -10 ft. Ground Story Minimum Rear Yard Setback. Patio or Streetscape; O RBZ Treatment Porches, stoops, and Blank Wall Limitations Maximum Lot Width balconies are permitted O in the RBZ Principal Entrance Location Maximum Impervious Coverage 85% Additional Semi - Pervious Coverage 5% 3. Parking Location & Loading Parking Location Rear Loading Facility Location Not applicabl'4y 'ii Entry for Parking within Building ht Minimum Height Maximum Heiaht 2.5 stories 69 (d) Fagade Requirements Projecting signs, Refer to §153.062(D) through §153.062(N) for design requirements general to all buildings. Right -of -Way Encroachment awnings, eaves, patios, Permitted Types permitted with approval (refer to ��- Ground Story Street Facing Transparency & canopies §153.062(D)) 2. Buildable Area Minimum 20 %�A Permitted on facades only at Minimum Side Yard Setback 0 ft. Ground Story Minimum Rear Yard Setback. 0 ft. O Minimum Lot Width 30 ft. Blank Wall Limitations Maximum Lot Width None O Maximum Impervious Coverage 85% Additional Semi - Pervious Coverage 5% 3. Parking Location & Loading Parking Location Rear Loading Facility Location Not applicabl'4y 'ii Entry for Parking within Building ht Minimum Height Maximum Heiaht 2.5 stories 69 (d) Fagade Requirements Minimum Height 10 ft. Refer to §153.062(D) through §153.062(N) for design requirements general to all buildings. 1. Street Fagade Transparency Permitted Types permitted with approval (refer to ��- Ground Story Street Facing Transparency Storefront with minimum 40% §153.062(D)) Upper Story Transparency Minimum 20 %�A Permitted on facades only at Blank Wall Limitations Required Ground Story 2. Non - Street F Transparency adjacent to an open space type Transparency Minimum 15% Blank Wall Limitations Required Note: 1 When any front or corner property line is within five feet or less of the 3. Building Entrance back of curb, the RBZ shall begin five feet off the back of curb to allow Principal Entrance Location Principal frontage street facade of building Street Facades: Number of Entrances 1 per 40 ft. of facade for buildings over 60 ft. minimum 0 Parking Lot Facades: Number of Entrances Minimum of 1 Mid - Building Pedestrianway 1 required for buildings greater than 150 ft. in length 4. Fagade Divisions Vertical Increments No greater than 30 ft. C .H Facade Divisions N/A Required Change in Roof Plane or Type At every vertical division 5. Fagade Materials Permitted Primary Materials Stone, Brick, Wood and Fiber Cement Siding 6. Roof Types Ground Story: Minimum Height 10 ft. Pitched roof; other types Maximum H eight 12 ft. Permitted Types permitted with approval (refer to ��- Upper Stories: Minimum Height 9 ft. §153.062(D)) Maximu Height 12 ft. Permitted on facades only at (c) Uses & Occupancy Requirements Tower terminal vistas, corners at two principal frontage streets, and /or Ground Story Residential uses prohibited adjacent to an open space type Upper Story No additional requirements Parking within B uilding Not permitted Note: 1 When any front or corner property line is within five feet or less of the back of curb, the RBZ shall begin five feet off the back of curb to allow Occupied Space Not applicable for adequate sidewalk. width. 52 § 153.062 0 " (9) AS RECOMMENDED BY BUILDING T P S - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION HISTORIC MIXED USE FEBRUARY 2, 2012 Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one result of one or more of the general requirements and do not represent all requirements or actual 3 Biding Zone FIGURE 153.062 -V: HISTORIC MIXED USE BUILDING TYPE DIAGRAM. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.062 (O0" (9) 53 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING P S- HISTORIC MIXED USE (10) Historic Cottage Commercial (a) Building Siting 1. Street Frontage Multiple Principal Buildings Permitted Front Property Line Coverage Minimum 50% " Occupation of Corner Required O Front RBZ 0 -25 ft. 1 Q Corner Side RBZ 0 -15 ft. RBZ Treatment Landscape, Patio, or Number of Entrances Streetscape 4. F Divisions Projecting signs, eaves, Right -.of -Way Encroachment awnings, patios, & Horizontal Fa � Divisions canopies 2. Buildable Area At every vertical division Minimum Side Yard Setback 3 ft. Minimum Rear Yard Setback. 5ft. Minimum Lot Width 30 ft. Maximum Lot Width None O Maximum Building Length or Depth 70 ft. O Maximum Impervious Coverage 75% Additional Semi - Pervious Coverage 10% 3. Parking Location & Loading Rear or side, provided Parking Location the minimum front property line coverage is met Loading Facility Location Not applicable Entry for Parking within Building Not applicable Refer to Access §153.062(N)(1)(c) (b). Height Minimum Height 1 story Q Maximum Height 2 stories Ground Story: Minimum Height 8 ft. Maximum Height 11 ft. Upper Stories: Minimum Height 7.5 ft. Maximum Height 11 ft. (c) Uses &Occupancy Requirements Ground Story Residential uses prohibited Upper Story No additional requirements Parking within Not permitted Building Occupied Space Not applicable (d) Facade Requirements Refer to §153.062(D) through §153.062(N) for design requirements general to all buildings. 1. Street Fagade Transparency Transparency. Minimum 25% Z Blank Wall Limitations Required on ground story only 2. Non - Street Facade Transparency Transparency Minimum 15% Q Blank Wall Limitations Not required 3. Building Entrance Principal Entrance Location Principal frontage street facade of building Street Facades: Number of 1 per every 30 ft. for buildings Entrances over 50 ft. minimum Parking Lot Facades: Not applicable Number of Entrances 4. F Divisions Vertical IR; ents No greater than 30 ft. Horizontal Fa � Divisions Not applicable Required Change in Roof Plane or Type At every vertical division 5.. Facade Materials 'Permitted Primary Materials Stone, Brick, Wood and Fiber Cement Siding 6. Roof Types Permitted Types Pitched roof; other types permitted with approval (refer to §153.062(D)) Tower Not permitted Note: 1 When any front or corner property line is within five feet or less of the back of curb, the RBZ shall begin five feet off the back of curb to allow for adequate sidewalk width. 54 § 153.062 (A (10) AS RECOMMENDED BY BUILDING P S- PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION HISTORIC COTTAGE COMMERCIAL FEBRUARY 2, 2012 FM FIGURE 163.062 -W: HISTORIC COTTAGE COMMERCIAL BUILDING TYPE DIAGRAM. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.062(0) (10) 55 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE BBILOINGTYPES - HISPOBIC WTTAGE COMMERCIAL Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one result of one or more of the general requirements and do not represent all requirements or actual development (11) Civic Building (a) Building Siting 1. Street Frontage Multiple Principal Buildings Permitted Occupation of Corner Not required Additional Semi - Pervious Coverage 10% Minimum Front Setback 15 ft. O Minimum Corner Side Setback 15 ft. Parking Location building (refer to (c) Setback Treatment Landscape, Patio, or Streetscape Parking Lot Facades: Number of Entrances Right -of -Way Encroachment None Loading Facility Location Rear 2. Buildable Area Rear, side, corner Vertical Increments Minimum Side Yard Setback 10 ft. streets Minimum Rear Yard Setback 20 ft. O Minimum Lot Width Maximum Lot Width 50 ft. None O Maximum Impervious Coverage 65% Transparency Additional Semi - Pervious Coverage 10% Blank Wall Limitations 3. Parking Location & Loading 3. Building Entrance Rear & side yard; within Principal Entrance Location Parking Location building (refer to (c) Street Facades: Number of Entrances Uses & Occupancy Parking Lot Facades: Number of Entrances Requirements) Mid - Building Pedestria Loading Facility Location Rear 4. Facade Divisions Rear, side, corner Vertical Increments Entry for Parking within Building side facades on non - principal frontage Horizontal Facade Divisions streets Required Change in Roof Plane or Type Refer to Access 5. Facade Materials § Permitted Primary Materials (b) Height 6. Roof Types Minimum Height 1.5 stories Q Maximum Height 5 stories; 3 stories in BSC Historic Core District Ground Story: Minimum Height 12 ft. Maximum Height 24 ft. Upper Stories: Minimum Height 9 ft. Maximum Height 14 ft. (c) Uses & Occupancy Requirements Ground Story Civic /Public /Institutional only except day care as a principal use Upper Story Civic /Public /Institutional only Parking within Permitted in the rear of the first 3 floors Building and fully in any basement(s) :Occupied Space Minimum 30 ft. depth from the front and /or O co rner side facade (d) Fagade Requirements Refer to §153.062(D) through §153.062(N) for design requirements general to all buildings. 1. S Fagade Transparency Transparency Minimum 25% Blank Wall Limitations Required 2. Non- Street Fagade Transparency Transparency Minimum 20% Blank Wall Limitations Required 3. Building Entrance Principal Entrance Location Principal frontage street facade of b uilding Street Facades: Number of Entrances 1 per 75 ft. of facade minimum Parking Lot Facades: Number of Entrances 1 per 100 ft. of facade minimum Mid - Building Pedestria Not required 4. Facade Divisions Vertical Increments No greater than 60 ft. Horizontal Facade Divisions On buildings 3 stories or taller or where the maximum ground floor nR, height is used; required within 3 ft. of the top of the ground story Required Change in Roof Plane or Type None 5. Facade Materials Permitted Primary Materials Brick, Stone, Glass 6. Roof Types Parapet, pitched roof, flat roof, Permitted Types other types permitted with approval (refer to §153.062(D)) Tower Permitted Note: 1 Any ground story height of 20 feet or taller counts as two stories. 56 § 153.062 (0) (11) AS RECOMMENDED BY BUILDING TyvPeS - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CIVIC BUILDING FEBRUARY2, 2012 Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one result of one or more of the general requirements and do not represent all requirements or actual thin Building BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.062 (0) (11) 57 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING TYPES - CIVIC BUILDING FIGURE 153.062 -X: CIVIC BUILDING TYPE DIAGRAM. (12) Parking Structure' 2. Buildable A (a) Building Siting 1. Street Frontage. Street frontage requirements apply only when no buildings are planned between the street and the parking structure. Multiple Buildings Not permitted Minimum Front Property Line Coverage 90% O Occupation of Corner Required Front RBZ 5 -25 ft. ■ Corner Side RBZ 5 -25 ft. RBZ Treatment Landscape, Patio, or Streetscape Right -of -Way Encroachment None 2. Buildable A Required b Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 ft. CD Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5 ft. O Minimum Lot Width 80 ft. Blank Wall Limitations Maximum L Width None O Maximum Building Length 300 ft. O Maximum Impervious Coverage 80% All street facades of building Additional Semi - Pervious Coverage 10% VIA' 3. Parking Location & Loading 1 per 75 ft. of facade minimum Within building only (refer Not applicable Parking Location to (c) Uses & Occupancy CD Requirements) Not required Rear, side, corner side structures fronting streets. Entry for Parking within Building facades on non�principal O frontage streets Horizontal Facade Divisions Access Refer to §153.062(N)(1)(c) Required Change in Roof (b) Height Plane or Type Minimum Height 2 stories Q Maximum Height 5 stories 3,4 Ground Story: Minimum Height 12 ft. 5. Facade Materials Maximum Height 18 ft. Upper Stories: Minimum Height 8.5 ft. Maximum Height 12 ft. (c) Uses & Occupancy Requirements Commercial uses are required only when Ground Story fronting a principal frontage street, a O shopping corridor or a greenway Upper Story No additional requirements Rear of ground story where there is Parking within frontage on a principal frontage street, a Building shopping corridor, or a greenway; all floors above ground story Minimum 20 ft. depth where the ground Occupied Space story fronts on a principal frontage street, a I shopping corridor, or a greenway (d) Facade Requirements Refer to §153.062(D) through §153.062(N) for design requirements general to all buildings. 1. Street Facade Transparency. This section applies only parking structures fronting streets. Storefront with minimum 65% Ground Story on principal frontage streets, Street Facing Transparency shopping corridors, or greenways; otherwise, refer to the blank wall limitations Blank Wall Limitations Required b Garage Openings Parked cars shall be screened T from the street 2. Non - Street Facade Transparency Blank Wall Limitations Required 6 3. Building Entrance. This section applies only to parking structures fronting streets. Permitted on facades only at Principal Pedestrian Entrance All street facades of building Location VIA' Street Facades: Number of Entrances 1 per 75 ft. of facade minimum Parking Lot Facades: Not applicable Number of Entrances Mid - Building Pedestrianway Not required 4. Facade Divisions. This section applies only to parking structures fronting streets. 'Vertical Increments No greater than 30 ft. Horizontal Facade Divisions Required within 3 ft. of the top of A1►. 1 �►' the ground story Required Change in Roof None Plane or Type Garage Floors Garage floors shall be horizontal along all street facades. 5. Facade Materials Permitted Primary Materials Brick, Stone, Glass 6. Roof Type Parapet, pitched roof, flat roof; Permitted Types other types may be permitted with approval (refer to §153.062(D)) C Permitted on facades only at Tower terminal vistas, corners at two principal frontage streets, and /or adjacent to an open space type Notes: 1 The requirements of §153.065(6)(5) Parking Structure Design shall be met. 2 Vehicular entrance openings shall not exceed 30 feet in width. 3 Height may not exceed overall height in feet of any adjacent building or any conforming building immediately across the street. 4 Parking is permitted on roof level. 5 No rectangular area greater than 30% of a story's facade, as measured from floor to floor, shall be windowless on the ground story and solid on the upper stories. 6 No rectangular area greater than 30% of a story's facade, as measured from floor to floor shall be solid. 58 § 153.062 (OJ (12) AS RECOMMENDED BY BUILDING P S- PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PARKING STRUCTURE FEBRUARY 2, 2012 Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one result of one or more of the general requirements and do not represent all requirements or actual development. vithin Building FIGURE 19.062 -Y: STRUCTURED PARKING BUILDING TYPE DIAGRAM. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 1 WD62 (0) (12) 59 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING TYPES - PARKING STRUCTURE (13) Podium Apartment Building (a) Building Siting 1. Street Frontage Multiple Principal Buildings Permitted Front Property Line Coverage Minimum 75 % 0 Occupation of Corner Required 5 ft. CD Front RBZ 5 -20 ft. O Corner Side RBZ 5 -20 ft. None O Maximum Impervious Coverage Landscape or less than Additional Semi - Pervious Coverage 20% 50% Patio; porches, RBZ Treatment stoops, and balconies of residential are pgrmitted in the building (subject to Parking Location RBZ Right -of -Way Encroachment None 2. Buildable Are Permitted; podium garage parking shall be Minimum Side. Yard Setback 5 ft. CD Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5 ft. A Minimum Lot Width 50 ft. Maximum Lot Width None O Maximum Impervious Coverage 70% Additional Semi - Pervious Coverage 20% 3. Parking Location & Loading Transparency Ground floor of residential transparency otherwise and for building (subject to Parking Location applicable screening requirements), partially facing a principle frontage street sunken or depressed Blank Wall Limitations underneath buildings, and /or u Loading Facility Location Rear Entry for Parking within Building Rear & side facade O Access Refer to §153.062(N)(1)(c (b) Height Minimum Height 3 stories Q Maximum Height 4.5 stories Stories: Minimum Height 9 ft. Maximum Height 14 ft. 2.5 ft. above the Minimum Finished Floor Elevation adjacent 4 Sidewalk elevation (c) Uses & Occupancy Requirements Ground Story No additional requirements Upper Story No additional requirements Refer to §153.062(D) through §153.062(1) for design Permitted; podium garage parking shall be requirements general to all buildings. screened to at least 90% opacity through Parking within the use of building materials that are Building compatible with and integrated into the Minimum 90% opacity on remainder of the facade that is located above parking area Occupied Space None required in ground story O (d) Facade Requirements Refer to §153.062(D) through §153.062(1) for design requirements general to all buildings. 1. Street Fagade Transparency Minimum 90% opacity on portion of ground floor or visible basement occupied by podium Transparency garage parking; minimum 20% transparency otherwise and for all other portions of the building facing a principle frontage street Blank Wall Limitations Required 2. Non - Street Facade Transparency Minimum 90% opacity on portion of ground floor or visible Transparency basement occupied by podium garage parking; minimum 15 transparency otherwise and for all other portions of the building Blank Wall Limitations Required 3. Building E Principal .Entrance Location Primary street fagade(s) of building I }�► I W Street Fagades: Number of Entrances 1 per 75 ft. of facade minimum 0 Parking Lot Facades: Not required Number of Entrances 1 required for buildings longer Mid- Building Pedestrianway than 250 ft, except as provided in §153.063, Neighborhood Standards 4. Facade Divisions Vertical Increments No greater than 40 ft. On buildings 3 stories or taller; Horizontal Facade Divisions required within 3 ft. of the top of the ground story Required Change in Roof No greater than every 80 ft. Plane or Type 5. Facade Materials Permitted Primary Materials Stone, Brick, food and Fiber Cement Siding 6. Roof Types Parapet, pitched roof, flat roof; Permitted Types other types may be permitted with Z approval (refer to §153.062(D)). Permitted on facades only at terminal vistas, comers at two Tower principal frontage streets, and/ or adjacent to plaza open space type. Notes: 1 A landscaped courtyard, when enclosed by building on three sides, may contribute up to 35% of the front property line coverage requirement. 2 A landscape buffer a minimum of five feet in width as measured from the base of the building is required. In addition to the foundation planting requirements of §153.065(D)(7), the required reviewing body may require enhanced foundation plantings, including but not limited to vertical landscape materials, to add visual interest to the ground floor or exposed basement level parking facade. 60 § 153.062 (OJ (13) AS RECOMMENDED BY BUILDING P S- PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PODIUM APARTMENT BUILDING FEBRUARY 2, 2012 Notes, Continued: Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one result of one or more of the general requirements and do not represent all requirements or actual development. FIGURE 153.062 -P: PODIUM APARTMENT BUILDING TYPE DIAGRAM. 3 Basement level structured parking is permitted to extend between buildings, screened from the street and covering a maximum of 10% of the length of the RBZ. Structured parking visible between principal buildings must be set back a minimum of 15 ft. from the street facing facades. 4 Where the principal building entrance is a lobby or other common space, the minimum finished floor elevation is not required. 5 I lieu of transparency requirements, the ground story or exposed basement facade shall incorporate architectural elements equal to the degree of detailing used on the stories above the parking level. Blank wall limitations may be met using these architectural enhancements, as determined by the required reviewing body. 6 The required reviewing body may reduce the number of entrances along street facades as functionally appropriate to the apartment building with parking fully or partially below grade, provided the building has an adequate number and frequency of entrances to be convenient for residents and visitors and the entrances are conducive to establishing a safe and attractive pedestrian realm. 7 Masonry, as described in §153.062(E)(1), shall be used as the primary building material for ground story or exposed basement facades. 8 The incorporation of active occupied spaces along street facades is strongly encouraged wherever practicable. Common spaces including but not limited to a clubhouse, fitness facility, or administration /rental /sales office, should be designed so that those buildings or uses have ground story street frontage. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.062 (0) (13) DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING TYPES - PODIUM APARTMENT BUILDING 61 Required Building Zone 'qiL r This page has been left blank intentionally. 62 § 153.063 AS RECOMMENDED BY NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2012 § 153.063 NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS (A) INTENT Certain Bridge Street Corridor Districts require special attention to locations and character of buildings, streets, and open spaces to accommodate larger scale, coordinated development and redevelopment to permit a wide variety of uses. The intent of §153.063 is to establish requirements for the creation of signature places in the city consistent with the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report by incorporating long -term phasing plans, transitional development conditions, and adaptability to future market needs. The neighborhood standards guide the development of streets, open spaces, buildings, and other placemaking elements over time. They are not intended to designate the precise locations for approved street types, use areas, open spaces or other required elements of this Code, actual locations and specific development requirements will be determined through the Development Plan and Site Plan Reviews as required in §153.066 for individual neighborhoods. (1) The BSC Historic Residential District is a singularly unique residential neighborhood with a historic development pattern. The requirements for the BSC Historic Residential District ensure that the scale and placement of new or modified buildings are compatible with the historic character of the existing residential uses and streets. (2) The BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood and BSC Indian Run Neighborhood districts anchor the Bridge Street Corridor through the creation of mixed use neighborhoods with signature development characters. Each neighborhood is intended to be anchored by a critical mass of commercial uses located in highly walkable shopping corridors with streets, blocks, buildings and open spaces designed to encourage park -once visits, window shopping, impromptu public gatherings and sidewalk activity. (3) The BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District serves as a bridge between the existing historic scale of the BSC Historic Core District and the more contemporary, larger scale of the BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District. (B) BSC HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (1) Development Intent While included as part of the Neighborhood Standards, it is the intent of this district to maintain the existing conditions of this important neighborhood. The BSC Historic Residential neighborhood represents a snapshot in time that should be maintained, preserved, and protected. (2) The following standards for arrangement and development of land and buildings are required. (a) LotArea For each dwelling unit, there shall be a lot area not less than 8,712 square feet (0.2- acre). Lot Width k.Lots shall be a minimum of 60 feet in width with k minimum frontage of 60 feet along a public )l reet. (c) Height No residential 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. (d) Lot Coverage Combined square footage of all principal and accessory structures and impervious surfaces shall not exceed 50% of the lot area, unless otherwise approved by the Architectural Review Board. (e) Front, Side, and Rear Yards All lots shall have minimum setbacks as noted in Table 153.063 -A. TABLE 153.063 -A. MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS FOR BSC HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT For properties fronting Front Yard Side Yard Total Side Yard Rear Yard onto: (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) Dublin Road 15 4 16 15 Franklin Street 25 4 12 25 High Street (north &. 15 4 16 15 south) South Riverview Street O 3 12 15 (east side) South Riverview Street 20 3 12 15 (west side) North Riverview Street D 3 6 15 (east side) North Riverview Street 20 3 6 15 (west side) Short Street 20 3 12 15 Streets not listed above 1 20 1 3 1 12 15 BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.063 (B) 63 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS - BSC HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL (C) BSC SAWMILL CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT (1) Development Intent The Sawmill Center Neighborhood offers a unique opportunity to provide a vibrant, active mixed use environment with a wide variety of shopping, service and entertainment activities. This neighborhood will have a strong pedestrian friendly streetscape and a well - defined network of streets connecting to the major roadways of Sawmill Road and West Dublin - Granville Road. Supporting residential and office uses may be incorporated in a variety of ways, including upper floors in vertical mixed use areas and in stand- alone buildings. Additionally, the neighborhood will have connections to greenways planned for the Bridge Street Corridor to connect to other development areas to the west (2) Refer to §153.058 for the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District intent and the adopted Zoning Map for the actual limits of the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District Refer to Figure 153.063 -A for an illustration of a conceptual development pattern desired for this district. @ (b) Block Length (3) Block, Access, and Street Layout (a) Refer to § 153.060 for Lots and Blocks; refer to §153.061 for Street Types; refer to §153.062(0) for access permitted for specific building types. Refer to Table 153.060 -A, Maximum Block Dimensions. (c) Access Refer to §§ 153.060 and 153.061 for existing and planned principal frontage streets within the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District and general block access configurations. Shopping _ Corridor Open Space Corridor Open Space Node Potential d��� Gateway 1% .0I Locations Corridor Connector & District Con 4 Streets Commercial Center Building Type Premitted Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one result of one or more of the general requirements and do not represent all requirements or actual development. The Development Standards illustration is intended to be representative of a general development pattern. It is not intended to show the precise locations for approved street types, use areas, open spaces or other required elements of this Code. Actual locations and standards will be provided with the approval of the Development Plan and Site Plan as required in §153.066 for individual neighborhood areas. (d) Mid -Block Pedestrianways Blocks consisting entirely of residential uses that are located in predominantly residential development areas may be exempted from the mid -block pedestrianway requirements of §153.060(0)(6), subject to approval by the required reviewing body, except where a block has frontage on a principal frontage street. (e) Street Types Refer to § 153.061 for existing and potential streets and street family designations within the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District. (4) Building Types. Refer to § 153.062. (a) Permitted Building Types Corridor Building, Loft Building, Apartment Building, Podium Apartment Building, Single - Family Attached, Mixed Use Building, Large Format Commercial Building, Commercial Center, Civic Building, Parking Structure z § 153.063 (C) NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS - BSC SAWMILL CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD AS RECOMMENDED BY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2012 FIGURE 153.063 -A. ILLUSTRATION OF SAWMILL CENTER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (b) Building Types Permitted in Shopping Corridors Corridor Building, Loft Building, Mixed Use Building, Large Format Commercial Building (c) Commercial Center Building Types Commercial Center building types are permitted to front only on Village Parkway and Sawmill Road. (5) Placemaking Elements (a) Shopping Corridor 1. At least one continuous shopping corridor is required and shall be located along at least one principal frontage street in the approximate location shown on Figure 153.063 -A. 2. The minimum required length of the required shopping corridor shall be measured as the aggregate length of the block faces along both sides of the principal frontage street. The required length shall be based on the total area of the development site as noted in Table 153.063 -B. TABLE 153.063 -B SHOPPING CORRIDOR LENGTH - BSC SAWMILL CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT Development Area Required Shopping Corridor Length Less than 5 acres No minimum 5 to 20 acres 600 linear feet minimum Over 20 acres 1200 linear feet minimum 3. Any block within a shopping corridor exceeding 300 feet shall provide a mid -block pedestrianway meeting the requirements of §153.060(C)(6). 4. The required shopping corridor is penmitted to turn the corner of a block provided the minimum required length of the shopping corridor is located along the principal frontage street (b) Sign Plans 1. The BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District is intended to accommodate a wide variety of building types and uses to create vibrant, mixed use shopping and entertainment districts. The sign and graphic standards shall contribute to the vibrancy of the district and the creation of a high quality environment with effective graphics intended for navigation, information, and identification primarily for pedestrians and secondarily for vehicles. 2. Am aster sign plan shall be submitted as required by §153.066(J). The approved master sign plan may include alternative sign types, number, size, heights, locations, colors, and lighting, provided the purpose and intent of the sign and graphic standards for the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District are maintained. (c) Street Terminations Refer to §153.062(J) for Treatments at Terminal Vistas. (d) Gateways 1. Gateways shall be provided in the approximate locations shown in Figure 153.063 -A. Gateway designs shall be approved with the Site Plan Review, but locations shall be identified with the Development Plan Review and shall be coordinated with the street network. 2. Gateways are points of identification that provide a sense of arrival to the area. Gateway designs shall be pedestrian- oriented in scale and shall include a combination of architectural elements, landscape features and/or public open spaces. Gateways may include a gateway sign in accordance with § 153.065(H). Gateway elements should be coordinated with the design of the nearby streetscape, open spaces and architecture as may be applicable. (6) Open Spaces. Refer to §153.064. (a) Open Space Character The BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood district is intended to accommodate a wide variety of building types and uses to create vibrant, mixed use shopping and entertainment districts accented by a high quality open space network that balances a variety of natural and hardscape areas designed to provide intimate gathering spaces appropriate for an urban setting. (b) Required Open Space Open space shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of §153.064(C). All open spaces fulfilling this requirement shall meet the intent and design requirements of an open space type permitted in the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District as described in § 153.064(G). Required open spaces shall be publicly accessible and accommodate community activity and gathering spaces. (c) Permitted Open Space Types Pocket Park, Pocket Plaza, Plaza, Square, Green, Park, Greenway (d) Open Space Network 1. Open spaces within the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood district shall be organized as a series of interconnected nodes and corridors appropriate to the scale and character of surrounding streets, buildings and land uses. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.063 (C) 65 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS - BSC SAWMILL CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD The purpose of this requirement is to create highly accessible public gathering spaces and activity areas along a continuous open space network weaving through this urban neighborhood. 2. The open space network shall be provided, at minimum, in the approximate locations shown in Figure 153.063 -A. Open space designs shall be approved with the Site Plan Review, but locations and types shall be identified with the Development Plan Review and shall meet the following criteria: A. Open space corridors and nodes shall be coordinated with the street network, and with gateways where applicable. B. Open space corridors may be provided as a greenway open space type or by using . approved street types, provided that open space nodes are located along the street with no greater than three full blocks between each open space node, and if pedestrian and bicycle movement between the open spaces is emphasized in the street design. C. The open space network shall connect to existing or planned greenways within the vicinity, providing pedestrian and bicycle access to nearby residential districts, the Scioto River, other destinations throughout the Bridge Street Corridor, and to the city's larger open space system. D. Open space nodes shall be provided at prominent street intersections, such as those serving as entrances to a designated shopping corridor and other gateway locations, with other appropriately scaled open space types integrated along the corridor as appropriate to the character of the street. (D) BSC HISTORIC TRANSITION NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT (1) Development Intent The Historic Transition Neighborhood presents a unique opportunity within the Bridge Street Corridor. Transitional elements include building on the BSC Historic Core District's strong gridded pedestrian and street network and providing appropriate connections to the BSC Indian Run Neighborhood. A strong residential presence will be important to support the smaller scale retail, service, and entertainment uses in the BSC Historic Core. Other limited areas of BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood border the Historic District and require sensitive treatment to maintain complementary relationships to adjacent districts. (2) Refer to §153.058 for the BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District intent and refer to the adopted Zoning Map for the actual limits of the BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District. Refer to Figure 153.063 -13 for an illustration of a conceptual development pattern desired for this district. (3) Bloch Access, and Street Layout (a) Refer to §153.060 for Lots and Blocks; refer to §153.061 for Street Types; refer to §153.062(0) for access permitted for specific building types. (b) Block Length 1. Refer to Table 153.060 -A, Maximum Block Dimensions. 2. Developable lots are not permitted between greenways and the street adjacent to the Indian Run west of North High Street. (c) Access Refer to §§ 153.060 and 153.061 for existing and planned principal frontage streets within the BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District and acceptable block access configurations. (d) Mid- B1ockPedestrianways Blocks consisting entirely of residential uses that are located in predominantly residential development areas may be exempted from the mid -block pedestrianway requirements of §153.060(C)(6), subject to approval by the required reviewing body, except where a block has frontage on a principal frontage street. (e) Street Types Refer to §153.061 for existing and potential streets and street family designations within the BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District. (4) Building Types. Refer to §153.062. (a) Permitted Building Types Single Family Attached, Apartment Building, Podium Apartment Building, Loft Building, Historic Mixed Use Building, Civic Building, Parking Structure (b) Building Height Buildings located across a street from or adjacent to the BSC Historic Core District shall be limited to two and a half stories. (5) Placemaking Elements (a) Historic Sites and Structures Historic sites and structures listed on the National Register and/or the Ohio Historic Inventory shall be preserved to the extent practicable with redevelopment unless otherwise approved by the Architectural Review Board pursuant to §153.171. 66 § 153.063 (C) AS RECOMMENDED BY NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION BSC SAWMILL CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD FEBRUARY 2, 2012 Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one result of one or more of the general requirements and do not represent all requirements or actual development. The Development Standards illustration is intended to be representative of a general development pattern. It is not intended to show the precise locations for approved street types, use areas, open spaces or other required elements of this Code. Actual locations and standards will be provided with the approval of the Development Plan and Site Plan as required in §153.066 for individual neighborhood areas. Open Space Corridor n� Limited Building Height Boundary Open Space Node Potential Gateway Locations (b) Use Limitations Ground floor residential uses are not permitted on Bridge Street (o) Gateways 1. Gateways shall be provided in the approximate locations shown in Figure 153.063 -B. Gateway designs shall be approved with the Site Plan Review, but locations shall be identified with the Development Plan Review and shall be coordinated with the street network. 2. Gateways are points of identification that provide a sense of arrival to the area. Gateway designs shall be pedestrian- oriented in scale and shall include a combination of architectural elements, landscape features and /or public open spaces. Gateway elements should be coordinated with the design of the nearby streetscape, open spaces and architecture as may be applicable. The BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District is intended to complement the BSC Historic Core District by accommodating a variety of building types within a finer grained street and block network and uses consistent with that district. On the larger parcels within this district, development shall be planned to allow an extension of the walkable mixed use character of the BSC Historic Core District. 2. Open spaces shall be planned in a manner appropriate to the smaller scaled urban environment consistent with the adjacent Historic District, with a network of open spaces to serve the residential presence in the BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District, a high quality public green to BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.063 (D) 6 7 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS - BSC HISTORIC TRANSITION Corridor Connector & District Connector Streets 1919 Building Q (6) Open Spaces. Refer to §153.064. (a) Permitted Open Space Types Pocket Park, Pocket Plaza, Plaza, Square, Green, Greenway (b) Open Space Character FIGURE 153.063 -13. ILLUSTRATION OF BSC HISTORIC TRANSITION DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS serve as a community gathering space, and connections to the Indian Run greenway and the Scioto River. (c) Required Open Space Open space shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of §153.064(C). All open spaces fulfilling this requirement shall meet the intent and design requirements of an open space type permitted in the BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District. Required open spaces shall be publicly accessible and accommodate community activities and gathering spaces. (d) Open Space Network 1. Open spaces within the BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District shall be organized as a series of interconnected nodes and corridors, appropriate to the scale and character of surrounding streets, buildings and land uses. The purpose of this requirement is to create highly accessible public gathering spaces and activity areas along a continuous open space network weaving through and around the edges of this urban neighborhood. coverage requirements are reduced to 50% along the greenway. E. Other required open space corridors may be created by using approved street types, provided that open space nodes are located along the street with no greater than three full blocks between each open space node and pedestrian and bicycle movement between the open spaces is emphasized in the street design. F. Aminimum of one open space type (Green, Square, Plaza, or Park) shall be provided north of Bridge Street, with continuous pedestrian and bicycle connections to the Indian Run greenway. G. Other open space nodes shall be provided at gateway locations, such as at prominent street intersections, with other appropriately scaled open space types integrated along the corridor as appropriate to the character of the street. (E) BSC INDIAN RUN NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT 2. The open space network shall be provided, (1) Development Intent at minimum, in the approximate locations The BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District provides shown in Figure 153.063 -B. Open space a significant opportunity for a well - planned and designs shall be approved with the Site designed mixed use neighborhood. Special attention Plan Review, but locations and types shall at the boundaries of the neighborhood will be required be identified with the Development Plan to deal with the sensitivity of the Indian Run and the application and shall meet the following opportunities for prominent visibility from I -270. criteria: Land use opportunities include a substantial residential A. Open space corridors and nodes shall be presence, especially in those areas nearest the Indian coordinated with the street network, and Run, with office employment and supporting service with gateways where applicable. and commercial uses. A comfortable, walkable B. Greenways are required along all street network is intended to convey a strong sense branches of the Indian Run and shall of connection between each of these diverse but be designed to facilitate pedestrian and complementary land uses. bicycle travel. Greenways shall be (2) Notwithstanding the foregoing, any real property that designed with publicly accessible street had a Planned Unit Development (PUD) classification frontage for a minimum of one third of pursuant to §153.052 immediately prior to its rezoning the greenway length along all branches of into the BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District the Indian Run within the BSC Historic shall be permitted to be developed, at the election of Transition Neighborhood District. the property owner or other applicant, in one of the C. Required greenways shall connect to following manners: existing or planned greenways within (a) Per the terms of the PUD zoning text that was the vicinity, providing pedestrian and approved in accordance with §153.052, if the bicycle access to the BSC Indian Run approved PUD zoning text is silent on any Neighborhood District, the Scioto River, particular matter, issue, restriction, or requirement, other destinations throughout the Bridge then the Dublin Zoning Code, as it existed Street Corridor, and to the city's larger immediately prior to the adoption of § §153.057 open space system. through 153.066, shall provide the applicable D. Building frontage directly along a zoning requirements. Aproperty owner or greenway with no intervening street shall applicant that desires to develop their property in be treated as street frontage and shall accordance with this provision shall be required meet street- facing fagade requirements, to file and obtain approval of a Final Development except the minimum front property line 68 § 153.063 (D) AS RECOMMENDED BY NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION BSC HISTORIC TRANSITION FEBRUARY 2, 2012 MUM Potential Gateway Locations Corridor Connector & District Connector Streets Commercial Center Building Type Permitted Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one result of one or more of the general requirements and do not represent all requirements or actual development. The Development Standards illustration is intended to be representative of a general development pattern. It is not intended to show the precise locations for approved street types, use areas, open spaces or other required elements of this Code. Actual locations and standards will be provided with the approval of the Development Plan and Site Plan as required in §153.066 for individual neighborhood areas. Plan application as required under §153.053 of the Dublin Zoning Code; or (b) A property owner or applicant that desires to develop their property in accordance with the requirements of § §153.057 through 153.066 shall be required to follow all of the procedures required for approval of development projects under the BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District. (3) Refer to § 153.058 for the BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District intent, and refer to the adopted Zoning Map for the actual limits of the BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District. Refer to Figure 153.063 -C for an illustration of a conceptual development pattern desired for this district. (4) Block, Access, and Street Layout (a) Refer to §153.060 for Lots and Blocks; refer to §153.061 for Street Types; refer to § 153.062(0) for access permitted for specific building types. (b) Block Length Refer to Table 153.060 -A, Maximum Block Dimensions. (c) Access Refer to §§153.060 and 153.061 for existing and potential principal frontage streets within the BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District and acceptable block access configurations. (d) Mid -Block Pedestrianways Blocks consisting entirely of residential uses that are located in predominantly residential development areas may be exempted from the mid -block pedestrianway requirement of §153.060(C)(6), subject to approval by the required reviewing body, except where a block has frontage on a principal frontage street. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.063 (E) 69 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS - BSC INDIAN RUN NEIGHBORHOOD (e) Street Types Streets fronted by a required open space type shall be designated as principal frontage streets. 2. Refer to §153.061 for existing and planned streets and street family designations within the BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District. (5) Building Types. Refer to §153.062. (a) Permitted Building Types Corridor Building, Loft Building, Apartment Building, Podium Apartment Building, Single - Family Attached, Mixed Use Building, Large Format Commercial Building, Commercial Center, Civic Building, Parking Structure (b) Building Types Permitted in Shopping Corridors Corridor Building, Loft Building, Mixed Use Building, Large Format Commercial Building (c) Commercial Center Building Types Commercial Center building types are permitted to front only on Bridge Street (6) Placemaking Elements (a) Shopping Corridor 1. At least one continuous shopping corridor is required and shall be located along at least one principal frontage street in the approximate location shown on Figure 153.063 -C. 2. The minimum required length of the required shopping corridor shall be measured as the aggregate length of the block faces along both sides of the principal frontage street The required length shall be based on the total area of the development site as noted in Table 153.063 -C. TABLE 153.063 -C .. OPPING CORRIDOR LENGTH - BSC INDIAN DISTRICT Development Area Required Shopping Corridor Length Less than 5 acres No minimum 5 to 20 acres 600 linear feet minimum Over 20 acres 1200 linear feet minimum 3. Any block within a shopping corridor exceeding 300 feet shall provide a mid -block pedestrianway meeting the requirements of §153.060(C)(6). 4. The required shopping corridor is permitted to turn the corner of a block provided the minimum required length of the shopping corridor is located along the principal frontage street (b) Indian Run Frontage If buildings are fronted directly along the Indian Run greenway, ground floor fagades shall be treated the same as front fagades on principal frontage streets. Parking lots, parking structures, garages, and loading facilities are not permitted in the rear yards of lots with frontage along the Indian Run greenway. 2. Eating and drinking establishments are encouraged along the Indian Run greenway, with an additional 10% semi - pervious area permitted for outdoor dining and seating where the outdoor dining area is within 20 feet of the principal structure. (c) Street Terminations Refer to §153.0620 for Treatments at Terminal Vistas. (d) Gateways 1: Gateways shall be provided in the approximate locations shown in Figure 153.063 -C. Gateway designs shall be approved with the Site Plan Review, but locations shall be identified with the Development Plan Review and shall be coordinated with the street network. 2. Gateways are points of identification that provide a sense of arrival to the area. Gateway designs shall be pedestrian- oriented in scale and shall include a combination of architectural elements, landscape features and/or public open spaces. Gateways may include a gateway sign in accordance with §I53.065(H). Gateway elements should be coordinated with the design of the nearby streetscape, open spaces and architecture as may be applicable. (e) Sign Plans 1. The BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District is intended to accommodate a wide variety of building types and uses to create vibrant, mixed use shopping and entertainment districts. The sign and graphic standards shall contribute to the vibrancy of the district and the creation of a high quality environment with effective graphics intended for navigation, information, and identification primarily for pedestrians and secondarily for vehicles. 2. Am aster sign plan shall be submitted as required by §153.0660. The approved master sign plan may include alternative sign types, number, size, heights, locations, colors, and lighting, provided the purpose and intent of the sign and graphic standards for the BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District are 70 § 153.063 (E) AS RECOMMENDED BY NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION BSC INDIAN RUN NEIGHBORHOOD FEBRUARY 2, 2012 maintained. The approved master sign plan A. Open space corridors and nodes shall be may include alternative sign types, number, coordinated with the street network, and size, heights, locations, colors, and lighting. with gateways where applicable. (7) Open Spaces, Refer to §153.064. B. Greenways are required along all (a) Open Space Character branches of the Indian Run and shall be designed to facilitate pedestrian and 1. The BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District bicycle travel. Greenways shall be is intended to accommodate a wide variety designed with publicly accessible street of building types and uses to create vibrant, frontage for aminimum of one third of mixed use shopping and employment districts the greenway length along all branches accented by a high quality open space of the Indian Run within the Indian Run network that balances a variety of stunning district. natural greenways and hardscape areas designed to provide intimate gathering spaces C. Required greenways shall connect to appropriate for an urban setting. existing or planned greenways within the vicinity, providing pedestrian and bicycle 2. Greenways shall be provided to connect the access to Historic Dublin, the Scioto BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District with River, other destinations throughout the the BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood Bridge Street Corridor, and to the city's District to the east, creating . pedestrian and larger open space system. bicycle connections and natural corridors from this mixed use activity center to the D. Where buildings front directly onto Scioto River and throughout the Bridge Street n o',,, greenways, semi- pervious outdoor dining Corridor. areas are permitted within 20 feet of the principal structure adjacent to the (b) Required Open Space greenway. Open space shall be provided in accordance with E. Other required open space corridors the requirements of §I53.064(C). All open spaces may be created by using approved street fulfilling this requirement shall meet the intent types, provided that open space nodes are and design requirements of an open space type located along the street with no greater permitted in the BSC Indian Run Neighborhood than three full blocks between each open District as described in §153.064(G). Required space node and pedestrian and bicycle open spaces shall be publicly accessible and movement between the open spaces is accommodate community activity and gathering emphasized in the street design. spaces. F. Open space nodes shall be provided at (c) Permitted Open Space Types prominent street intersections, such as Pocket Park, Pocket Plaza, Plaza, Square, Green, those serving as entrances to a designated Park, Greenway shopping corridor and other gateway (d) Open Space Network locations, with other appropriately scaled 1. Open spaces within the BSC Indian Run open space types integrated along the Neighborhood District shall be organized as a corridor as appropriate to the character of series of interconnected nodes and corridors the street. appropriate to the scale and character of G. Where a conference center use is surrounding streets, buildings and land uses. provided, an adjacent plaza or square The purpose of this requirement is to create shall be required to serve as an open highly accessible public gathering spaces and space node. activity areas along a continuous open space network weaving through and around the edges of this urban neighborhood. 2. The open space network shall be provided, at a minimum, in the approximate locations shown in Figure 153.063 -C. Open space designs shall be approved with the Site Plan Review, but locations and types shall be identified with the Development Plan Review and shall meet the following criteria: BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.063 (E) 71 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS - BSC INDIAN RUN NEIGHBORHOOD § 153.064 OPEN SPACE TYPES (A) INTENT AND PURPOSE The intent of the open space type requirements is to ensure a variety of functional, well- designed open spaces carefully distributed throughout the Bridge Street Corridor, located and planned to enhance the quality of life for residents, businesses, and visitors. The purpose of these requirements is to ensure that individual open spaces complement adjacent land uses and contribute to the creation of a comprehensive, corridor -wide open space network. In addition, these regulations are intended to guide the design of each open space so that it properly responds to its unique location and the needs of the primary users. (B) APPLICABILITY All required open space shall conform to one of the open space types of §153.064. (C) PROVISION OF OPEN SPACE (1) Residential There shall be a minimum of 200 square feet of publicly accessible open space for each residential dwelling unit. Required open space shall be located within 660 feet of the main entrances of the residential units or the main entrance of a multiple -family building, as measured along a pedestrian walkway. (2) Commercial There shall be a minimum of one square foot of publicly accessible open space for every 50 square feet of commercial space or fraction thereof. Required open space shall be located within 660 feet of the main entrance to the commercial space as measured along a pedestrian walkway. (3) MixedUse Open space requirements for mixed use developments shall be calculated based on the open space required for each use as noted in §153.064(C)(1) -(2). (4) Civic No open space is required for civic uses in civic building types except as may be required by the landscape provisions of this chapter. Where civic uses are located in other permitted building types, there shall be a minimum of one square foot of publicly accessible open space for every 50 square feet of civic space or fraction thereof. Where required, open space shall be located within 660 feet of the main entrance to the building as measured along a pedestrian walkway. (5) Existing Open Spaces An existing open space may be used to meet the area requirements for open space for an individual development if approved by the required reviewing body. The applicant shall either add to the existing open space, create anew open space in accordance with §153.064, pay a fee in lieu of provision of open space as required by §153.064(E) where permitted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, or a combination thereof. (6) Variation of Open Space Types More than one open space type may be used in combination to meet the open space requirement. Where three or more individual open spaces are proposed to meet the requirement, at least two different types must be provided. (D) SUITABILITY OF OPEN SPACE (1) The ART or required reviewing body shall review all proposed open space types during the Site Plan and Development Plan application review processes to determine the suitability of the open space. In determining the suitability of areas to be set aside for new open space types or in considering the ability of existing open space types to meet the requirement,. the ART or other reviewing body may consider all relevant factors and information, including, but not limited to (a) The goals and objectives of the City's Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report, Community Plan and Parks and Recreation Master Plan, (b) Suitability of the open space for active or passive recreational use or preservation of natural features, (c) The need for specific types of open space and recreation in the Bridge Street Corridor and particularly in the general vicinity of the proposed development taking into account the anticipated users of the open space and nearby land uses, (d) The proximity or potential connectivity to other open space types. (2) If the ART determines the open space proposed (or portions thereof) to be inconsistent with any of these considerations, a fee -in -lieu of the provision of open space, or a combination of fee and provision of open space may be used to meet the requirement if approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission in accordance with §153.064(E). (3) If the resulting amount of required open space for the proposed development cannot meet the open space type area or dimensional requirements, a fee -in -lieu of required open space shall be paid to the City if approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission in accordance with §153.064(E). (E) FEE -IN -LIEU OF OPEN SPACE (1) The following requirements shall be met where the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that 72 § 153.064 AS RECOMMENDED BY OPEN SPACE TYPES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2012 a payment of a fee -in -lieu of open space is permitted. Refer to §153.066 for the procedures for open space fee in lieu determination (2) Fee -In -Lieu Calculation The payment of fees -in -lieu of open space shall be collected prior to the issuance of a building permit for each phase of development and shall be calculated using the following method: (a) Calculate the total acreage of required open space from §153.064(C)(1) -(4) as applicable, (b) Multiply the acreage of required open space by its estimated average value per acre. This value shall be established from time to time by resolution of City Council. (c) Multiply the value of the required open space as determined in §153.064(E)(2)(b) by the required open space to obtain the open space fee. (3) Use of Open Space Fee Unless otherwise specifically directed by City Council, all fees collected shall be deposited in a fund which shall be used only for land acquisition, development, maintenance and operation of publicly accessible open spaces in the Bridge Street Corridor as outlined in §153.064. (F) OPEN SPACE TYPES (1) Pocket Plaza Pocket plazas are intended to provide a formal open space of relatively small scale to serve as an impromptu gathering place for civic, social, and commercial purposes. The pocket plaza is designed as a well defined area of refuge separate from the public sidewalk. These areas contain a greater amount of impervious coverage than other open space types. Seating areas are required and special features, such as fountains and public art installations, are encouraged. Refer to Table 153.064 -A for an illustration of a typical pocket plaza. (2) Pocket Park Pocket parks are intended to provide small scale, primarily landscaped active or passive recreation and gathering spaces for neighborhood residents within walking distance. The design and programming of pocket parks should respond to the needs of residents in the immediate vicinity. Refer to Table 153.064 -A for an illustration of a typical pocket park. (3) Green Greens are intended to provide informal, medium scale active or passive recreation for neighborhood residents within walking distance. Refer to Table 153.064 -A for an illustration of a typical green. (4) Square Squares are intended to provide formal open space of medium scale to serve as a gathering place for The minim urn length and the minimum width of an open space are measured along the longest two straight lines intersecting at a right angle. Refer to Figure 153.064-A, Examples of Measuring civic, social, and commercial purposes. Squares are generally rectilinear and bordered on all sides by a vehicular right -of -way, which together with adjacent building fagades define the space. Squares contain both hardscape areas, such as paths, fountains, gazebos, public art, and street furniture, as well as landscaping. Refer to Table 153.064 -A for an illustration of a typical square. (5) Plaza Plazas are intended to provide formal open space of medium scale to serve as a gathering place for civic, social, and commercial purposes. Plazas are usually located in areas where land uses are more diverse and there is potential for a greater level of pedestrian activity. The plaza may contain a greater amount of impervious coverage than any other open space type. Special features, such as fountains and public art installations, are encouraged. Refer to Table 153.064 - A for an illustration of a typical plaza. (6) Park Parks are intended to provide informal active and passive larger -scale recreational amenities to city residents and visitors. Parks have natural plantings and can be created around existing natural features such as water bodies or tree stands. Parks can be used to define edges of neighborhoods and districts. Refer to Table 153.064 -A for an illustration of a typical park. (7) Greenway Greenways are intended to provide a combination of informal and well organized, primarily linear open spaces that serve to connect open space types and major destinations within and outside of the Bridge Street Corridor. Portions of greenways may follow and preserve a natural feature, such as a river or stream edge, ravine, or tree row, or man -made features, such as streets. Greenways can be used to define edges of neighborhoods and districts and may be directly adjacent to other open space types. Refer to Table 153.064 -A for an illustration of a typical greenway. (G) GENERAL REQUIREMENTS The following defines the general requirements for all open space types in the Bridge Street Corridor as provided in Table 153.064 -A, Summary of Open Space Type Requirements. Land not meeting the requirements of §153.064(G) and Table 153.064 -A shall not be counted toward an open space requirement. (1) Size Minimum and maximum size of open space is measured along the parcel lines of the property. (a) Minimum Dimension BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.064 73 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE OPEN SPACE TYPES the Minimum Length and Width of Open Space Types. (b) Proportion Requirement With the exception of the greenway, open space types shall be sized at a ratio of not more than three to one (3:1), length to width. (2) Access All open space types shall provide public pedestrian access from a street right-of-way. (a) Minimum Percentage of Street Right -of -Way Frontage Required The minimum percentage of street right -of -way frontage required is measured as the minimum percentage of the open space perimeter, as measured along the outer parcel line or edge of the space, that shall be located directly adjacent to a street right -of -way, excluding alley frontage. This requirement provides access and visibility to the open space. (b) Continuity Pedestrian paths, including sidewalks or multi -use paths connecting to existing or planned bicycle or pedestrian paths or other open space types, shall be made when the open space abuts an existing or planned path right -of -way, a parcel zoned in the BSC Public District, or other open space types. For greenways, pedestrian and/or bicycle access points may be required by the ART or the required reviewing body. (3) Districts Permitted (a) The districts permitted are the BSC districts in which each open space type is permitted. Refer to §153.058 for the intent of all BSC Districts. (b) Frontage Orientation of Adjacent Buildings/ Parcels The frontage orientation of adjacent buildings/ parcels is the preferred orientation of the adjacent buildings' and/or parcels' frontages to the open space. Front, comer, side, and rear refers to the property line either adjacent to the open space or facing the open space across the street (4) Improvements The following types of development and improvements may be permitted on an open space type. (a) Designated Sports Fields Designated sports fields are ball fields or courts designed for one or more sports including, but not limited to, baseball fields, softball fields, soccer fields, basketball courts, football fields, and tennis courts. For the purposes of §153.064, small scale recreational courts and activity areas such as bocce, shuffleboard or game tables are not classified as designated sports fields. (b) Playgrounds For the purposes of §153.064, playgrounds are defined as areas with play structures and equipment typically for children, such as slides, swings, climbing structures, and skate parks. (c) Site Furnishings Site furnishings such as benches, bicycle racks, and waste receptacles are permitted and encouraged in all open spaces. (d) Public Art The incorporation of public art is highly encouraged as an amenity in all open spaces. (e) Structures 1. Design Ancillary structures in open spaces shall not be subject to the physical requirements of the building types, but shall be designed and famished to be consistent with the district in which they are located and consistent with the building material requirements of §153.062(E). Structure consistency may be achieved through frontage, massing, and character similar to adjacent development, as determined by the required reviewing body. 2. Fully- Enclosed Structures A. Maximum Area Where permitted, fully enclosed structures are limited to a maximum building coverage as a percentage of the open space area. In no case shall an individual fully enclosed structure exceed 500 square feet in area unless approved by the required reviewing body. B. Fully enclosed structures may include such accessory uses as maintenance sheds, refreshment stands, newsstands, and restrooms. Refer to §153.059, for additional information about permitted principal and accessory uses. 3. Semi - Enclosed Structures Open -air structures, such as gazebos, open air pavilions, picnic shelters, outdoor theaters, and similar structures, are permitted in all open spaces. (f) Maximum Impervious and Semi- Pervious Surface Permitted In Table 153.064 -A, the amounts of impervious and semi - pervious coverage are provided separately to allow an additional amount of semi - pervious surface, such as permeable paving, for paved surfaces including but not limited to parking facilities, driveways, sidewalks, paths, and structures. 74 § 153.064 AS RECOMMENDED BY OPEN SPACE TYPES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2012 (g) Open Water 1. The maximum amount of area within an open space that may be covered by open water is provided in Table 153.064 -A for all open space types. This includes but is not limited to water features above grade, such as fountains, as well as ponds, lakes, and pools. 2. Open water within an open space shall be located at least 20 feet from a property line unless the required reviewing body determines that a lesser distance will ensure public safety. (h) Fencing and Walls Open spaces may incorporate fencing and walls provided that the following requirements are met. 1. Height A. Fencing shall not exceed 42 inches, unless a higher or lower requirement is approved by the required reviewing body for special circumstances such as proximity to highway right -of -way and/ or use around swimming pools, ball fields, and ball courts. B. Walls shall not exceed 36 inches as measured from the established grade. 2. Opacity Fence opacity shall not exceed 60 %. Walls may be 100% opaque. 3. Type A. Chain -link fencing is not permitted, with the exception of designated sports fields or court fencing approved by the required reviewing body. Vinyl fencing is prohibited. B. Walls may be constructed of masonry, consistent with the street wall design requirements of §153.065(E)(2). 4. Spacing of Openings An opening or gate permitting access to an open space type shall be provided at a minimum of every 200 feet of street frontage. (5) Ownership Open spaces may either be publicly or privately owned. If privately owned, required open space must be publicly accessible along a street right -of -way. (6) Parking Requirements Off - street parking is not required for open spaces but is encouraged for open space types three acres or larger. Refer to §I53.065(B), Parking and Loading, for more information on parking requirements. (7) Stormwater Management Storm water management practices, such as storage and retention facilities, maybe integrated into open spaces. Refer to Chapter 53 for design requirements. (a) Stormwater Features Stormwater features in open space may be designed as formal or natural amenities with additional uses other than stormwater management, such as an amphitheater, sports field, or a pond or pool as part of the landscape design. Stonnwater features shall not be fenced and shall not be designed or placed so as to impede public use of the land they occupy. (b) Qualified Professional A licensed stormwater design professional shall be utilized to incorporate stormwater features into the design of the open spaces. FIGURE 153.064 -A. EXAMPLES OF MEASURING THE MINIMUM LENGTH AND WIDTH OF OPEN SPACE TYPES. JI Note: Graphic figures on this page and the following on Table 153.064 -A, Summary of Open Space Type Requirements, are intended to illustrate one result of one or more of the general requirements and do not represent all requirements or actual development. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.064 75 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE OPEN SPACE TYPES TABLE 153.064 -A. SUMMARY OF OPEN SPACE TYPE REQUIREMENTS Size Minimum % Open Space Type Perimeter Along Street/ Minimum Maximum Mlnlmum (Acres) (Acres) Dimension Building (Feet) 30% of perimeter Pocket Plaza 300 as ft 1200 sq. ft. 10 along street / building � i C � \l Pocket Park .10 .50 None 30i JJ IJ I LLLJJ Green _3 3 45 ; ,a ;SOifo, over 1.25 acres Y in n Z Square 2 80 100% ��II���''11�����.�. qq 30% of perimeter 6 , �I l�Jl ®I Plaza .25 1 60 along street / building s 30% up to 5 Park 2 None 100 acres; 20% over 5 acres L ��fa9Utl GreenwaY'• 1 None 30; average of 60 50% Table Notes(Continued on following page) ' Small scale recreation courts and activity areas such as bocce; shuffleboard, or game tables as permitted z Ponds and lakes are not permitted 76 § 153.064 AS RECOMMENDED BY OPEN SPACE TYPES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2012 TABLE 153.064 -A. SUMMARY OF OPEN SPACE TYPE REQUIREMENTS (CONTINUED) Frontage Permitted Uses/Structures Impervious + Designated Fully Districts Orientation Semi- Maximum % Permitted Buildings/ Sports Playgrounds Enclosed Pervious Open Water Parcels Fields Structures Surface All, except BSC Minimum: 40 %; Residential, BSC Office Front or Corner No No No Maximum: 80% 20 %� Residential + 10 BSC Residential, BSC Office Any Noy Yes No 30%+10% 20% Residential, Public All Front or Corner No Yes No No 20%+15% 30% All Front or Corner Maximum 5% of area 4D% +20 °/ 20% Minimum: 40 %; All, except BSC Front or Corner No No Maximum 5% Maximum. 80% 30%2 Residential of area + 10 If 3 acres All Any Yes Yes or greater; 25%+10% 20% maximum 2% of area All Any No Yes No 20 %+ 10% 30% ' Coordination. Greenways shall be continuous and connected. Any private greenway developed shall be adjacent to or directly across a street from another existing Greenway, a proposed Greenway, a Park, or buffer areas adjacent to the Scioto River or either fork of the Indian Run. 4 Building Frontage. When the rear or side of a building is adjacent to a Greenway, that fagade of the building shall be treated as if it were located on a principal frontage street. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.064 77 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE OPEN SPACE TYPES § 153.065 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (A) PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY (1) The purpose of the site development standards is to facilitate the implementation of the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report and establish a walkable, mixed use urban core for the City of Dublin consistent with the principles and directions articulated in the Vision Report. (2) Site development standards covered by this section that are nonconforming at the effective date of this amendment or made nonconforming by a change to this Chapter shall meet the requirements of §153.004(C). (B) PARKING AND LOADING (1) General Provisions (a) Applicability 1. Vehicular and bicycle parking as required by §153.065(B) shall be provided for the use of occupants, employees and patrons of each new building or addition constructed. Required parking shall be provided as permitted by this section, including, but not limited to, shared parking arrangements. 2. Parking meeting the requirements of this section shall be provided for buildings that are expanded by more than 25 % of the gross floor area existing on the effective date of a rezoning to a BSC zoning district. 3. Whenever the use of a building or lot is changed to a use requiring 25% or more parking spaces than the required parking for the previous use, parking shall be brought into full compliance as required by §153.065(B) within a reasonable time, at the determination of the Director. For a multi - tenant building, when a portion of the building or lot changes to a use requiring 25 % or more parking spaces, only that parking for the new use shall be required. If applicable, a shared parking plan as described in §153.065(B)(1)(f) may also be submitted to ensure adequate parking while accommodating changes of use in multi - tenant buildings. 4. Required parking and loading spaces shall be installed and completed prior to building occupancy. The Director of Building Standards may grant one, six month extension following occupancy approval if adverse weather conditions or unusual delays beyond the control of the property owner prevent completion of parking and loading areas. Adequate parking areas and spaces shall be available, either on or off -site, during the extension period under the following conditions: A. On -site parking areas, if not in a finished condition, shall be adequately surfaced to accommodate anticipated traffic, stormwater drainage and snow removal, . at the determination of the Director, and/ or B. Parking may be provided off -site, subject to the requirements of §153.065(B)(1)(b). 5. The provisions of §153.207, Parking in Residential Districts, shall apply in the BSC Residential and BSC Historic Residential districts. 6. Parking and loading spaces for uses not addressed in §153.065(B) shall be determined by the Director based on the anticipated parking impacts of the proposed use, its similarity to characteristics of other listed uses, and supporting documentation that may be provided by the applicant. 7: Parking for Existing Structures Existing Structures which do not have the minimum number of parking or loading spaces required by this Code, and which thereafter provide additional parking and/ or loading spaces in conjunction with an improvement as permitted in §153.062(B)(2), shall provide the parking and loading spaces required by Tables 153.065 -A and 153.065 -C, except as these requirements may be modified by an approved parking plan as described in § 153.065(B)(1)(f). (b) Parking Location 1. On -Site Parking A. Surface parking provided on -site may only be located on those areas of each development parcel that are not required by §153.062 to be occupied by a principal structure. Off - street parking may also be provided within a principal structure as permitted by § 153.062(0). The parking areas shall be readily accessible by vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. B. Parking shall not be located within a setback as required for individual building types in §153.062(0), except that parking areas may extend across contiguous lots in unified developments with coordinated site design, shared access points and/or shared parking arrangements. § 153.065 AS RECOMMENDED BY SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PARKING & LOADING FEBRUARY 2, 2012 2. Off-Site Parking Required off- street parking shall be provided either on -site, or in a parking structure or surface parking lot located within 600 feet of the subject parcel as permitted by the BSC district in which the parking lot or structure is located and shall be readily accessible by vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. A. The use of off -site parking to meet the minimum parking requirement shall require an approved parking plan as described in §153.065(B)(1)(f). If not under single ownership, provisions for off -site parking shall be made by binding agreements between two or more property owners. Written easements which provide for continued use and maintenance of the parking shall be submitted to the City for approval. Any agreement shall include provisions to address changes in use or ownership. B. If an off -site parking agreement is severed or modified with the result of eliminating required parking for one or more properties, parking for the affected properties shall be brought into full compliance as required by §I53.065(B) and approval of a new or modified parking plan shall be required. C. If located off -site, distances to required parking areas shall be measured along a walkway from the nearest pedestrian entrance to the parking area to the main entrance to the principal structure or use being served. 3. On- Street Parking On- street parking spaces may be counted toward meeting the minimum parking requirement for a parcel provided that the spaces are on the same side of the street and more than one -half the length of the parking space lies between the two side lot lines of the parcel extended into the street right -of- way. On comer lots on- street spaces on both street frontages may be counted in the same manner. Credit for on- street parking spaces shall apply to parking for all uses on the parcel rather than any specific use. On- street parking spaces shall not be designated for exclusive use by any specific use, building or lot. (c) Electric Car Charging Points Parking lots or structures are strongly encouraged to provide at least one electric plug -in service point for every 200 parking spaces. Plug -in points shall be associated with an individual parking space and shall be installed according to appropriate design standards, as approved by the Director. Plug -in points are exempt from the service structure screening requirements of §153.065(E). (d) Parking Lot/Structure Lighting Parking lot and parking structure lighting shall comply with the requirements of §153.065(F). (e) Parking Lot Landscaping Parking lot landscaping shall comply with the requirements of §153.065(D). (f) Parking Plan Required 1. A parking plan demonstrating compliance with the provisions of §153.065(B) is required for the following conditions: A. Applications for Site Plan approval, B. Applications that include a request for off -site parking, or in any case where a modified parking agreement necessitates a new or modified parking plan as described in § I 53.065(B)(1)(b), �. C. Applications involving a use listed in Table 153.065 -A for which the parking 1 ` L requirement is specifically noted as being determined by an approved parking plan, D. Applications that include a request for an adjustment to required vehicle parking as permitted in §153.065(B)(2)(b), or where a change in conditions renders an approved adjustment insufficient to meet the parking needs of a use, building or lot, E. Applications that include a request for an adjustment to the number or location of required loading spaces as permitted in §153.065(B)(7), or where achange in conditions renders an approved adjustment insufficient to meet the loading needs of a use, building or lot, or E Applications for a Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval for a change of use that requires 25% or more parking spaces than the previous use. 2. Each parking plan for a parking area that contains 50 or more parking spaces shall demonstrate compliance with the pedestrian circulation standards of §I53.065(B)(6)(f). (2) Required Vehicle Parking (a) Minimum Amount Required and Maximum AmountPermitted 1. Each use shall provide the minimum amount of parking required for that use listed on Table 153.065 -A, and shall be permitted to provide up to the maximum amount of parking on -site, as indicated for that use in BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.065 (B) 79 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - PARKING & LOADING TABLE 153.065 -A: REQUIRED VEHICLE PARKING. USE MINIMUM REQUIRED MAXIMUM PERMITTED Principal Uses Residential Dwelling, Single - Family 2 per dwelling unit 2 per dwelling unit Dwelling, Two - Family Dwelling, Townhouse Dwelling, Live -Work 2 per dwelling unit 3 per dwelling unit Studio /efficiency and one bedroom: 1 per dwelling unit Two bedrooms: 1.5 per dwelling unit Three or more bedrooms: 2 per dwelling unit Age - restricted Housing: 2 per 3 dwelling units if 80% of Dwelling, Multiple - Family 2 per dwelling unit units are restricted for occupancy by those 65 or older Handicapped Housing: 1 per 2 dwelling units if 80% of units are reserved for those meeting the definition of "handicap" under the federal Fair Housing Act Amendments General Requirement: 1 per 4 residents capacity as shown on the building permit Age - restricted Housing: 1 per 5 residents capacity if 80% Group Residence of units are restricted for occupancy by those 65 or older 1 per 3 resident capacity Handicapped Housing: 1 per 6 residents capacity if 80% of units are reserved for those meeting the definition of "handicap" under the federal Fair Housing Act Amendments CivictPubl is /Institutional Cemetery Per approved parking plan Community Center Per approved parking plan Community Garden Per approved parking plan Day Care, Adult or Child Per approved parking plan demonstrating adequate site circulation, including pick -up and drop -off areas District Energy Plant Per approved parking plan 1 per 3 persons maximum occupancy of largest seating Educational Facility area or maximum building capacity, whichever is higher, as 125% of minimum shown on the building permit Elementary or Middle School Per approved parking plan demonstrating adequate site circulation, including pick -up and drop -off areas Government Services, Safety 2 per 1,000 sq. ft. 150% of minimum High School Per approved parking plan demonstrating adequate site circulation, including pick -up and drop -off areas Hospital Per approved parking plan Library: 3.3 per 1,000 sq. ft. Library, Museum, Gallery 125% of minimum Museum or Gallery: 1 per 1,000 sq. ft. Religious or Public Assembly 1 per 6 persons maximum capacity in the largest seating area, as shown on the building permit 200% of minimum Parks and Open Space Per approved parking plan Transportation, Park and Ride Per approved parking plan Transportation, Transit Station Per approved parking plan Commercial Animal Care, General Services, Veterinary Offices, and Veterinary Urgent Care 2.5 per 1,000 sq. ft. 150% of minimum and Animal Hospitals Bank 2.5 per 1,000 sq. ft. 125% of minimum Bed and Breakfast 1 per guest bedroom, plus 1 for operator 150% of minimum § 153.065 (B) AS RECOMMENDED BY SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PARKING & LOADING FEBRUARY 2, 2012 TABLE 153.065 -A: REQUIRED VEHICLE PARKIN USE MINIMUM REQUIRED MAXIMUM PERMITTED Conference Center 1 per 6 persons maximum capacity in the largest seating area, as shown on the building permit 125% of minimum Eating and Drinking 10 per 1,000 sq. ft. 125% of minimum Entertainment /Recreation, Indoor Theater: 1 per 4 persons maximum capacity in the largest seating area, as shown on the building permit 150% of minimum Sports courts: 2 per court Other uses: Per approved parking plan Fueling / Service Station 4 per 1,000 sq. ft., plus 1 per dispensing station 150% of minimum Hotel 2 per 3 guest rooms, plus 4 per 1,000 sq. ft. of accessory use area 125% of minimum Office, General Less than 50,000 sq. ft. 2.5 per 1,000 sq. ft. 125% of minimum 50,000- 150,000 sq. ft. 3 per 1,000 sq. ft. Greater than 150,000 sq. ft. 4 per 1,000 sq. ft. Office, Medical 2.5 per 1,000 sq. ft. 125% of minimum Parking, Structure N/A N/A Parking, Surface Lot N/A N/A Personal, Repair & Rental Services 2 per 1,000 sq. ft. 125% of minimum Research & Development 2 per 1,000 sq. ft. 125% of minimum Retail, General 3 per 1,000 sq. ft. 125% of minimum Sexually Oriented Business Establishments Per approved parking plan Vehicle Sales, Rental and Repair 2 per 1,000 sq. ft., plus 1 per 2,000 sq. ft. of outdoor vehicle display area 150% of minimum Wireless Communications N/A N/A Accessory and Temporary Uses No parking is required for accessory or temporary uses, except as noted below. Day Care, Adult or Child 2 per 1,000 sq. ft. 125% of minimum Dwelling Administration, Rental or Sales Office 2 spaces N/A Residential Model Home 1 space plus 1 per employee on largest shift N/A Swimming Pool Per approved parking plan Table 153.065 -A, except as may be modified by the provisions of §153.065(B). 2. When calculating minimum and maximum parking requirements, fractional numbers shall be increased to the next whole number. 3. Unless otherwise noted, all square footage requirements are based on indoor gross floor area. 5 shall not exceed 30% of required parking, regardless of the number of these adjustments applied. Additional reductions may be permitted by §153.065(B)(2)(b)6. Shared Parking Calculations (b) Adjustments to Required Vehicle Parking The maximum on -site parking requirements may not exceed that permitted by Table 153.065 -A unless a parking plan meeting the criteria of §153.065(B)(2)(b)6, below is approved by the required reviewing body. The minimum amount of parking required by Table 153.065 -A may be reduced by approval of a parking plan meeting the requirements of §153.065(B)(2)(b)1 -6. The cumulative reduction of minimum parking requirements permitted by §153.065(B)(2)(b)l- Where a mix of land uses creates staggered peak periods of parking, shared parking plans that have the effect of reducing the total amount of needed parking spaces may be approved. Parking spaces included in shared parking plans should be equally accessible and available to each of the affected users. The collective provision of off - street parking for two or more buildings or uses may be permitted subject to the following: A. Shared parking plans may include any lot or structure meeting the parking location requirements of §153.065(B)(1) (b). Adjacent lots included in the shared BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.065 (B) DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - PARKING & LOADING i arrangement shall be connected for vehicular passage and shall provide safe and efficient pedestrian access to all uses served by the parking area(s). B. Arequest for a shared parking reduction shall be based on a shared parking analysis, including, but not limited to, the following factors: i. The number of originally required spaces for different uses or facilities sharing the same parking areas as noted in Table 153.065 -A, and ii. Documented percentages of required parking needed for different uses at different days and times. C. The adjusted required parking for shared parking areas shall be the largest number of spaces needed for all uses during the most intensive time period of use. 2. Auto -Share Parking Spaces The required minimum number of off - street parking spaces may be reduced by four spaces for each parking space reserved for auto -share parking, not to exceed a 10% reduction in the required minimum number of spaces in any one parking lot or structure. Auto -share parking spaces shall be designated on a parking plan and signed for the exclusive use of auto -share vehicles. Measures shall be taken to ensure that the auto -share spaces are used only for that purpose. 3. Transit Proximity The required minimum number of off - street parking spaces may be reduced by 10% if more than 50 % of the land in a proposed development is located within 1,320 feet of any public transit stop. If an existing transit stop is subsequently eliminated, any previously permitted parking reduction shall remain valid, provided that an active transit route remains within 1,320 feet of the development. 4. Shower Facilities The required minimum number of off - street parking spaces for a non - residential development may be reduced by 5% if a development contains shower and clothing locker facilities for bicycle commuting employees or patrons. The reduction shall apply only to that portion of the minimum parking requirement attributable to the tenant(s) or user(s) that have access to the shower and locker facilities. If the shower or locker facilities are later eliminated, the reduction of the minimum required parking shall no longer apply and parking shall be provided in accordance with §153.065(B). 5. Transportation Demand Management As an alternative or supplement to the other adjustments in subsection §153.065(B)(2) (b), off - street parking requirements may be reduced by up to 30 % through the use of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program approved by the Director and the City Engineer. A. Parking Demand Study Required Before a TDM program may be approved, the applicant shall submit • parking demand study prepared by • traffic engineer or other qualified transportation professional acceptable to the City. The study shall document that the use of alternative modes of transportation, including transit, bicycles, walking, and/or the special characteristics of the customer, client, employee, or resident population will reduce expected vehicular use and parking space demands for the use, as compared to the Institute of Transportation Engineers vehicle trip generation rates and the minimum parking requirements established in Table 153.065 -A. B. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Activities The TDM program must include at least two of the following established and maintained activities in order to qualify for a reduction in off - street parking requirements: t Carpooling, vanpooling, ridesharing, guaranteed ride home, telecommuting, and/or shuttle service programs, ii. Staggered or alternative work scheduling, allowing employees to arrive and depart at different times to minimize peak parking demands associated with mass shift changes, iii. Dissemination of information to employees, residents, and visitors to the site regarding the TDM plan and alternatives to single- occupancy vehicle travel to the site through an on -site office or project- specific web site; or iv. Use of alternative TDM activities that the Director and the City Engineer determine are likely, in combination with other TDM measures, to result in at least 30% § 153.065 (B) AS RECOMMENDED BY SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PARKING & LOADING FEBRUARY 2, 2012 reduction in single- occupancy vehicle travel to and from the site, as compared to the Institute of Transportation Engineers vehicle trip generation rates. C. TDMAnnualReport i. The owner of the parcel or principal structure must provide an annual report to the Director and City Engineer describing the implementation strategies for the approved TDM plan as approved. The report shall include a description of the TDM activities, a list of current tenants and number of employees for each tenant, and a parking- reduction analysis based on employee and/or resident use of ridership programs or alternative transportation options. ii. If the report does not document reasonable progress toward a 30% reduction in the Institute of Transportation Engineers vehicle trip generation rate of single- occupancy vehicle travel to and from the site, then the report shall identify what changes to the TDM plan or activities are being made to further reduce single- occupancy vehicle travel to and from the site. The Director and the City Engineer shall be permitted to require additional parking facilities to be constructed or a fee from the owner of the parcel or primary structure to be used for the construction of additional parking facilities or improvements to offset the impact of the single - occupancy vehicles. 6. Demonstration of Parking Need. In addition to or in lieu of parking adjustments as described in §153.065(B)(2) (b)(1) -(5), the required reviewing body shall be permitted to approve a parking plan for fewer than the minimum required parking spaces or more than the maximum permitted parking spaces based on a demonstration of parking need by the applicant. The required reviewing body shall consider: A. The land use and development character of the area to be served by the parking facility, B. The availability of other publicly available parking in the area, C. The timing of parking use relative to other uses in the area, D. The parking requirement for similar uses as may be determined by the Director, as described in §153.065(B)(1)(a); E. Whether the location of all provided parking meets the requirements of § 153.065(B)(1)(b), F. Whether compliance with Table 153.065 - A is made to the maximum extent practicable; G. Whether other adjustments as described in this section should apply in conjunction with or in lieu of the requested need -based adjustment, and H. Whether supporting documentation, if provided, adequately demonstrates that sufficient parking is available to meet projected typical demand. (c) Accessible Parking Spaces 1. Within the total number of off - street parking spaces provided, a minimum number of spaces shall be designated, installed, and managed for use by the physically disabled in compliance with the Ohio Building Code, current edition, Chapter on Accessibility and the Referenced Standards therein. 2. All handicapped parking spaces shall be designated by freestanding signs as provided in the Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices or as approved by the City Engineer. (3) Required Bicycle Parking (a) Applicability Bicycle parking is required for any development or use with six or more required vehicle parking spaces. Required bicycle parking may be used as bicycle -share spaces. (b) Minimum Number of Bicycle Parking Spaces Required 1. Bicycle parking spaces shall be required as follows: A. For residential uses, except attached and detached single- family, one space for every two dwelling units. B. For civic /public /institutional uses, one space for every 20 required vehicle parking spaces. C. For commercial uses, one space for every 10 required vehicle parking spaces. 2. Provided that bicycle parking is not completely eliminated, required bicycle parking may be increased or reduced by the required reviewing body when it is BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.065 (B) 83 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - PARKING & LOADING demonstrated that the level of bicycle activity at that location warrants a different amount. (c) Facility Type 1. Designs of bicycle racks, docks, posts, and lockers are encouraged to be decorative, unique, and appropriate to the surrounding area. Bicycle parking design should be incorporated whenever possible into building design and coordinated with the design of street furniture when it is provided. 2. Bicycle parking racks, docks, or posts shall be designed and installed to allow a bicycle to be locked to a structure, attached to the pavement, building, or other permanent structure, with two points of contact to an individual bicycle frame. Racks, docks, and posts shall be designed to allow the bicycle frame and one or both wheels to be locked with a U -lock when used as intended. 3. Bicycle parking racks, docks or posts provided within the street right -of -way shall be of a consistent design on all streets included within a Development Plan or Site Plan area. Facility types, designs and locations within the street - right -of -way shall require approval by the City Engineer. (d) Location 1. Required bicycle parking shall be located within a reasonable walking distance of the principal building entrance. The location and design shall ensure that bicycle parking and facilities do not obstruct vehicle parking or pedestrian walkways as required by the Ohio Building Code, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and other applicable state and federal laws, policies and guidelines. Bicycle facilities and parking areas shall meet the sight visibility requirements of this Chapter. 2. Outdoor bicycle parking areas shall be located in well -lit areas in accordance with §153.065(F). 3. A pedestrian - accessible walk shall be available between the outdoor bicycle parking area and the principal building entrance. Public sidewalks may be used to meet this requirement. 4. Bicycle lockers shall be located inside or to the side or rear of the principal structure, but not within any required setback or required building zone. 5. Covered Bicycle Parking Areas A. Bicycle parking areas are encouraged to be sheltered from natural elements by locating them inside or under principal or accessory structures, in bicycle lockers, under roof extensions, overhangs, awnings, carports or enclosures, or other sim ilar m ethod. B. If bicycle parking is covered, the cover must be permanently attached to the ground or a structure and have at least seven feet of clearance above the surface to which it is attached. C. Covered bicycle parking areas shall be in accordance with building type requirements and are not permitted within any required setback or required building zone unless the shelter is part of the principal structure and adequate space is available for pedestrians. 6. Public bicycle parking located within the street right -of -way may be counted toward meeting the minimum bicycle parking requirement for a parcel provided that the spaces are on the same side of the street and located between the two side lot lines of the parcel. On comer lots public bicycle parking spaces on both street frontages may be counted. Credit for public bicycle parking spaces shall apply to parking for all uses on the parcel rather than any specific use. Public bicycle parking spaces shall not be designated for exclusive use by any specific use, building or lot. (e) Installation Bicycle parking shall be installed according to the dimensional requirements set forth by the manufacturer and the latest edition of the APBP Bicycle Parking Guidelines, or similar industry publication acceptable to the Director. (4) Off - Street Parking Space and Aisle Dimensions Parking spaces and maneuvering aisles shall comply with Table 153.065 -B. Refer to Figure 153.065 -A for a graphic depiction of these requirements. AND',41 WE DIMENSION •_ Aisle Regular Space Compact Parking Width Space Pattern 1 2 Way Way Width Length Width Length Parallel 12 ft. 18 ft. 9 ft. 23 ft. 8 ft. 20 ft. 30 -75 12 ft. 22 ft. 9 ft. 21 ft. 8 ft. 18 ft. 76 -80 N/A 22 ft. 1 9 ft. 18 ft. 8 ft. 16 ft. 'A maximum of 10% of parking spaces may be designed as compact parking spaces, and all spaces shall be clearly marked and reserved for that use. § 153.065 (B) AS RECOMMENDED BY SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PARKING & LOADING FEBRUARY 2, 2012 FIGURE 153.065 -A: OFF - STREET PARKING SPACE AND AISLE DIMENSIONS. Parallel 30 ° -75 76' -90" ®1 ®1Y 1 -Way AISLE = 72' AISLE= 12' regular space regular space 8 3r� 2 -Way AISLE =18' 9' 9 ' 20' AISLE =22' AISLE =22' 7®T ®T8. 8 1 8 1 11111m (5) Parking Structure Design Parking structures shall be designed in accordance with the minimum requirements of this section. Refer to the building type requirements for Parking Structures in §153.062(0) for additional information. (a) Entrance /Exit Lanes 1. One entrance lane shall be required for each 300 spaces or part thereof. One exit lane shall be provided for each 200 spaces or part thereof. 2. Single entrance and exit lanes from the street shall be no wider than 16 feet. Double entrance and exit lanes shall be no wider than 24 feet at the street right -of -way. Where more than two entrance or exit lanes are required, a separate entrance /exit shall be provided. 3. No entrance or exit lanes shall be permitted directly onto a principal frontage street except as may be permitted by §153.061(D)(2). 4. On other street frontages, only one entrance and one exit lane shall be permitted for each 200 feet of frontage unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 5. To reduce the width of sidewalk interruptions and promote walkability, only single entrance Imes may be used unless access is provided from an alley /service street. (b) Stacking Spaces Two vehicle lengths of stacking space shall be provided between the street and the garage entry gate. The stacking area shall not be located across a sidewalk or in the public right -of -way. Additional stacking may be required by the City E based upon traffic patterns and street types, or may be requested by the applicant pursuant to §153.066(I-I) based on a circulation 2. As an alternative, off -street parking areas may be surfaced with permeable asphalt, plan demonstrating need for the additional stacking spaces. (c) Interior Circulation The interior of the structure shall be designed in accordance with the requirements of this section. 1. Maximum aisle length shall not exceed 400 feet without providing a cross - aisle. 2. Cross aisles shall be a minimum of 18 feet and no greater than 24 feet in width. 3. A minimum ceiling clearance height of 12 feet is required where the parking structure has street frontage, excluding the driveway opening and the parking structure shall be designed and constructed to allow potential occupancy of the first 20 feet of building depth by a commercial or a civic /public/ institutional use permitted by §153.059(B). 4. Design of all other parking structures and upper levels shall include a minimum ceiling clearance height of eight and one half feet. (d) Pedestrian Safety 1. Stairways on the building's exterior shall be visible from outside of the structure. The maximum distance between parking spaces and the nearest exit stairwell shall be 200 feet 2. At least one elevator shall be provided to serve a parking structure. The maximum distance between any parking space and an elevator shall be 350 feet. 3. Pedestrian flow shall be channeled through openings to permit surveillance, either by a booth cashier or by cameras being monitored from a remote location. If 24 -hour coverage is available, active techniques with security personnel who monitor television or sound equipment may also be used. (6) Surface Parking Lot and Loading Area Design and Construction (a) Grading All off -street parking and loading areas including spaces, driveways, aisles and circulation drives shall be graded and maintained so that water does not unreasonably accumulate on the surface areas or flow or drain onto adjacent public or private properties. (b) Surfacing 1. All off -street parking and loading areas including spaces, driveways, aisles and circulation drives shall be hard - surfaced with asphalt, concrete or a combination of those materials approved by the City Engineer. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.065 (B) 85 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - PARKING & LOADING permeable concrete or turf blocks, or some combination of permeable and non- permeable surfaces, subject to review by the City Engineer and the Fire Chief. The City Engineer may approve an adjustment to the calculations for required stormwater management and retention measures to reflect greater stormwater volume control through the use of permeable paving. 3. All parking and loading surfaces shall be maintained in compliance with §153.065(B) (8) at all times. (c) Driveways 1. Adequate access to a parking lot shall be provided by clearly defined driveways designed so that vehicles entering or leaving the parking lot will be traveling in a forward motion, unless the City Engineer confirms that an alternative design will protect traffic flow and traffic safety. 2. No driveway shall be permitted directly onto a principal frontage street unless approved by the City Engineer as provided by §153.061(D)(2). 3. On other street frontages, driveways shall be limited to one per lot or parcel, whichever requires the fewer number of access points, unless vehicular access is provided from an alley or service street or the need for an additional driveway on a street is documented based on an access management study approved by the City Engineer. 4. If it is determined that shared driveways will better protect traffic flow or traffic safety on surrounding streets, the City Engineer may require that access to two or more adjacent surface parking or loading areas shall be provided through one or more shared driveways. 5. Driveway aprons connecting parking lots to public roadways may not be constructed with permeable materials. 6. Driveways shall be no wider than 22 feet at the intersection with the adjacent street right - of -way. Alternative driveway throat width may be requested by applicants and approved pursuant to §153.066(H). 7. Curb radii for driveways connecting parking lots to public roadways shall not exceed 20 feet. Alternative radii may be requested by applicants and approved pursuant to §153.066(H). (d) Curbs and Wheel Stops with abutting landscape areas, sidewalks, streets, buildings or lot lines. The minimum distance from a curb or wheel stop to a property line or protected area shall be two and one -half feet. 2. If a curb is located at the edge of a landscaped area, planted areas shall be installed at a lower grade than the parking lot pavement and curbing shall have openings or gaps allowing drainage from the pavement to enter and percolate through the landscaped areas. 3. Wheel stops may only be used in conjunction with accessible parking spaces where an adjacent walkway is installed at the same grade as the parking space. Curbs shall be required in all other circumstances. (e) Striping Parking areas shall be striped and maintained in good condition to be clearly visible with lines to indicate parking space limits. All striping shall comply with the Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices unless an alternative is approved by th'e City Engineer. (f) Pedestrian Circulation Each surface parking area that contains 50 or more parking spaces, . or contains any parking spaces located more than 350 feet from the front fagade of the principal structure shall contain at least one pedestrian walkway or sidewalk allowing pedestrians to pass from the row of parking farthest from the primary building fagade to the primary building entrance. The required walkway must be at least five feet wide, shall not be located within a driving aisle, and, where possible, shall be located in a landscaped island running perpendicular to the primary building fagade. (7) Required Loading Spaces (a) Applicability The provisions of §153.065(B)(7) apply to all lots: 1. That are located in any BSC district with the exception of BSC Residential and BSC Historic Residential districts; and 2. That contain a principal structure with more than 25,000 square feet of gross floor area, and 3. Where the permitted or conditional uses in the principal structure require the regular or periodic receipt or distribution of materials or merchandise by vehicles with a gross weight over 25,000 pounds. Raised or rolled concrete curbs or wheel stops (b) Location at least five inches high shall be installed 1. Off - street loading spaces may only be located where necessary to prevent vehicle conflicts on those areas of a lot that are not required § 153.065 (B) AS RECOMMENDED BY SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PARKING & LOADING FEBRUARY 2, 2012 to be occupied by a principal or accessory structure pursuant to §153.062(0). 2. Off - street loading areas may not be located on any parking spaces or parking aisles designated to meet the minimum parking requirements of this section, unless approved in a required parking plan demonstrating that the location and timing of loading activities will not cause conflict with typical parking use on the site, or with vehicular or pedestrian circulation. 3. Where more than one off - street loading space is provided, at least one of the spaces shall be separate from areas designated on the site plans as waste storage or pickup areas. 4. An alley or service street may be used instead of a separate off - street loading space, subject to approval as part of a required parking plan demonstrating that the loading and delivery activities will be coordinated with other users of the alley to minimize access and circulation conflicts. 5. On- street parking spaces may be counted toward meeting the minimum loading space requirement for a parcel provided that the spaces meet the same requirements for parking location as described in §153.065(B) (1)(b)(3), and subject to approval as part of a required parking plan demonstrating that the on- street spaces are of adequate size, number and availability to serve the intended delivery vehicle(s) without creating conflicts with surrounding vehicular, bicycle or pedestrian traffic and circulation. 6. Fire access zones as described in §153.061(G) may not be used to meet loading space requirements. 7. No loading dock, or any loading area used for the storage or staging of materials being transported to or from the site, shall be located closer than 50 feet to any lot in a residential district unless entirely contained within a completely enclosed building, or screened as required by §153.065(E)(3)(e), nor shall any loading dock or loading area directly face a residential district. (c) Number Required 1. The number of off- street loading spaces required is based on the size of the principal structure, and is listed in Table 153.065 -C. 2. Subject to approval of a required parking plan, the required number of loading spaces may be increased or reduced by the required reviewing body when it is demonstrated that the frequency and type of loading activities at that location warrant a different number. For principal structures of 25,000 square feet or less in gross floor area, loading and delivery activities may be conducted using an alley or service street, on- street parking spaces, or other on -site parking area as described in §153.065(B)(7)(b), unless the required reviewing body determines that a dedicated off - street loading space is necessary based on the frequency and type of loading activities anticipated for the use. TABLE 153.065 -C: LOADING SPACES REQUIRED PER PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE 25,001- 50,000 sq. ft. gross floor area 1 space 50,001 - 100,000 sq. ft. gross floor area 2 spaces 100,001 sq. ft. gross floor area or higher 3 spaces (d) Design All off - street loading spaces shall be at least 12 feet wide and 30 feet long with a height clearance of 14 feet, unless, at the determination of the required reviewing body, the typical delivery vehicle(s) designated in an approved parking plan can be adequately accommodated by reduced loading space dimensions. 2. Refer to §153.065(E)(3)(e) for off - street loading area screening requirements. 3. Truck loading and unloading docks and maneuvering areas shall be designed so that truck movements do not interfere with traffic on public streets or off - street parking when vehicles are parked for loading and unloading. Loading areas requiring vehicles to back in from the street are permitted. Vehicles loading or unloading may not extend over any sidewalk or into any public right - of -way between the hours of 6:00 am and midnight, unless located entirely within a designated on- street parking lane or within the vehicular travel lane of an alley or service street as permitted in an approved parking plan. (8) Maintenance and Use (a) General Provisions 1. Unless an equal number of required spaces conforming to §153.065(B) are provided, parking and loading areas shall be maintained and not used for any other purpose while the principal structure or use remains in operation. Other parking arrangements for temporary community activities and special events may be permitted with approval from the City of Dublin Events Administration. 2. All parking lots shall be maintained free of potholes, litter, debris, glass, nails or other dangerous materials. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.065 (B) 87 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - PARKING & LOADING 3. Surfacing, curbing, lighting fixtures, signs, and related appurtenances shall be maintained in good condition. The visibility of pavement markings delineating parking spaces and directional control shall be maintained. 4. Except on a temporary basis in the event of heavy rainfall or snowfall, all off - street parking and loading facilities shall be maintained free of accumulated snow or standing water which may prevent their full use and occupancy. 5. All permeable paving materials shall be maintained in an unbroken condition and shall be regularly swept and vacuumed to prevent blockages of sand, sediment, or other materials that would impair their permeability to water as originally designed. 6. Signs designating the use of individual private parking spaces for specific users, buildings or lots shall not be legible from a public right -of -way, except where such a sign is otherwise required by this Chapter. (b) Use Restrictions 1. It is unlawful for any person to park or store any vehicle in a parking lot or parking structure without the consent of the owner, holder, occupant, lessee, agent or trustee of the property. 2. All vehicles parked in a parking lot or parking structure within a BSC district shall be operable and have a valid registration and license within the most recent 12 -month period. For the purposes of this section, operable means capable of being started and driven. 3. Arecreational and utility vehicle may be located outside of an enclosed structure for up to 72 hours in any 30 -day period, provided the owner or person in charge of the recreational and utility vehicle is the owner or a guest of a resident of that property. The vehicle shall be parked on a hard surface, and shall not be used for overnight sleeping or living. 4. Off - street parking and loading areas may not be used for material storage, storage or display of vehicles and/or merchandise, or for vehicle or machinery repair or maintenance. If located within an off - street parking or loading area, refuse storage stations and dumpsters shall be located and designed in accordance with §153.065(E) and shall not interfere with driveway circulation or access to parking spaces and loading areas. 5. Except on parcels where the sale of vehicles is a permitted or approved conditional use of the property, no vehicle may be parked in any off - street parking or loading area for the sole purpose of displaying the vehicle for sale. 6. Unless no other parking area is reasonably available, no vehicle that, at the determination of the Director, is intended for the display of advertising to the public may be parked so as to be visible to traffic on a public street or parking area. (C) STORMWATER MANAGEMENT All stonnwater shall be managed as required by Chapter 53 of the Dublin City Code. (D) LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION (1) Purpose (a) The intent of § 153.065 is to improve the appearance of the BSC districts, reduce noise and air pollution, reduce heat island impacts, protect the character and value of surrounding neighborhoods, and promote public health and safety through appropriate urban -scale landscaping of street frontages and surface parking lots. This section is also intended to ensure buffering between significantly different land uses, and that trees are preserved and replaced in a manner appropriate to urban environments. (b) Because the BSC districts reflect a more urban, mixed use character than other portions of the city, these standards generally allow landscaping benefits to be achieved through intensities of planting or other forms of screening as an alternative to wide planted areas. Quantitative requirements for landscape materials are intended to provide minimum amounts based on the scale and intensity of development. Unless otherwise specified, these requirements should not be interpreted as requiring regular, symmetrical or standardized intervals of vegetation within landscape areas. Required landscaping should be creatively and architecturally designed to add visual interest and preserve natural integrity, as appropriate to the character of the surrounding area. (2) General (a) The provisions of § §153.132 through 153.148 shall apply in the BSC districts unless specifically modified or waived by the provisions of §153.065(D). (b) Each application for development or redevelopment shall include a landscape plan showing compliance with the provisions of §153.065(D). The siting of buildings shall avoid the removal of desirable trees in good or fair § 153.065 (B) AS RECOMMENDED BY SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PARKING & LOADING FEBRUARY 2, 2012 condition where alternatives consistent with the provisions of §153.062 are available. (c) Protected trees, as defined in this Chapter, removed from any portion of a lot consistent with an approved Site Plan Review shall be replaced in accordance with §153.146 except as provided by §153.065(D)(9). (d) Existing trees which are incorporated into the landscape plan shall be protected during construction as required by § 153.145. (e) In all areas where landscaping is required, a minimum of 80% of the surface area of any landscape bed shall be covered within four years after installation by living materials, rather than bark, mulch, gravel or other non - living materials. Areas included in rain gardens or other vegetated site features to meet stormwater management requirements are excluded from this requirement with prior approval from the Director. (f) Areas included in rain gardens or vegetated site features created to meet stormwater management requirements may be counted towards any landscaping required by§ 153.065(D)(4) - (6) if landscaped to meet the requirements. (g) All irrigation systems shall be designed, installed, and operated to minimize run -off and over -spray of irrigation water onto roadways, sidewalks, and adjacent properties, and shall be installed with rain sensors to turn the system off during rainy conditions. (h) Shrubs and plants that exceed two and one -half feet in mature height are prohibited in required sight visibility triangles for site access points as defined in Appendix C and are prohibited in required sight visibility triangles for street intersections as defined by the City Engineer. (i) If two or more conflicting landscape requirements apply to the same area, the one requiring the most landscaping shall apply. O A registered landscape architect shall be utilized for the preparation of all required landscape plans. (3) Street Trees When a property is developed or redeveloped in any BSC district the applicant shall be required to plant and maintain trees m the street right -of -way pursuant to the following requirements. No existing street trees shall be required to adhere to the following requirements unless they are required to be removed and replaced consistent with an appropriate approved application as provided in §153.066. (a) A minimum of one tree is required per 40 linear feet of street frontage or fraction thereof. Refer to Table 153.065 -D, Street Tree Spacing Requirements, for spacing based on tree size and site characteristics. (b) Street trees shall be planted within urban tree wells or within tree lawns based on the applicable street type design requirements. Refer to §153.061 for more information regarding street types. (c) Structural soil or an equivalent material approved by the City Forester shall be used for all street trees, regardless of whether they are planted within urban tree wells or tree lawns. The soil shall be placed within trenches which are generally parallel to the curb, connecting street trees underneath the pavement and extending beyond the tree well or tree lawn as far as physical site conditions permit. (d) The street tree openings shall be a minimum of four feet wide and four feet long and excavated to a minimum depth of three feet The City Forester may require a deeper excavation based on specific tree species, site conditions, and/or conditions related to the adjacent street type. (e) Tree wells shall be covered with a tree grate, permeable pavers (block or stone) or by plant material, where appropriate for the street type and site conditions as approved by the City Forester. (f) Species and Size 1. Street trees shall be from the approved Urban Street Tree List for Dublin, Ohio or other species approved by the City Forester. 2. Street trees shall have a clear trunk of at least seven feet above the ground. The minimum trunk caliper measured at six inches above the ground for all street trees shall be no less than two and one -half inches. Existing trees in good or fair condition may be used to satisfy these requirements with prior approval of the City Forester. 3. Small tree species are permitted for use in planting zones where overhead utility lines exist. Small tree species may also be planted in medians, in addition to medium and/ or large tree species, where medians are provided. (g) Spacing and Location Street trees shall be spaced as set forth in Table 153.065 -D below unless modified by the City Forester based on unusual site conditions or obstructions. (h) Maintenance and Replacement by Property Owner The property owner shall be required to maintain the street trees for one year after the trees are planted and replace any tree which fails to survive or does not exhibit normal growth characteristics of health and vigor, as determined by the City Forester. The one -year period after the approval of the City Forester shall begin at each planting and shall recommence as trees are replaced. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.065 (D) 89 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - LANDSCAPING & TREE PRESERVATION TABLE 153.065 -D: STREET TREE SPACING REQUIREMENTS Requirement Small Medium Large Tree Tree Tree Spacing range between trees 20 -25 ft. 30 -35 ft. 40 -45 ft. Minimum distance between trunk and face of curb (at 3 ft. 3 ft. 3 ft. planting) Minimum distance from 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. intersection Minimum distance from fire 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. hydrants and utility poles May be planted within 10 lateral Yes No No feet of overhead utilities (i) Prohibited Activities 1. No person shall top any tree within the public right -of -way unless specifically authorized by the City Forester. Topping is defined as the severe cutting back of limbs to stubs larger than three inches in diameter within the tree's crown to such a degree so as to remove the normal canopy and disfigure the tree, as determined by the City Forester. 2. Unless specifically authorized by the City Forester, no person shall intentionally damage, cut, carve, transplant, or remove any tree or shrub; attach any rope, wire, nails, advertising posters, or other contrivance to any tree or shrub, allow any gaseous liquid, or solid substance which is harmful to trees or shrubs to come in contact with them, or set fire or pennit fire to burn when fire or heat will injure any portion of any tree or shrub. 3. No person shall excavate any tunnels, trenches, or install a driveway or sidewalk within a radius of ten feet from the trunk of any public tree or shrub without first obtaining the prior written approval from the City Forester. 4. No person shall remove a tree or shrub from the City -owned tree lawn, streetscape planting zone or other public property without first obtaining the prior written approval of the City Forester. 5. No person shall by any type of construction reduce the size of a tree lawn or streetscape planting zone without prior written approval of the City Engineer. 6. Decorative lights, strings of lights, electrical cords or wires are not permitted to be attached to any tree form ore than four consecutive months. 0) Municipal Rights within public rights -of -way and other public grounds as may be necessary to ensure public safety or to preserve or enhance the environmental quality and beauty of public grounds. This section shall not prohibit the planting of street trees by adjacent property owners providing that the prior written permission of the City Forester has been granted. 2. The City Forester may cause or order to be removed any tree or part of a tree that is in an unsafe condition or which by reasons of its nature is injurious to sewers, electric power lines, gas lines, water lines, or other public improvements, or is affected with any injurious fungi, insect or other pest. 3. The City Forester shall have the right to enter private property to access trees adjacent to public areas for the purposes of proper pruning, after reasonable prior written notice has been given to the property owner. 4. Wherever it is necessary to remove a tree(s) or shrub(s) from a public tree lawn or other public property, the City shall endeavor to remove and replant or replace the trees or shrubs. No protected tree within the public right -of -way or on other public grounds shall be removed without prior review by the City Forester, and the trees shall only be removed if the City Forester determines there are no other means available to preserve the tree. 5. The City Forester shall have the right to cause the removal of any dead or diseased tree(s) located on private property within the city and/or cause the removal of branches of trees located on private property that overhang or impede access to public property, when those trees constitute a hazard to life and property, or harbor an epiphytotic disease which constitutes a potential threat to other trees within the city. The City Forester shall notify in writing the owners of the trees to be removed. Removal shall be done by the owners at their own expense within 60 days after the date of service of written notice, unless a longer period is agreed to in writing by the City Forester, to allow time to attempt to treat and cure a salvageable diseased tree. In the event of failure of owners to comply within 60 days, the City Forester shall notify in writing the owners of the trees of the City's authority to remove any tree(s) and charge the cost of removal to the owner as provided by law. (4) Perimeter Landscape Buffering The City shall have the right to plant, prune, Perimeter landscape buffering is intended to provide maintain and remove trees, plants and shrubs a buffer between land uses of significantly different § 153.065 (D) AS RECOMMENDED BY SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION LANDSCAPING & TREE PRESERVATION FEBRUARY 2, 2012 intensities. The buffering is intended to obscure the higher -intensity land use from view and block potential negative impacts related to noise, lighting levels, and activity through the use of denser landscape screening and/or a fence or wall visually softened by clustered plantings, creatively and architecturally designed, as appropriate to the character of the surrounding area. (a) Perimeter landscape buffering is required: 1. When development or redevelopment in accordance with §153.062(B)(1) in any BSC district abuts property in a non -BSC district; or 2. With the exception of the BSC Historic Core district, when a non - residential land use is adjacent to a parcel containing only single - family detached building types (regardless of whether there is an intervening street, alley, or driveway). (b) Perimeter landscape buffering shall be provided in accordance with either Option or B described below. The required reviewing body may require openings in the buffer to allow pedestrian passage if it determines that passage between the two properties is desirable Refer to Figure 153.065 -13 for an illustration of each option. 1. OptionA A. A landscape buffer at least 10 feet wide shall be provided on the side or rear of the BSC district parcel adjacent to the non -BSC property or on the side or rear of the non - residential land use parcel adjacent to the residential -only land use parcel. B. The buffer shall include natural landscape materials such as lawn, ground cover, mounds, shrubs, and trees, and shall not contain impervious materials, except that a pedestrian or multi-use path may be permitted. C. One tree and five evergreen or deciduous shrubs shall be provided for every 25 lineal feet of boundary lot line, or fraction thereof. Plantings may be creatively clustered and architecturally designed to achieve a naturalized appearance, as appropriate to the character of the surrounding area, provided the spacing is designed to provide a minimum 75 %year round opacity six feet above grade level. The required opacity shall be provided within four years of planting, as measured on the non -BSC district/residential -only land use side of the property line FIGURE 153.065 -B: PERIMETER LANDSCAPE BUFFERING OPTIONS. at lean IX wive aMUape buffer at "a s• witle aMwa, o buffer ` S Q 7.11 I trseo s mw.� pteWcd.liee; Xs6'tell•75 %oryque c.bwb,ner OPTION A ovnox X 7. IO; Option B A. Alandscape buffer at least five feet wide shall be provided on the side or rear of the BSC district parcel adjacent to the non -BSC property or on the side or rear of the non - residential land use parcel adjacent to the residential -only land use parcel. B. The buffer shall include an opaque wall, fence or dense vegetative screen with 100% year round opacity at least six feet in height C. If a fence or wall is provided, it shall meet the requirements of §159.065(E), and the side facing the non -BSC district or a residential use shall be at least as finished in appearance as the side facing the BSC district or non - residential use Four evergreen or deciduous shrubs, evergreen or deciduous trees, or a combination thereof, shall be provided per 25 lineal feet of boundary lot line, or fraction thereof. Plantings may be creatively clustered and architecturally designed to achieve a naturalized appearance, as appropriate to the character of the surrounding area, and shall be provided on the side of the fence or wall facing the non -BSC district/ residential use I] If a dense vegetative screen is provided, it shall be at least six feet in height within four years after planting and may be located on the shared boundary. BRIDGE STREETCORRIDOR §153.065(D) 91 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - LANDSCAPING &TREE PRESERVATION (c) These requirements apply when a site subjectto be installed in accordance with §153.065(E)(2) these requirements is developed or redeveloped along the parking lot boundary facing the street to in accordance with §153.062(B)(2). No existing create a visual edge along the public right -of -way. development shall be required to install perimeter The required street frontage treatment shall be in landscape buffering because of a change in the accordance with the following: nature, character, or zoning classification of an 1. Where a surface parking lot/vehicular use adjacent parcel. area is located between 20 feet and 40 feet (d) The required perimeter landscape buffer area may from any street right -of -way the property be located within a utility or other easement with owner shall install at least one deciduous the prior approval of the City Engineer provided tree per 40 lineal feet, or fraction thereof, all of the landscape requirements are met of parking lot boundary facing the public (e) Required buffer materials must be placed on the street, in addition to the street trees required parcel where development or redevelopment is by §153.065(D)(3). In addition, at least occurring unless both the parcel providing the five deciduous or evergreen shrubs per 25 buffering and the parcel being buffered are in lineal feet, or fraction thereof, of a parking common ownership, in which case the buffer lotboundary facing the public street shall may be provided on either or portions of both be installed, with a mature height of at least properties. three feet Required landscaping shall be (f) Vehicles or other objects shall not overhang or installed within five feet of the edge of the parking lot and may be creatively clustered otherwise intrude upon the required perimeter and architecturally designed, as appropriate to landscape buffer. Refer to §153.065(B)(6)(d) for the character of the surrounding area. curb and wheel stop requirements. (g1 Existing landscape material good or 2. Where a surface parking lotivehicular use area is located within 20 feet of any street fair condition may be used to satisfy these right -of -way, the property owner shall install requirements with the prior approval of the a street wall in accordance with §153.065(E) Director. (2) and at least five deciduous or evergreen (5) Surface Parking and Circulation Area Landscaping shrubs per 25 lineal feet, or fraction thereof, All surface parking lots containing ten or more parking of a parking lot boundary facing the public spaces, vehicular circulation areas for fueling service street Trees are permitted to be installed stations, drive in/drive throughs, and other vehicular but not required. Required landscaping may use areas shall provide the landscaping required by be creatively clustered and architecturally §153.065(D)(5). Refer to Figure 153.065 -C for an designed, as appropriate to the character of illustration of this requirement the surrounding area. 3. Where a surface parking lot/vehicular use area is located within 20 feet of a principal frontage street, the property owner shall install a masonry or wrought iron street wall in accordance with § 153.065(E)(2). In addition, at least five deciduous or evergreen shrubs per 25 lineal feet, or fraction thereof, of a parking lot boundary facing the public street shall be installed. Trees are permitted to be installed but not required. Required landscaping may be creatively clustered and architecturally designed, as appropriate to the character of the surrounding area. (b) Perimeter Buffering Where a surface parking lot is located within 30 feet of a side, comer side, or rear lot line, and the adjacent property contains only single - family detached building types or is a nomBSC district. (regardless of whether there is an intervening street, alley, or driveway), the property owner shall install perimeter buffering meeting the requirements. of §153.065(D)(4). § 153.065 (D) AS RECOMMENDED BY SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS- PLANNING &ZONING COMMISSION LANDSCAPING& TREE PRESERVATION FEBRUARV2,2012 (a) Street Frontage Screening Surface parking lots and other vehicular use areas located within 40 feet of a public street shalt either be landscaped, or a street wall shall (c) Interior Landscaping 1. In addition to required street frontage and perimeter buffering described in subsections §153.065(D)(5)(a) -(b) above, a minimum of 5% of the interior parking lot area, calculated as the total of the area in all parking spaces and drive aisles, shall be landscaped. 2. Interior landscape areas shall be landscaped with one or more of the following options: A. Option A: Landscape Peninsula or Island — the minimum width of a landscape peninsula or island shall be 10 feet with • minimum area of 150 square feet, with • maximum run of 12 parking spaces permitted without a tree island. One medium deciduous tree as defined by Appendix E or as otherwise approved by the City Forester shall be planted for every 12 parking spaces. Structural soil or equivalent material as approved by the City Forester shall extend three feet beyond the edge of the peninsula or island into the adjacent pavement. All islands and peninsulas shall be excavated to a depth of three feet. B. Option B: Interior Tree Lawn - The minimum width of an interior tree lawn shall be 10 feet with a minimum area of 300 square feet. One medium or large deciduous tree as defined by Appendix E, or as otherwise approved by the City Forester, shall be planted for every 12 parking spaces or every 30 linear feet, whichever provides more canopy cover. Trees may be grouped or spaced within the interior lawn area. All interior tree lawns shall be excavated to a depth of three feet and filled with amended clean soil or equivalent material as approved by the City Forester. C. Option C: Large Consolidated Island— a landscape island interior to the parking lot with a minimum width of 36 feet with a minimum area of 1,300 square feet One medium or large deciduous tree as defined by Appendix E, or as otherwise approved by the City Forester, shall be planted for every 12 parking spaces. Trees may be grouped or spaced within the large consolidated island. Exiting trees which are to be preserved may be incorporated into the large consolidated island, as approved by the City Forester. Where existing trees are not being preserved within the large consolidated island, the area shall be excavated to a depth of three feet and filled with amended clean soil or equivalent material as approved by the City Forester. 3. All trees planted in interior landscaped areas shall have a three foot minimum dimension from the tree trunk to the back of curb or edge of pavement, as applicable. 4. When a landscape peninsula or island abuts the length of a parking space, a clear space for persons entering and exiting parked vehicles shall be provided by turf or pavers, mulch, and other similar non - vegetative material. 5. Each interior landscaped area must include at least one deciduous shade tree (from the approved Urban Street Tree List) to be counted toward the required landscape area. Trees shall have a clear trunk of at least seven feet above the ground, and the remaining area shall be landscaped with hardwood mulch, shrubs, perennials or ground cover. Interior tree lawns and large consolidated islands may also use turf. Shrubs or perennials shall not exceed two feet in mature height 6. Required on -site drainage shall be incorporated into interior landscaped areas to the maximum extent practicable. If a curb is located at the edge of a landscaped area, planted areas shall be installed at a lower grade than the parking lot pavement and curbing shall have openings or gaps allowing drainage from the pavement to enter and percolate through the landscaped areas. Plantings in landscaped areas intended to be used for biofiltration shall be those appropriate for rain gardens. (6) Required Building Zone (RBZ) Treatment All areas between the front or comer side property lines and the back of the RBZ or setback not occupied by a building shall be treated with either a landscape, patio, or streetscape treatment as required by §153.062(0). (a) Landscape RBZ treatment shall include lawn and/or planters with perpendicular access walks connecting the public sidewalk with building entrances. (b) Patio RBZ treatment shall include paved surfaces with landscape planters, seating, fencing in accordance with §153.065(E) and street furniture. (c) Streetscape RBZ treatment shall be an extension of the public sidewalk streetscape with sidewalk paving, street trees, planters, and/or other street furniture. (d) Where parking is permitted to the side or rear of a principal structure pursuant to the building type requirements of §153.062(0), surface parking areas and associated driveways may encroach into BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.065 (D) 93 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - LANDSCAPING & TREE PRESERVATION the front and/or comer side RBZ provided a street wall is installed in accordance with §153.065(E) (2) to screen the parking area. The area on the street facing side of the street wall shall be treated with either landscape, patio, or streetscape RBZ treatment as permitted by the building type. (7) Foundation Planting Building foundation landscaping is required for all fagades of all principal structures as described below: (a) Building foundation landscaping is required along all sides of a building not otherwise occupied by building entrances, sidewalk, parking or loading areas, or other similar areas. Building foundation landscaping is not required for portions of the front or comer side building fagades located within 10 feet of the front property line and where a streetscape or patio RBZ treatment is provided. (b) Where building foundation landscaping is required, at least one shrub shall be provided per each 10 linear feet of building fagade, or fraction thereof, within a landscape bed or raised planter extending a minimum of 42 inches beyond the foundation. Where streetscape or patio RBZ treatment is provided, raised planting beds, raised planters, and flower boxes may be used. Landscaping may be creatively clustered and architecturally designed, as appropriate to the character of the surrounding area. (c) Building foundation landscaping may be installed at building foundation grade level or in a raised planter. The planter shall not be higher than three feet above the building foundation grade level. Roof top gardens do not count towards meeting this requirement. (d) A minimum of 80% of the surface area of any foundation planting landscape bed shall be covered by living materials, rather than bark, mulch, gravel or other non - living materials in accordance with §153.065(D)(2)(e). (8) Credit to Preserve Existing Trees (a) Credit Available Property owners who demonstrate they have preserved mature, non - diseased trees with a six - inch caliper as measured at diameter breast height (DBH) during development or redevelopment may obtain credits toward required landscaping. Trees intended to be preserved shall be indicated on the landscape plan and shall be protected during construction through use of tree protection fencing around the critical root radius. The total amount of tree credits shall not exceed 50% of the required tree landscaping requirement. (b) Amount of Credit within five years after the credit is awarded, shall be replaced by the land owner with the number of trees for which the credit was granted. TABLE 153.065 -E: TREE PRESERVATION CREDITS. DBH of Preserved Tree Numbers of Trees (in inches) Credited Over 12 in. 3 • in. to 11.9 in. 2 • in. to 7.9 in. 1 (9) Tree Preservation (a) General Provisions 1. Applicability §153.065(D)(9) applies to protected trees on all public and private properties. 2. Tree Preservation Plan Required A. Due to unique and/or noteworthy characteristics including size, species, age, and historical significance, landmark `6 trees and significant groups of mature, ,>~ non - diseased trees are community amenities that should be preserved to the maximum extent feasible. B. Applicants shall submit a tree preservation plan for approval by the required reviewing body the demonstrates the site landscaping complies with the provisions of §153.065(D). At either the preliminary plat or initial application stage, the property owner shall submit a copy of the tree preservation plan to the appropriate public utilities in order to alert those public utilities to the proposed placement of the trees in relation to utility service lines. C. Atree survey shall be submitted with the tree preservation plan for all Development Plan and/or Site Plan Review applications for lots containing existing trees. The tree survey shall include the location, size, condition and species of all existing trees over four inches caliper as measured at DBH. D. The tree preservation plan submitted as part of the Development Plan and/or Site Plan Review application shall identify all landmark trees and/or significant tree stands on the site, including critical root zones to establish the limits of tree preservation zones, as determined by the required reviewing body. Credit for preserved trees is shown in Table E. The property owner shall replace 153.065 -E. Any preserved trees for which credit inch for inch any trees within tree is given and that are lost to damage or disease § 153.065 (D) AS RECOMMENDED BY SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION LANDSCAPING & TREE PRESERVATION FEBRUARY 2, 2012 preservation zones that are removed or lost due to damage, regardless of their location on the lot, except as provided in §153.065(D)(9)(b). Site Layout and Design Where practicable, site design and architectural layout activities shall preserve existing protected trees and avoid risk of protected tree loss through changes of grade and soil moisture, both on the subject parcel and on adjacent parcels. This includes, but is not limited to, the layout and design of buildings and any associated site improvements including auguring, jacking, or boring to install utilities (as opposed to open cutting). The critical root zones of protected trees on the subject parcel and adjacent parcels shall be reviewed and land disturbance within those zones avoided to the extent reasonable. 4. Tree Removal Permit The provisions of §153.143 shall apply, except as provided in §153.065(D)(9)(b). A. Protected trees used as credit to meet a required tree landscape requirement which die shall be replaced by the land owner with the number of trees for which the credit was granted. Replacement trees may count towards the credit amount for the development. B. Replacement trees provided pursuant to §153.065(D)(9)(b) shall count towards landscaping required under other portions of this section if they meet the size, type, and location standards for the landscaping required. (b) Exemptions The following activities are not subject to the tree replacement requirements for protected trees as described in §153.146 provided the proposed tree removal is included in the required application as described in §153.066. 1. Trees planted due to a requirement of a previously approved development plan or as a condition to a previously issued Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval prior to the date this provision takes effect; 2. Removal of trees that, at the determination of the City Forester, are undesirable with respect to structure, species, and/or condition; 3. Removal of trees on any portion of a lot required to be occupied by a structure pursuant to the standards of §153.062 as approved by the required reviewing body with a Site Plan Review application, 4. Removal of trees which are an obstruction to traffic signals or traffic signs, power lines, or other utilities; 5. Removal of trees necessary for rescue in an emergency or for cleanup after a natural disaster, and 6. Removal of trees deemed hazardous by the City Forester or a certified arborist, and approved by the City Forester. (10)Maintenance and Replacement (a) Street Trees and Public Trees Each property owner shall comply with those standards for maintenance, replacement, protection and management of street trees and public trees in §153.065(D)(3). (b) Other Required Landscaping on Private Property For landscaping other than public trees and street trees, each property owner shall: 1. Maintain all required landscaping in good condition, as determined by the City Forester, 2. Remove any landscaping or tree that dies or is required to be removed due to damage or disease within three months after the loss of that landscaping or tree; and 3. Replace the landscaping or tree within three months of its removal. (c) The City Forester may extend times for performance if weather or other conditions prevent performance within the times stated above. (11) Alternative Landscaping In lieu of compliance with the specific requirements of §153.065(D)(3) -(9) an owner may propose alternative approaches consistent with the intent of § 153.065(D) (2) to accommodate unique site conditions, abutting or surrounding uses, or other conditions, as deemed appropriate by the required reviewing body. Requests for alternative landscaping shall be reviewed by the required reviewing body with the Site Plan Review application and approved only if the proposed alternative is equal to or better than the aesthetic, environmental, and buffering functions anticipated with the provisions of §153.065(D). BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.065 (E) 95 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - LANDSCAPING & TREE PRESERVATION (E) FENCING, WALLS AND SCREENING (1) Fence and Wall Standards The provisions of this section are required for all fences, walls, and screening materials in the BSC districts. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the provisions of §153.064(G) shall be met with respect to fencing and walls for open spaces. (a) Prohibited Materials Chain link, vinyl and temporary plastic fences (such as snow fences) are prohibited except during construction as security for construction sites and materials. Fences that are electrically charged, constructed of barbed wire, and razor wire are prohibited. No fence, wall or retaining wall shall be constructed of materials not designed to be used for that purpose. High quality synthetic materials may be approved with the Site Plan Review by the required reviewing body with examples of successful, high quality installations. (b) Fence and Wall Height and Opacity 1. No fence or wall located between the principal structure on a lot and the front property line shall exceed four feet in height. No fence located between the principal structure on a lot and the front property line shall be more the 50% opaque unless otherwise required by § I 53.065(E)(2) or § §153.059 through 153.065. These provisions apply to all street frontages on multiple frontage lots. 2. No fence or wall located between the principal structure on a lot and the side, corner side, or rear property line shall exceed six feet in height. 3. The height provisions of §153.065(E)(1)(b)1- 2 shall not apply to fences or walls required to comply with the screening standards of §153.065(D). 4. The provisions of § I 53.065(E)(1)(b) 1 -2 shall apply to all portions of retaining walls that extend above grade level, as measured from the elevated side of the retaining wall. Where a fence is located on top of a retaining wall, the combined height of the retaining wall and fence shall not exceed the maximum height permitted for a fence, as measured from the elevated side of the retaining wall. (2) Street Wall Standards (a) Intent Street walls are intended to screen vehicular use areas or service areas and/or to define the pedestrian realm. (b) Street Wall Design and Location 1. Street walls are intended to be placed within the front and/or corner RBZ where an RBZ exists. If an RBZ is occupied by a building, the street wall shall be installed along the same plane as the nearest building fagade. 2. Street walls shall be designed to coordinate with the architectural character of the building to which it is associated. Street walls shall be constructed of brick, stone, or CMU with stucco finishing (masonry street wall type), wrought iron fencing combined with landscaping (wrought iron street wall type), or a hedgerow combined with landscaping and masonry posts (solid hedge and post type). The required reviewing body shall be permitted to approve or require specific or alternative street wall designs, such as stacked stone walls, based on the design of the associated building and/or the development character of the lots surrounding the site. 3. Street walls in the Historic Core shall be constructed as stacked stone walls, unless otherwise approved by the required reviewing body. 4. Street walls shall be a minimum of 30 inches, but no street wall shall exceed 36 inches in height. 5. Street walls are prohibited in required sight visibility triangles for site access points as defined in Appendix C and are prohibited in required sight visibility triangles for street intersections as determined by the City Engineer. (c) Street Wall Landscaping In all areas where landscaping is required, within four years after installation a minimum of 80% of the surface area of any landscape bed shall be covered by living materials, rather than bark, mulch, gravel, or other non- living materials. Masonry Street Wall 2. 3. § 153.065 (E) SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FENCING, WALLS, & SCREENING For masonry street walls, the property owner shall provide at least five shrubs per 25 feet of linear street frontage or fraction thereof on the street side of the masonry wall where the Landscape RBZ treatment is used. Required landscaping may be clustered for a more natural design. Wrought Iron Street Wall For a wrought iron street wall, the property owner shall provide at least five shrubs per 25 feet of linear street frontage or fraction thereof on the side of the fence interior to the lot. Solid Hedge and Post Street Wall For a solid hedge, the property owner shall install dense, closely spaced living plant material composed of trees, deciduous or AS RECOMMENDED BY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2012 evergreen shrubs, or a combination thereof, with a masonry post every 25 feet of linear street frontage or fraction thereof. The ground on the street side of the hedge shall be landscaped with ground cover exclusive of grass. (3) Screening (a) Prohibited Materials Chain link, vinyl, EIFS, and unfinished or non - decorative CMU are prohibited screening materials. No screen shall be constructed of materials not designed to be used for that purpose. High quality synthetic materials may be approved with the Site Plan Review by the required reviewing body with examples of successful, high quality installations. (b) Roof Mounted Mechanical Equipment All roof - mounted mechanical equipment (including but not limited to HUAC equipment, exhaust fans, cooling towers, and related guard rails or safety equipment) shall be fully screened from view at ground level on all sides of the structure and, to the extent practicable, from adjacent buildings of similar height in a BSC district. Screening shall be provided by: A. A parapet wall or similar feature that is an integral part of the building's architectural design (refer to §I53.062(D) for roof requirements for building types), or B. A screening structure located around the equipment that incorporates at least one of the primary materials and colors on a street - facing fapade of the principal structure; or C. A living wall or vertical garden which is covered by vegetation to provide a minimum of 50% year round opacity. 2. The parapet wall or screening structure shall be fully opaque year round and shall be at least as tall as the height of the mechanical equipment being screened. 3. The standards of §153.065(E)(3)(b) shall not apply if the only feasible location for screening would impede the functioning of solar, wind or geothermal energy equipment or systems. (c) Ground Mounted Mechanical Equipment 1. All ground - mounted mechanical equipment shall be incorporated within the footprint of a principal or accessory structure or shall be fully screened from view on all sides using one of the following options: A. Landscape material which provides a minimum of 50% year round opacity, or B. A living wall or vertical garden which is covered by vegetation to provide a minimum of 50% year round opacity, or C. A decorative wall or fence that incorporates at least one of the primary materials and colors of the nearest wall of the principal structure and that provides 75% year round opacity. 2. The wall or screen shall be at least one foot taller than the height of the mechanical equipment being screened, up to a maximum of 12 feet. 3. The standards of §153.065(E)(3)(c) shall not apply if the only feasible location for screening would impede the functioning of solar, wind or geothermal energy equipment or systems. 4. Utility boxes shall be oriented with access doors facing away from the street right -of- way or adjacent property to the maximum extent practicable. (d) Outdoor Waste and Storage Containers and Enclosures 1. All waste, refuse, and recycling containers and enclosures shall be incorporated within the footprint of a principal or accessory structure to t h e m aximum extent practicable. If incorporation within the building footprint is not practicable, outdoor waste and storage containers and enclosures shall be fully screened from view on all sides by landscaping or by a decorative wall or fence finished and constructed to match the materials and design of the nearest wall of the principal structure and shall be fully opaque year round. 2. The wall or screen shall be one foot taller than the height of the waste or storage container or enclosure being screened, up to a maximum of 12 feet. (e) Off - Street Loading Areas Off - street loading docks or loading areas used for the storage and staging of materials shall be screened from view on all sides facing a street right -of -way or adjacent property, as practicable, by a decorative wall or fence between six and 12 feet in height, as necessary to sufficiently screen the area, constructed and finished to match the materials and design of the nearest wall of the principal structure. This requirement does not apply to the side of a loading area facing an alley/ service street; the side by which vehicles enter and leave the loading area; maneuvering areas used for vehicles to approach the loading area, BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.065 (E) 97 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - FENCING, WALLS, & SCREENING or alternative loading area locations permitted by §153.065(B)( )(b). (f) Access Doors Screening structures may contain access doors to accommodate servicing of equipment and emptying or replacement of containers. The access doors shall be self - closing, and shall be constructed and finished to coordinate with the materials and design of the nearest wall of the principal structure. Access doors shall remain closed and all containers fully within the structure when not being used. Offset openings may be used in lieu of man doors provided the service structures remain fully screened from view. (g) Vegetative Screening If vegetative screening is used to meet the requirements of §153.065(E)(3), evergreen and deciduous species may be used provided the plant size and opacity meet the required height and opacity requirements within four years after planting. The minimum planting bed width shall be 42 inches. (h) Alternative Screening In lieu of compliance with the requirements of § I 53.065(E)(3), an alternative approach to accommodate unique site conditions or surrounding uses may be approved if the required reviewing body detennines that the proposed alternative achieves the aesthetic, environmental, and screening results better than compliance with the standards of §153.065(E)(3). (F) EXTERIOR LIGHTING (1) Intent The standards of §153.065(F) are intended to allow adequate night time lighting to protect public safety while protecting residential uses from excessive night time light and glare, protecting motorists from glare along public rights -of -way, reducing consumption of electricity for lighting purposes, and prohibiting excessive light trespass beyond property lines. (2) Applicability The provisions of §153.149 shall apply to all development within the BSC districts in addition to the requirements of §I53.065(F), except as noted in this section. (3) Exemptions The following types of lighting are exempt from the requirements of §153.065(F): (a) Lighting for single family detached and single family attached dwellings. (b) Pedestrian walkway ground lighting. (c) Lighting for designated sports fields. (4) Fixture Power and Efficiency All light fixtures shall meet the standards in Table 153.065 -F for power and efficiency. TABLE 153.065 -F: XTURE POWER AND EFFICIENCY BSC Indian All other Run and BSC BSC 7Requirement Sawmill Center Districts permitted 9.7 lumens/ p lumens 13.9 lumens /sq. ft. ft. sq. Maximum lamp 60,000 lumens 44,000 allowance lumens Minimum lumens per watt or energy consumed (as documented by 80 lumens/ manufacturers 80 lumens /watt watt specifications or results of an independent testing laboratory) (5) Shielding (a) All exterior light sources and lamps that emit more than 900 lumens shall be concealed or shielded with an Illuminations Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) full cut -off style fixture with an angle not exceeding 90 degrees to minimize the potential for glare and unnecessary diffusion on adjacent property. No portion of the lamp, reflector, lens, or refracting system may extend beyond the housing or shield, with the exception of pedestrian lighting. (b) All light sources shall be designed, located, and installed so that the light source is not directly visible from any adjacent property in a residential district. (6) Lighting Uniformity Lighting across a horizontal surface shall have an average range from one to three footcandles. O Light Trespass Light generated on site shall not add more than one footcandle to illumination levels at any point at grade level 10 feet beyond the property line. (8) Light Poles The base of light poles in parking areas shall be either flush with grade or mounted on a concrete foundation projecting no more than 36 inches above grade. The base of light poles in non- parking areas shall be either flush with grade or mounted on a concrete foundation projecting no more than six inches above grade. (9) Wall Lighting (a) Decorative incandescent lights shall be limited to no more than 40 watts and decorative LED lights shall be limited to no more than 20 watts. Decorative wall lighting shall not require § 153.065 (F) AS RECOMMENDED BY SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION EXTERIOR LIGHTING FEBRUARY 2, 2012 shielding and may be used to provide uplighting accents for buildings in all BSC districts. (b) Ground or pole - mounted floodlights are not permitted for fagade lighting. (10) Canopy Lighting (a) All canopy lighting shall use recessed luminaire fixtures and shall be designed and located so as to prevent glare onto adjacent properties. (b) Highly reflective material shall not be installed on the underside of the canopy. (11) Prohibited Lighting Types Sodium vapor light fixtures are prohibited in all BSC districts. (G) UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING In all BSC districts, all utility lines including but not limited to water supply, sanitary sewer service, electricity, telephone and gas, and their connections or feeder lines shall be placed underground. All utility connections shall be kept to the rear or the side of the building, out of view or screened. (H) SIGNS (1) Intent and General Purpose (a) General The intent of §153.065(H) is to enhance the physical appearance of the BSC districts and the City of Dublin as a whole by encouraging high quality, effective outdoor graphics for the purposes of navigation, information and identification; and to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. More specifically, it is the intent of this section to provide sign standards that allow fair competition while ensuring that signs used by individual businesses will contribute to the urban vitality, interest and uniqueness of the Bridge Street Corridor; provide aesthetic standards that ensure adherence to the high level of design and construction quality expected by the community, provide the public with a safe and effective means of locating businesses, services and points of interest by multiple modes of transportation, and to provide standards for signs that are appropriately scaled to the pedestrian realm and designed to enliven the pedestrian experience. It is also the intent to regulate signs in accordance with applicable federal and state law. (b) BSC Residential, Office Residential, Office, Commercial, and Public Districts The purpose of signs in these districts is to provide identification with high visual quality in a manner that respects the character and scale of residential areas while providing clear visibility for larger office, commercial and residential developments. Signs should provide high quality awareness through graphics that effectively assist in navigation, information and identification for both pedestrians and vehicles. (c) BSC Indian Run Neighborhood, Sawmill Center Neighborhood, and Vertical Mixed Use District Signs The purpose of signs in these districts is to accommodate a wide variety of building types and uses to create vibrant, mixed use shopping and entertainment districts. Sign and graphic standards shall contribute to the vibrancy of the districts and the creation of high quality environments with effective graphics intended for navigation, information, and identification primarily for pedestrians and secondarily for vehicles. (d) BSC Historic Core and Historic Transition Neighborhood Districts The purpose of signs in these districts is to provide for pedestrian - oriented signs that match the general character and scale of Dublin's original village commercial center. Signs should rovide business identification in a manner stent with the historic appearance and character of the districts, while encouraging a more interesting streetscape. (2) General Provisions (a) All applicable requirements of § §153.150 through 153.163 shall apply to the BSC districts except as modified by §153.065(H). In the event of a conflict with the provisions of §§153.150 through 153.163, the provisions of §153.065(H) shall govern. (b) Where noted for the purposes of permitted signs, street frontages shall apply only to public streets. (c) Approval Authority 1. All signs shall require a permanent sign permit unless otherwise exempted for a specific sign type. 2. Required reviewing bodies shall not address the content of the sign message. 3. Off - premise signs are only permitted with the approval of a master sign plan. 4. All signs located within or projecting over the public right -of -way shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to placement 5. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, the design and placement of City sponsored banners for special events or public announcements affixed to public facilities in the right -of -way within the Bridge Street Corridor Districts shall be approved by the City Manager prior to placement, BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.065 (H) 99 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - SIGNS 6. Master Sign Plans A. Am aster sign plan shall be submitted as required by § 153.0660. Except as provided in §153.065(H)(2)(c)(6)(E), the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be permitted to approve alternative requirements for sign number, type, size, height, location, and lighting, provided the purpose and intent of the sign and graphic standards for the applicable BSC district is maintained B. All applications for a Basic Plan Review as required in §153.066(D) shall include a description of the general design intent for proposed signs, demonstrating coordination with proposed building architecture and compatibility with the surrounding development context. Information provided at the Basic Plan Review shall demonstrate that signs will meet all requirements of §153.065(H), or that the applicant intends to request modifications to those requirements as part of a master sign plan. A master sign plan may be reviewed concurrently with a Basic Plan Review. C. Am aster sign plan shall include, at a minimum: the proposed locations, types, number, heights and sizes of signs, indicated on scaled plans and/or building elevation drawings, proposed materials to be used for sign structures and sign faces, and proposed types of illumination. D. Where applicable, all signs located within a development shall meet the requirements established in an approved master sign plan. All requirements of §153.065(H) shall continue to apply except as modified by the master sign plan. E. The Architectural Review Board shall be permitted to approve master sign plans that depart from the requirements of §153.065(H), provided the purpose and intent of the sign and graphic standards for the BSC Historic Core and Historic Transition Neighborhood districts and the historic character of Historic Dublin are maintained. The Board shall determine the appropriateness of signs and their placement given the architecture of buildings within these districts. (3) BSC Districts with Special Sign Provisions (a) BSC Historic Residential District The requirements of § §153.150 through 153.163 shall apply in the BSC Historic Residential district without modification. (b) BSC Indian Run Neighborhood, Sawmill Center Neighborhood, and Vertical Mixed Use Districts 1. Signs in these districts shall be subject to the requirements of §153.065(H)(6) - (7) as applicable, unless a master sign plan is approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission [refer to §153.065(H)(2)(c)6J. 2. Am aster sign plan is required for a planned shopping corridor. The master sign plan shall be submitted prior to or concurrent with a Site Plan Review in a shopping corridor. (c) BSC Historic Core and Historic Transition Neighborhood Districts 1. Signs in these districts shall be subject to the requirements of §153.065(H)(6) - (7) as applicable, unless a master sign plan is approved by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) [refer to § I 53.065(H)(2)(c)6]. 2. All new ground and building - mounted signs s= �. in those parts of the BSC Historic Core and `Historic Transition districts that fall within " the Architectural Review District boundaries shall be subject to review and approval by the ,i-`Architectural Review Board. (q) Sign Design and Lighting All permitted sign types shall be designed with the maximum of creativity and the highest quality of materials and fabrication. It is strongly recommended that all signs be designed by a professional sign designer and be installed by a qualified sign builder or contractor. (a) All permitted sign types shall be designed to fully integrate with the building architecture and overall site design, and to enhance the pedestrian experience in the Bridge Street Corridor. Signs attached to principal structures shall be coordinated and fit appropriately with the architecture of the building in accordance with §153.062(". Signs placed on windows, awnings and canopies shall meet the requirements of §153.062(H). (b) The illumination of signs is strongly encouraged to help add a sense of liveliness and activity to the area. Unless otherwise noted, signs may be externally illuminated, provided that all exterior lighting meets the requirements of §153.065(F). Internally illuminated pan channel or cabinet signs are permitted, provided that the sign is creatively designed with high quality materials and fabrication, as determined by the required reviewing body. Awning signs and sandwich board signs may not be internally illuminated. Illuminated signs shall be constructed so that raceways, conduit and piping for electrical sources are not exposed to view. § 153.065 (H) AS RECOMMENDED BY SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - SIGNS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2012 (c) The provisions of §153.158(0)(3) (limitations on sign shape), shall not apply in the BSC districts. (d) Sign Colors and Secondary Images Logos or images used to convey information about the business or use of the building or lot must be compatible with the size, design, and scale of the sign, Colorful logos and signs are encouraged to help add character and interest to the building and streetscape. 1. Signs shall be limited to three colors, including black and white. The background color shall be considered one of the three permissible colors, unless channel letters are used, in which case the background is not considered one of the three colors. As long as a registered corporate trademark or symbol used in a sign adheres to the size limitations of §153.158(0)(2), colors used in the registered corporate trademark or symbol shall not be limited in number, but shall be considered as one of three permissible colors. Sign copy or background shall use one of the colors used in the registered corporate trademark or symbol. 2. Where a registered corporate trademark or symbol exceeds 20% of the sign area, signs shall have a maximum of five colors including symbols, sign copy, and background color. The background color is included in the maximum permissible colors, unless channel letters are used and affixed directly to a building or other support structure, in which case the background is not considered one of the permissible colors. (5) Sign Types Permitted in BSC Districts (a) All sign types permitted in the BSC districts are listed in Table 153.065 -G. Refer to §153.065(H) (6) for number of signs permitted, and §153.065(H)O for requirements for specific sign types. (b) Different sign types may be used on the same frontage. (c) Where required, setbacks shall be measured from the public street right -of -way, lot line, or minimum Required Building Zone, as applicable. (6) Number of Permitted Signs Refer to §153.065(H)(6)(d) for the number of signs permitted in the BSC Historic Core and Historic Transition Neighborhood Districts and to §§ 153.150 TABLE 153.065 -G: SIGN TYPES PERMITTED IN BSC DISTRICTS Sign Type Code Section Reference Sign Type Intent Ground Sign Ground Sign §153.065(H)(7)(a); Ground signs are intended primarily for buildings with Table 153.065 -H greater front and corner side setbacks. Building- Mounted Signs Wall Sign Building- mounted signs are intended to provide Awning Sign §153.065(H)(7)(b); Table 153.065 -1 visibility for pedestrians and vehicles approaching from different directions and to create a diversity of Projecting Sign signs along an active streetscape. Window Sign Building Identification Sign Building identification signs are intended to identify §153.065(H)(7)(c); major building tenants and large -scale commercial Building Identification Sign Table 153.065 -J development in the Bridge Street Corridor. Building names or street address numerals may be used in lieu of a tenant name. Other Permitted Signs Directory signs are intended to provide identification for upper story tenants and /or tenants that are Directory Sign otherwise not permitted an individual identification sign. Directory signs may also be used for restaurant §153.065(H)(7)(d); menus and other similar uses. Display signs are intended to advertise goods or Table 153.065 -K services. Display signs may change frequently and Display Sign may be attached to or located within 3 feet of a window on the interior of the building. Examples include products for sale or display, and signs that show or describe goods or services offered. Sandwich Board Sign Sandwich board signs are intended to be used in areas with high pedestrian and commercial activity. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.065 (H) 101 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - SIGNS through 153.163 for the BSC Historic Residential district. For all other BSC districts, the number of permitted signs shall be in accordance with subsections §153.065(H)(6)(a) -(c). Refer to Table 153.065 -G, Sign Types Permitted in BSC Districts, for the list of permitted signs and the intent of each sign type. (a) Ground Signs In addition to any other signs permitted by §153.065(H)(6)(b) and (c), one ground sign is permitted per building or parcel for each street frontage, not to exceed a maximum of two ground signs. Refer to §153.065(H)(7)(a), Ground Signs, for specific requirements for size, location, and height (b) Single Tenant Buildings and Multiple Tenant Buildings without Storefronts Refer to §153.065(H)(7)(b), Building- Mounted Signs, for specific requirements for sign types, sizes, locations, and heights. 1. Multiple tenant buildings without storefronts and single tenant buildings are permitted a maximum of one building - mounted sign per street frontage. 2. A directory sign may be used at each public entrance to identify tenants in multiple tenant buildings without storefronts. For buildings with fewer than three stories an additional projecting . sign not exceeding eight square feet may be located adjacent to a common public entrance providing access to the upper floor tenant spaces. (c) Multiple Tenant Buildings with Storefronts Refer to §153.065(H)(7)(b), Building- Mounted Signs, for specific requirements for building - mounted sign types, sizes, locations, and heights. 1. Buildings with ground floor storefronts are permitted a maximum of two building - mounted signs for each ground floor tenant with a storefront. The two permitted building - mounted signs shall not be of the same sign type. 2. One additional building- mounted sign is permitted for each tenant with a storefront with a public entrance facing an off - street parking area or parking structure in the same block, provided that the entrance is located on the side or rear fagade of the building. 3. A directory sign may be used to identify tenant spaces located above the ground floor. For buildings with fewer than three stories, an additional projecting . sign is permitted provided it is located adjacent to a common public entrance providing access to the upper floor tenant spaces. (d) Number of Permitted Signs in the BSC Historic Core and Historic Transition Neighborhood District Refer to §153.065(H)(7)(a) and (b) for specific requirements for ground and building- mounted sign types, sizes, locations, and heights. 1. Single Tenant Buildings A combination of two different sign types, including ground signs and building- mounted signs, are permitted for each street- facing building fagade or frontage. For lots with more than one street frontage, one additional ground or building - mounted sign is permitted along the second lot frontage, not to exceed a total of three signs. 2. Multiple Tenant Buildings A combination of two different sign types, including ground signs and building- mounted signs, are permitted for each ground floor tenant with a storefront. 3. An additional building- mounted sign is permitted for each tenant with a storefront where the tenant also has a dedicated public entrance facing an off - street parking area or parking structure in the same block, provided that the secondary public entrance is located on the side or rear fagade of the building. 4. Tenant spaces located above the ground floor may be identified by a directory sign or by a window sign or projecting sign located adjacent to a common public entrance providing access to the upper floor tenant spaces. (7) Specific Sign Type Requirements (a) Ground Signs 1. Ground sign height is measured from the established grade of the base of the sign to the top of the sign or its frame /support. The height may not be artificially increased. 2. All ground signs shall comply with the provisions of Table 153.065 -H, Ground Sign Requirements. (b) Building- Mounted Signs 1. Building- Mounted Sign Types and Measurements A. Building- mounted signs include wall signs, awning signs, projecting signs, and window signs. B. Wall sign height is measured directly beneath the sign from the established grade at the base of the structure to which the sign is attached to the top of the sign. § 153.065 (H) AS RECOMMENDED BY SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - SIGNS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2012 C. Wall sign areas for buildings with storefronts shall be determined by taking the length of the storefront applicable to each tenant and computing sign requirements for that portion of the total wall. D. Projecting sign height is measured directly beneath the sign from the established grade at the base of the structure to which the sign is attached to the top of the sign, but shall not include brackets or equipment which are necessary to attach the sign to the structure. Necessary brackets or equipment shall not be counted as part of the sign area. 2. All building- mounted signs shall comply with the provisions of Table 153.065 -I, Building - Mounted Sign Requirements, except that: A. Any building- mounted sign associated with a secondary public entrance as described in § 153.065(H)(6)(c) and (d) shall not exceed six square feet in size and shall be located within six feet of the secondary public entrance, as measured horizontally along the building fagade. B. Any projecting sign associated with a common public entrance providing access to upper floor tenant spaces as described in §153.065(H)(6)(c) and (d) shall not exceed eight square feet and be located within six feet of the common public entrance. (c) Building Identification Signs 1. In addition to any other permitted signs, one building identification sign is permitted per street frontage for buildings with three or more stories. Building identification signs are not permitted in the BSC Historic Core Residential, Historic Core, or Historic Transition Neighborhood districts unless approved by the Architectural Review Board through a master sign plan [refer to § 153.065(H)(2)(c)6J. 2. Building identification signs shall comply with Table 153.065 -J, Building Identification Sign Requirements. If street address numbers are used in lieu of the name of a major tenant, the street address numbers shall require a permanent sign permit and shall comply with Table 153.065 -J, Building Identification Sign Requirements. (d) Other Permitted Signs In addition to the signs permitted by Tables 153.065 -H through 153.065 -I, directory, display, and sandwich board signs shall be permitted in accordance with Table 153.065 -K, Requirements for Other Permitted Signs. TABLE 153.065 -H: GROUND SIGN REQUIREMENTS BSC Historic Core and Historic Transition Neighborhood Districts All Other BSC Districts Number Refer to §153.065(H)(6)(d) 1 per building or parcel, per street frontage, not to exceed 2. Size Maximum 8 sq. ft. Maximum 24 sq. ft. Historic Cottage Commercial building type only. 8 ft. from the minimum required building zone, setback, or street right -of -way, as appropriate Location for the building type. Refer to §153.062(0) for more information regarding building types. If Minimum setback of 8 ft. from the street right -of- way or any property line. two ground signs are used, the signs shall be located on different street frontages. Height Maximum Eft. Maximum 8ft. Permitted .ground signs may be attached to a freestanding wall or other similar structure on the same lot as the building or use. Sign foundations may not be exposed and shall either be mounted on a masonry base or clad in material compatible with the material used for the sign and the principal structure containing the General use with which the sign is associated. Ground signs shall be landscaped where appropriate to site conditions. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.065 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - SIGNS 103 TABLE 153.065 -I: BUILDING - MOUNTED SIGN REQUIREMENTS BSC Historic Core and Historic Transition Neighborhood All Other BSC Districts Districts Wall Sign Number Refer to §153.065(H)(6)(d) Refer to §153.065(H)(6)(a) through (c) for requirements based on building type Size Maximum 8 sq. ft. 1 /2 sq. ft. per each lineal foot of building wall or storefront width up to a maximum of 50 sq. ft. On walls facing a public street Signs shall be located on the portion of the wall associated with the tenant space or storefront, Location and /or within 6 ft. of the common public entrance, where not associated with a storefront Wall signs shall not extend more than 14 inches from the face of the structure to which it is attached Maximum 15 ft., and shall not extend above the Located within the first story as appropriate to Height roofline each building type of §153.062(0) and shall not extend above the roofline Awning Sign Refer to §153.065(H)(6)(a) through (c) for Number Refer to §153.065(H)(6)(d) requirements based on building type Only 1 sign permitted per awning Size 20 0 /6 of the cumulative surface of the awning area, not to exceed 8 sq. ft. Location Awning signs may be on any portion of the awning, and affixed flat to the surface and shall not extend vertically or horizontally beyond the limit of the awning Maximum 15 ft. Located within the first story as appropriate to Height each building type of §153.062(0) The lowest portion of an awning sign shall be at least 8 ft. above the sidewalk Projecting Sign Number Refer to §153.065(H)(6)(d) Refer to §153.065(H)(6)(a) through (c) for requirements based on building type Size Maximum 8 sq. ft. Maximum 16 sq. ft. Within 6 ft. of the principal entrance. Projecting signs shall be separated by at least 10 ft. from another projecting sign, as measured along the building fapade. Location Projecting signs shall not extend more than 6 ft. from the face of the structure to which it is attached and maintain at least 8 ft. of clearance above the sidewalk. A projecting sign shall be located within 6 ft. of the principal entrance of the building or storefront, as measured horizontally along the building fapade. Maximum 15 ft., or not extending above th7sillLocated within the first story as appropriate to building type of §153.062(0) and shall not Height of the second story window, whichever is l h end above the roof line The lowest portion of a projecting sign shall be at least 8 feet above the sidewalk Window Sign Number Refer to §153.065(H)(6)(d) Refer to §153.065(H)(6)(a) through (c) for requirements based on building type Size 20% of the surface area of the window to which it is attached, not to exceed 8 sq. ft. Location Ground floor only, except as permitted by Ground floor only §153.065(H)(6)(d)4 General Window signs shall only be permitted in lieu of display signs affixed to a window. Refer to Table 153.065 -K, Requirements for Other Permitted Signs, for Display Sign Requirements. § 153.065 (H) AS RECOMMENDED BY SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - SIGNS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2012 TABLE 153.065 -J: BUILDING IDENTIFICATION SIGN REQUIREMENTS BSC Historic Core and Historic All Other BSC Districts Directory Signs Transition Neighborhood All Other BSC Districts Location Districts Size Number Height 1 wall sign per building or street frontage, not to exceed 2 Location On a building facade facing a street Size '�� sq. ft. per each lineal foot of building frontage, each sign not to which the signs are displayed Not Permitted exceed 100 sq. ft. Height Shall not extend above the roofline Individual channel or pin- mounted letters or characters are requirements. required General Sandwich Board Signs Number 1 per ground floor storefront tenant Buildings with frontage on the 1 -270 right -of -way are permitted an Sandwich board signs are permitted only immediately in front of the building additional sign in accordance with §153.161(A) TABLE 153.065 -K: REQUIREMENTS FOR OTHER PERMITTED SIGNS BSC Historic Core and Historic Transition Neighborhood Districts All Other BSC Districts Directory Signs Number 1 per public entrance Location Located within 6 ft. of the entrance and mounted flat to the wall Size Maximum 4 sq. ft. Height Ground floor only Display Signs Display signs located within 3 feet of the window shall not exceed 20% of the surface area of the window on which the signs are displayed Size Display signs affixed to a window shall not exceed 20% of the surface area and shall not be permitted if a window sign is used. Refer to Table 153.065 -1, Building - Mounted Sign Requirements, for window sign requirements. Height Ground floor only Sandwich Board Signs Number 1 per ground floor storefront tenant Sandwich board signs are permitted only immediately in front of the building containing the activity described on the sign Signs shall be placed within 6 ft. of the primary ground floor public entrance of the Location business and generally along the same plane as other sandwich board signs to ensure a consistent sidewalk clearance Signs shall maintain a minimum unobstructed 5 -ft. clearance on sidewalks and shall not impede the safe movement of pedestrians or the safe operation of Not Permitted vehicles Size 6 sq. ft. per side Height 3 ft. Sandwich board signs may include chalkboard and whiteboard elements. The sandwich board sign structure shall be constructed with subdued colors. General Sandwich board signs shall be removed and stored indoors or in a location not visible to the public during non - business hours BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.065 (H) 105 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANbA - SIGNS §153.066 REVIEW AND APPROVAL development proposal and to provide information ROCEDURE$AND CRITERIA on the procedures and policies of the City, including the application review procedures that (A) INTENT may be used. The intent of §153.066 is to provide an efficient and (b) Pre- Application Reviews may be submitted and predictable review process for applications for rezoning processed simultaneously with a request for a and/or development within the Bridge Street Corridor Basic Plan Review as provided in §153.066(D). districts and to enhance Dublin's reputation for high quality (c) Pre- Application Reviews do not result in a development while allowing property owners to compete development decision or permit, and shall not for development consistent with the Vision Principles obligate the City or the developer to take any and direction articulated in the Bridge Street Corridor action on the proposal. Vision Report. The review and approval procedures and (2) Review Procedure criteria are also intended to ensure that new development and redevelopment is served by adequate and efficient (a) A request for a Pre- Application Review shall infrastructure so as not to burden the fiscal resources of the be made in accordance with the provisions of City, and generally to protect the health, safety, and general §153.066(L). welfare of residents, occupants, and users of property in (b) The City shall notify the applicant in writing the BSC districts and surrounding areas of the city. at least five days prior to the Pre- Application Review meeting. (B) REQUIRED REVIEWS (c) The ART and other applicable departments shall (1) This section outlines the requirements and procedures be promptly notified of the ART Pre- Application for development review specifically within the BSC Review meeting. Prior to the meeting the Director districts. The review types of §153.066 shall be used shall distribute the submitted materials to the ART for all development applications in a BSC district. and other applicable City departments for input (a) Refer to Table 153.066 -A, Summary Procedure and recommendations. Table, for the list of reviews and procedures (d) The ART shall review the submitted materials and applicable in all BSC districts. provide non - binding input and recommendations. (b) Refer to Figure 153.066 -A, Review and Approval The ART shall complete its review of the application not more than 14 days from the date Procedures for Planning and Zoning Commission the request was submitted. Reviews. (e) A written summary of comments and suggestions (c) Refer to Figure 153.066 -B, Review and Approval made during the Pre - Application Review shall be Procedures for Architectural Review Board provided to the applicant not more than 10 days Reviews. after the Pre- Application Review meeting. (d) Refer to Figure 153.066 -C, Other Review and (t) Prior to filing an application for the Basic Approval Procedures, illustrate the review and Plan Review, the applicant shall be given the approval procedures for development in all Bridge opportunity to revise the application in response to Street Corridor districts. the ART's comments. The applicant may schedule (2) The following abbreviations and terms are used in additional Pre - Application Review meetings with §153.066: the ART prior to filing a request for a Basic Plan ART — Administrative Review Team Review. ARB — Architectural Review Board (g) The written summary of the Pre - Application BZA — Board of Zoning Appeals Review shall be forwarded to the required reviewing body with the application for a Basic Commission —Planning and Zoning Commission Plan Review. Council — City Council (C) PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW (1) Purpose and Applicability (a) A Pre - Application Review with the Administrative Review Team (ART) is required for any proposal that requires Development Plan or Site Plan Review approval under the provisions of §153.066(E) and (F). The purpose of the Pre - Application Review is to provide a potential applicant with a non - binding review of a (D) BASIC PLAN REVIEW (1) Purpose and Applicability (a) The purpose of the Basic Plan Review is to allow the required reviewing body to review the proposal for its general consistency with the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report, § 153.057 General Purpose, and §153.058 Bridge Street Corridor Districts Intent, and to provide an opportunity for public input at the earliest stages of the development process. § 153.066 AS RECOMMENDED BY REVIEW & APPROVAL PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PROCEDURES & CRITERIA FEBRUARY 2, 2012 TABLE 153.066 -A: SUMMARY PROCEDURE TABLE R = Recommendation D = Decision A = Administrative Appeal RF = Review & Feedback Type of Application ART ARB BZA Commission Council City Code Reference Zoning Code Approvals Zoning Map or Text Amendment R R R D §153.234 Conditional Use R R D §153.236 Special Permit R D §153.231(G) Use Variance R R D §153.231(H) Non -Use (Area) Variance R D §153.231 (H) Subdivision Reviews Preliminary Plat R R D Chapter 152 Final Plat R R D Chapter 152 Other Approvals Administrative Appeals D §153.231 (F) Building Code Appeal D §153.231 (1) Bridge Street Corridor Districts Pre - Application Review RF §153.066(C) ARB Basic Plan Review R RF RF §153.066(D)(3) Basic Plan Review Other BSC Districts R RF §153.066(D) ARB Development Plan Review R D A §153.066(E)(6) Development Plan Other BSC Districts R/D A D §153.066(E) Development Plan Waiver Review R A D §153.066(E)(4) ARB Site Plan Review R D A §153.066(F)(6) Site Plan Review Other BSC Districts R/D A D §153.066(F) Site Plan Review Waiver Review R A D §153.066(F)(4) Minor Projects D A §153.066(G) Administrative Departure D A §153.066(H) Open Space Fee in Lieu R A D §153.064(D) and (E) Minor Modification to Approved Plans D A §153.066(1) Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval (Building and Site Modifications) D A §153.066(L)(3) ARB Master Sign Plan Review R D A §153.065(H)(2) Master Sign Plan Other BSC Districts R A D §153.065(H)(2) BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.066 107 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE REVIEW & APPROVAL PROCEDURES & CRITERIA FIGURE 153.066 -A: REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES INCLUDING COMMISSION REVIEWS Pre•4 at-, n PPT dntory TR eview PZC Basic Pian Review 18aar IRfhys PU b/!c Nat/m PZC R evie w Determination AR 18 �' .. De I,* p PZC velo ment App � I I '-- . f l'.' (OPtiona P Review Develo ment Plan Plan Waiver Review or Separate Building Pennell: IT or PZC PZC L Application (Optional) Site Plan Site Plan Review Waiver Review Ili Days 18 pays FIGURE 153.066 -B: REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES INCLUDING ARB REVIEWS ART Pre - Application ART Pre -APP Review ARB Basic Plan Review Option 14 Days II rR,W lR/ArY'IO Rays q,b /k Mabrc (b) The Basic Plan Review also permits the Planning and Zoning Commission to make a determination as to whether the Development Plan and /or Site Plan Review will be conducted by the Administrative Review Team or by the Commission, based on the criteria listed in § 153.066(D)(2)(c). (c) Except as provided in §153.066(D)(1)(d), a Basic Plan Review with the Planning and Zoning Commission is required for any proposal that requires Development Plan or Site Plan Review approval under the provisions of § 153.066(E) and (F). (d) ABasic Plan Review with the Architectural Review Board for applications involving property within the boundaries of the Architectural Review District is at the option of the applicant, or may be required by the ART if it concludes that the application includes major site or building improvements that would benefit from a Basic Plan Review by the ARB. (2) Review Procedure (a) An application for a Basic Plan Review shall be made in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (b) Public Review ART Development Application Plan —/ Review lavers orseparate ART 5i[e Plan Appllcatlon Review 181X," ARB Development Plan and Walvem ARB Site Plan and Walvw RaWew Serviop Building Permit FIGURE 153.066 -C: OTHER REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES A public review of a Basic Plan application shall be held in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (c) Planning and Zoning Commission Review Determination As part of the Basic Plan Review the Commission shall determine whether the application for Development Plan or Site Plan Review will be conducted by the Commission or by the Administrative Review Team. This determination shall be based on the following criteria: 1. Whether the application raises complex issues, such as the need for major infrastructure improvements and other neighborhood or community -wide effects, that would benefit from a Commission decision; or 2. Whether the Development Plan or Site Plan Review submittal has the potential for one or more substantial deviations from the Vision Report or from the requirements of § 153.060 — 153.065; or 3. Whether the application involves uses or structures that might be detrimental to existing uses or structures or impede the development of surrounding properties. (d) A recommendation from the ART shall be provided for any Development Plan and /or Site § 153.066 AS RECOMMENDED BY REVIEW & APPROVAL PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PROCEDURES & CRITERIA FEBRUARY 2, 2012 Minor Projects 14 Days ART Approval Administrative Departures Director Minor Modifications Approval 14 Days BZA Administrative Approval Appeals A public review of a Basic Plan application shall be held in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (c) Planning and Zoning Commission Review Determination As part of the Basic Plan Review the Commission shall determine whether the application for Development Plan or Site Plan Review will be conducted by the Commission or by the Administrative Review Team. This determination shall be based on the following criteria: 1. Whether the application raises complex issues, such as the need for major infrastructure improvements and other neighborhood or community -wide effects, that would benefit from a Commission decision; or 2. Whether the Development Plan or Site Plan Review submittal has the potential for one or more substantial deviations from the Vision Report or from the requirements of § 153.060 — 153.065; or 3. Whether the application involves uses or structures that might be detrimental to existing uses or structures or impede the development of surrounding properties. (d) A recommendation from the ART shall be provided for any Development Plan and /or Site § 153.066 AS RECOMMENDED BY REVIEW & APPROVAL PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PROCEDURES & CRITERIA FEBRUARY 2, 2012 Plan Review application reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. For applications the Commission determines are to be reviewed by the ART, the Commission shall provide comments to the applicant and the ART relating to the requirements of the Development Plan and/or Site Plan Review application(s) as provided in § I53.066(E) and (F). The Basic Plan Review, including the determination of the review process by the Commission, shall be completed not more than 28 days from the filing of the Basic Plan Review application. (e) The applicant may request additional Basic Plan Reviews, which shall be subject to a 28 day review period and required public review. (f) A written summary of the comments provided by the required reviewing body shall be forwarded to the applicant and ART not less than 10 days following the review. (g) If a Development Plan and/or Site Plan Review application is not submitted within one year from the date of the last Basic Plan Review for a site, the applicant shall be required to obtain an additional Basic Plan Review by the required reviewing body prior to submitting an application for a Development Plan and/or Site Plan Review involving the same site in accordance with §153.066(L). (E) DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW (1) Purpose and Applicability (a) The purpose of the Development Plan Review is to ensure that the street network and block framework meet the requirements of § §153.060 and 153.061, and §153.063 as applicable, andto ensure that the proposed development is consistent with the general development requirements of the City with respect to such elements as infrastructure, transportation, and environmental considerations. The Development Plan review process is not intended to be a review of the individual development regulations of §153.059 and § §153.062 through 153.065, which is intended for the Site Plan Review process. (b) An application for a Development Plan Review is required in the following conditions: 1. The application involves the construction of more than one principal structure on one or more parcels; or 2. The application includes five or more gross acres of land; or 3. The application involves the design or construction of new streets, or a proposed realignment or relocation of any other street in the general pattern of street development conceptualized by the Bridge Street Corridor Street Network map in §153.061 that is required or permitted by the City. (2) Review Procedure (a) An application for a Development Plan Review shall be made in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (b) The required reviewing body shall review the Development Plan application under the criteria of § I53.066(E)(4) and render a decision not more than 28 days from the receipt of a completed application, except as provided for in §153.066(E) (5). Awritten summary of the required reviewing body's decision shall be provided to the applicant not more than 10 days after the Development Plan Review meeting. (c) Following the review, the applicant shall be given the opportunity to revise the application in response to the required reviewing body's comments if the application is not approved. The applicant may request additional subsequent meetings with the required reviewing body, which shall also be subject to a 28 day time limit for a decision. (d) The ART shall provide a recommendation on all Development Plan Applications for which the Planning and Zoning Commission has reserved for a decision under § 153.066(D)(2)(c). (3) Development Plan Waiver Review (a) Except for those applications provided for in §153.066(E)(5), applications for Development Plan approval that deviate from one or more of the requirements of § §153:060 and 153.061, and that do not qualify for an Administrative Departure under the provisions of §153.066(H), maybe reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission as a Development Plan Waiver. (b) The applicant shall submit a list of proposed Waivers with the Development Plan application. Should other necessary Waivers be identified by the ART during its review, those Waivers may be included for review by the Commission. The ART shall review the requested Waivers and make recommendations to the Commission for their approval, denial, or approval with conditions in accordance with §153.066(E)(2). (c) The Commission shall review the recommendation of the ART and the specific Development Plan Waivers using the criteria of § 153.066(E)(3)(e). Should other Waivers be necessary to resolve conflicts with other requirements of this Chapter resulting from the requested Waivers, those Waivers shall also be reviewed by the Commission. (d) The Commission shall approve, deny, . or approve with conditions the specific Development Plan BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.066 109 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE REVIEW & APPROVAL PROCEDURES & CRITERIA Waiver request(s) not more than 28 days from the recommendation of the ART. (e) Criteria for Development Plan Waivers Each required reviewing body shall make its recommendation or its decision on an application for Development Plan Waivers based on each of the following criteria and the recommendation of the required reviewing body during the Basic Plan Review: 1. The need for the Development Plan Waiver is caused by unique site conditions or conditions on surrounding properties and otherwise complies with the spirit and intent of the Vision Report, and is not being requested simply to reduce cost or as a matter of general convenience, and 2. The Development Plan Waiver, if approved, will be consistent with §153.060(A) and §153.061(A). (4) Review Criteria for Development Plans Each required reviewing body shall make its recommendation or its decision on an application for Development Plan approval based on each of the following criteria and the recommendation of the required reviewing body during the Basic Plan Review: (a) The lots and blocks proposed are consistent with the requirements of §153.060, (b) The application is consistent with the general pattern of street development conceptualized by the BSC Street Network as shown in §153.061, and the expected traffic from the development can be accommodated on existing or proposed streets consistent with that system, (c) The application is consistent with the requirements of §153.063, Neighborhood Standards, if applicable, (d) If the development is to be implemented in phases, each phase is able to be considered independently, without the need for further phased improvements, (e) The application demonstrates consistency with the Vision Report, Community Plan and other related policy documents adopted by the City, and (f) The application provides adequate and efficient infrastructure to serve the proposed development, consistent with the City's most recently adopted Capital Improvements Program. (5) Architectural Review Board (ARB) (a) Applications for Development Plan approvals for property within the boundaries of the Architectural Review District shall be reviewed by the ART and then forwarded to the ARB with a recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Applications for ARB approval shall be reviewed in accordance with § 153.066(E)(5), as well as the provisions of § §153.170 through 153.180. (b) Public Review Apublic review of a Development Plan application by the ARB shall be held in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (c) The ARB shall make a decision on the application not more than 28 days from the date of the ART's recommendation. (d) As part of the Development Plan approval, the ARB may review any Development Plan Waivers from the requirements of § §153.060 and 153.061 and approve, deny, or approve with conditions the specific provisions under review. Should other Waivers be necessary to resolve conflicts with other requirements of this Chapter resulting from the requested Waivers, those Waivers shall also be reviewed by the ARB in accordance with §153.066(E)(4). (F) SITE PLAN REVIEW (1) Purpose and Applicability (a) The purpose of the Site Plan Review is to confirm that the proposed development of an individual site and building is consistent with the BSC district regulations. The Site Plan Review process is intended as a review of the individual development regulations of §153.059 and § §153.062 through 153.065. Approval of the Site Plan Review includes assuring that the dimensions of a parcel meet the lot size requirements for the applicable building type(s) and that the surrounding street network meets the applicable requirements of § §153.060 and 153.061. (b) A Site Plan Review is required for any development application within the BSC districts, including those applications for which a Development Plan is required, with the exception of any application meeting the requirements for a Minor Project as provided in §153.066(G). (2) Review Procedure (a) An application for a Site Plan Review shall be made in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (b) The required reviewing body shall review the Site Plan Review application under the criteria of §153.066(F)(4) and render a decision not more than 28 days from the receipt of a completed application, except for those applications provided for in §153.066(F)(5). A written summary of the required reviewing body's decision shall be provided to the applicant not more than 10 days after the Site Plan Review meeting. § 153.066 AS RECOMMENDED BY REVIEW & APPROVAL PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PROCEDURES & CRITERIA FEBRUARY 2, 2012 (c) Following the review, the applicant shall be given the opportunity to revise the application in response to the required reviewing body's comments. The applicant may request additional subsequent meetings with the required reviewing body, subject to the same time limits of § 153.066(F)(2)(b). (3) Site Plan Review Waiver Review (a) Except for those applications provided for in §153.066(F)(5), applications for Site Plan Review approval that deviate from one or more of the requirements of §153.059 and § §153.062 through 153.065, and that do not qualify for an Administrative Departure under the provisions of §153.066(H), shall be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. (b) The applicant shall submit a list of proposed Waivers with the Site Plan Review application. Should other necessary Waivers be determined by the ART during its review, those Waivers may be included for review by the Commission. The ART shall review the requested Waivers and make recommendations to the Commission for their approval, denial, or approval with conditions under the procedures of §153.066(F)(2). (c) The Commission shall review the recommendation of the ART and the specific Site Plan Review Waivers using the criteria of § I 53.066(F)(3)(e). Should other Waivers be necessary to resolve conflicts with other requirements of this chapter resulting from the requested Waivers, those Waivers shall also be reviewed by the Commission. (d) The Commission shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the specific Site Plan Review Waiver request(s) not more than 28 days from the recommendation of the ART. (e) Criteria for Site Plan Review Waivers Each required reviewing body shall make its recommendation or its decision on an application for a Site Plan Review Waiver approval based on each of the following criteria and the recommendation of the required reviewing body during the Basic Plan Review: 1. The need for the Site Plan Review Waiver is caused by unique site conditions or conditions on surrounding properties, 2. The Site Plan Review Waiver is not being requested simply to reduce cost or as a matter of general convenience, 3. The Site Plan Review Waiver does not have the effect of authorizing any use, building type, or open space type that is not otherwise permitted in that BSC district, and 4. The Site Plan Review Waiver, if approved, will ensure that the development is of equal or greater development quality with respect to design, material, and other similar development features than without the Waiver. (4) Review Criteria for Site Plan Review Each required reviewing body shall make its recommendation or its decision on an application for Site Plan Review approval based on each of the following criteria and the recommendation of the required reviewing body during the Basic Plan Review: (a) If a Development Plan has been approved that includes the property, the application is consistent with the Development Plan, (b) The application meets all applicable requirements of §153.059 and § §153.062 through 153.065 except as may be authorized by Administrative Departure(s) pursuant to §153.066(H); (c) The internal circulation system and driveways provide safe and efficient access for residents, occupants, visitors, emergency vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians; (d) The relationship of buildings and structures to each other and to other facilities provides for the coordination and integration of the development within the surrounding area and the larger community and maintains the image of Dublin as a high quality community, (e) The application is consistent with the requirements for types, distribution, and suitability of open space in § 153.064 and the site design incorporates natural features and site topography to the maximum extent practicable, (f) The scale and design of the proposed development allows the adequate provision of services currently furnished by or that may be required by the City or other public agency including, but not limited to, fire and police protection, public water and sanitary sewage services, recreational activities, traffic control, waste management, and administrative services, (g) Stormwater management systems and facilities will not cause alterations that could increase flooding or water pollution on or off the site, and removal of surface waters will not adversely affect neighboring properties, (h) If the development is to be implemented in phases, each phase is able to be considered independently, without the need for further phased improvements; and (i) The application demonstrates consistency with the BSC Vision Report, Community Plan and other related policy documents adopted by the City. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.066 111 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE REVIEW & APPROVAL PROCEDURES & CRITERIA (5) Architectural Review Board (ARB) (a) Applications for Site Plan Review approvals for property within the boundaries of the Architectural Review District shall be reviewed by the ART and forwarded to the ARB with a recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Applications for ARB approval shall be reviewed using the criteria of §153.066(F)(4), as well as the provisions of § §153.170 through 153.180. (b) Public Review A public review of a Site Plan Review by the ARB shall be held in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (c) The ARB shall make a decision on applications for Site Plan Review approval not more than 28 days from the date of the ART's recommendation. (d) As part of the Site Plan Review approval, the ARB may review any requests for Site Plan Review Waivers from the requirements of §153.059 and § §153.062 through 153.065 and approve, deny, or approve with conditions the specific provisions under review. Should other Waivers be necessary to resolve conflicts with other requirements of this Chapter resulting from the requested Waivers, those Waivers shall also be reviewed by the ARB. (e) In the event of a conflict between the requirements of §153.059 and § §153.062 through 153.065 and the provisions of § § 153.170 through 153.180, the ARB shall determine the most appropriate provisions to apply to the specific application based on the criteria of §153.066(F) (4). (G) MINOR PROJECTS (1) Purpose and Applicability (a) The purpose of the Minor Project review is to provide an efficient review process for smaller projects that do not have significant community effects. The Minor Project review is necessary to ensure that applications meet the requirements of this chapter. (b) The following improvements are considered Minor Projects: 1. Single family detached dwelling units. 2. Multiple family and townhouse buildings of 8 or fewer dwelling units in a single building on an individual lot and not part of a larger development complex. 3. Development of mixed use and non- residential principal structures of 10,000 square feet or less gross floor area, and associated site development requirements. 4. Additions to principal structures that increase the gross floor area by not more than 25 %, or not more than 10,000 square feet gross floor area, whichever is less, existing as of the effective date of this amendment, or when first constructed. 5. Exterior modifications to principal structures involving not more than 25% of the total fagade area of the structure. 6. Signs, landscaping, parking, and other site related improvements that do not involve construction of a new principal building. Parks when used to meet requirements as an open space type, as provided in §153.064, shall require Site Plan Review. 7. Accessory structures and uses. 8. Modifications to Existing Structures in accordance with §153.062(B). (2) Review Procedure (a) An application for a Minor Project Review shall be made in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (b) After accepting a complete application for a Minor Project, the ART shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the application not more than 14 days from the date the request was submitted, provided that the applicant has provided all materials required by the City. The City shall notify the applicant in writing not less than five days prior to the review meeting. (c) The ART shall review the application and approve, deny, or approve with conditions, based on the criteria of § I 53.066(F)(4) applicable to Site Plan Review approvals. A written summary of the ART decision shall be provided to the applicant not more than 10 days after the Minor Project review meeting. (d) Following the review, the applicant shall be given the opportunity to revise the application in response to the ART's comments if the application is not approved by the ART. The applicant may request additional subsequent meetings with the ART, which shall also be subject to the 14 day time limit for a decision. (H) ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTURES (1) Purpose and Applicability The intent of §153.066(H) is to provide an administrative process to allow minor deviations from the strict application of the BSC district requirements caused by unusual site or development conditions or conditions unique to a particular use or other similar conditions that require reasonable adjustments, but remain consistent with the intent of this Chapter. Examples include, but are not limited to, adjustments § 153.066 AS RECOMMENDED BY REVIEW & APPROVAL PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PROCEDURES & CRITERIA FEBRUARY 2, 2012 to building setbacks, parking requirements, landscaping, building materials, or other similar features or elements. (2) Review Procedure (a) An application for Administrative Departure may be submitted with an application for a Development Plan, Site Plan Review, or Minor Project approval, or at any time after those applications have been submitted and before a decision or recommendation by the ART has been made. If an application for Administrative Departure is made after an application for a Development Plan, Site Plan Review, or Minor Project has been filed, the Director may require that the time period for ART review start over on the day the request for an Administrative Departure is received. (b) An application for an Administrative Departure may be processed simultaneously with the Development Plan, Site Plan Review, or Minor Project application to which it relates. The ART shall determine whether each requested Administrative Departure is approved, approved with conditions, or denied. Decisions on Administrative Departures shall be reported to the required reviewing body if a Development Plan, and/or Site Plan Review Waiver or Elective Review is conducted. (c) Should the ART find that the request does not meet the criteria for an Administrative Departure, the applicant may file for a Development Plan Waiver under the provisions of § I 53.066(E)(3) or a Site Plan Review Waiver under the provisions of § I 53.066(F)(3), or submit a new application for Development Plan or Site Plan Review. (3) Criteria for Administrative Departure Approval The ART shall make its decision on Administrative Departure based on the following criteria: (a) The need for the Administrative Departure is caused by unique site conditions, conditions on surrounding properties, and/or otherwise complies with the spirit and intent of the Vision Report, and is not being requested simply to reduce cost or as a matter of general convenience, (b) The Administrative Departure does not have the effect of authorizing any use, sign, building type, or open space type that is not otherwise permitted in that BSC district, (c) The Administrative Departure does not modify any numerical zoning standard related to building dimensions, lot dimensions or coverage, open space, landscaping, parking, fencing, walls, screening, or exterior lighting by more than 10% of the requirement, and (d) The Administrative Departure, if approved, will ensure that the development is of equal or greater (a) The Director may authorize Minor Modifications to an approved Development Plan or Site Plan Review that are required to correct any undetected errors or omissions, address conditions discovered during the permitting processor construction, or that are necessary to ensure orderly and efficient development. Any approved Minor Modifications must be generally consistent with the approved Development Plan or Site Plan Review. (b) The following are considered Minor Modifications. I. Adjustments to lot lines, provided no additional lots are created and required setbacks and/or RBZs are maintained, 2. Adjustments to the location and layout of parking lots provided the perimeter setbacks, yards and buffers, and required parking are maintained; 3. Adjustments for buildings up to 10% in total floor area of the originally approved building, building height(s) or floor plans, that do not alter the character of the use, 4. Substitution of landscaping materials specified in the landscape plan with comparable materials of an equal or greater size; 5. Redesigning and/or relocating stormwater management facilities provided that general character and stormwater capacities are maintained; 6. Relocating fencing, walls or screening (not including screening walls), provided that the same level and quality of materials and screening are maintained, 7. Modifications to sign location, sign face, landscaping and lighting, provided the sign number and dimensional requirements are maintained, 8. Changes in building material or colors that are similar to and have the same general appearance comparable to or of a higher quality as the material approved on the Site Plan Review; 9. Changes required by outside agencies such as the county, state, or federal departments, and/ or 10. Other modifications deemed appropriate by the Director that do not alter the basic design development quality with respect to design, material, and other development features than without the Administrative Departure. (1) MINOR MODIFICATIONS (1) Purpose and Applicability BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.066 113 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE REVIEW & APPROVAL PROCEDURES & CRITERIA or any specific conditions imposed as part of the original approval. (2) Review Procedure (a) An application for a Minor Modification shall be made in accordance with the provisions of §153.066(L). (b) The Director shall review the application and make a decision on the request for a Minor Modification not more than 14 days after receiving a complete application. (c) Following the decision, the applicant shall be given the opportunity to revise the application in response to the Director's comments and resubmit for further consideration. If a revised application is submitted, the 14 day review period shall start over on the day the revised request is received. (d) Requests not meeting the requirements for a Minor Modification shall require the filing and approval of a new application for a Development Plan Review, Site Plan Review, Minor Project Review, or other review, as applicable, in accordance with §153.066. (J) OTHER APPLICABLE REVIEWS (1) Open Space Fee in Lieu The Planning and Zoning Commission shall determine whether a request for a payment of a fee in lieu of open space dedication is appropriate, as provided in §153.064(D) and (E), after recommendation from the ART. (2) Conditional Uses The Conditional Use approval procedures in §153.236 shall apply in the BSC districts. In addition, a recommendation from the ART shall be submitted for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission. (3) Zoning Map or Text Amendment The amendment procedures of §153.234 shall apply in the BSC districts. In addition, a recommendation from the ART shall be submitted for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. (4) Preliminary and Final Plats Reviews of Preliminary and Final Plats shall be governed by Chapter 152 of the Dublin Code of Ordinances. (5) Special Permit The Special Permit procedures in §153.231(G) shall apply in the BSC districts. consideration by the Board of Zoning Appeals, and for City Council in the instance of a Use Variance. (7) Public Tree Permit The tree permit requirements of §153.134(G) shall apply in the BSC districts. (8) Master SignPlan Amaster sign plan as described in §153.065(H) (2) shall be submitted with all Site Plan Review applications, subject to approval by the required reviewing body. (K) ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL (1) The Administrative Appeal provisions of §153.231(F) apply in the BSC districts. (2) Decisions on appeals are limited to those specific provisions or approvals that are the subject of the appeal. No other part of an application shall be modified by the Board of Zoning Appeals. (L) GENERAL PROVISIONS (1) Applications (a) Each application required by § 153.066 shall be made in writing on a form provided by the City and shall be accompanied by the fee as established by City Council. (b) Applications for approvals in the BSC districts shall include all information required by the City, unless some information is deemed unnecessary by the Director based on the nature and scale of the proposed development. No application shall be accepted by the City until it is complete. Any applicable time limits noted in §153.066 shall not begin until a complete application is accepted by the City. If found to be incomplete, the Director shall inform the applicant of any additional materials required to complete the application. (c) After acceptance of a complete application, the Director and/or required reviewing body may request additional materials if deemed necessary to evaluate the proposal. (d) Resubmission No application for a Development Plan or Site Plan Review which has been denied by the required reviewing body shall be resubmitted for a period of one year from the date of the decision, unless permitted by the Director after a demonstration by the applicant of a change of circumstances from the previous application that may reasonably result in a different decision. (6) Zoning Variance (e) Simultaneous Processing The zoning Variance procedures in §153.231(H) In cases where a Development Plan application shall apply in the BSC districts. In addition, a is submitted, a Site Plan Review and/or a Minor recommendation from the ART shall be submitted for Project may be reviewed simultaneously with that Development Plan, but a Site Plan Review 4 § 153.066 AS RECOMMENDED BY REVIEW & APPROVAL PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PROCEDURES & CRITERIA FEBRUARY 2, 2012 or Minor Project approval shall not be effective zoning requirements is required prior to modification, until the Development Plan has been approved. If extension, or alteration of sites and structures, and/or appropriate, other required reviews as provided change of use in BSC districts. in this section may be processed jointly with (4) Code Administration a Development Plan and/or Site Plan Review application. The Planning and Zoning Commission and the Architectural Review Board may evaluate and monitor (f) Public Reviews the application of the requirements and standards Where public reviews are required by this section, of § §153.057 through 153.066 by the ART. The a written notice of the public meeting shall be Commission and the Architectural Review Board sent to the applicant, property owner, and owners may advise the ART as to whether it finds that the of parcels of land within 300 feet of the subject requirements or standards (including requests for parcel(s), as listed on the County Auditor's current Administrative Departures) are being applied correctly, tax list, not less than 10 days prior to the meeting. and recommend to City Council any changes needed The notice shall, at a minimum, indicate the in the BSC district standards and requirements to property that is the subject of the request, describe better implement the Vision Report. the nature of the request, the time, date and (5) Time Extensions location of the meeting at which the application will be considered, and indicate when and where (a) Where the provisions of §153.066 require that written comments will be received concerning the an action be taken by the City within a stated request. period of time, that time may be extended with the written consent of both the applicant and the (2) Decisions Director prior to expiration of the required time (a) Any application required to be reviewed under period. §153.066 shall be approved, approved with (b) If the applicant submits a revised application conditions, or denied by the required reviewing during any required review period, and the body based on the applicable review criteria Director determines that the revised application as provided in §153.066. The recommending differs substantially from the previous application, body and required reviewing body shall state a new review period shall begin and additional the reasons for their decisions in the minutes meetings of the required reviewing body may be and provide a written record of the decision scheduled if deemed necessary by the Director. to the applicant not more than 10 days after a recommendation or decision is made, unless (6) Duration of Approvals otherwise provided in this section. (a) An application shall be filed for a Development (b) Prior to reaching a decision, if the required Plan and/or Site Plan Review approval within one reviewing body determines that an application year following the completion of the Basic Plan does not meet the applicable review criteria Review. If a Development Plan and/or Site Plan as provided in §153.066, but determines that Review application is not filed within this period the application could meet those criteria with a new application for a Basic Plan Review shall modifications that could not be reasonably be required in accordance with the requirements conditioned, the applicant may request that the of §153.066(D). application be tabled to provide the opportunity (b) All Development Plan, Site Plan Review, and to make those modifications. If the request for Minor Project approvals made pursuant to tabling is granted, a new review period shall begin §153.066 shall be valid for a period of two years. on the date the applicant submits a complete If an initial building permit for the approved application with revised materials. development has not been issued within that (c) Following the approval of a Site Plan Review two year period, the applicant shall be required or Minor Project application, the applicant to apply for a new Development Plan, Site Plan may proceed with the process for obtaining a Review, or Minor Project approval, as applicable, Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval and building pursuant to §153.066 before obtaining a building permit, consistent with the approval as granted. permit. All construction and development under any (c) Abandonment building permit shall comply with the approved 1. Once a final approval is granted by the Site Plan Review and Development Plan, and any required reviewing body, if significant other approval, as applicable. construction is not started within two years (3) Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval and meaningfully continued, or the Director A Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval issued by the of Building Standards determines that work Director verifying compliance with all applicable has been abandoned for a continuous period BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.066 115 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE REVIEW & APPROVAL PROCEDURES & CRITERIA of six months, the approval shall lapse and to advise the ART on the application of the cease to be in effect. provisions of this Chapter. 2. The Director of Building Standards shall establish the date of abandonment based on the presence of one or more of the following conditions: A. Removal of construction equipment or supplies; B. Expiration of an active building permit issued by the City; C. Evidence of a failure to maintain the property, such as overgrown weeds, failure to secure buildings, broken windows, or other evidence of lack of maintenance; and/or D. Other actions documented by the Director of Building Standards and/or Director evidencing an intent to abandon the construction of the project. 3. If a new application is not submitted within 90 days from the date of abandonment as determined by the Director of Building Standards, the owner shall restore the site to its previous condition, and/or remove any structures or other evidence of work on the site, within 180 days from the date of abandonment. O Administrative Review Team (ART) (a) The purpose of the Administrative Review Team is to provide for review and approval authority for certain applications as defined by §153.066. The Administrative Review Team is responsible for the comprehensive review of each application, and making recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission, Architectural Review Board, or Board of Zoning Appeals where required. The ART is also responsible for making decisions in an efficient and timely manner based on evaluation of objective development standards and specific review criteria. While these objective standards and criteria must guide the decisions of the ART, it is recognized that some degree of subjectivity must be part of the ART's deliberations. (b) The Administrative Review Team shall consist of the Director (Chair), City Engineer, Fire Chief, Economic Development Manager, Parks and Open Space Director, Police Chief, and Chief Building Official, or their representatives, and any other members appointed by the City Manager as deemed necessary, either as permanent or temporary members. (c) The ART may use the services of other professionals, such as architectural, engineering, and other consultants as they deem necessary, § 153.066 AS RECOMMENDED BY REVIEW & APPROVAL PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PROCEDURES & CRITERIA FEBRUARY 2, 2012 This page has been left blank intentionally. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR § 153.066 117 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE REVIEW & APPROVAL PROCEDURES & CRITERIA I of Dublin Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 www.dublinohiousa.gov RECORD OF ACTION FEBRUARY 2, 2012 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- 020ADM Administrative Request Proposal: To amend the Zoning Code to establish a number of new Zoning Districts and regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor. Topics: Continuation of draft code review. Request: Review and recommendation to City Council regarding amendments to the Zoning Code under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and 153.234. Applicant: City of Dublin, Marsha Grigsby, City Manager. Planning Contact: Steve Langworthy, Planning Director. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4600 slangworthy @dublin.oh.us MOTION: To recommend approval to City Council of this proposed Zoning Code amendment to add Sections 153.057 through 153.066 as presented to the Commission on January 31, 2012 and to revise Section 153.002 with the minor modifications discussed at the meeting. VOTE: 7 -0 RESULT: Approval of this proposed Zoning Code Amendment is recommended to City Council. RECORDED VOTES: Chris Amorose Groomes Yes Richard Taylor Yes Todd Zimmerman Yes Warren Fishman Yes Amy Kramb Yes John Hardt Yes Joseph Budde Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Steve Langworthy Planning Director Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 18 DRAFr 1. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- 020ADM Administrative Request Chair Chris Amorose Groomes introduced this Administrative Request for a review and recommendation to City Council of proposed amendments to the Zoning Code to establish a number of new zoning districts and regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor (BSC). She said that the Commission will review and make a recommendation to City Council for the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code. Steve Langworthy said there was no formal presentation, but Richard Taylor had emailed recommended revisions to be addressed. Justin Goodwin distributed a memo from Mr. Langworthy listing by Code number, the proposed revisions to the draft Bridge Street Corridor Development Code to the Commissioners for discussion. Section 153.059 Uses (A)(6)(d)(1)(e) '...manifestly arranged or designed for that use..." Mr. Langworthy said the Commission asked to change or clarify this provision in regards to a business that expands into adjacent space. He recalled that at the last meeting they discussed the Existing Use provisions that talked about a single building with a single tenant that has areas that are manifestly arranged or designed for that use and the question came up if it is an existing use, could it be expanded without further approvals. He said that was a typical provision that was not often used and it applied only to single buildings. He explained that there are other provisions that deal with multiple tenant buildings. He said he did not have an issue with removing the language. He said all it does is remove it from being an automatic approval, and it sends it back to the Administrative Review Team (ART), who would have to make the approval, as the previous paragraph stated. Richard Taylor explained that he brought it up because he was not sure the Commissioners understood the impact of it and they had discussed a couple of potential scenarios. He asked how it would typically be used. Mr. Langworthy said the only good part was that it was an automatic approval because you do not have to come back and ask us for it. He explained that only the portion of the building that contains a use that is not conforming would be covered as an Existing Use, but the rest of the building would not. Mr. Langworthy explained that the Existing Use could automatically flow into that additional space, without additional approvals. He reiterated that the alternative would be to remove that from the code and make them come back to the ART who would make the approval as to whether or not the use could flow into that space. John Hardt said his original understanding was the opposite. He asked if the clause prevented that Existing Use from flowing into the other spaces. Mr. Langworthy said that it allows the Existing Use to do that if it was manifestly arranged and designed for that use. Mr. Taylor asked what that meant. He recalled that they talked about having an office user adjacent to a space formally occupied by a car dealership or candy shop and it went out of business, and the office use took over that space. Jennifer Readier said if it was all within the same multi- tenant building, and this would not apply to that, so you could continue throughout if you had one use adjacent to another one, the whole retail center has to be conforming before you would have to comply. She explained that an existing use could expand throughout a multi- tenant shopping center with no restrictions. She said that manifestly arrangement' is a common term used in many to describe non - conforming uses in different types of situations. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 18 DRAFT Mr. Hardt referred to Mr. Langworthy's comment about this applying only to single occupant buildings and asked that to be pointed out. Mr. Langworthy said by exclusion, because multi- tenant buildings were generally addressed elsewhere. He said as they discussed previously, the code interpretation rules were that if it is specifically addressed one place, it cannot be generally addressed somewhere else. He said multi- tenant buildings for Existing Uses are specifically addressed. Mr. Langworthy said the other part that applies is that this could happen at some point in the future if a property is rezoned to another BSC district, then it could also fall under this provision, as long as it was a single tenant building. He explained that it was not just at the point of this rezoning that we would do it; it could be a future rezoning that creates this situation. He reiterated that there are differences between single and multi- tenant buildings. Mr. Taylor said that after Mr. Langworthy's explanation, it made more sense to him. Section 153.062 Building Types (0)(1)(d) fa4ade requirements Mr. Langworthy said the reference to the Residential Appearance Standards will be removed and replaced with "Refer to Section 153.062(D) through Section 153.062(N) for design requirements general to all buildings." (0)(13) Podium Apartment Building Mr. Langworthy said that the Commission asked for some "active" space at the front of the garage area and the language indicates a sunken garage, which may satisfy that requirement. He said that Note 8 would be added "The incorporation of active, occupied spaces along street facades is strongly encouraged where practable. Coordinated developments that include common spaces in separate buildings such as a clubhouse, should be designed so that those buildings have street frontage." Ms. Amorose Groomes recalled that they wanted added "...lobbies and elevator shafts..." or something along those lines. Mr. Hardt said they talked about clubhouses, fitness centers, lobbies, leasing offices or any of the spaces that are occupied. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested instead of clubhouse, say "any active space of any sort." Mr. Hardt suggested, "...included, but not limited to clubhouses,..." Mr. Langworthy said that phase would be added. Mr. Taylor noted that the graphic page seemed to indicate that the building is sunken half -a -story. He asked if that was the condition of that building, or was it just an example of a possible way to do it. Dan Phillabaum said that was one example of how that building type could be developed, although it could be a full -story of parking above ground at grade. Mr. Taylor asked if the building was sunken half -a -story, was that when the 90 percent transparency requirement began. Mr. Phillabaum clarified that 90 percent transparency was always required for this building type. Section 153.063 Neighborhood Standards (C)(5)(b)(2) Master Sign Plans Justin Goodwin said that this provision only permits Commission review of master sign plans that depart from Section 153.065(H) and that the Commission asked to review all master sign plans. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 18 DRAFT Mr. Goodwin referred to "The Planning and Zoning Commission shall review master sign plans that depart from the requirements of Section 153.065(H) for development sites." He said that he believed the concern was that the code had previously read that master sign plans would only be required if they included departures from the standard sign requirements in Section 153.065(H). Mr. Taylor explained that he read that they would only be reviewed by the Commission if they departed, but more importantly, the way it is currently written was that it did not say when they had to exist at all. Mr. Goodwin agreed, and said this concept had evolved over the various iterations of the code during the last week. He said a minor revision is proposed to Section 153.066 - Review and Approval, which provides the review authority. Mr. Goodwin referred to the end of the memorandum, Other Types of Approvals, Section 153.066 (3) and said master sign plan was added in last weeks version. He said depending on which version of Section 153.066 ultimately gets recommended and adopted, it may be easier to generalize and say that a master sign plan, as described in Section 153.065(H), shall be submitted with all site plan review applications, subject to approval by the required review and body, whoever that may be. Mr. Taylor said that would be excellent. Mr. Goodwin said above that in this memorandum it would clarify that the Commission still has the authority to approve departures from the standard sign requirements. He explained they have tried to clarify that every site plan has a master sign plan, they may or may not depart from the standard requirements, and if they do, that automatically comes to the Commission, regardless of who the required reviewing body is. Mr. Taylor recalled that at the Basic Plan Review section, there still has to be some indication of where the signs are going, so there will be some idea of where they are headed with that. Mr. Goodwin said there would be some general information there. Mr. Taylor said since the last meeting, he was contacted by a Historic District business owner who was very concerned about situations where an adjacent property with a PUD had lots of signage, all permitted, and approved, but the individual building owner was getting the shaft because they could not do anything with their sign package. He pointed out that was unfortunately the reality of the Historic District. He said the Commission needed to be very careful in reviewing all the sign packages because they need to keep the existing people just outside of the BSC or that are in sections where they are not overlaying this, like in the Historic District, so that they recognize their rights in this too. Mr. Taylor said they can only do that by seeing what is being submitted. Mr. Goodwin said language was added in the Master Sign Plan section that allows the reviewing body to determine whether the proposal was consistent with the surrounding area and compatible with the design intent. Mr. Taylor said that was a big help. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that the added language Mr. Goodwin referred to at the end of the memorandum was "...provided the purpose and intent of the sign and graphic standards for the applicable BSC district is maintained. Mr. Goodwin said also, in the Sign Plan section, (B) through (D), page 100, added in last week's version of the code, was language stating, "Information submitted with a basic plan review should demonstrate how Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 18 DRAFT the proposed sign plan will coordinate with and be compatible with both the architecture on the site and with the surrounding development." Mr. Langworthy explained that they added that alternative kinds of signs could be approved, specifically so that would not have to rise to the level of a waiver. Mr. Taylor said that was good. Mr. Hardt referred to page 14, the Minimum Block Dimensions table. He recalled an earlier conversation had a block dimension identified for Vertical Mixed Use, even though that is a district that is not intended to be implemented until later. He said he was concerned it was an unenforceable provision. Mr. Hardt asked what the rationale was. Mr. Goodwin said it was changed because previously it had been 300 feet, and they made it consistent with all of the districts which they were potentially converting over to Vertical Mixed Use, which was 500 and 1,750 feet. Amy Kramb referred to Table A — Development Plan — Other BSC Districts. She noted that there still is nothing in the Commission's column or on the Development Plan or Site Plan reviews. Mr. Langworthy noted Ms. Kramb's correction. Ms. Kramb said she understood that the basic plan review is not mandatory, if it is in the Architectural Review Board's district. Mr. Langworthy said that was correct. He explained that many projects that go through the ARB are for changing the color or replacing windows, and they thought going through a basic plan review, and then having to come back for the actual approval, was a two meeting process that really did not need to be there. Ms. Kramb said she understood that now, any development in the Historic District, no matter how large or what it is, would only go to them, and never before the Commission Mr. Langworthy said that was correct. He clarified that it was at the option of the applicant, but the ART can also require a project to go through the basic site plan review. Ms. Kramb asked if they all went to the ARB for approval, and at that time, it was still a public meeting with the same procedures that exist currently. Mr. Langworthy said that was correct. Ms. Kramb referred to page 4 — (D) Basic Plan Review (2) Review Procedure (c) Planning and Zoning Commission Review Determinations. She suggested adding: "...whether or not the application attracts significant public interest or controversy..." because there was nothing in the existing criteria. She said if there are a lot of people at the public meeting for the initial plan review and lots of correspondence received, that might be important. Mr. Langworthy said he thought that was covered under (1) sufficiently. He said he would hate that any of them would have to judge what "significant public input" was because they might not know that by that time. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 18 DRAB Ms. Kramb said it might not be a complex issue such as a road. She recalled the Montgomery Inn case where the neighborhood did not want a sound system. Mr. Langworthy suggested striking "complex ". Ms. Kramb said that it was okay, she just wanted to be assured that it was covered under (1). Ms. Kramb said she understood under this process, it does not require the development plan because it is a minor project or one of those other things, the Commission will never see it. Mr. Langworthy explained that the plan was to do it like the administrative approvals and will probably be part of the Administrative Report. He said the Commission will get an activity report from the ART and they will know what has gone through the process. Ms. Kramb confirmed with the other Commissioners that they were okay with what were considered as the minor projects that they would not see. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that he had made some changes, based on the Commission's requests. Mr. Zimmerman referred to Section 153.002 — Definitions. He noted that Funeral Home or Crematorium Services were not included. Mr. Langworthy said they had not considered including them. He said they would be most concerned about the Use Table. He said an issue with a funeral home might be the amount of pavement it would require. He said they also might have a hard time meeting the requirements. Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out that they were not necessarily excluded. She asked how they would be classified. Mr. Langworthy said they would have to be specific. He said that not every use in the code was defined. He said it would need a use variance. Mr. Zimmerman noted that under Veterinarian Offices, the definition said "but not crematory services." Ms. Amorose Groomes opened the discussion for public Kevin McCauley, Stavroff Interests, 565 Metro Place South, Suite 480, referred to the online version released on Monday. Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out that there had been revisions since Monday. She asked if Mr. McCauley would like the changes reviewed. Mr. McCauley said he only needed to hear the changes if they related to the elective review process. Mr. Langworthy pointed out the changes made since Monday regarding the review process. He explained that the basic plan review process would be maintained as it is currently. He said procedurally, he was not sure how it would work, but he assumed that once the basic plan review comments were taken, worked out, and discussed with the applicant, the Commission would make a determination based on three criteria as to whether or not the plan would continue on through the administrative process or whether it would be brought back for final approvals with a recommendation from the Administrative Review Team (ART), brought back to the Commission for final approval of the development plan and the site plan. He said it could be either an administrative track where the Commission decided it was a project that did not have Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 18 DRAFT community -wide benefits or the things discussed earlier, or if it did, it would be sent to the ART for review and recommendation and brought back to the Commission for final decision. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the biggest departure was the deciding body of who would set the course for an application. She said in the version Mr. McCauley saw on Monday, the ART set the course for an application of how they would navigate through the process. She said on Tuesday, the revised version changed that decision - making body to the Commission to set the track for a given application. Mr. Langworthy offered a copy of the Tuesday revised version to review. Mr. McCauley said their concerns came down more to the criteria that is used to judge. He said it was fine that there were two paths, but if he came down the elective review process path, he did not fit in the box, so he was bumped from that. He said there was still very prescriptive language that still required that it was "...consistent with the Vision principles and the direction articulated in the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report ". He said it stated, "That the changes have to be in spirit with the intent and the visions of the principles in the report ". He said at the last meeting, they talked about his property having a very specific overlying reciprocal easement agreement that will not allow him to adhere to the intent of the Vision Report. Mr. McCauley said his automatic bump was that the Commission could only approve it if it adheres to the report, and it does not. He said there was nothing in here that he could do. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she did not think so. She said it certainly was not the intent, and maybe some of the language issues need to be ironed out because what this does is allow him to come to the Commission. She said it certainly is not a PUD process, but it is a request for relief. She thought the criteria, such as the reciprocating easement would qualify for relief, and that would be something that Mr. McCauley would work through the Commission with so it would not be an Administrative Review issue. Mr. Langworthy said that Planning had met with Mr. McCauley and Mr. Stavroff and had committed to them to try to come up with language prior to when they are ready to develop, that would allow that transition element to occur that maybe the Commission, for example, could allow some conditions that temporarily did not meet the code, like surface parking where it might otherwise not be permitted or something like that, and then add some trigger that when the remainder of the property develops, it comes back into conformance. He said that also might apply to all the neighborhoods that have larger plans and elements. Mr. Langworthy said he did not think the city would want that on one property, one -site bases, but a larger master plan bases to do that. He said it would be complicated, but he thought something could be worked out and he did not see any huge impediments of getting it done. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she thought that with the criteria that was written for the review of the Commission, those types of issues would meet that wavier criteria. Mr. McCauley disagreed and asked for another clause to be added. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if it said "...meet the spirit, as far as possible..." would that work. Mr. Taylor pointed out that there was a lot of latitude in the word "spirit." He said that was a judgment call. Ms. Kramb said she thought it was covered under the Development Plan Waiver Review. Mr. McCauley pointed out that it said waivers were approvable only if they met the next conditions which circled back to the Vision Report. Ms. Kramb said it went on to say " ...or otherwise complies" Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 18 DRAFT Ms. Amorose Groomes said she believed those issues are covered. She said she did not think that they necessarily viewed this as a finish line, but more of a starting line. She said there are a number of things that the Commission feels need to be revisited once they gain some knowledge. She said she thought Mr. McCauley was. She thought he met the criteria for relief or a waiver or whatever they want to call it. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that they can continue to pursue language that would ensure that when there are extenuous circumstances that are limiting to an applicant beyond their control, that they need to be able to acknowledge those and move forward. Mr. McCauley said he was looking for a statement that was as easy as that to understand and read. He found the code difficult to understand. Mr. Langworthy committed to work with Mr. McCauley to come up with language that would address larger plans and phasing areas. He said it absolutely was needed. He said it had already been referred to in the neighborhood language, so they need to come up with something that implements that as new language, it would come back to the Commission for approval. Mr. McCauley pointed out that after this proposed code is approved without the language, it could be decided that that it was not going to be done. He said his other issue was how to address "market driven." He said at the last meeting, they talked about if they are not there for market, how that would be addressed in the code. He said he did not understand. Mr. Hardt said he was not exactly sure what the solution is from a language standpoint, but the changes made this week were due partly his urging, and it was based on what they heard from Mr. McCauley at the last meeting. He said it was clear to him that they have thoughts and plans for a large site that ultimately is trending towards the goals and intentions of the BSC, and in his opinion, does meet the intent and spirit, but they just cannot get there in one step. He said he was supportive of what Mr. McCauley was saying and he thought when he read this weeks amendments that had been covered. He said however, if it needs to be tweaked to make it clearer, he was supportive of that. Mr. Hardt said he wanted them to be able to accomplish what they are trying to do. Mr. Goodwin said they agreed that this situation is covered by the existing language, but they could perhaps clarify it a little more. He said for instance, under Site Plan Review Waivers, it states, "The need for the site plan review waiver is caused by unique site conditions or conditions on surrounding properties." He said they think that "unique site conditions" are not necessarily physical conditions, but it is broad enough to apply to the specific situation Mr. McCauley has described. Mr. Goodwin said they could add "...beyond the control of the property owner" if that further clarifies that they are talking about unique conditions that are outside of his control. Mr. McCauley said anything helps, but he was not sure that they understood the code fully and that just may be the problem. He said it just was not identifiable or simple enough to understand, even with the attorneys in the room. Mr. Langworthy reiterated that he committed to work with Mr. McCauley to come up with something that will work. Mr. McCauley said they were not comfortable with that, but he did not know what to say. He asked that at this point, to have the Sawmill Center removed from the Bridge Street Corridor. He said he did not know how else they can ask for anything. He said they cannot go forward under this code if it is not easily understood. Mr. McCauley said he formally requested that they, Wittingham Capital, Dublin Village Center, be removed from the Bridge Street Corridor Code. He said that they would come back as a PUD when they are ready and will face that music then. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 18 DRAFT Mr. McCauley reiterated that this code would not let them do that and they cannot do this. He said they would take this as far as they can, to City Council and everywhere else. He said their interpretation is that they are being stripped of their property rights, taking away from them, and they will not be able to develop under the code and it is too confusing to understand if they can and the intent or the interpretation goes back and forth and around and around, and they are not there. Mr. McCauley said they cannot get there with under this code. He said if the Commission can remove them, that is what they would like, and if they cannot, he would like additional language saying that just says that they need another alternative approach that allows them to come forward with a property that does not meet the code or the Vision because of extenuating circumstances, existing conditions, and market conditions. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she really thought they had got there with the latest revision. She said that will provide the Commission with things to talk about and discuss further. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked that public comment continue. She said the Commission will work through the issues raised. Paul Reiner, 5875 Kilbannan Court, Oakland Nurseries, said he was asking again that they not be rezoned from Commercial to Office Use. He said according to the code, they fit under the Commercial aspect nicely. He said the building is a low -rise single, freestanding building unique to itself. He pointed out that Dublin - Granville Road was a four -lane divided highway with service roads. He said it needs to be Commercial on their side of the street. He said the existing buildings are not right up on the road, and they never can be unless the service roads are removed. Mr. Reiner said he was surprised when he saw the recent BSC changes. He referred to the last sentence under Existing Use, "Should not be extended to occupy any land outside the existing buildings, except as permitted by Section 153.059(A)(6)(d). He said it said that expansion does not have substantial a detrimental affect or impairment of the enjoyment or use of the lot. He said if the three buildings are zoned Office, there is no way that they could ever expand. He said they spent a lot of time, money, and effort to take an old abandoned building and revamp it to make something that Dublin and the customers like. He said that he did not want to be inhibited so that he cannot grow the business simply because of the code and the labeling of the site on the Zoning Map as Office. Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out that she thought collectively, City -wide, they have probably generated too many versions of information because the map that the Commission is going to vote on tonight has Oakland Nurseries in a Commercial District, and that is the map that the Commission has endorsed. She said another zoning map that is circulating is disappointing because it is creating confusion that staff has brought forward. She said that map has them labeled as Office. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that the Commission is not voting on that map tonight. She said that the City, on its own accord, without the endorsement of the Commission, is going to take that map to City Council. Mr. Reiner pointed out that the map showing his site as Office, is what is on the city website. Mr. Langworthy said the map on the website is dated February 2, and the site shown as BSC Commercial District. Ms. Amorose Groomes reiterated that the map that the Commission is voting on at this meeting has the site as a BSC Commercial District and not as an BSC Office District. She said it was not in the Commission's control, but there are two zoning maps available. Mr. Reiner asked what he was supposed to do if the area adjacent to his property was rezoned BSC Office District if the BSC code was approved. He said that this bothered and scared him. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that the Commission had heard Mr. Reiner's concerns. She said he is not surrounded by Office Uses on the map that the Commission was voting on tonight. She asked to see the map that the Commission is voting on tonight. Ms. Amorose Groomes urged Mr. Reiner to stay involved in Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 18 DRAFT the process. She said that City Council would see it at the First Reading, on Monday, February 13"' and then there would be a Second Reading. Mr. Reiner said that it was getting time consuming to protect your property rights. He said he thought this was strange, and it was just not right. Ms. Amorose Groomes reiterated that the Commission had heard and agreed with Mr. Reiner. She asked Mr. Langworthy to share solutions he had for the items remaining to be resolved or fixed. Mr. Langworthy said that there was one small correction needed on the Zoning Map. He asked that the Commission recall that the ARB had forwarded a recommendation on the six residential properties on North Riverview to go to BSC Historic Residential District, and the Commission discussed and indicated that they should remain in the BSC Historic Core. He said that change was not made on the map. Ms. Kramb said that the Commissioners did not all come to that conclusion. She said she was for leaving them as residential. Mr. Taylor recalled the Commission at least agreed to a majority that it would not be Historic Residential Mr. Fishman, Mr. Budde, and Mr. Zimmerman wanted them to be BSC Historic Core. Mr. Langworthy suggested that since the Commission is voting on that map at that date, they should probably add that as a condition. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked that Mr. McCauley's concerns be addressed. Mr. Langworthy said one of the things mentioned was that they discuss large properties that will transition over time. He said as a neighborhood, they thought while that is stated as part of the intent, they never added any regulatory language. He said if they could develop something, because it affects all the other neighborhoods as well, Indian Run in particular, where they have large areas for development, that they would have the opportunity to have some conditions that would over time get more into conformance with the code but there will also be temporary conditions that will have to be addressed. Mr. Langworthy said he was sure that they could develop language that way, but he was not exactly sure how to structure it yet, so he did not want to make up something on the spot. He said he committed to the Stavroffs that they would look at that and work with them to develop something that could get them to where they needed to be. He said an analysis is being done of what the Commission saw at the last meeting. Mr. Langworthy reiterated that they may have to work on some interim language to get us there in phases. He said if we have a master plan in place that we know we are going to get there eventually, then we have a phasing plan that gets us there in some stages, then he thought we can work that out. Mr. Langworthy repeated that he would not want that to be a single - building, single - property basis, but in some larger context and the neighborhoods give us that opportunity. Mr. Langworthy reiterated that he had committed to the Stavroffs that he would work with them to get that done. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked what sort of commitment the Commission can make to the Stavroffs. Ms. Readier said they could make a condition to this recommendation that staff work with developers to have a proposal to City Council for accommodating the phasing of proposed new development. She said they could work on language that ultimately City Council would see for the final approval, but it would give some time to work out some options. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 18 DRAFT Mr. Hardt asked if it was conceivable that this was as simple as a paragraph that acknowledges that large developments on multiple parcels of land may be constructed in phases and may not comply with every aspect of the code. Mr. Langworthy said it might be, but the other half would be at what point do they have to comply and are there triggers or development criteria that would require them to comply so that the temporary condition is not permanent. He said that he thought ultimately, at some point, we would want them to comply in some areas without waivers. He said they could still apply for waivers to be granted within these areas. Mr. Taylor said he thought we were there, but he had a different thought. He said they have gone from an original document that restricted the use of your property more than what is being proposed tonight, and at least in the section that has changed the most over the past few days, there is a great deal more flexibility in the approval process for that. He said on top of that, he thought that the minutes from the Commission's discussion over the past 40 minutes will reflect that this Commission is very interested in working with all of our corporate citizens and they realize that Mr. McCauley has been the one talking, to make these things work for both. He said the Commission has also recognized clearly that they all know that this is an imperfect document and that it is the best we have right now, and like any other piece of city code, there is ample opportunity to change it as circumstances warrant when appropriate and there is a process to do that. Mr. Taylor said he thought the direction had come a long way, and he thought that through the appropriate channels and negotiation, and there are two reviews by City Council, that regardless of what happens tonight, there is opportunity to make this work. He said he did not think that there is any way that this can be resolved tonight in a way that is going to make everybody happy. He said, the chances that they are going to mess this up tonight are far greater than they ever are going to resolve it. Mr. Taylor said that we are there in spirit. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if adding a condition as suggested by Ms. Readier that this be continued to be worked on through City Council avenues would be appropriate. Mr. Taylor said he thought it was unnecessary because that is already inherent in this entire process. Mr. Langworthy said when they began this process, even Don Elliott mentioned that as you get projects in, you will find things that do or do not work, and they will have to work through those as they get there. He said they mentioned that if a consistent kind of waiver comes in, that will be an indicator that the code should be changed in that aspect as well. Mr. Fishman said he was frustrated because he thought it was very confusing. He said what we are doing is closing this up and saying that you can negotiate now to make this work. He said if you are sitting there with a huge investment and a piece of property and you have to go back to your investors and tell them that the city said they could negotiate, they do not know where they are in the process. He said he missed the last meeting and was just as confused as the Stavroffs about the process. Mr. Fishman said he thought they needed a resolution to know exactly what can and cannot be done and we do not have that resolution right now. Mr. Taylor said he did not think the Commission could do that in this document tonight. He said when he said negotiate, he did not mean in the same way you negotiate in a PUD, he said they can negotiate large pieces of the code, and the whole zoning that applies to them. He said there has to be some resolution to these two documents that they are looking at tonight. Mr. Taylor said it has come a long way from what was originally proposed to make it easier for people like Mr. McCauley to adapt a project to the circumstances. He said he thought everybody, including the staff has indicated that they will do whatever they can to work with our citizens to make sure that this comes to pass. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 18 DRAFT Mr. Taylor said there were three options and one was to leave it as it is, which was his preference. He said the others are to spend endless amounts of time trying to craft some particular bit or pages of code that makes whatever it is that the Stavroffs are planning to do possible or to leave them out of the process completely, which he is not willing to do. He said if the resolution is going to be for the Stavroffs to spend endless amounts of time negotiating on this until they get what they want, he wants them to do that with City Council and staff, not with the Commission tonight. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that may be more of a policy decision than a zoning decision. She said the Commission was charged with the code. She said when they vote on this evening, should it pass, it does not become law, it only moves up to the next body. Mr. Fishman said he understood that, but they were leaving the Stavroffs up in the air. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that she thought that may be a decision that may be best made by City Council because it was a policy one. Mr. Fishman pointed out that whether or not the Stavroffs liked the PUD or not, at least they knew where they stood with it, and now this is going to City Council and they do not know where they stand. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she believed in the intent issue statements and the relief statements. She said she believed that they had the leeway they were looking for although Mr. McCauley was not convinced because his attorney had not told him so yet. She said what this will do is to give him some time because he will have the real document. Ms. Readier said that she felt like in the Waiver Section that there are certain scenarios that Mr. McCauley does not know how they are going to play out yet. She said we cannot provide for every eventuality. She said she thought we had enough flexibility to address the issues he has raised. Ms. Readier said she thought it dangerous to sit and speculate about a whole different section that expands the type of review significantly, when the Commission already thinks they have addressed it. Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out that was one reason they wanted the Commission to set the course for an application. She said she thought it was their intention that they would be sympathetic to those issues that would be raised and that it would be easier to work out than it would be perhaps through an administrative process because if all of the boxes did not get checked and this was the best place for this piece of property to come through. Ms. Kramb explained that there were two cases on tonight's agenda. She said one was strictly the code and the Commission is to make a recommendation on it to City Council, and the second is the zoning map. She said that none of the property owners have to follow the code until they have been rezoned and are part of the property map. She said they are totally separate cases and votes. Ms. Kramb said in theory, the Commission has a vote on the code tonight and can say they think they are almost there or whatever the recommendation is, and then they have a second vote where they can decide what they want to do if they want to include property owners in or out or wherever. She said that they had to separate the two issues and remember the code itself does not apply to any of the property owners until the second case and second vote. She said the two are separate and can be treated separately. Ms. Kramb said she was suggesting that the zoning map could possibly change or it could change later. Mr. Fishman asked what if the Commission's recommendation for the BSC goes to City Council and they approved it, and the Stavroffs could not meet the code. He asked if the Commission would see it again. Ms. Amorose Groomes said they could come back to the Commission to request a rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 18 DRAFT Mr. Taylor said they might come back here with a project and request the second track, waivers, or one of the many options included in the code. He repeated that he thought this Commission was going to be very open- minded and sympathetic to unusual situations, as is written into the code. Ms. Readier said that the intent is expressed in the BSC that they want this adhered to if at all possible, but fundamentally, if this code is adopted and the districts are rezoned and you do not like your rezoning classification, we cannot prevent you from coming to the city and filing a rezoning to a planned district, and we would say that we will review the Vision Report to see if it complies. She said there is a sentence in the code that expresses our intent. Mr. McCauley asked why say, Scope — The following Bridge Street Corridor Districts are hereby created. No land designated as the BSC shown on the zoning map shall be rezoned into any other non -BSC including, but not limited to, a planned development'. He asked why say that he cannot come in and rezone for anything other than the BSC code. Ms. Readier explained that fundamentally, that was meant to express intent. She said they can revise that sentence such that they can say that it is our expression of intent that properties follow that. Mr. McCauley said whether that is the intent or not is 100 percent clear and that is where they are going. He said there are many comments, but that is on the first page. He said it was very clear that BSC was the only way to go. He said all they have ever asked was to be allowed to come back for a PUD. He suggested striking that sentence and say you can come back as a PUD. He said he could not get that language and say it as simple as that he can come back and have his property as a PUD and have the rights that he wants. He said that was all he wanted. Ms. Readier said that sentence could be revised to take that out. She said they did not say that in every district that you always have the right to file a rezoning. She said if they modify that sentence, it is clear that you always have the right to come in and file for whatever zoning category you want. However, she said she wanted to make it clear that the Vision Report has already been adopted by City Council and they have already referred to it in past rezoning in this area, and so there is no modification of the Vision Report at this stage. Ms. Readier said it will always be consulted for rezoning, but you will be allowed to come back with a planned district rezoning if you want in the future. Mr. McCauley asked if the code could be rewritten to say that you can come in as a PUD. Ms. Kramb said it would be deleting the second sentence in Section 163.058(A). Mr. Taylor said he was not a fan of that. He repeated again, for the third time he thought that the latitude was built in and that they had to work the system. He said as worded now, whether it is intent or not, which was awkward for him to say, as the one who brought up the discussion of taking the PUD restriction out in the first place, it comes out, you might as well scrap the whole thing because that meant that they were just back to straight zoning and everything was PUD and they have lost the intent of this entire project, which he thought was lofty in its intent. Mr. McCauley said not if he could meet the code, which they all have said was their intent. Mr. Taylor said he thought they had been very clear. He said Mr. McCauley should come in with his best stuff for the Commission to review and make accommodations and negotiate, just as he was filing for a PUD. He said it was the same thing. Mr. McCauley said it was the same thing except it said you were bound by the Vision Principles. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 18 DRAFT Mr. Taylor said he was not going to give up the Vision Principles for anything on this. He said the Vision Principles are the guiding document behind this code and they are going to stay with that. Mr. McCauley requested again that they be stricken from the zoning map if they cannot get the PUD process, in the event they need that process and they cannot work within the code. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the intent statement talks about not rezoning to anything other than BSC, but she did not know if that was an enforceable statement. Ms. Readier said that was right. Mr. McCauley referred to the first page of the General Purpose and Scope, and said there was nothing he could find in it that said "intent." Ms. Amorose Groomes reiterated that it was not enforceable. She said they needed to move forward. Mr. Fishman asked that Ms. Readier comment. Ms. Readier said the language could be revised, but they cannot prevent people from filing a rezoning to whatever category they have. She said we have to rezoning the properties in accordance with the plans for the area, which are already adopted and those are the Community Plan and Vision Report. She said they would have to rezone anything in reference to those plans, but we cannot ban people from filing applications. She said the statement could be revised so that it is clearly expressed that it is our desire that all future applications fall within the zoning, but cannot prevent them from filing. Mr. Fishman asked to hear the revised language before the Commission voted. Ms. Readier asked if it was the Commission's desire to soften the sentence. Mr. Taylor said it felt like they were making this harder than it needed to be because he fundamentally heard from the Stavroffs is that they want the flexibility to be able to develop their site in phases with the recognition that any given phase may not meet every aspect of the code. Mr. McCauley said that the phasing had been addressed, but the easement was the bigger issue for them which said they cannot develop under this way with building placements and all that. He said he would like to redevelop because he did not want what was there today. He said he had some means to do a new movie theater and things like that, but he did not have the option. He asked for the PUD to be given, at least in those extenuating circumstances to say you have an existing condition and discuss it in a PUD. Mr. Taylor said you do not need a PUD to get that. He said they had already discussed Mr. McCauley's second point. Mr. McCauley pointed out that they could not meet the first condition and suggested the sentence should be deleted. Ms. Amorose Groomes said they needed to keep moving. She said she thought they were comfortable enough to send the code. She reminded that when it is sent along with their recommendation this evening, it is not law. Mr. McCauley said that the Sawmill District is about eight percent of the total Bridge Street Corridor and the Bridge Street Corridor is only five percent of Dublin. He said that he thought Dublin Village Center was a very prominent piece. He said it was one of the most prominent properties in all of the Bridge Street Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 18 DRAFT Corridor. He said the plan update for Dublin Village Center led them into the Bridge Street Corridor. He asked if they were going to get the first piece wrong and possibly limit them and say that they cannot do what they wanted or develop it at all, and then they are not there. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she did not know that his statements were reflective of what is written. She said there are lots of relief valves here and avenues to go. She said the Commission worked hard to get those avenues into this document. Ms. Amorose Groomes invited any additional public comments regarding the code. [There were none.] Ms. Amorose Groomes said this had been a long and tedious, cumbersome, and difficult process. She said she thought it appropriate, before the Commission votes, to take a few minutes to get the Commissioners' comments into the record of where they believe they are, and where they would like to see this go. Mr. Taylor acknowledged the work of the staff, the Commission, and of the public. He said regarding the staff, they have not always agreed on everything, and they still do not agree on some things, but that does not diminish the effort that everyone has put in this. He said it had been tremendous and a great learning experience for him. He acknowledged the other Commissioners for reading every line of this code, about 115 pages, at least four times, if not more. He also thanked the members of the public that took the time to come and comment on this because their input has been valuable and provided a lot of respect into this. Mr. Taylor said he was compelled to comment on how they got here, partly because this was probably the last time, that they will, as a body be dealing with this code at this level of intensity. He said this document is probably as good as it can be, given how much we do not know about what is going to happen the next 30 -40 years in the BSC, but this zoning code is only one piece of what is necessary to recreate the center of Dublin, as is called for in the BSC Vision Report. He said that unfortunately, one of the most important pieces is still missing — a master plan, not a "conceptual plan" like the one in the vision report, but a true city master plan. He said as many of his colleagues on PZC understand, the implementation of any significant design project requires at least two sets of instructions, the "plans" and the "specs ". He said the "plans" show where things go and what things look like and the "specs" indicate the details of what those things are, the level of quality. He said that usually, the plans come first, but what we have this evening in front of us is the specs. He thought they still need the plans. He said that no one should be surprised to hear him say that we desperately need a true master plan to guide development in the BSC — especially one that carves out a significant and distinct public gathering space in the center of the BSC; it has been the central issue for him in this process from day one, but the idea did not originate with him. In the 2007 Dublin Community Plan, a list of "challenges and issues" for Historic Dublin includes the statement, "Creating civic spaces and public gathering spaces ... is integral in future development and redevelopment within the (historic) District." He took that to mean we should create such spaces, not wait for the development community to create them for us. He remembered that in the fall of 2008 — before the BSC was conceived - this body prepared and submitted a report that called for an organized approach to the redevelopment of central Dublin, and listed seven specific recommendations that this body felt were critical to its success. He said those recommendations included the creation of a specific master plan and the establishment of a significant village green in the center of Dublin — the "public gathering space" called for in 2007. He said when the effort to formally consider redevelopment of central Dublin got underway in mid -2009, it began with an educational process. He said renowned experts were brought in to introduce city Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 18 DRAFT leaders, staff, and citizens to the concepts of walkable urbanism, changing demographics, and higher density development. He said this "speaker series" was an excellent beginning, unfortunately, the process ended much too soon, moving too quickly from the introduction of critical concepts, to hiring a consultant to write a zoning code for the area, and skipping over the essential step of the creation of a master plan. He said that likely happened in part because our consultants were eager to get to their part of the project — which did not involve master planning. He said the consultant who said this plan should be about the demographics, not the design, was wrong — it has to be about both. Mr. Taylor said without a plan, without strong design, it's just filling up land with streets and buildings and there's nothing special about that. He said we are now presented with a code document that is good in its own right, but that lacks a solid framework for its application. Mr. Taylor shared his two concerns, first, that passing this code and the associated rezonings will forever preclude us from taking a step back to create that master plan. He hoped that will not be the case, but his hope is fading. His second concern was, that we have no idea what we are really getting ourselves into. He was concerned that form -based code is a very new planning tool. He said our code consultant admitted that even his experience was limited, and that the form -based codes he had created had to date produced a grand total of five or six buildings. He thought form -based code is a fascinating idea and it likely has a tremendous future in this country, but to throw out a planning process that has worked wonderfully for this city for decades and replace it completely with an unfamiliar and untried process is troubling. He mentioned that over the past roughly eight months his fellow commissioners and Mr. Taylor have worked hard to address that second point. He said the most recent effort in that regard concerns the final section of this code dealing with the review and approval process for projects proposed in the BSC. Mr. Taylor thanked Mr. Hardt for his efforts to come up with the latest version of the review and approval process, especially because it gives applicants the choice, at the very beginning, to fly through the development process unhindered, or to explore other possibilities, subject to the review and oversight of the Planning and Zoning Commission. He believed this was the appropriate role of this body. He said he remained deeply concerned that they have put the zoning cart so far ahead of the master plan horse, he was very pleased with the review and approval process that PZC has helped create, and that is in front of us tonight. Mr. Taylor said because — and only because — of that review process, he finds myself tentatively — and just barely — in support of this application. Mr. Hardt said he had several remaining concerns about this code. He said he remained concerned that they are voting on a code without a real plan in place and agreed with the comments that Mr. Taylor made in that regard. He said he had indicated several times that at a minimum, he would like to see the Vision Plan updated to reflect the new information and the community input that they had heard in the 16 months since it was initially adopted, and that has not yet happened. Mr. Hardt said while he believed it was appropriate to regulate the size and the height and the mass of buildings, including the way that they interface with the street and the sidewalk, as this code does, he remains uncomfortable with the level at which this document attempts to regulate architecture and the specific design of buildings. He said he felt it was over - reaching in that regard. Mr. Hardt said that he also, like Mr. Taylor, remains concerned that to date, we do not have any particular plan or initiative in place to establish a note - worthy public space in the middle of the Bridge Street Corridor. Mr. Hardt said he has maintained from the beginning that he supported the goals and objectives overall of the Bridge Street Corridor initiative that the city has undertaken. He said that he believed strongly Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 18 DRAFT that altering the development patterns in the core of the city and favoring taller, denser development with a walkable mixed -use environment is fundamentally the right thing to do. Mr. Hardt said that he believed that planting the seed for that type of development is necessary for the vitality of the city. He said the outcome we all seek which would benefit everybody would not happen unless we have the regulations in place to allow it to happen, and the current regulations not only fail to encourage this kind of development, but they outright forbid it. Mr. Hardt said that he was somewhat conflicted and had reservations about the details contained in the documents, but he believed that the overall good outweighs the bad at this point. He said that he too, tenuously supports this tonight. He said he wanted to be very clear about something. He said that Dublin has always had a reputation for inclusiveness with our residents, whether we look at the creation of the original Community Plan or the various task forces, boards, and commissions that are in place, or even the survey sent out every other year asking citizens how we are doing. He said the city has always prided itself on public input in everything we do. Mr. Hardt said this has been no exception, but in recent days, as has been discussed, there are two versions of this document floating around. He said one was delivered to the Commission members and posted on online apparently on Friday, January 27"', and then a revised version was distributed on Tuesday, January 31 ", and that is the version the Commission is voting on tonight. He said the difference was, as they heard tonight are subtle, but significant. He said the concerns addressed tonight, notwithstanding, he wanted it to be clear that the earlier version of the code, which is supported by some members of the City administration, contains a provision that would allow City officials to review and approve future projects behind closed doors at City Hall, outside of public view. Mr. Hardt said that was a situation that he thought was ripe for impropriety and not something that he could ever support. He said the only reason that he was inclined to cast a 'Yes' vote tonight is because they are not voting on that version. Mr. Hardt said that he was sure that there would be a discussion between these edits when this is passed onto City Council, and he would implore them, if they read these minutes to think carefully about how the other version of the code would play out if it were implemented in the real world. He said he had concerns about that. Ms. Kramb said unlike Mr. Taylor, who said the code was as good as it gets for now, she thought they were only 90 percent there, which is a huge leap from where they were in the Summer of 2011. She said she did not think it was as good as it can get. She said there are some simple changes she could make which would get it up to 95 percent which basically would make the code a little more user - friendly with simpler language and less planning and legal jargon and easier to read. She recommended Planning read every word out loud, which she had done at least four times to edit and peer- review it and edit and have the same person read it all the way through. Ms. Kramb said the five percent she was still uncomfortable with was the review process. She said she was inclined towards voting for the code tonight because they have come a lot closer, and she did not want a negative vote on her part to imply in any way whatsoever she was agreeing with the old version of the review process that has no public involvement. She said she thought that was completely wrong and did not think that should have ever been on the table. Ms. Kramb said she thought the review process, in an effort to accommodate the Commission, has become overly complicated and they have added extra things without removing anything. She said that the process has gotten too complicated, but it can get better, and it was way better than it was it was originally presented in. Ms. Kramb said when this began, she was not thrilled with it. She said she is a fourth- generation Dubliner and she had seen Dublin change. She said she was getting comfortable with this. Ms. Kramb said she had issues with the Zoning Map and the expansiveness of this border which is the next case. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 18 DRAFT Ms. Kramb said in general, she was okay with the Vision, but she agreed with Mr. Taylor that it was worrisome that there is no master plan. She pointed out that even the consultants' memo which is attached to the next case mentions the need for a master development plan, but puts it on the part of the developer. She said she did not know if that was the right place to put it. Ms. Kramb agreed with Mr. Hardt that she too, wanted to see the Vision Report updated. Ms. Kramb summarized her comments. She said the code is good and almost there. She said with more revision and a little more work she thought it would be pretty close. She said her vote in favor of it is strongly to show support that they, as a Commission have worked hard to get it as close as they want, and they really prefer what their efforts have put into it, and the changes, especially the review process. Mr. Budde thanked everyone for all their hard work, especially staff with their expertise. He said he liked how cutting edge this initiative is and where it puts Dublin. He said he liked the fast track aspect of what this form based code will provide for the development community and where this will take us. He said he planned to support this. Mr. Fishman said this has been an arduous process. He said he agreed with everything the other Commissioners said. He recalled earlier in this process being frustrated and saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" which is how he felt about the PUD. He said he was glad about the latest revision, but he agreed with Mr. Hardt and Ms. Kramb that City Council needs to know that they have to include the resident participation, and that they cannot have anything secret. Mr. Fishman said he was even concerned when he read in the administrative reports about administrative approvals because maybe that was not the Commission's intent when the zoning passed, but he felt that this last revision had covered that concern. Mr. Fishman said he wanted to go on record to let City Council know that they need to read this code out loud and that every Council member has to understand it. He agreed that it was about 90 percent there. He said they would hate to stymie the creativity of a developer because they did not have the ability to bring it to the Commission. Mr. Fishman said with Ms. Readier's reassurance, he was confident that she was going to revise that sentence. He said that was what they had tried to do for years. Mr. Fishman said that because of the hard work of staff and the Commission, the citizens of Dublin got a great deal. Mr. Fishman said Council is going to know that this is the version that the Commission is recommending they read it and make sure that they are comfortable with every part of it and make sure that the process, so the developer and citizens have a voice which can be heard and closed doors are eliminated. Mr. Zimmerman thanked everyone on the Commission, especially for the many hours that Mr. Taylor and Mr. Hardt spent, and staff. He also thanked the developers and landowners who had expressed their concerns and ideas. He said he also had a positive vote for the review and recommendation to City Council. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she wanted to make it abundantly clear that the version the Commission is voting on is the one that was sent out Tuesday afternoon, not those versions distributed last Friday through Monday. She said the distinctions are tremendous, particularly as it pertains to the way the code is implemented. She said she viewed this as a beginning, not an end of this code. She argued that there had been no face -to -face conversations with City Council about this code. Ms. Amorose Groomes said they sat together in rooms and heard consultants talk. She said Mr. Langworthy had included in the most recent transmissions, notes from their conversations with respect to this. She said there were apparently as many different opinions about the priorities of this project as there were people on Council. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she believed this was a start and not an end and she really wanted this to go forward to City Council, if for nothing else, to have them weigh in on where we are. She without hearing from Council if they are reaching the intent of the charge they set before the Commission, that undertaking would be futile. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 18 DRAFT Ms. Amorose Groomes said that she trusted as this goes to City Council and hopefully, they read every word aloud, that at some point that this will come back to the Commission for revisions. She said it certainly was an imperfect document, largely because we do not know what we do not know. She said she agreed with Mr. Budde in the progressive nature of this, we want to be a progressive city, be on the cutting edge, and get out in front. She said this will help us get there. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she believed that was an important component of why the Commission should review these applications. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she also agreed with the comments made about impropriety and things happening outside of the public realm. She said she realized there is a brief public input at the beginning of the phase, but certainly they all are experienced enough to know the vast amount of changes that happen from an informal review to a finished product. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she was not making any implication that any impropriety would occur, but the appearance would be there and that was far away from where they wanted to be. Motion and Vote Richard Taylor made the motion to recommend approval to City Council of this proposed Zoning Code amendment to add Sections 153.057 through 153.066 as presented to the Commission on January 31, 2012 and to revise Section 153.002 with the minor modifications discussed at the meeting. Todd Zimmerman seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Mr. Hardt, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Budde, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Taylor, yes. (Approved 7 — 0.) City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission City of Dublin Planning Report L. Fl.� u Thursday, February 2, 2012 58WRILC-R ll' DL I n. Chk3 43016 1: M.W M; , "*4, , , , Zoning Code Amendment — Bridge Street Corridor Development M .: AjU ave: Web SW: Regulations aw...d.,Wn.oh.u> Case Summary Agenda Item 1 Case Number 11- 020ADM Proposal Modifications to Chapter 153 of the Dublin Code of Ordinances (Zoning Code) to establish new Bridge Street Corridor zoning districts, create new development regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor, and revise definitions for the new Zoning Code Sections (153.057 to 153.066, and 153.002). Request Review and recommendation of approval of a Zoning Code amendment under the provisions of Sections 153.232 and 153.234. Applicant Marsha I. Grigsby, City Manager, City of Dublin, 5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Planning Contact Rachel S. Ray, AICP, Planner I. Contact Information (614) 410 -4656 1 rray @dublin.oh.us Planning Recommendation Recommendation ofApprova ito City Councii. The Bridge Street Corridor Districts regulations are unique, innovative, and tailored to address the special development conditions present in the Corridor. The regulations crafted for the Bridge Street Corridor require development that is vibrant, high - quality, pedestrian- oriented, and consistent with the Vision Principles stated in the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report adopted by Dublin City Council on October 25, 2010. The proposed Zoning Code amendments align with the planning themes and objectives for the Bridge Street Corridor and ensure that development is coordinated with the expected street network and infrastructure and for the entire Corridor. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 11- 020ADM I Zoning Code Amendment Bridge Street Corridor Development Regulations Thursday, February 2, 2012 1 Page 2 of 12 Update PZC Review At a series of regular and special Planning and Zoning Commission meetings held between October 13 and December 8, 2011, Commission members reviewed draft components and received public comment on the October 13, 2011 draft Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) amendments to the Zoning Code and proposed area rezoning map for the Corridor. Commission members completed their thorough review of the October draft of the Code at a special meeting held on December 8, 2011. The Commissioners received a revised document in December and began their review of the final draft of the Code and area rezoning map at regular and special meetings held on January 5, 12, 19, and 24, 2012. Facts Case Summary The Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendations to City Council include the Code amendment and an area rezoning map to align properties in the Bridge Street Corridor with the new Code requirements. This City initiated rezoning will position the properties to be able to take advantage of development opportunities quickly as they arise. Zoning Code Amendment This is a request for review and recommendation of approval to City Council to amend portions of the Zoning Code to establish development regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor. These regulations will provide specific development standards and an efficient review and approval process for high - quality development that is consistent with the Vision Principles of the Vision Report adopted by Dublin City Council by resolution on October 25, 2010. The proposed Bridge Street Corridor amendments include 11 newly created zoning districts: the BSC Residential District, BSC Office Residential District, BSC Office District, BSC Commercial District, BSC Historic Core District, BSC Historic Residential District, BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District, BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District, BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District, BSC Vertical Mixed Use District, and the BSC Public District. Case:Bbckground The Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report establishes a vision for a vibrant, walkable environment at the center of the city, with a dynamic mix of land uses and housing types that enhances the city's long -term sustainability while preserving and highlighting the natural features that tie the Corridor together. The Vision also reinforces the Dublin's long -term competitiveness and promotes fiscal health and adaptability by creating new environments and amenities that can attract and retain the next generation of employees and businesses. Following Council's adoption of the Vision Report, City Council directed staff to prepare a strategy for implementation, recognizing that further technical analysis would be necessary to understand the scope of infrastructure improvements and financing necessary to support the densities desired in the Corridor, in addition to establishing special development regulations necessary to allow higher density development of exceptional quality and character to occur. The proposed code amendments are intended to produce the type of high - quality, development _pattern envisioned in the Vision Re op t. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 11- 020ADM I Zoning Code Amendment Bridge Street Corridor Development Regulations Thursday, February 2, 2012 1 Page 3 of 12 Details Process Zoning Code Amendment Code Section 153.232(B)(9) provides the Planning and Zoning Commission with "other powers and duties" which includes making recommendations to City Council for amendments to the Zoning Code. The Commission should review the modifications, provide input, and vote on the changes. The proposed amendment and City- sponsored area rezoning within the Bridge Street Corridor will be forwarded to City Council for its consideration. The following sections summarize the major components and considerations of each principal section of the BSC development regulations. BSC Development Code Overview The Bridge Street Corridor zoning is unlike any undertaken by Dublin, and to a large extent, by any community in Central Ohio. Dublin's City Council and community leadership desired a new approach to land use regulation. This was in recognition that many of the existing design standards common throughout the country actually created unforeseen and undesirable results, such as cluttered, sprawling, and unattractive development and an almost complete dependence on cars to get from place to place. Since the vision for the Bridge Street Corridor is to create an entirely new and different type of place unlike anything else in Central Ohio, and comparable to few places throughout the country, the City's leadership understood that a different approach to zoning would be critical to the success of implementing the Bridge Street Corridor Vision. The Bridge Street Corridor is intended to provide opportunities for vibrant, walkable, and interesting places. To accomplish this it is necessary to allow for greater residential densities to help support the employment, shopping, and service uses existing and anticipated in the Corridor. The potential negative effects of higher density development are balanced by high development standards of quality. Other regulations provide for high quality open spaces and pedestrian oriented streets that result in an attractive public realm. It was determined by the City that a form -based code approach would yield the best results. "Form- based" codes are an alternative to traditional zoning and design regulation. Form -based regulations are intended to create a well planned mix of land uses that focus on people through design, open space, and the placement of buildings and parking. Form -based regulations also require special attention to development as it relates to the surrounding street network, which is not a consideration typical of conventional zoning codes. Ultimately, with the assistance of a consultant team of Clarion Associates, Farr Associates, and McBride Dale Clarion, a "hybrid" approach to zoning was conceived as the best approach to establishing development regulations for the Corridor, rather than a pure, form -based code. This approach allows for a combination of conventional zoning regulations, such as permitted and conditional uses, parking requirements, and landscape requirements, while incorporating elements common to form -based codes. The Bridge Street Corridor Zoning Code amendments are the culmination of a long series of community meetings, City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission joint work sessions, and significant input from priv ate property interests in the City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 11- 020ADM I Zoning Code Amendment Bridge Street Corridor Development Regulations Thursday, February 2, 2012 1 Page 4 of 12 Details Zoning Code Amendment Corridor. This extensive public engagement process was particularly important since many people were unfamiliar with the concepts related to form -based codes. The Bridge Street Corridor Zoning Code amendments are written to respond to the needs of today's property owners, while providing for the vision for the Bridge Street Corridor put forth by the Dublin City Council. The code comprises Sections 153.057 through 153.066 of Chapter 153 of the City of Dublin Code of Ordinances (the Zoning Code). Unless otherwise specifically stated or exempted within the Bridge Street Corridor Districts Sections of the Zoning Code, any item not addressed defaults to the remainder of the Zoning Code for regulation. In addition, Section 153.002 has been included to offer a series of revised and additional definitions needed to adequately implement these Code provisions. The following describes the general intent and content of Sections 153.057 through 153.066. 153.057 The General Purpose section describes what the Bridge Street Corridor Districts are General Purpose intended to accomplish, and to reinforce the desire for consistency between the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report, Vision Principles, and the development regulations included in this amendment. This section also sets forth the specific purposes of the regulations: To promote development that creates an emerging center for urban lifestyles; 153.058 BSC Districts Scope and Intent To create places that embody Dublin's commitment to community; To provide a thorough yet simplified development review process with a high degree of predictability and consistency; and To allow property owners the flexibility to take advantage market opportunities that are consistent with the Vision Report that arise over time. The Bridge Street Corridor Districts include a total of 11 new zoning classifications (only the BSC Vertical Mixed Use District, is not intended to be mapped at this time, since it is intended to apply to properties in the BSC Commercial District as the overall Bridge Street Corridor becomes denser and more mixed use over time). This section describes the intended development character of each district, including a description of how each relates specifically to the character districts contained in the Vision Framework in the BSC Vision Report. The intended development character of each district will be expressed not only through the unique mix of uses permitted in each zoning district, but to a greater extent, the mix of bui lding types. This is one of the important distinctions that sets these regulations apart from conventional zoning codes. This section includes a provision that does not permit new Planned Unit Development Districts from being established in the Corridor. This is necessary to ensure that the specific development patterns envisioned by the Vision Report and the regulations crafted in this amendment are appropriately applied. If a particular style of development is determined to be desirable, yet cannot be accommodated through the strict application of the Bridge Street regulations, the code provisions City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 11- 020ADM I Zoning Code Amendment Bridge Street Corridor Development Regulations Thursday, February 2, 2012 1 Page 5 of 12 Details Zoning Code Amendment include both the ability to approve minor modifications through an Administrative Departure, or if greater flexibility is necessary the Planning and Zoning Commission can approve a Waiver. Where neither is possible, a general code modification may be requested to address the proposal. L Each BSC zoning district has a desired character as described in the Purpose and Intents. The uses permitted, and the various special requirements related to those uses, are intended to ensure that the desired character is established and maintained. To achieve this a list of Permitted and Conditional Uses is provided for each BSC zoning district. Each district is mixed use to some extent, which is necessary to ensure that a variety of uses are located within walking or biking distance. Use specific standards are included to provide specific operational and /or dimensional requirements for uses that require additional regulation to limit negative effects on adjacent uses. Since these regulations are significantly different than existing zoning, it was determined necessary to clearly protect the status of uses already established in the various districts, allowing these "existing uses" to continue without the shadow of taking on "nonconforming" status. This allows the City to transition the code over time from today's conditions to tomorrows vision. Of special note is the BSC Historic Residential District which remained unchanged from the existing Zoning Code (although formatted to fit the rest of the Bridge Street districts) to ensure that it is preserved as a unique area with an established residential development pattern. In some respects, this section is, along with Street Types, what creates the form - based nature of the regulations, since it recognizes that lot and block layout is a critical ingredient to creating compact, walkable places. This section includes regulations relating to how streets will be laid out and how land will be subdivided to form a comprehensive network of blocks between these streets. A critical part of this is the designation of principal frontage streets (PFS) since they truly establish the walkable character of streets. These blocks, along with the accompanying street types require buildings to create an active street frontage that creates an outdoor "room," with setbacks close to the streets to provide a comfortable sense of enclosure, with very limited interruptions for driveways. Other important related elements include requirements for convenient walking distances for pedestrians where longer blocks are created (mid -block pedestrianways). 153.060 Lots and Blocks City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 11- 020ADM I Zoning Code Amendment Bridge Street Corridor Development Regulations Thursday, February 2, 2012 1 Page 6 of 12 Details 153.061 Street Types F 153 062 Building Types Zoning Code Amendment Street Types describes requirements for how pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles can peacefully coexist — but with an emphasis on the order they are listed. This section provides detailed requirements for street design, pedestrian safety, and fire protection access. Areas considered include right -of -way requirements, pavement widths, bicycle travel options that consider both the recreational user and the commuter cyclist, detailed pedestrian options, and fire safety and access considerations. This section includes a street network map that depicts a general street development pattern that will guide the creation of a gridded street network in concert with the Lots and Blocks Section (153.060). The street network map is directly related to the block size limitations established in Lots and Blocks (Section 153.060) and is specifically intended to provide a greater distribution of traffic throughout the network, rather than concentrating traffic on just a few streets. The network was modeled to ensure that adequate vehicular connections were provided to appropriately distribute traffic throughout the Corridor. The "street families" described in this section relate to the hierarchy of street types based on a combination of how they should function and what land uses they serve. The specific street type sections to be applied to individual streets or street segments are currently under development by Planning and Engineering, and will be accompanied by a decision matrix to guide their specific applications throughout the Corridor. Once the framework of streets is established, clearly delineating the blocks and individual lots, the code turns to buildings. The form based code, as its name implies, deals not just with siting of buildings, but with their physical form. The Bridge Street Corridor's 1,000 acres has a diverse mix of land uses and characters, from highway- oriented buildings to buildings that respect the scale and character of existing structures. The form and variety of buildings is an essential element in creating the diverse, urban, vital character desired by the City Council. This section includes a table of building types to ensure that the buildings permitted in each district achieve their desired land use character. The genera/ building type requirements, which shape the ua ality, character and details of all building types in the Bridge Street Corridor include roof types, building materials, entrances and pedestrianways, windows, shutters, awnings, canopies, porches, stoops, balconies, vehicular canopies, sign placements, and requirements for building variety and treatments at terminal vistas. Speck building requirements deal with features related to massing and scale to create highly pedestrian- oriented buildings, meant to be experienced walking rather than speeding by at 45 miles per hour. As with "existing uses," this section allows existing buildings to continue as conforming structures, even allowing for significant expansion, until such time as the owner determines that the building should be removed and conform to the Bridge Street requirements. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 11- 020ADM I Zoning Code Amendment Bridge Street Corridor Development Regulations Thursday, February 2, 2012 1 Page 7 of 12 Details 153.063 Neighborhood Standards Zoning Code Amendment The BSC Neighborhood Districts have some of the more exciting characteristics of these provisions. These special districts require particular attention to locations and characters of buildings, streets, and open spaces to accommodate larger scale, coordinated development and redevelopment to permit a wide variety of uses and establish signature places in Dublin. Anchored by the Sawmill Center on the east, and the Indian Run on the west, these districts apply to large development sites, some of which are under consolidated ownership, that have can create special, memorable "Places" in the Bridge Street Corridor. The BSC Vision Framework identified three Neighborhoods, the Indian Run, Sawmill Center, and Historic Transition Neighborhoods. The Neighborhood Standards section describes the intent of each district as it relates to creating those special places in the Corridor, providing development standards that encourage placemaking elements, such as provisions to encourage signs that relate directly to the style and character of development, gateway features to announce prominent entries to these areas, open space networks that link the Neighborhoods to the rest of the Corridor and the city, and other design character considerations. Special conceptual graphics are provided in the Code that coordinate with the recommended zoning for the Corridor to depict the major street network connections into these districts, demonstrate how the open space network is intended to complement desired development and respect existing natural features, and illustrate generally where key mixed -use centers, or "shopping corridors,' are desired. The BSC Historic Residential District is included with the Neighborhood Standards because it is important to the community that the specific development standards that currently apply to these residential lots are maintained. This will ensure that the established residential character of this special neighborhood is preserved. 1515 0 This section stresses the need to provide spacious, strategically placed, and well Open Space Types designed open spaces throughout the Corridor with location and proximity requirements to ensure that open space is easily and equally accessible to residents, employees, and visitors alike. Seven open space types, each having its unique characteristics and requirements, range from large community greens to intimate and contemplative spaces. Greenways are used to connect all parts of the Corridor while highlighting and preserving existing natural features. A specific amount of area is required for residential and commercial uses which must be provided either through a specific open space type, or payment of a fee (which can only be permitted by the Planning and Zoning Commission in lieu of actual open space dedication). City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 11- 020ADM I Zoning Code Amendment Bridge Street Corridor Development Regulations Thursday, February 2, 2012 1 Page 8 of 12 Details 153.065(A) Site Development Standards - Purpose 153.065(8) Site Development Standards - Parking and Loading Zoning Code Amendment Once the street network begins to take shape, lots and blocks are created, and buildings are designed and situated on the lots, the site development standards are applied to ensure that all of the other elements of site planning are addressed. Site development standards are fairly typical of zoning ordinances, and are important to include in this hybrid zoning code. These standards ensure that the site details complement the form created by the streets and buildings in a way that is functional yet fits the urban vitality envisioned by the Vision Report. The Site Development Standards include parking and loading; stormwater management; landscaping and tree preservation; fencing, walls, and screening; exterior lighting; utility undergrounding; and signs. Each are summarized in the following sections. Although intended to emphasize pedestrians and bicyclists over vehicles, parking needs for residents, employees, shoppers, and visitors must still be accommodated. Parking regulations not currently in the Zoning Code address uniquely urban forms such as parking structures and on- street parking. Other, more traditionally regulated features are designed to be appropriate to a compact, urban environment. Other uniquely flexible provisions permit parking plans and other methods of tailoring parking to meet present and future needs, emphasizing the ability to share facilities and manage parking demand. This section includes a table of required parking that matches the permitted use table in Code Section 153.059. The regulations allow required parking to be provided through on- street parking, off - street parking, shared parking arrangements, parking structures, and other parking arrangements. Details such as parking space and aisle dimensions, dimensional requirements for parking structures, and requirements for loading and use and maintenance of parking areas are also included. 153.065(C) Greater intensities of compact development will yield higher lot coverages that Site Development require innovative and creative stormwater management. Rather than suburban Standards - oriented large ponds occupying valuable development area and limit active open Stormwater spaces, a new stormwater manual will provide for a wide range of management Management techniques, such as roof gardens, rain gardens, bioswales (including those in parking lots). This brief section references Chapter 53 of the City's Code of Ordinances, which contains stormwater management regulations and will reference the stormwater manu that Engineerin is dev eloping with the assistance of a consultant. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 11- 020ADM I Zoning Code Amendment Bridge Street Corridor Development Regulations Thursday, February 2, 2012 1 Page 9 of 12 Details 153.065(D) Landscaping in an urban setting Site Development parking, landscape standards are Standards - environments. Here, landscaping Landscaping and Tree edges of a built environment Preservation management. 153.065(E) Site Development Standards - Fencing, Walls, and Screening 153.065(F) Site Development Standards - Exterior Lighting This section provides for street trees (including proper planting requirements) to create an attractive pedestrian environment and slowing down traffic. Landscaping is required for properties abutting those outside the Bridge Street Corridor and along I -270 with additional requirements for interior landscaping and perimeter screening for parking lots, and landscaping and streetscape requirements for that portion of a required build zone (RBZ) not occupied by a building. Zoning Code Amendment comes with its own unique challenges. Like designed to be appropriate to compact, urban serves many functions, softening the harder and providing opportunities for stormwater Tree preservation presents an especially difficult challenge. The Bridge Street code places special emphasis on significant tree stands, particularly where the trees are in suitable condition for long term preservation. The code emphasizes the need to first ensure that existing trees are clearly identified and that the development has a way to avoid their removal. Applicants that have significant vegetation on their property will be required to submit a tree preservation plan to identify landmark trees and significant tree groupings and establish tree preservation zones. Removal of trees within the preservation zone, if permitted, must be replaced on an inch for inch basis. Fences in urban environments are used in a wide variety of settings and fulfill many purposes. They define areas of public and private space, provide privacy to limited private outdoor areas, and screen certain portions of a lot. Fences are an attractive substitute where a full landscape buffer for screening is not available. This section includes provisions for fence and wall height, location, and opacity. Special requirements are provided for street walls to screen vehicular use areas and service areas. Street walls are especially useful in defining the pedestrian realm by continuing the "wall" of building faces along a streetscape where a building might not be as close to the street or have parking at the side of the building. Since they are intended to be a continuation, in effect, of the adjacent building fagade, street walls must be designed to coordinate with the architectural character of the building to which they are associated. There are options to require the street walls to take a more traditional form, such as stacked stone walls, or be more contemporary and linear in form through the use of brick or wrought iron fencing. Screening requirements for ground- and roof - mounted equipment are also provided in this section. Lighting requirements are not significantly different than the current code provisions. Night sky preservation, even in an urban setting is still an important consideration; however, special consideration is given to these requirements in recognition of the fact that some additional lighting is desirable for "24- hour" entertainment areas with more nighttime activities. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 11- 020ADM I Zoning Code Amendment Bridge Street Corridor Development Regulations Thursday, February 2, 2012 1 Page 10 of 12 Details Zoning Code Amendment 153.065(G) This section requires that all utility lines be placed underground, and that Site Development connections shall be placed out of view to avoid a cluttered appearance. Standards - Utility Undergrounding 153.065(H) Specific sign provisions apply to the Bridge Street zoning districts. A wider variety Site Development of sign options are available to balance the need for vehicular use of signs but be Standards - Signs clearly related to the pedestrian- oriented nature of the Bridge Street Corridor. Signs in walkable, urban environments are meant to be visible to pedestrians from all directions — across the street, the same side of the street, or from parking areas behind the building. In this environment, two smaller signs are more effective and more attractive than one larger signs directed to vehicles. When carefully integrated into the architectural design of a building, signs can help create a pleasurable, comfortable strolling and window - shopping experience. The sign regulations address buildings with multiple or single tenants, including those with and without storefronts, and sandwich board signs. One ground sign per frontage is allowed where site conditions permit their placement, and two building - mounted signs per building or tenant storefront. Special "building identification signs" are permitted for buildings with three or more stories to either identify significant tenants or larger commercial developments. Directory signs and display signs are also addressed. A registered logo or trademark can have any number of colors, provided the logo is less than 20% of the area of the sign, and that the rest of the sign only has up to two other colors. A provision permits signs with a logo exceeding 20% of the sign area to have up to five colors, instead of three. This is to account for the uniquely designed signs that add to the vitality, diversity, and interest of an urban area. Special sign provisions are provided for the BSC Indian Run and Sawmill Center Neighborhood districts. While individual developments may follow the normal Bridge Street sign requirements, larger developments may submit sign plans approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission that can be specifically tailored to the character of their developments, including sign types, sizes, and placement that might not otherwise be permitted within the code. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 11- 020ADM I Zoning Code Amendment Bridge Street Corridor Development Regulations Thursday, February 2, 2012 1 Page 11 of 12 Details Zoning Code Amendment 153.066 The review and approval procedures for the Bridge Street Corridor provide an Review and Approval efficient and predictable review process with timelines for decisions. The starting Procedures and point for nearly all development proposals is an Administrative Review Team (ART) Criteria made up of Directors principally related to development in the city. The ART ensures that the submitted plans meet the requirements of the districts. Following a required Pre - Application Review, applicants must have a Basic Plan Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission, which must be completed in 30 days. This allows the Commission and the public to provide non - binding feedback on the application. Basic Plan Review is optional in the Architectural Review District, since the authority of the Architectural Review Board's is kept in its current form for proposals within the Architectural Review District boundaries. Following the Basic Plan Review, the applicant may submit for Development Plan and /or Site Plan Review, which may be filed simultaneously. The Development Plan is intended to ensure that the street network and block framework meet the requirements of this code and to ensure that the proposed development is consistent with the requirements of the City for elements such as infrastructure and transportation. The Site Plan is intended to confirm that the proposed development of an individual site and building is consistent with all of the BSC district regulations. The ART must complete its review on Development Plan and Site Plan applications within 30 days of submission of a complete application, unless a time extension is mutually agreed upon. Should the applicant find that some specific development requirements are difficult to meet the ART is permitted to approve minor alterations, called Administrative Departures. However, if the alteration requested does not meet the criteria for a Departure, the applicant may request for a Waiver for that specific issue, which can be approved by the Commission. If the ART determines that the application involves complex issues and /or the potential for community -wide effects, it may forward an application to the Commission for its review and decision. It may also forward applications that where an excessive number of requested waivers may impeded the development intent of the district. A provision permits an applicant to request modifications to the requirements of the Code, which the Commission is required to review. This section includes procedures for minor projects and minor modifications to approved plans. The Conditional Use, Preliminary and Final Plat, Rezonings and Text Amendment, Variance, Special Permit, and Administrative Appeal procedures continue to apply. A special feature is abandonment regulations, which state that once a final approval is granted by the required reviewing body, if significant construction is not started within two years and meaningfully continued, the Director of Building Standards may determine that work has been abandoned and require that the site be returned to its pre- existing condition. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 11- 020ADM I Zoning Code Amendment Bridge Street Corridor Development Regulations Thursday, February 2, 2012 1 Page 12 of 12 Details Zoning Code Amendment 153.002 With new terminology and increased precision, new and updated definitions are Definitions necessary. The proposed code amendment includes new and clarified definitions for terms that are found throughout the Zoning Code and those that are specific to th Bridge S tree t Corrido District regulations. Recommendation Adoption of this Zoning Code Amendment establishing the Bridge Street Corridor District regulations) Approval The Bridge Street Corridor Districts regulations are unique, innovative, and tailored to address the special development conditions present in the Corridor. The regulations crafted for the Bridge Street Corridor require development that is vibrant, high - quality, pedestrian- oriented, and consistent with the Vision Principles stated in the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report adopted by Dublin City Council on October 25, 2010. The proposed Zoning Code amendments align with the planning themes and objectives for the Bridge Street Corridor and ensure that development is coordinated with the expected street network and infrastructure and for the entire Corridor. Planning recommends approval to City Council of this proposed Code amendment. 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 www. dublinohiousa.gov RECORD OF DISCUSSION JANUARY 24, 2012 The Planning and Zoning Commission took no action on the following at this meeting: Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- 020ADM Administrative Request Proposal: To amend the Zoning Code to establish a number of new Zoning Districts and regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor. Request: Review and recommendation to City Council regarding amendments to the Zoning Code under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.232 and 153.234. Applicant: City of Dublin, Marsha Grigsby, City Manager. Planning Contact: Steve Langworthy, Planning Director. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4600 slangworthy @dublin.oh.us RESULT: The Commission continued their review of the draft development code for the Bridge Street Corridor and commented on Sections 153.065 Site Development Standards (Parking and Loading, Landscaping and Tree Preservation, Fencing Walls and Screening, Exterior Lighting, and Signs) and 153.066 Review and Approval Procedures. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Chris Amorose Groomes Richard Taylor Todd Zimmerman Warren Fishman Absent Amy Kramb John Hardt Joseph Budde PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF CERTIFICATION Steve Langworthy Planning Director 7 11 ity uf Dublin Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier Rings Red Ci C 43016 1236 deal 614410 400 He 614410 4747 PLANNING JOB ZONING COMMISSION [ i MEETING MINUTES JANUPRY 24, 2012 AGENDA 1. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11 -020ADM Pilministrative Request Char Chris Amomse Groomes called the meeting to order at630 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance Other Commission members present were Richard Taylor, Amy Kamb, Todd Zimmerman, Joe Butltle, and John Hardt Warren Fishman was absent City representatives were Jennifer Readier Steve Langworthy, Claudia Husak Jonnlfer Rauch, Rachel Ray, Eugenia Martin Justin Goodwin, Gary Gunderman, Jeannie Willis, Eagan Foster, Tina Wawszkiewi¢ and Flora Rogers . Motion and Vote Richard Taylor made a motion to accept He documents Into the record as presented Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motlon. The vote was as fidlesa'. Ms. Amomse Groomes, yes, Ms. Kamb, yes, Mr. Hai yes, Mr. Butltle, yes, Mr. Zimmerman, yes, and Mr. Taylor, yes. (Approved 6 -0) Pilmmistrafive Business Rachel Ray reminded the Commissioners Hot He American Planning Association National Conference Is scheduled April Fo through April 1i and If any of He Commission members planned to attend, they should contact Flora Rogers Jorge the February F6 early bird registration deadline. Steve Langworthy stated that the Planning Commissioner Joumal that the Commissioners receive in their packets recently announced thatthey are going to cease publication. Me Amended Groomes noted that she had heard discussion at the previous Cm Council meeting about a possible update to the sign regulations of the Zoning Code. Pipe asked Mn LangwoMy what was planned with regard to this modiFlcation, Mn LangwoMy reported that at the previous Councl meeting, Planning was asked to prepare a memo with information about how to teatslgn colors and secondary Images. He said Hat Planning had dratted coo describing how signs are regulated in the innovation districts (EAZ), what is proposed ter Bridge Street and what exists in the remainder of the Zoning Code, in addition to requirements ter the various PODS with separate sign provisions throughout the city. He reported that Council had instructed staff to puttorward a proposal that is similar to the first part of the sign regulations proposed ter Bridge Street with respect to the logo areas counting as one color with two additional colors, as long as the logo Isles Han 20 percent of the sign area He stated that the modification would be brought forward to he Commission at the .February 16 meeting Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 24, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 14 DRAFT Ms. Amorose Groomes explained the rules and procedures of the Planning and Zoning Commission. She announced that there is only one case on the agenda and public comment would be taken following each section reviewing landscape, signs, and process. 1. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- O2OADM Administrative Request Chair Chris Amorose Groomes introduced this administrative request for review and recommendation to City Council for a proposed amendment to the Zoning Code to establish a number of new zoning districts and regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor (BSC). Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that the Commission would begin their review with Code Section 153.065, Site Development Standards. 153.065 Site Development Standards; (B) Parking and Loading John Hardt asked if a shared parking agreement were to end, would the property be required to be brought into compliance, and if so, if there should be a time limit within which compliance should be required. Steve Langworthy said that the compliance would not be treated as a strict enforcement issue, but the property owner would be contacted and they would be given a reasonable time to comply. Rachel Ray pointed out that the Code allows various provisions for reducing the overall required parking, whether it occurs through a parking plan, shared parking arrangement, or transportation demand management, and the owner would have the opportunity to pursue a reduction in their overall parking need before they would have to provide more parking. Amy Kramb suggested adding "within a reasonable time as determined by the Director." Mr. Langworthy agreed to the modification. Mr. Hardt noted that the bulk of page 80 deals with parking reduction, with the exception of transportation demand management activities, "off peak work scheduling." He asked what effect, if any, transportation demand management and off peak work scheduling has on parking. Mr. Langworthy said that it is one of the most effective measures, because if an employer can manage their shifts, it will lower demand at any given time. He commented that it probably works better in office environments. Richard Taylor referred to the parking reduction due to transit proximity, and said that he understood the idea about the transit stop and the reduction of off street parking spaces, but transit could include several different modes, including COTA, and he knew that their transit stops could be moved. He wondered if the last line was appropriate, because the odds of the stop location changing were probably pretty good. He recalled that they had previously discussed deferred parking arrangement allowing for smaller parking areas as long as the original site plan allows space to provide the full parking arrangement, even if it was not constructed initially. He was concerned that if the transit stop went away, there may be no way to increase the parking. He asked if something similar should be contemplated here. Justin Goodwin said that could be an option, but it could be a draw back if they approach densities at some point in the future that suggests that they could depend on a transit line, and saving space for deferred parking may unnecessarily limit density, but he noted that if that is the case, they could change the Code in the future as well. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 24, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 14 DRAFT Mr. Hardt asked if it would be reasonable to allow the parking reduction as long as the site is located along a transit line. Mr. Taylor pointed out that a transit line could move. Mr. Goodwin noted that the intent was to avoid penalizing someone for something that is out of their control, such as if the transit stop moved, but it was intended to be based on current conditions at the time of development, and the idea was that there would be a reasonable expectation that there would be transit and although the line may shift, given the size of the area, the impact of the transit line moving would be minimal. Mr. Taylor requested that the language be reviewed to ensure a property owner could still fulfill parking requirements if the conditions changed. Mr. Goodwin said Planning would look at the language originally drafted for deferred parking. Todd Zimmerman confirmed with Mr. Hardt that the requirements for bicycle racks allowing for U -locks had been adequately addressed in the Code. Ms. Kramb pointed out that the width of the entrance for parking structures can only have a single entrance lane in certain districts, but the limitation is not required in other districts. She asked why it would not be desirable in the other districts as well. Mr. Goodwin said that there had originally been a variety of provisions that were specific to the neighborhood districts, but many of them have been generalized to all of the districts, and perhaps this is one that should be generalized as well. Mr. Taylor commented that on page 85, he would like to add a restriction that loading docks could not face any residential districts. 153.065 Site Development Standards; (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation Ms. Amorose Groomes referred to the landscape requirements on page 86 and asked why only 50 percent of the landscape beds were required to be covered within 4 years, and why a higher requirement was not required. Jeannie Martin said there are some cases where there are rain gardens that are not entirely covered by plant material, and there will be mulch to help the water percolate into the ground. She noted that there are other areas where rock may be used, and that is why the requirement is 50 percent at a minimum. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested that the Code should then call out the areas where lower coverage would be appropriate, and requiring higher coverage elsewhere. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked regarding Table 153.065 -D, if there is an existing survey of street trees in the Bridge Street Corridor of the spacing of street trees and if the table is consistent with that. Ms. Martin said that Planning worked with the City Forester to develop these requirements. Ms. Amorose Groomes referred to the requirement on page 88 stating, no persons shall by any type of construction reduce the size of a tree lawn orstreetscape planting zone without prior written approval to Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 24, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 14 DRAFT the City Engineer. She suggested adding a requirement limiting wire or light attachments for more than 4 months at a time. Ms. Amorose Groomes referred to the requirement on page 89 stating one tree and five evergreen or deciduous shrubs shall be provided for every 25 lineal feet of boundary lot line. She said that they had previously discussed how the Commission did not want shrubs and plant material to be spaced evenly, but that they should be clustered instead. Ms. Martin said that Planning had tried to capture that intent on page 88 in the intent section. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked that additional language be provided to state that the landscaping be appropriate to the design. Ms. Martin agreed to elaborate on the intent statement. Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out that at least a five -foot wide landscape buffer with a two and half overhang is required for the perimeter buffering. Ms. Martin said that requirement specifically relates to perimeter landscape buffering, and vehicle overhang area is the edge of the parking area, where the intent is to allow for car bumper overhang. Ms. Amorose Groomes said where there is overhang, the landscape bed should then be larger with a five foot clear plant bed, exclusive of the overhang area. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked why the large deciduous trees with a seven foot clear height would be eliminated from Table 153.065 -13, because she thought in the parking areas and buffering the canopy provides a lot of buffering. Ms. Martin said they were trying to soften the look of walls and fences but could add or deciduous trees and eliminate ornamental trees. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that all parking lot islands and peninsulas should be required to provide structural soil, and a requirement about the soil specifications should be provided in the applicant guide. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked why turf was not a permitted material to be used in landscape islands. Ms. Martin said that Planning was concerned with maintenance issues resulting from larger mower decks jumping the curb and scalping the turf, and that was why it was only recommended for larger landscape areas. Ms. Amorose Groomes noted that on page 92 the Code is still using the timber term of diameter at breast height rather than caliper and she was not sure why they would want to use a logging term in the landscape section. Ms. Martin said that diameter breast height is defined in the existing Zoning Code and the city utilizes for existing trees to determine tree replacement. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that anyone in the industry would have less clarity with diameter at breast height because it is not a term used in the landscape industry. Ms. Martin suggested changing to the six inch caliper as measured at the diameter breast height. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 24, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 14 DRAFT Mr. Langworthy said Planning would talk with the City Forester about the wording Ms. Amorose Groomes referred to page 93 and asked if they had fixed the hole in the Code that would potentially allow a property owner to clear their property before submitting an application for development. Jennifer Readier said that it would be difficult to prevent someone from clearing a site before there is a development application to trigger tree preservation and replacement, due to private property rights. 153.065 Site Development Standards; (E) Fencing Walls and Screening Ms. Amorose Groomes referred to the prohibited materials for fences or walls and suggested that they be limited to materials used for fencing, and not materials not otherwise intended to be used for a fence to clarify the issue with the recycled materials. Mr. Hardt said it appears that the Code would prohibit the use of chain link fencing during construction, but they would need to be able to secure a site against theft. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested that retaining walls should be measured from the elevated side. Ms. Amorose Groomes agreed that stacked stone street walls with the book shelf top should be encouraged throughout the Corridor, but required in the BSC Historic Core District. Mr. Taylor pointed out that on page 94, unfinished CMU is listed for dumpster enclosures, and stated that it should be changed to allow decorative CMU. Ms. Amorose Groomes referred to the solid hedge and post street wall, and stated that for a solid hedge, she would like to strike vines, because that will not get them the desired result. She said the ground on the street side of the hedge wall shall be landscaped with ground cover exclusive with grass only if it is less than 18 inches wide, if it is more it could be a combination of ground cover or turf. Ms. Amorose Groomes said on page 95, utility box doors should be oriented to open towards buildings or the least visible side. Mr. Hardt referred to the off street loading area requirements on page 95 and suggested that the language be changed to the same primary materials, finish and level of detail as the principal structure and that access doors should be required to be self - closing. 153.065 Site Development Standards; (F) Exterior Lighting Mr. Hardt asked if there are any types of lighting that should be prohibited, such as sodium vapor, and if there is anything they want to encourage, such as LED. Ms. Ray said Planning would check the rest of the Zoning Code for consistency with the types of lighting, and noted that they have changed how they calculate light levels from watts to lumens, which is heading that direction in terms of LED. Ms. Amorose Groomes said they were finished with the landscaping section and asked if there was any public comment. [There was none.] 153.065 Site Development Standards; (H) Signs Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 24, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 14 DRAFT Mr. Taylor said he had forwarded material to Planning regarding the sign requirements, but much of it had to do with encouraging more creativity in signs and looking at making sure that they are seeing signs in the Bridge Street Corridor as something very unique and different. He said there is a lot of restriction on size, number spacing, color, but not much to encourage quality and creativity. He had suggested to staff to make stronger statements about the expectations in terms of character and quality. He said there were a lot of examples of good sign plans that he had found, and that he had forwarded the requirements for Crocker Park to incorporate language to regulate quality and would like the reviewing bodies to have a sign standard that is high with a wide open door for sign opportunity. Mr. Taylor said he would like added to Intent and General Purpose section, "ensure that signage used by individual businesses will contribute to the vital ty interest and uniqueness of the Bridge Street Corridor, ensure that signage encourages pedestrian activity and recognizes the critical importance of signage at multiple scales to enhance that activity, ensure that signs adhere to a high level of design and construction quality'. Mr. Taylor said under the General Provisions section, under Master Sign Plans, that Master Sign Plans should be required for all projects with multiple tenants, for all projects with two or more signs, and for all projects required to submit a Development Plan or a Site Plan. He said that the Planning and Zoning Commission should be the reviewing body for all the master sign plans. Mr. Taylor said under section 4, Site Design and Lighting, he is concerned about internally illuminated signs and that the requirement should be changed to read, "Internally illuminated pan channel signs individual letters may be allowed only if the applicant demonstrates a commitment to the maximum of creativity and the highest quality of materials and fabrication', which gives them a lot of flexibility to judge that sign for quality. Mr. Langworthy said if a master sign plan is required for all projects with multiple tenants that would mean two tenants would have to have a master sign plan. Mr. Taylor said it wouldn't be much of one, but a plan would be needed to ensure compatibility of the individual signs. Mr. Langworthy said the suggested language would require all projects or every building to have a master sign plan. Mr. Taylor said the point is to show the importance of the signs in this area. Mr. Hardt said they are talking about the initial development of the building, not every time a sign is changed out. Mr. Taylor agreed and said the changing of the signs would be incorporated into the procedures for the process. Mr. Langworthy suggested building the sign plan into the Basic Plan Review so an applicant would not have to come back to the Commission just for a sign plan. Mr. Taylor said his intent is that an applicant would establish an overall plan to establish sign locations and quality in the beginning, and that would apply for all future signs as tenants switch out. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there was any public comment with respect to the sign requirements. [There was none.] 153.06 Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 24, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 14 DRAFT Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there was any public comment before the Commission began their review of the Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria. Kevin McCauley, Stavroff Interests, 565 Metro Place South, Suite 480, said that his comments for the procedures are related to Dublin Village Center specifically, which is within the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District. He explained that they have a reciprocal easement on their property that prohibits them from doing certain things at this time, although they are working to eliminate this easement with the adjacent property owner of the former BYs property. He stated that in the agreement that is on the title and on record prohibits both properties from developing in certain ways, such as multi - family and it even has very specific locations for buildings and they cannot be situated where buildings have their backs to other buildings. He said they are stuck with this agreement and they have to work with it. He stated that if the Bridge Street Corridor zoning is placed on their property, they will have extremely limited options since they would not be able to adhere to the Code because they are locked out by the reciprocal easement. He said they have been stripped of their property rights and asked for an alternative means of approval through the PUD process. Mr. McCauley said he can see how limiting this Code is and if he owned the Oakland Nursery property, under the new Code he stated that all new development would be required to be up on the street with two stories, and he would not be able to do that on the Dublin Village Center property because of the limitations on the development. He said that, as a result, they would have to continue making small improvements but would not be able to redevelop. He stated that everyone should have an alternative means of development if they do not want to or cannot adhere to the Code requirements, or if the market will not accept that type of development, or if they want to do something different. He said that the market driven projects are likely going to include things we could not think of today. He said that a few years ago, everyone wanted a Barnes and Noble or a Border's in their stores or malls, and that is a thing of the past today, because now with the internet, you do not know if an anchor will succeed because things are changing so fast. Mr. McCauley pointed out that two new malls were built in Columbus in 20 years and no one thought that would happen. He said that this is a 40 year plan, or longer, and this zoning is too limited because there are no avenues to pursue other opportunities. He said he does not know where the market is going and he is busting it every day and doesn't know how a consultant or staff can say, but this is what is it with this economy. He said that the City says they want to be market driven, but there is so much detail in the Code for them as a developer to try to follow that there will definitely be things they are not aware of today or know what they are doing because things change and the sites are different. He said that although there are waivers and minor modifications in there today, that is not enough. He said they will not be able to react to what they need to and the Code is cumbersome and difficult to read and hard to follow and there is a lot of going back and re- reading chapters and flipping around. He said he understands the current Zoning Code and he can go to a site and know what he can do with layout and development. He said that with this Code he would not be able to do that, he would need to sit down with architects and attorneys and make sure he can do his development or building. Mr. McCauley said that he would love to do all of it if they could, and in fact they have a plan that shows how the phasing could occur that they are going to share, that he believes is responsive to the market and is in fact a greener plan because they can reuse some of the buildings. He said he did not believe that the Bridge Street Corridor Code would not allow them to do this phasing plan. He said there are certain things in the Code that require certain things such as a parking garage for any building over certain sizes. He said his concern is that the density is not there. Mr. McCauley commented that they need alternatives to the Bridge Street Code that would include a process similar to the PUD. He said they have an example of the phasing plan, but he said that he is aware that they have a lot of work to do on their site yet. He said they have not had the opportunity to Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 24, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 14 DRAFT go through the Code in detail, and he wondered if anyone has tried to design a building under the new code to see if it can be designed to work on a price per square foot basis. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that she appreciated Mr. McCauley's concerns and she wondered if they should start by reverse engineering from what can be afforded, and then see what the project looks like, or if they should start with what they would like a project to look like and see if they can afford it in the end. She said that the Commission's charge is to come up with an outstanding urban code, and they have not been asked at this point to think about whether someone could afford to do it, but it is an important point and a decision that needs to be made. Kerry Reeds, MSI, stated that he had drafted a plan very quickly that was not intended to be the plan, but just an example of a potential plan for Dublin Village Center. He said they took a step back and noted that there are a lot of buildings and infrastructure that have a serviceable life still, and it is unlikely that someone will come in and scrape a 60 -acre site clean and start from scratch in one fell swoop. He said the property has tenants that have an interest and this is simply an approach to look at how this site can evolve over time. He thought this plan is closer to the Code, but does not meet the Code. He said there has been some interest in developing multi - family on this site which is illustrated in the north west corner of the site presented on the screen. Mr. Reeds presented a plan showing a proposal to straightening the roadway from Tuller Road south of the BJs site, because there is interest in a three to four story office building approximately 150,000 square feet in area, with surface parking lot located to the north. He said there is an existing building that could be re- purposed into a school, and the theater /family entertainment would be relocated to the BJs site with the existing surface parking lot and potentially outlot restaurants. He said that would be all for the first phase. He said the balance of the site stays as it is, with the existing commercial center, surface parking lot, bank, existing tenant buildings along Sawmill and the existing Applebee's. Mr. Reeds stated that the second phase focuses on the southeastern corner of the center, because they have interest in convenience retail on this portion of the site. He said there is a potential need for a drive - through for a potential drug store with at least short term surface parking. Mr. Reeds stated that the third phase would focus on the center with new retail, multi -story retail /office or multi - family built around the core with an existing drive adjacent to the building that would continue through to the office with a possible parking deck along the west, with a new retail tenant and possible refacing of the existing retail. Mr. Reeds said that the fourth phase would be to add an additional parking garage with the old drive tc get new buildings adjacent to it and the potential for additional office space with an additional parking deck that can service the office as well as the theater. He said there is a need to extend Snouffer Road through this site, which is really important to this development. Mr. McCauley said the extension of Snouffer Road is something that potential tenants have indicated would make a different to this site if they had that connection to Sawmill Road, and they would love to be able to do that on day one. Mr. Reeds said that in all likelihood, this plan, even though it is conceptual, it does adhere to the grid street network and ultimately the streets need to be laid out on a very simplistic format that is very understandable. Mr. McCauley said with not knowing what the future holds, they are asking for an avenue to allow them to go through a process such as the PUD that will not unnecessarily limit them. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that Mr. McCauley and Mr. Reeds have provided the Commissioners with quite a bit to think about, and although they had hoped that they would have had a chance to consider Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 24, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 14 DRAFT this a few months ago, late is better than never. She thanked Mr. McCauley and Mr. Reeds and asked if there is anyone else that would like to speak with respect to the Code. Ben Hale Jr., Smith and Hale, said that the arrangement that Mr. McCauley described was not unusual for a shopping center, because in fact, in most shopping centers, the major tenants own their own buildings such as Sears, Lazarus, and Macy's, so the easement he is talking about is very common in malls and large shopping centers. Mr. Hale agreed that there is a need for some sort of outlet or exception procedure that would allow applications to come before the Planning Commission. He said they need a way to accommodate the creativity of architects and developers, who are very inventive people that will need a mechanism to allow for those exceptions. He said in Westerville for example, the Planning Commission can give a minor exception, while major exceptions go to their City Council. He thought that waivers and exceptions should not be taken lightly and that developers should need to demonstrate why it is necessary, and ensure that it will not undermine the overall vision. Mr. Hale said that Westerville rezoned all of their vacant land to PUD without any plans, and when developers come in they need to determine if changes are major or minor, and then they go through the review process. He thought that a similar process could apply here. Mr. Langworthy said that Waivers do have to follow the Code, because they have to comply with the spirit and intent of the Vision Report, and they need to demonstrate that the request is caused by unique site conditions or conditions of surrounding properties, but they cannot allow any use, building type, or open space that is not otherwise permitted in the district. Mr. Hale said if you cannot change the building type, than there has to be a mechanism to change anything, when he reads that language. Mr. Langworthy said perhaps if they loosen the waiver language it would solve Mr. Hale's concern. He said that it should be flexible enough that a discretionary reviewing body such as the Planning Commission would have the opportunity to make those alterations. Mr. Hale agreed. Melanie Wollenberg, Equity, owner of the Bridge Pointe Shopping Center, 445 Hutchinson Avenue, Columbus, Ohio, said she is all for a predictable, timely, reasonable, and responsible process and thought that the Commission achieved that this past summer when they reviewed the architectural modifications to the Bridge Pointe shopping center. She said she was very pleased with the timeliness and the fact that the Commission was not overreaching. She thought it was a reasonable exchange, that they did some things that they did not want to do, but the Commission had a right to ask for them. She said she likes the current process that is in place because the Commissioners are in the marketplace every day and understand the practicality of the request. Ms. Wollenberg said this is an onerous code that infringes on property rights, and she agreed with many of Mr. McCauley's comments regarding the market and the difficulty of the Code. She said this Code dictates use, and she did not think that anyone could predict use. She said that there was a time in Dublin that it was not a reasonable or predictable process, and if they go back there again, then maybe there is a need for an overhaul. She said this goes to the other extreme, and if she had her choice, she would keep things such as the existing zoning and parking requirements and densities and the current approval process. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that her opinion is that the current process is relatively predictable, efficient in terms of time, and that it is friendly to the development community. Ms. Wollenberg agreed and said that her circumstances are probably different from other developers, but she was pleased with staff with helping her through the process and pleased with the Commission. She Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 24, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 14 DRAFT said they were asked to do things and go further than she would have liked to, but she never felt they were overreaching or making up requirements as they went along or were asking for unreasonable things within a reasonable time frame and she thought she got that with predictable answers. Mr. Taylor asked Ms. Wollenberg her thoughts on a middle ground. Ms. Wollenberg said she thought that taking the Commission out of the process is a mistake because they gave real time marketplace perspective, and experienced input was needed. She said that as she looks at the Code and what they would be imposed upon with BSC Commercial or Office, it would be much worse if they were BSC Office, but the construction cost will prohibit them from building market rate buildings, so they would be in the situation Mr. McCauley is talking about, where they couldn't do anything because they would be prohibited by the Code to build the building the market would be willing to pay for, and would be required to build the building that they couldn't lease at market rates because they could not build it at a market cost. She stated that there is a direct connection to cost and rent and this Code disconnects those two and she doesn't think they can predict years the costs associated with the architectural form they are trying to achieve. Mr. McCauley said he has had different experiences through the PUD process and the pains he had during that review and it speaks volumes for him to still say he prefers that process as an option, and it would be his choice to do it. Ms. Amorose Groomes recalled Mr. McCauley's recent experience with the skilled nursing facility in the Shamrock Crossing PUD, and asked if that last application was the highest quality of all his applications and did it work out better in the end than it maybe would have in the beginning had it not gone through the Commission's review. Mr. McCauley agreed but thought the applicant was caught in the middle with the Bridge Street Corridor coming down the path and they were trying to do one thing but once they understood the direction that it really was the qualities of the BSC that the Commission was looking for then they were able to adhere to it 95 percent and then it went through real quick, but it took them a long time to get there because it was not clear up to that point. He said that the concept plan allowed them to go through that process, but this last review involved a disconnect, but once they got on the same page at the end they got a better product because of the process. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there was anyone else that would like to speak with respect to this application. [There was no one.] Mr. Langworthy requested a five minute break at 9:09 p.m. Ms. Amorose Groomes resumed the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Ms. Amorose Groomes announced that the Commission would continue their review with Code Section 153.066, Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria. Mr. Hardt commented that the discussion this evening has been very interesting. He said his concerns are global in nature and are not new. He said that he still maintains a level of discomfort with this portion of the Code. He stated that this Code is radically different from anything else that has ever existed in Dublin before, with the densities and parking requirements and building heights, and so on. He said that going through the exercise of reviewing the 117 pages of Code has made it clear to him that different people read this Code differently and make different interpretations of the requirements. He said that because of the different interpretations and the fact that it is such a significant departure, he has always maintained that the approval procedures that have been in place all these years ought to remain in place to some Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 24, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 14 DRAFT degree until we know what the outcome will be. He said the market is going to change and evolve, and the Code is untested and is written to be very prescriptive in nature, so he struggles with looking for a way to provide a level of comfort that the Planning and Zoning Commission and the public can keep their eyes on the process and make sure they are getting the results that they want while keeping in mind the desire to shorten the process or expedite the process where it is appropriate to do so. Mr. Hardt suggested an option where there is a Basic Plan Review, where developers come in and present a conceptual level of detail to this Commission, and then it goes through the ART. He said in many cases, that will be fine, but in others, that will not work. He said that there are going to be projects that are big and messy and do not fit neatly within all of the boxes and maybe ought to stay on a PUD- like track, where a developer can come to the Commission and negotiate. He said that he would like to see a process written into the Code where a Basic Plan Review occurs, and at that review, the Commission discusses the proposal with the applicant and everyone including the public and staff will look at the project and determine whether it is simple and straight forward or if it is more complex and should come back to the Commission for final approval. He said that would give the developer the opportunity to choose the review. Mr. Hardt said he believed that there is a happy medium in there that if all the interested parties can engage in that dialog very early in a project to have the opportunity to go through one track or another and make that determination early on. He said a similar option could be available in the Bridge Street Corridor to make a determination that a given project is appropriate for the ART track or the Planning and Zoning track with the developer being an active participant in that dialog. He said the Code is as good as it can be and he is proud of the work that has been put into it by everybody involved, but until the development community tries to design a building, they will not know what is going to happen and he is not comfortable with not reviewing some of these projects. Mr. Taylor said he couldn't improve on Mr. Hardt's comments, and he agreed that much of what Mr. Hardt suggested makes a lot of sense. He said the suggestion allows for things they have not thought of yet and it allows the developer to choose to make the process simple and quick or they could propose to risk it and go for something more complex or different and go before the Commission to make their case and allow the public to have input in the process. He said that this would allow the City to promote the new development in the Bridge Street Corridor, and promote the process as being predictable and speedy and allow developers to explore new ideas that may or may not fit the Code. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she was also intrigued by what she had heard from the public. She agreed with Mr. Hardt's and Mr. Taylor's concerns with the projects that big and complicated, and she did not feel that at the Basic Plan Review, the City could not have enough information for the public, residents, and corporate citizens to really evaluate what a project will mean for them and their community. She said that the projects that are more difficult should allow the community the opportunity to participate in a longer period of the review process, and she though t that the Planning and Zoning Commission provides that opportunity. She said that she is not yet ready to see if this will work yet, because there is too much at stake. She commented that even though the Bridge Street Corridor is a very small percentage of the city's land area, it is a very important part of the city and the impacts are tremendous. She said that there needs to be a safety valve, and to claim that they have nothing left to learn and that they have figured everything out is a mistake. She said this has been an enormous process and the hours that staff has put into it shows and they have done a fantastic job. She said that the Code is very good, and she is proud of the body of work that went into it, but she is fearful of what she does not know or has not yet considered. She said to stay relevant they have to stay engaged, and that is what this Commission has to be to stay relevant for this Code to remain relevant so they can along the way see the pitfalls and be in a position to fix them along the way. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 24, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 14 DRAFT Ms. Amorose Groomes said Mr. Hardt's suggestion of the Basic Plan coming before the Commission to determine the process is a great idea. Mr. Hardt said it would not be that drastic of a fix, it would be changing the diagram of the process, and he suggested switching the track at the Basic Plan Review which would result in the project working with staff to finalize the details before filing a Development Plan application and then coming to the Commission for approval instead of the ART and then following the permit process. Mr. Taylor said this could be a waiver -Ake review process. Mr. Hardt said page 107 describes the criteria for which the ART can elect to forward a Development Plan to the Planning and Zoning Commission if the application raises complex issues, and the same criteria could be what the Planning and Zoning Commission uses to keep the project or send it on an ART track. Mr. Zimmerman said this is a working document and feels that until this is up and running they don't know how it will work and the document will constantly change, and they should anticipate changes. Mr. Hardt said he agrees and suggests that they put something in the Code that gives applicants options to allow them to review applications the way they do now or on a case by case basis. Mr. Zimmerman said if the developer wants to go through ART all the way through, then they should be able to that as long as it follows the criteria. Joe Budde said if a developer wants to comply with the Code they could go on through the ART process, and thought that is what the developers have said they would like in place, but if it does not comply with everything, then the review stays with the Commission. Mr. Hardt said he heard that the development community might want to request the Commission review if there is some aspect of the Code they can't meet. Mr. Budde said he heard from the consultant, Don Elliott, that this document will continually evolve and he agreed that the Commission will have the opportunity to provide input. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the only problem is if staff came back and said they have experienced a problem with a Code requirement, her concern is that if she had not experienced the concern, she would not be in the best position to know best to address the concern. Mr. Hardt said if the Code is implemented, and issues are discovered at the ART stage, and the Commission does not have an active role in the review of those projects, then when they get a report back from staff saying that the Code did not work right, they would not have the first hand knowledge of understanding of the issues. Mr. Budde said he thought staff would be able to share insight on the issues very well as they have in previous presentations, and the Commission will have an opportunity to learn about the issues. Mr. Taylor said he always appreciates Mr. Fishman's background on projects, because he always seems to remember what happened years ago, and that intimate knowledge of projects will have a lot of value in the future. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested that the Commissioners finish their review on the rest of this section now that they had provided their general concerns with this section. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 24, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 14 DRAFT Mr. Hardt said he thought of a Waiver as a small deviation from the Code, but if the Code requires a parking garage and the development community says the market doesn't support a parking garage, that no longer seemed like a waiver to him. He said that there needed to be an alternative route to deal with that issue. Mr. Langworthy said the name may be wrong, but the effect is the same. He said either way, it allows the Planning Commission to change an element of the Code by not changing the language of the Code itself, but only as it applies to that particular property. Mr. Hardt said on page 107 under review procedures should be changed to any reviewing body, depending on which way an application goes. Mr. Hardt pointed out that on page 110, under Minor Projects, multiple buildings that are eight units or less does not seem like a minor project to him. Mr. Langworthy said he would clarify the language to state eight units in a sin le bui /ding. Mr. Hardt said that redesigning fences does not seem like it would be a minor modification that should be approved administratively. Ms. Ray stated that the language could be modified to not allow the change to apply to street walls, but if it is just a fence on a property in the rear yard of a residential lot, it is probably not something that should come before the Commission every time, as long as it was within the buildable portion of the lot and met Code in terms of height, material, etc. Mr. Hardt asked if there had been any progress made with respect to identifying the submission requirements for the various types of applications. Mr. Langworthy said they will have that before the applicant guide is finished, and they are already working on it, but it would be similar to what is submitted now and would certainly not be less. Ms. Ray said they were working on a check list and would likely require the applicant to provide information up front demonstrating that all requirements had been met, such as transparency, building materials, etc. Mr. Langworthy said their goal is once they go through our process, they only have to go to building permit, and at that point, the only things they need to review are the Building Code elements and all the other issues will have been resolved by the ART. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked Mr. Langworthy about the next steps, now that they had concluded their review of the Code, and asked if the Commissioners should expect a complete, revised Code by Friday. Mr. Langworthy agreed to provide the Commissioners with a revised draft by Friday. Claudia Husak said that the Clerk's office has advertised that the ordinance for the area rezoning and the Code will be introduced at City Council on February 13"' and they are getting ready to send out over 500 notices to the property owners for that meeting, so a vote on the code and area rezoning should be scheduled for the meeting next Thursday, February 2r Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested that Mr. Langworthy email the revised Review and Approval Procedures and Sign requirements as soon as they are ready to allow the Commissioners as much time as possible to review those sections before the meeting on the 2 rd Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 24, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 14 DRAFT Ms. Amorose Groomes adjourned the meeting at 10:16 p.m. I of Dublin Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin., Ohio 43016 -1236 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410 sa.g ov www.dublino hiou RECORD OF DISCUSSION sa.g JANUARY 19, 2012 DRAFT' The Planning and Zoning Commission took no action on the following at this meeting: S. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- 020ADM Administrative Request Proposal: To amend the Zoning Code to establish a number of new Zoning Districts and regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor. Request: Review and recommendation to City Council regarding amendments to the Zoning Code under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.232 and 153.234. Applicant: City of Dublin, Marsha Grigsby, City Manager. Planning Contact: Steve Langworthy, Planning Director. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4600 slangworthy @dublin.oh.us RESULT: The Commission continued their review of the draft development code for the Bridge Street Corridor and commented on Sections 153.062 Building Types (Tables), 153.063 Neighborhood Standards, 153.064 Open Space Types, and 153.065 Site Development Standards (Parking and Loading, and Stormwater Management). COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Chris Amorose Groomes Absent Richard Taylor Todd Zimmerman Warren Fishman Absent Amy Kramb John Hardt Joseph Budde STAFF CERTIFICATION Steve Langworthy Planning Director Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 6 DRAFT S. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- 020ADM Administrative Request Dan Phillabaum stated that at the previous meeting, the Commission had requested that the building types graphics and tables be made consistent across all building types, and that the positions of the letters be corrected. He said that Planning is currently working on this for the next draft. Richard Taylor asked if 'A' would then always refer to the same thing for each building type, and so forth. Mr. Phillabaum said that was the intent. Amy Kramb noted that on the Building Type Tables, under RBZ Treatment, the first word is always "Landscape;" and she asked what that was intended to mean. Rachel Ray explained that in the landscape section of the Code, there are different RBZ treatment options, including "landscape," "patio," and "streetscape." She said that for single - family detached building types in particular, it means the RBZ is required to be treated with lawn and other landscaping, instead of all patio or sidewalk with fencing. Mr. Taylor said that he would like the reference to the Residential Appearance Standards (153.190) to be struck from the Code. Mr. Phillabaum said that Planning would check all of the cross references to make sure that the BSC Code addresses all of the relevant requirements in the Residential Appearance Standards, but he thought the overall reference could be eliminated. Ms. Kramb asked about the difference between the fagade requirements, since one references transparency, while the other references genera /transparency. Mr. Phillabaum explained that one regulates transparency for building elevations with street frontage, while the other includes transparency requirements for non - street fagades. Ms. Kramb said that she thought the word "general" should be struck then, and the requirements should state street frontage and non - street frontage transparency. Mr. Hardt said that on page 36, the last item on the left column, refers to occupied space 15 feet deep. He said that, with respect to single - family detached dwellings, it appears as though this is requiring the front room of a house to be 15 feet deep. He recalled that there had been some concern from the development community that indicated that this was deeper than it needed to be. Mr. Phillabaum said that the depth for single - family attached building types, the required depth of occupied space had been reduced to 10 feet of depth in response to this concern. Mr. Hardt asked Mr. Taylor if a 15 -foot depth requirement for the front room of a house is typical. Mr. Taylor said that as he understood the requirement, it would prohibit the home from being less than 15 feet deep before reaching the garage or backyard. Ms. Ray said the requirement is primarily concerned with the location of the garage. She said that the 15- foot depth does not mean that a single room has to be 15 feet deep, it just needs to be occupied space in lieu of a garage or otherwise unoccupied storage or utility area. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 6 DRAFT Mr. Hardt asked what the depth has to do with the occupied space requirement. Ms. Ray said the intent of the dimension was to allow enough space to allow activity to occur Mr. Taylor referred to number three, principal entrance location, and noted that a porch is required. He asked if a porch or stoop could be recessed and still be considered a porch or stoop entrance. Mr. Phillabaum said the requirements is for open porches, and he referred to the language on page 31. He said there could be a roof over the porch or stoop, but it could not be enclosed by walls greater than 24 inches above the porch level. Mr. Taylor pointed out that there are houses with steps out front that have recessed entrances, and the walls would end up being taller than 30 inches. Steve Langworthy said it would be acceptable as long as it was not an entirely enclosed space. Mr. Hardt said that he had a comment that applies to all of the building type graphics. He noted that there is a red area on each indicating "parking within building" that should instead be labeled "permitted parking within building,' since parking is not requiredto be provided wherever the red area is shown. Ms. Kramb said that on page 38, under building entrance, the requirement should read "a minimum of one per unit" for number of entrances. She said that, with respect to number four, vertical increments, the requirement is one for every two units or 40 feet. She asked if the requirement is intended to be at ieastevery 40 feet, at a maximum. Mr. Phillabaum confirmed that was the intent and agreed to modify the table. Mr. Taylor referred to (b), Height, and stated suggested that height be required at "2.5 feet above the adjacent sidewalk elevation " rather than from. Mr. Hardt referred to the apartment building type on page 40, and said that with respect to the fagade materials, brick, stone, wood and fiber cement siding are permitted, which seems to require traditional building types. He suggested that glass be permitted as an additional primary building material. Ms. Kramb referred to the loft building type and noted that the building entrance requirement states "where ground story dwelling units or tenant spaces are incorporated, one [entrance] per full 30 feet." She suggested that this be modified to "a minimum of every 30 feet." Mr. Langworthy said that this change was specifically requested by a potential applicant because they were unclear if an entrance would be required if they only provided an additional 25 feet. He said that an additional entrance would only be required only when a full 30 -foot increment had been provided. He preferred to leave the requirement as it was written. Ms. Kramb referred to the building height requirements for the corridor building type on page 44, and asked why Riverside Drive and I -270 were the only two streets mentioned where an additional two stories could be permitted. She said that s she reads the requirement, corridor building types could be five and a half stories tall, unless they have frontage on Riverside Drive or I -270, and in that case, an additional two stories could be added as long as there is an eight foot setback. Ms. Ray said that was correct, because the requirement was intended to allow views of the Scioto River along Riverside Drive. She noted that the proximity to I -270 was noted instead of Tuller Road because Tuller Road may not stay within its current alignment forever. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 6 DRAFT Mr. Taylor referred to the historic cottage commercial building type and asked how the 70 -foot maximum building length or depth requirement was derived. Mr. Phillabaum said that the consultants who initially drafted the Code took an inventory of the existing buildings in the Historic District, and that was how this building type was created. Ms. Kramb referred to the parking structure requirements and pointed out that in the parking and loading requirements on page 83, the Code requirement states that the opening to parking garages can only be 24 feet wide if it is for a double entrance, and on the table, it states that entrances shall not exceed 30 feet. Ms. Ray explained that the 24 -foot width requirement is intended to be measured at the sidewalk, while the driveway itself could widen a little bit to 30 feet at the actual entrance to the building. Mr. Hardt referred to the permitted fagade materials and suggested adding glass to this building type in addition to brick and stone. He referred to the provision near the bottom of the right hand column that states that towers are permitted on parking garages at terminal vistas. He asked why a parking garage should be permitted at a terminal vista at all. Ms. Ray noted that towers are permitted, but not required, and stated that parking structures could be located along a smaller local street. Mr. Hard said he was not sure that he would even want a parking structure at a terminal vista. Ms. Ray noted that parking structures are conditional uses, which require the Commission's approval. Mr. Hardt asked if there has been any more thought about creating a separate building type for buildings with podium -style parking structures. Mr. Phillabaum said there will be another building type for a podium apartment building, and Planning is currently working on the details for that building type to include in the next draft. Mr. Taylor referred to the intent statements at the beginning of the Neighborhood Standards requirements, and thought that the wording was awkward. He confirmed with Mr. Langworthy that the requirements for the BSC Historic Residential District are identical to the requirements for the existing Historic Residential District, included the 50% lot coverage. Ms. Kramb referred to the access provisions (153.063(C)(3)(c)) which states "Refer to 153.060 and 153.061 for existing and planned principal frontage streets within the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District and acceptable block access configurations." She said that she was not sure if acceptable is the correct word to use. Justin Goodwin said that this is intended to refer to both the street network map and the diagram in lots and blocks that show typical alley configurations. He agreed to take a look at the wording. Ms. Kramb suggested potential instead of planned principal frontage streets in the same paragraph. Ms. Kramb asked why the commercial buildings are limited to Village Parkway and Sawmill Road. Ms. Ray said this requirement references the commercial center building type, which is the lowest density building type that allows some outparcel development up front to meet the front property line coverage Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 6 DRAFT requirements. She said that Planning recommends limiting this building type to occur only along Sawmill Road to help transition into the Corridor and along Village Parkway. Mr. Hardt referred to block length, which specifically lists 500 feet which is also mentioned in the table back in Lots and Blocks. He asked if this paragraph should just refer to the table. Ms. Ray said that could be done. Ms. Kramb asked if the maximum block length is 500 feet, then why is that not listed in Table 153.063 -B? Ms. Ray said the table shows the minimum required length for a shopping corridor, which is required to be at least 300 feet. She said shopping corridors are supposed to be the smaller more pedestrian oriented blocks where more mixed use development would occur. She explained that at least one 300 - foot shopping corridor would be required in these neighborhood districts to make sure we are creating a critical mass of mixed use development in these neighborhood districts. Ms. Kramb noted that if the development is over five acres, it requires a 600 -foot shopping corridor. She said 600 feet exceeds the block length limit. Ms. Ray said that the shopping corridor does not have to be continuous; it could cross streets and turn corners. Mr. Hardt referred to the gateways on page 63 and stated that he would like to see something that requires gateways to be pedestrian scaled, since "gateways" can mean different things to different people. Mr. Taylor stated that, with reference to the master sign plans, he preferred that the Planning and Zoning Commission shaiireviewall master sign plans. Ms. Kramb pointed to page 64, regarding street types, and asked if someone wanted to build a greenway on a non principal frontage street, why they should not be permitted to do so, because she read the requirement as stating that greenways are not permitted on non - principal frontage streets. Ms. Ray said that the regulation was intended to require that any street that has frontage along a greenway shall be treated as a principal frontage street, regardless of whether it is specifically designated as a principal frontage street on the street network map, for the purposes of site and architectural design of adjacent development fronting along that portion of the same street. She agreed to reword the requirement so the intent was clearer. Mr. Taylor noted that the Historic Transition Neighborhood District is the only district that encompasses two different zoning districts, with property to be zoned Historic Transition Neighborhood and Public. He said that the distinction between the two needs to be made clear. Ms. Ray agreed and stated that the school site is currently recommended for zoning to the Public District based on its current use. She said if it were to redevelop, it would go into the Historic Transition District. Ms. Kramb referred to the first part of the Indian Run Neighborhood District requirements and noted that "pursuant to" was used twice in the same sentence, and that the rest of the paragraph and the following paragraphs are fragmented and unclear. Mr. Langworthy agreed to review the language, but indicated that it had been specifically requested by a property owner. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 6 DRAFT Mr. Taylor said that there are two places where there is a greenway fronted by a road against residential properties in the Indian Run Neighborhood. He asked how close the buildings could be to the residences of Indian Run Estates. Mr. Langworthy said the exact distance will not be known until we know the final alignment of the road, but there could be a pocket of residential where the road allows for a greenway off to the side. Mr. Taylor said the text states that if pervious pavement is used, the size of an outdoor patio can be increased for a restaurant. He pointed out that even if a patio were a good distance across the ravine, from the back of a residential property the potential noise from the patio could become an annoyance. Mr. Langworthy said that section will be reviewed closely. Ms. Kramb stated that she had provided Planning with notes about some of the open space requirements that are really definitions instead of requirements, and that Planning had agreed to look into the changes. Mr. Taylor announced that since the Commission had reached the Site Development Standards, they would proceed no further with their review than the parking and loading requirements. He asked if any of the Commissioners had any specific questions or comments about this section. Mr. Hardt said he did not have any major issues with this section. Mr. Taylor agreed with Mr. Hardt. Justin Goodwin pointed out that Planning would like to revise the required parking for hospitals in the parking table, because there is a wide variety of types of hospitals and assisted living that would all fit into this category. He said the requirement that is currently shown in the Code could even end up requiring more parking than would be appropriate. He suggested adding a separate category for specialty hospitals, but since Planning tried to keep the uses in the parking table consistent with the uses in the use table, Planning would probably recommend stating "per an approved parking plan" instead. Mr. Hardt asked how the Code would differentiate between a hotel and an apartment building Mr. Langworthy said if a hotel were in a permitted district, it could potentially occur in an apartment building type; if both were permitted uses, we would not have to distinguish except for parking requirements. Mr. Taylor pointed out that a hotel could be a denser use than an apartment building. Ms. Ray stated that Planning would determine whether each use was permitted in the BSC district, and then it would be required to meet the building type and site development standards, which include parking and landscape requirements. Mr. Langworthy said that in order to qualify as residential dwelling unit it would have to have housekeeping facilities, each one would have to have a kitchen, bath and other specific amenities. Mr. Taylor announced that the next meeting on Tuesday, January 24, the Commission would review the site development standards and the review and approval procedures. He confirmed with Mr. Langworthy that a clean copy of the Code should be expected prior to the Commission meeting on Thursday; February 2. Mr. Langworthy asked if there were any comments or questions up to this point that would need to be researched before the meeting on Tuesday, January 24. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 6 DRAFT Mr. Taylor stated that he had several concerns with the sign regulations as drafted, and he had provided Planning with some specific comments and suggested modifications that he would like to discuss at the next meeting. Mr. Zimmerman asked if the Commission is still planning to vote on the Code and area rezoning on Thursday, February 2. Mr. Langworthy said that was the schedule, and stated that he would like the code to be the first vote of the meeting, followed by the area rezoning. He said that if there are additional changes or suggestions that come up during the meeting on February 2, those changes can still be noted and will be provided to Council with the final draft. Mr. Taylor adjourned the meeting at 10:07 p.m 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 www.d ublinohiousa.gov PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION JANUARY 12, 2012 DRAFT The Planning and Zoning Commission took no action on the following at this meeting: 2. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- 020ADM Administrative Request Proposal: To amend the Zoning Code to establish a number of new Zoning Districts and regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor. Request: Review and recommendation to City Council regarding amendments to the Zoning Code under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.232 and 153.234. Applicant: City of Dublin, Marsha Grigsby, City Manager. Planning Contact: Steve Langworthy, Planning Director. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4600 slangworthy @dublin.oh.us RESULT: The Commission continued their review of the draft development code for the Bridge Street Corridor and commented on Sections 153.060 Lots and Blocks, 153.061 Street Types, 153.062 Building Types (General Requirements). COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Chris Amorose Groomes Richard Taylor Todd Zimmerman Warren Fishman Amy Kramb John Hardt Joseph Budde STAFF CERTIFICATION Steve Langworthy Planning Director Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 12, 2012 — Minutes Page 1 of 17 DRAFT 2. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification Administrative Request 11- 020ADM Chair Chris Amorose Groomes introduced this administrative request for review and recommendation to City Council of a proposed amendment to the Zoning and regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor (BSC). make recommendations to City Council on the final public comments first. Code to establish a number of new zoning districts She explained that the Commission will review and draft. She said that the Commission would receive David Brown, 5100 Parkcenter Drive, representing Acura of Columbus, said that the Acura site was originally planned for BSC Office zoning, but the Commission was recommending that the parcel and others along State Route 161, east of Riverside, Drive be zoned BSC Commercial. He conveyed support on behalf of Acura to maintain the designation of BSC Commercial. He said they had been a dealership operating since the mid- 1980s, and the parcel was purchased for retail, commercial purposes. Mr. Brown said although they understand and appreciate the fact that the zoning text reflects that if the use is continued arguably and theoretically in perpetuity, that the use can continue for retail automobile purposes; however, there are scenarios which play out that could effect his client's ability to use the land in a retail capacity, and therefore they would recommend and support that parcel designation as BSC Commercial in the future. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that it was the Commission's recommendation in an effort to try to protect businesses like Acura. She encouraged Mr. Brown to stay engaged because the Commission does not have the final say. Warren Fishman asked if an auto dealership ceased and was abandoned for a year, would it become a nonconforming use? Steve Langworthy explained that the parcel would be considered conforming as long as the criteria for abandonment had not been met. Mr. Brown explained that part of their concern was that, as a retail franchised authorized dealer, if a scenario plays out where they sell the Acura franchise and an entity that purchases the site wants to relocate the dealership to the outerbelt for example, his client is probably stuck with a piece of property whose highest and best use is retail automotive; however, there is such a saturation in the Columbus market with manufacturers having their own locations for their car dealerships, evidenced by the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies, whereas Byers Chevrolet and Byers Dublin Dodge were pulled because those manufactures said they did not need representation in those particular areas. He said it was a concern for them that the use would discontinue and they would not be able to use it in that capacity. Mr. Fishman said that was even a bigger reason to keep those lots BSC Commercial. Max Machuta, 957 Egret Court, Westerville, said he was just a concerned citizen, not representing any one. He said he was concerned with what was going on in the Dublin area along this Corridor in the area where he worked. He said he had attended several of these meetings and he was impressed with the interest that the Commission has shown and the courtesy that has been demonstrated to all of the property owners that have spoken at these meetings. Mr. Machuta said he respected the great amount of work that staff had completed to come up with the plan, but he wanted to wholly support and agree with everything that Mr. Brown just said. He said he was most concerned with how much vacant office space currently exists in Dublin, and questioned why we would want to have more areas designated for office when there is a glut of available office space now. He reiterated that he supported everything that the Commission has done and agreed with the conclusion that the group has appeared to have come to the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 12, 2012 — Minutes Page 2 of 17 DRAFT conclusion that it would be in the best interest to keep these properties zoned BSC Commercial, contrary to what Plannina has recommended. Ben W. Hale, Jr., Smith and Hale, said he had worked closely with the staff on a number of issues, and they have been very cooperative. He said he worked with them on the language trying protect those property owners whose zoning would change. He said he supported the BSC Code because he thought there were always details, but he did think that in this area there is a terrific opportunity in Dublin, and that we all are going to be pretty happy with what is going to happen there. Mr. Hale said he thought something needed to be done relatively radical in this area, and this is a radical plan and a radical Code. He said he read the BSC again recently, and the lawyer in him was bothered that a section in the preamble talked about zonings of these properties, and essentially, it said today that if you want to rezone a property in the Bridge Street Corridor, the only thing you can do is zone it from one Bridge Street Corridor zoning district to the other. He said it specifically said you cannot file to establish a PUD and do something different. He said that bothered him, although he understood why it was that way because of the possibility of lawyers like him. He said he believed that if an applicant was willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on going through the PUD process, they ought to have the opportunity to do so. He said that section should at least allow someone if they are willing to go through the process, but otherwise, an applicant could default to the Code and the underlying development standards. Mr. Hale said that applicants should default to the Bridge Street Code, and ask for very specific differences where necessary. He said he thought there was a Code process where the reviewing body could make minor changes, and another if more significant changes were sought, involving Commission review and approval. He said that when you have an administrative review, you have to have administrative standards, and you can use administrative discretion, but you cannot give people something that is not basically in keeping with the BSC Vision, because that is not what administrative bodies do when they are giving variances or exceptions. Mr. Hale thought there ought to be some outlet to allow someone, if they want to do it, to come to the Commission and City Council and ask for the opportunity to do something different. He said however, he also understood why there was a concern with allowing PUDs at any time, because if the expectation is that we want to achieve the BSC Vision, most applicants should develop that way in most cases. He said however his experience over the last 40 years is that the world changes and people come up with new ideas, and sometimes they are good, and there should be some mechanism to allow good, new development. Ms. Amorose Groomes said Mr. Hale made a great point and that there were certain sites that would lend themselves to that sort of activity better than others. She said she really thought that they were going to have that in the BSC at some point before they were finished with it. She said they were all thinking in the direction that there would be some avenue for another process, and she did not know if they would call it a PUD process necessarily, but certainly an alternative process to the BSC Code, but the understanding would be that the standards are going to be very high and it would likely look a lot like the BSC Code, but perhaps for varying reasons, there might be some deviations. Richard Taylor said he thought a lot of progress had been made, but he agreed with Ms. Amorose Groomes. Amy Kramb said her concern was for the person that came and asked for and paid for a lot of waivers. She asked why they could not just have them come in and ask for one PUD instead of a bunch of waivers. Mr. Hale said waivers should be arduous, and not handed out easily and often. He said that applicants should have to prove their point if they are asking for something that is not minor if they can convince Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 12, 2012 — Minutes Page 3 of 17 DRAFT the Commission that it is necessary and would not change the basic intent of the Code and the BSC Vision Plan. Mr. Taylor said they would review that later, but probably not tonight. He said the current iteration of this Code allows for an application to deviate from one or more of the requirements, so that you can package more than one waiver together. Aaron Underhill, 8000 Walton Parkway, New Albany, referred to Planning's January 12"' memorandum regarding the BSC modification request to accommodate podium -style parking facilities. He said he was representing a developer who wanted to remain nameless, but different property owners throughout the community have come to know what it is going to mean for them when marketing their properties. He said there is a developer very interested in developing a product of this type and probably in more than one place. Mr. Underhill said it was a very real project that could happen quickly, and they have decided that rather than going through some arduous PUD process or asking for a number of waivers that could be accommodated by a code revision at this point, that it was best to bring it up now, despite the fact that it is coming in fairly late in the game. Mr. Underhill said it was a project that he thought involved real ingenuity. He said that when a Code is drafted that is so comprehensive, it is basically a prediction of the future and what is going to happen. He said they were pointing out things that, in with conjunction with Planning, who have been very accommodating, they believe with tweaks to the Code make them able to accommodate the project. He said from the City's and the developer's standpoint, a project like this makes a lot of economic sense as opposed to building a separate parking garage, which is very expensive. He said by integrating this sort of parking into a building, it saves the developer costs which is money that can be used to enhance the design of their project. He said from the City's standpoint, it does not use valuable land elsewhere that could be used for additional development. Mr. Underhill explained why they thought this was a good product. He said most of the issues they were talking about were design issues that would not meet the current Code just because this was not contemplated originally. He said some of the things that need to be done to park in the lower level of a structure do not necessarily jive with making things pedestrian - friendly in terms of allowing people to walk inside and out of a garage like this, because of security reasons, and the fact that this is going to be someone's home, and they do not want to have people walking in and out freely. Mr. Underhill said that they thought many of the design requirements, as have been suggested, can be met as long as they have the ability to retain some privacy with gates, codes, and things to get into these areas. Mr. Underhill said he would stay in case the Commission had specific questions later. Steve Langworthy said Mr. Underhill was told that the BSC Code was still in progress and that was something that could still be built into the text. He explained that they were very close in language and the idea and they agreed with most of what the developer wants to do and how it wants to do it. John Hardt confirmed with Mr. Underhill that the buildings were residential. He said most large scale residential buildings have other non - residential components, such as community rooms, fitness centers, and leasing offices. He asked if the developer realized those kinds of uses would be available as opportunities to keep activity on the ground floor. Mr. Underhill said he thought almost all of those uses would be above the ground floor, but he was sure they could investigate that layout. He said he did not know enough about the detail and design of the building to say definitively. Mr. Taylor suggested adding to the list a public entrance, elevator /stair lobby, and other items that could have a presence on the street. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 12, 2012 — Minutes Page 4 of 17 DRAFT Ms. Amorose Groomes said she thought it was great to get something like this included in the Code. Amy Kramb said she did not want to see something like at Creekside, where there is a very noticeable parking garage below the apartments. Ms. Ray explained that the Code currently allows podium parking, but the problem is that the Code also has occupancy requirements on the sidewalk, which require 15 or 20 feet of occupied space. She said the request that the developer has made is to not require that occupied space. She said that Planning is suggesting that the architectural requirements and landscaping help obscure any exposed parking or vents to help mitigate the appearance of the garage. She said however, they would like to maintain entrances on the sidewalk to enhance pedestrian activity. She said that was the nature of the Code modifications recommended in the memo. Ms. Kramb asked if an entrance to a parking garage would be allowed on a principal frontage street Ms. Ray explained that the vehicular access would be required from an alley or a side street. She said it would not be permitted on the principal frontage street. Ms. Kramb referred to Creekside where the two main entrances are on the main street where pedestrians are crossing and have to dodge cars. Mr. Underhill said they would agree with that. He said another thing they were trying to accomplish was the transparency requirement on the first floor. He said they did not want to have it there because it would be unattractive to the residents to pass by. He said he hoped they could enhance everything architecturally, but with an opaqueness there on the first floor instead of transparency into the garage. Mr. Hardt said he could support this in principal, but he would like to see attempts made to put whatever functions could be made down at street level. He said his fundamental concern would be the architectural treatment of the first floor along the public street. He said he, and probably the residents, would not want to see portals every 20 feet where they look in and see vehicles. Mr. Hardt said he would like to see some kind of architectural treatment, even louvers or shutters, that limits the limits the view into the garage. Mr. Hardt suggested that instead of a variety of different exceptions to allow this type of parking facility that a separate building type should be considered instead. Mr. Langworthy said Planning had considered whether they should create a separate type, but were considered about all of the potential iterations that could result from each building type. He agreed to take a look to see if a new building type would be a possibility. Mr. Hardt said he understood, and agreed that they would not want to create a building type every time something new came along. However, he said as they look at the building types that have been defined, one of the fundamental characteristics of each that differentiates them from each other is where the parking is allowed to be. He said in fact, on the diagrams, red indicates where the parking can and cannot be located. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that the Commission was generally in favor of the proposed modifications, and she invited further public comments regarding the memorandum. [There were none.] Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that the review of the Code would begin on page 14 with Lots and Blocks. Ms. Kramb said that she had already given her comments, which were mostly grammatical, to Ms. Ray earlier, to save time. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 12, 2012 — Minutes Page 5 of 17 DRAFT Section 153.060 Lots and Blocks Mr. Hardt said it was his understanding that the BSC Vertical Mixed Use District was not intended to exist on day one, because it is intended to be brought online later. He asked then, why the block dimensions were being defined separately, because if it is zoned later on, it likely have already established lot and block where it is intended to be zoned. Justin Goodwin agreed with Mr. Hardt's comment, and said that Planning had struggled with how this district actually will get implemented, and because they have increased some of the blocks in other districts, he agreed to make the maximum block dimensions consistent for this district as well. Mr. Hardt referred to the mid -block pedestrianways requirements on page 16 and pointed out that one subsection said theyshall be aligned and the other says theymaybe staggered, which seemed to conflict unless where it states, theymaybe staggered was intended to refer to the trees. Mr. Goodwin confirmed that the trees may be staggered within the design of the mid -block pedestrianway. Mr. Taylor referred to the same subsection and said that he was still not in favor of purposefully requiring that mid -block pedestrian crossings align perfectly, only because that means the first person that builds the building gets to determine the alignment of the second one. He suggested the sentence be changed from "...shall align to facilitate to facilitate continuous pedestrian pathways to "...as nearly as practicable." Mr. Taylor said he had difficulty understanding (6)(b), as it was written. Ms. Kramb said she had suggested the rewording "Mid block pedestnanways shall be publicly accessible at all times and shall be located within the middle -third of a block accessed from any side of the block exceeding 400 feet. " Mr. Goodwin explained that the intent was that if the block was 450 feet by 300 feet, a mid -block pedestrianway would be required on the longer side of the block that is 450 feet long. He said it did not have to be on both axes of the block, and that could be clarified. Section 153.061 Street Types Mr. Hardt asked if the intent was to include the street type illustrations or any information about the street types in the Code, or if that was expected to be referenced elsewhere. Mr. Langworthy said they have that noted to include in the applicant guide. Mr. Hardt referred to Existing Streets and asked if a developer constructed a project along an existing street, if there is anything to indicate who is responsible for upgrading the sidewalks, the frontage, and the front of the street. Mr. Langworthy explained that was not typically done through the Code, because they are generally worked out on an individual basis, sometimes by the applicant and sometimes by the City. He said it depended upon the circumstance that created the need for those modifications to happen. Mr. Goodwin said as part of the Site Plan Review process, they would be working closely with the applicant to determine what the appropriate design details would be, regardless of who is responsible for constructing them. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 12, 2012 — Minutes Page 6 of 17 DRAFT Mr. Taylor referred to the graphic on the bottom of the page on the right. He said his comment applied to paragraph (a) and also to similar paragraphs on some of the diagrams included. He said his concern was that we are at the same time saying this is not what we really intend as the final street network pattern, and yet it is our desired pattern. He said it went on to say, it was not intended to locate precise locations of streets. He said it seemed as though they were being specific and non - specific at the same time. He said he would rather see removed in every case, the part stating representative of the desired development pattern.' He said he did not know if we had enough information on what the desired development pattern is at the street level yet. He said that, and the fact that he still had questions as they got further into this about significant areas on the street network map. Mr. Goodwin suggested "representative of a general development pattern." Mr. Taylor suggested "a general development pattern" because the street network did not necessarily represent everyone's "desired" street pattern. Mr. Taylor referred to the requirement at the top of page 19 stating that all lots, blocks, and associated development with frontage along a street or street segment which also has any open space type frontage shall be required to meet the applicable principal frontage street requirements. He asked if this would require any property to conform where ever open space exists or is provided on a street. He said the first time he read it, he thought it said that any development along any street which has some open space frontage would require all developmentto meet principal frontage street requirements. Mr. Goodwin explained that the key phrase was street segment, which would require the City to make a determination of how much of that overall street is impacted by the open space type presence. He said if the street segment was one long block and there is open space frontage on the opposite side of the block, whatever is on the other side of the street across from the open space would now be required to be developed as though it had frontage along a principal frontage street. Mr. Taylor confirmed with Mr. Goodwin that street segment will be defined the way Planning thinks is appropriate, which might not refer absolutely to the segment of a street between two intersecting streets. Ms. Kramb referred to the crosswalks requirements on page 20 and reiterated that she disagreed with any requirement for mid -block crosswalks, and she preferred that they be minimized. She said a maximum block size is 500 feet for most of the Corridor, and 200 feet in the Historic District. Ms. Kramb said she thought it would be reasonable to expect pedestrians to walk an additional 250 or 300 feet to an intersection to cross instead of having to cross mid - block. She said that people should not be encouraged to cross in the middle of a block. Mr. Hardt said he agreed with Ms. Kramb in principle, but people will walk across streets whenever they can, regardless of whether there is a crosswalk, so we might as well do all we can to make those crossings safe because it will happen anyway. Mr. Langworthy agreed that Engineering typically did not like mid -block crossings either, but ultimately, they discussed that if they were going to be provided, that they should be made safe. Ms. Kramb referred to the requirement stating "Crosswalks shall be required at mid -block locations for areas with heavypedestrian traffic;' and said she did not agree that they should be required. Mr. Goodwin said that the language could be generalized so that it is less of a requirement. However, he pointed out that there is a big difference between a mid -block crosswalk on a four -lane arterial and a mid -block crosswalk on a small, tight, densely developed two -lane retail shopping corridor where pedestrians are going to be walking and will likely cross whenever and wherever they feel comfortable. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 12, 2012 — Minutes Page 7 of 17 DRAFT Ms. Kramb reiterated that she did not think they should be encouraged, and that pedestrians should be forced to cross at intersections. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that it said "as determined by the City Engineer; so the placement would really be at the discretion of the City Engineer. Ms. Amorose Groomes commented that one of the values of a crosswalk is that it alerts the driver that pedestrians are crossing in the general vicinity. Warren Fishman agreed that they encouraged pedestrian connectivity. Ms. Kramb reiterated that she thought crosswalks were unattractive and unsafe. Mr. Zimmerman pointed out that some crosswalks give people false sense of security when crossing. Mr. Taylor referred to the street network map on pages 22 and 23 and said that he had previously commented that he did not understand the conceptual street network shown on the school site, which does not make sense to him since with the proposed area rezoning, that site would be zoned BSC Public. He thought it was a huge missed opportunity to not develop that area for a purely public community /town center -type of use, which he thought would be a wonderful thing to have in the city and happens to be sorely missed. He believed a town center would be one of the things that pulls the whole plan together over the long term. Mr. Taylor said he still had not from anyone, either on staff or City Council, a satisfactory explanation why the whole Indian Run Estates is completely left out of the planning for the whole Bridge Street Corridor. Mr. Goodwin explained that in the earlier stages of the planning process for the Corridor when Goody Clancy began to reach out to property owners, particularly residents within the Corridor, there was quite a bit of input from residents that live in that neighborhood who recognize that the area is changing and is going to change around them. He said the residents generally commented that they are pretty pleased with the planning for the Corridor as long as nothing is shown that indicates that their neighborhood should not be there in the future. Mr. Goodwin said they have tried to respect existing residential areas, of which there are not very many in the Corridor. Mr. Taylor stated that his argument against that reasoning is that the neighborhood is left out, but then several major district connector streets are shown surrounding their neighborhood basically on four sides. He said at the point where the area surrounding the neighborhood on all sides becomes highly developed, it will not be a very viable neighborhood. Mr. Taylor said he absolutely understood the residents' concerns; however, he was aware of several properties on Avery Road whose owners did not sell to the Tartan Fields developers, and so the development went on around them. He said that when those property owners decided to sell, the properties were nearly worthless because of the way the streets were developed, around them, and they could not be developed an extension of Tartan Fields. He said he was concerned that by purposely going around this neighborhood, there might not be very much we can do with it later on in the event that the owners decided to redevelop because we have not figured out how it fits into the plan. Mr. Taylor stated that the Commission has identified from the start of this process the extremely high public value of the Indian Run, and that includes the side that the residences are on, and he would hate to see a situation be created where the opportunity to engage both sides of the Indian Run as a real amenity for the city be lost. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 12, 2012 — Minutes Page 8 of 17 DRAFT Mr. Fishman recalled that in the beginning, they had earmarked the Indian Run as a green space that would continue through the city to eventually cross the river, and that had disappeared from the map. Mr. Langworthy clarified that this map was the street network map and not an open space map. He said there was a provision in the Code that states that when a road goes along the Indian Run, that there cannot be any buildings on that side of the street, requiring access and frontage along a greenway. Mr. Goodwin referred to Mr. Taylor's comment regarding the school site, shown on the map with a conceptual street layout, and said that this site was similar to the way they are dealing with the other neighborhood districts, deliberately showing a general framework of streets entering the area, but not really showing a detailed grid through those sites, because they do not know how it will develop. He said this was one depiction and there were pros and cons to this approach, but that they were trying to paint a picture without being too specific. Mr. Goodwin explained that what they were trying to achieve in the area of the school site in the Historic Transition Neighborhood District is specify where the major open space corridors would go, how other types of open space would be integrated into the area, preferably including some type of significant open space of community value. He pointed out that when looking at this map, people using the Code would need to keep in mind that they would need to refer to multiple sections, specifically the neighborhood districts, and understand how those two sections work in tandem. Mr. Taylor said his concern was simply that a street network was drawn on the map, because he had seen things that had been drawn, and it is very difficult to erase from people's minds what has been drawn. He said if the intent is to put streets on the school site on this map, he was totally against that. He said to take it one point further, it was well known that he believed this site should be used for some sort of community gathering space, and that is not happening with this layout. He was concerned that it is still being left up the planners and developers to see how the streets will evolve over time, and while he thought that was okay for everything on the east side of the Scioto River, Historic Dublin and the areas surrounding it are a community asset. He stated that the City needs to put their foot down and say what that the school site is going to be, and that will be open and accessible and usable by and for the public. Mr. Langworthy commented that they have been very hesitant with talking about the school site for other reasons, but he thought it was clear that whatever happens on that site would be some sort of public /private partnership where the City would have the opportunity to have significant input into the way that site were to redevelop. He did not necessarily think that redevelopment of that site would be a completely private project by the time it reached the point of redevelopment. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if the grid portions of the street network could be removed from the street network map, and that the area be labeled with something else instead, such as "to be determined through a public /private development partnership." Mr. Goodwin agreed that some type of label could be applied to the map, but perhaps not as specific as stating a "public /private partnership." He suggested generalizing the street network even more in this area, because he understood the concern that the grid in this area in particular appears to be more detailed than elsewhere in the Corridor. He stated that the map does however show a major district connector street that could potentially conned to a bridge, and that was pretty important to include based on the implications for the larger Corridor street network model, but he believed that the map could be generalized to a greater extent. Ms. Kramb commented that she did not like to see all of the potential future roads intersecting with Riverside Drive, and she did not like the roads dead - ending north of Tuller Road before I -270. She said Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 12, 2012 — Minutes Page 9 of 17 DRAFT she did not think all of those intersections should be encouraged on Riverside Drive over such a short distance. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that many roads would be disruptive to that scenic route. Ms. Kramb stated that Riverside Drive was a major road corridor and was not just a Dublin street. She pointed out that there is a huge amount of travelers along that road that are not familiar with the Bridge Street Corridor and what they are trying to build here. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she was less concerned with the streets shown to be intersecting with Sawmill Road because she did not think the area would develop that way anyway. Ms. Kramb agreed with Ms. Amorose Groomes and said that her issue was that she did not understand why we would put streets down on a map that she highly doubted would ever develop that way. She thought that we would end up with terrible access management issues if we have this many blocks with streets intersecting with Sawmill Road, which is within the City of Columbus' jurisdiction anyway. She said showing the map this way would give developers the sense that they could have an intersection every 500 feet on Sawmill Road, and that did not seem right to her. Jeannie Willis said that with regard to the access points shown on Riverside Drive, if they were full access points, she would agree with Ms. Kramb's concerns, but the intent was to have those intersecting streets be restricted to right -in /right -out. She said some of the street type sections that would be applicable to Riverside Drive in this area would include medians or boulevards that would provide a physical restriction to left turns. Ms. Willis explained that some of this has to do with how the street types and street families interact with the street family diagram and how those pieces fit together. She acknowledged that the street types and street families would need to be finalized soon to best understand how everything fits together. Ms. Kramb pointed that the map does not clearly indicate that the intersections will be right -in /right -out, and she did not like right -in /right -out intersections. She reiterated that just looking at the map would give a developer the understanding that they could have full access every 500 feet along this major road. She suggested not showing the intersecting streets. Mr. Langworthy requested that Ms. Willis comment on the number of streets shown, and why they are important for the purposes of traffic distribution. Ms. Willis said the purpose of a street grid is to manage traffic more effectively with an inner - corridor trip capture rate of up to 40 percent. She explained that even though the streets are smaller and traffic speeds will be quite a bit slower than what we have seen in suburban Dublin up to this point, we could 40 percent fewer trips within Corridor because of the traffic distribution and the number of new routes provided. Mr. Taylor commented that he did not know that anyone disagreed with the concept of the grid and the advantages of traffic dispersion, but he thought Ms. Kramb's comment related more to a concern with changing the character of Riverside Drive. Ms. Kramb agreed and stated that she was concerned that when developers submit their development plans, one of the review criteria that the Commission is required to consider is whether the proposal is consistent with the street network map, and she did not want to be put in the position of having to explain that the graphic did not necessarily allow them to have full access. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 12, 2012 — Minutes Page 10 of 17 DRAFT Ms. Amorose Groomes asked what would happen if a developer came before the Commission today before anything was done to Riverside Drive, and there is no street boulevard. She asked how the access would be managed in that situation. Mr. Langworthy noted that there would likely be a temporary condition where that situation could certainly occur. He said that Planning and Engineering had already discussed that, and stated that there would be the understanding that a road may need to be built knowing that eventually, the access and alignment could change depending on what happens with Riverside Drive. Mr. Hardt said he was not as concerned with all of this because this is a highly conceptual and diagrammatic drawing in a zoning document. He said that anyone coming in with a Development Plan or Site Plan would have to go through an engineering review, and all of their access points and roadway alignments would be subject to much more scrutiny than you ever will find in a diagram such as this. Mr. Taylor said he disagreed. He said he understood that this was all up in the air to a certain extent, but the label states that this is the desired street network for the Corridor. He said that he did not desire this layout and Ms. Kramb does not desire that the character of Riverside Drive be changed. Ms. Kramb pointed out that several bridge crossings are shown across Scioto River, yet I -270 is a complete barrier with dead end streets north of Tuller Road. Mr. Langworthy said that street access north of I -270 was beyond the scope of what they were dealing with on the street network map, but he did not think that Planning and Engineering would forget that a future street connection to the north could be desirable at some point in the future. Ms. Amorose Groomes said certainly as Emerald Parkway is completed, it would be nice to have another bridge over I -270 providing access to the Dublin Village Center area, taking traffic pressure off of Sawmill Road. Ms. Kramb commented that I -270 was not any more intensive of a barrier than the Scioto River, where there are more environmental issues. Mr. Langworthy said he did not think anyone disagreed with Ms. Kramb, but he thought the issue currently was that that was not something that should be addressed at this time since it was not within the scope of the Bridge Street Corridor transportation analysis. Ms. Kramb said at the very least, they should plan to avoid creating a large wall of buildings along I -270, because then a future connection would never happen across I -270. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that the Commission was in favor of seeing something more general on the school site, and that there should be a note referencing the access points along the major roadways. Mr. Hardt pointed out that part of the Commission's issues with the map may relate to the way the graphic is drawn, and perhaps it felt too much like a map. He suggested the use of fuzzier lines to allow it to feel more like a diagram than an official map. Mr. Goodwin agreed to make the changes requested by the Commission. Section 153.062 Building Types Mr. Hardt referred to the General Building Type Requirements, Existing Structures, where there is a discussion of nonconforming structures. He asked if there would be such a thing in the Bridge Street Corridor, after all of their discussion about Existing Structures and avoiding the creation of nonconformities. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 12, 2012 — Minutes Page 11 of 17 DRAFT Mr. Langworthy said that there is a difference between Existing Structures that would be created after the adoption of the Bridge Street Code, and nonconforming structures that could result later on after future Code modifications, but he agreed to take a look at the language again. Mr. Hardt noted that there is a reference to the Administrative Review Team, in the same section, but everywhere else, that had been changed to required reviewing body. Mr. Langworthy explained it was deliberate, since this is one of the few places where the ART is expected to make that determination. Ms. Kramb referred to the requirement on the right side of page 24 stating that if a property or building owner demolishes more than 50 percent of the gross square footage of an Existing Structure, then all of the improvements on the property must be brought into conformance with the Code. She said as she read this, if someone demolished more than 50 percent of an existing building on a property, then all improvements on that property, not just that existing building, must be reconstructed and brought into compliance. She asked if that was truly the intent. Mr. Langworthy said that was the intent. Ms. Kramb clarified that the way it reads, if there are three buildings on the property, and they demolish 51 percent of one building, then all three buildings would need to be brought into conformance. Mr. Langworthy said that they could clarify that only the improvements associated with the demolished structure would be required to be brought into conformance. Mr. Taylor referred to Determination of the Bui lding Type. He noted that the ART may designate an Existing Structure as consistent with a specific building type. He asked if a building that was nonconforming could be an Existing Structure. Mr. Langworthy explained that if any improvements were made to that building, they would have to comply with improvements applicable to the determined building type. Mr. Taylor referred to the reference to the Residential Appearance Standards on page 25 and said that he would like to delete it. He said he was not a fan of the Residential Appearance Standards, and he thought if there were going to be standards for roof pitch, roof materials, details, window locations, size of windows, etc. in the BSC, it should be right here and a Code that he hoped would disappear someday should not be referenced. Dan Phillabaum said he did not think that would be a problem, because he thought it was included to ensure that there was nothing in the Residential Appearance Standards that would be left out that would be desirable. He said the BSC Code would have to be silent on an item for the Residential Appearance Standards to be in effect, but he thought there would be very few areas like that. Mr. Taylor said he knew the intent of the Residential Appearance Standards was to make buildings better and different, but they end up requiring a developer pick two or three bland houses and repeat them over and over because they are approvable. Mr. Phillabaum agreed to review the Residential Appearance Standards and determine whether there is anything else that should be addressed in the Bridge Street Code if that reference is deleted. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 12, 2012 — Minutes Page 12 of 17 DRAFT Ms. Ray pointed out that on the table of permitted building types on page 25, Planning would like to add the single - family Attached building type to the Sawmill Center Neighborhood since it was permitted in the other two neighborhood districts. Ms. Kramb asked if the reason they did not allow the Historic Cottage Commercial in the Historic Transition Neighborhood was because buildings that height were not desired in that district. She thought they could be appropriate along the borders of that district. Mr. Phillabaum said the objective of the Historic Transition Neighborhood is to be slightly more intensely developed with a slightly larger scale than the Historic District. He explained that the potential building relationships with three -story buildings across the street or next door to a single -story building could create some difficult urban design situations. Ms. Kramb said that there already will be issues with that because you could already put a three -story building next to a one -story cottage in the Historic Core. She said in the Historic Core now, there are one - story buildings, and in the Historic Transition Neighborhood she thought there should be the choice to do a one -story building. Mr. Phillabaum said it related to the character of the area. He said that the Historic Transition Neighborhood is intended to be transitional, because development is getting more intense as it moves to the west toward the Indian Run Neighborhood District, and the slightly larger scale helps preserve the smaller, more quaint character of the existing Historic District by not allowing the smaller cottage -type commercial buildings. Mr. Hardt reiterated his preference that the podium -style parking facility be a separate building type. Mr. Hardt referred to (D) Roof Type Requirements on page 26. He suggested that the height of a parapet roof be modified to specify that the height is measured from the highest point of the adjacent roof deck. He said if there is a complicated building form, the parapet is really relevant to the one immediately adjacent to it, not some other roof on the other side of the building. Mr. Hardt referred to the requirement stating that "parapets shall be no less than two feet and no more than six feet high, except as necessary to screen rooftop mechanical equipment." He said that told him that if he had a giant piece of rooftop mechanical equipment, he could make his parapet as high as necessary but he did not think that was what they wanted. He suggested adding a statement requiring that in instances where six feet is insufficient to screen rooftop mechanical equipment, then alternate screening techniques must be used. Mr. Hardt referred to (1)(b) Horizontal Shadow Lines and suggested deleting "to create the shadow line," since the title of the paragraph infers that intent. Mr. Hardt stated that as a general comment, the term "building type" should refer specifically to the building types defined in the Code, while elsewhere, the style of the building should be referenced differently, such as "the character of the building style" or "the building's architecture." Mr. Langworthy said that Planning had taken note of that as well. Mr. Hardt suggested that with respect to pitch measure for pitched roof types, the requirement should state ...unless determined by the reviewing body. Mr. Hardt referred to (2)(b)3: A pitch greater than 3:12 is required on roofs, storm roofs, and said the type vs, style appears there. He said the last sentence, Eyebrow roofs are acceptable for these locations, and sloped to drain in all directions is not necessary. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 12, 2012 — Minutes Page 13 of 17 DRAFT Mr. Hardt referred to (2)(c) Parallel Ridge Line, .- Perpendicular ridges /fins or dormers shall be incorporated to interrupt the mass of the roof as appropriate, and said the rest of the paragraph was not needed. Mr. Hardt referred to (2)(e) Gable Ends, An architecturally appropriate elementsuch as a vent, window or other decorative element is required on a street - facing gable end. He said to stop the paragraph at that period. Mr. Taylor referred to the top right of the page 27. He said he did not know how to resolve it, but his intent was to avoid the appearance of the building on High Street of Bri Hi Square that, when viewed from the south, looks very unfinished and incomplete when the gables do not come together. He said perhaps something should require that although you do not have to close that you do not have to have a closed ridge, but it has to look like you have a closed ridge. Ms. Kramb referred to (E), Materials, on page 28 and asked if it was appropriate to call out where secondary materials should be applied, or if that would be too restrictive. Mr. Hardt said elsewhere in the Code we enumerate what primary materials are permitted, and we say that you have to have a certain percentage of primary materials, so by definition, as far as he was concerned, everything else could apply a secondary material. Mr. Phillabaum asked if the two concern related to the list of permitted secondary materials, or if it had to do with specifying where those materials can be used. Mr. Hardt said he was more concerned with trying to specify where they can be applied. Mr. Phillabaum confirmed that the Commissioners were okay with listing the secondary materials, and then leaving it open to state that they can use them wherever they feel is appropriate is along as it does not exceed 20 percent. Mr. Hardt agreed, but commented that EIFS not being permitted in the Historic Core was a separate issue that should be addressed separately. Mr. Hardt referred to (3), Flat Roofs, on page 28 and said he renewed his objection to requiring flat roof eaves to have a minimum depth of 14 inches. He said if they are talking about flat roofs, then they are talking about flat roofs and the notion of an eave of 14 inches or so is he thought was just a random and baseless requirement. Mr. Phillabaum said it was probably not a huge issue to take out the requirement, but if they kept it, their thinking was in talking with Building Standards, when less than 14 inches are provided, the eave really does not function as an eave anymore because it no longer provides the functional aspects of an eave. Mr. Hardt said he understood and agreed, but that is a building detailing issue in terms of managing where water goes, and he did not think it belonged in the Zoning Code if that was the concern. Mr. Phillabaum said they would delete the sections referencing eaves for flat roofs. Mr. Hardt referred to Tower Height and Tower Width on page 28 and said he realized that although this section had been amended based on his and Mr. Taylor's feedback, he thought that what was left is not necessary. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 12, 2012 — Minutes Page 14 of 17 DRAFT Mr. Phillabaum said he wanted to make sure that they were able to define what a tower is, which is generally more vertical than horizontal in proportion, but he appreciated that most architects will understand that and do that anyway. Mr. Taylor agreed and said that it did not hurt to include it. Mr. Taylor recalled the Commission rewording the use of other materials as long as they were used in comparable climates, but he was not sure that he was happy with it. He suggested that comparable climates be deleted. He said he understood someone could come in saying that this is high - quality adobe and it gives us a chance to say that is not from a comparable climate, but he thought the objective was simply to approve good examples of materials. Mr. Hardt said he had suggested comparable climate and said the rationale for it was that someone could come in with a lot of pictures and brochures about something that was absolutely wonderful, but if every single installation was in Key West, there is no guarantee that it will hold up here in Dublin, and it could end up looking bad. Ms. Amorose Groomes and Mr. Zimmerman agreed that it was important to have it in a like climate. Mr. Taylor referred to (f), regarding tower roofs, on page 28 and stated that the requirement should read towers maybe capped by any permitted roof type. Mr. Taylor referred to (E), Materials, on page 28 and stated that 'full modular brick' suggests a particular size and shape of brick. He asked if that is the intent. Mr. Philabaum said the intent is to prohibit thin brick veneer as a permitted primary material, rather than list all of the permitted materials and excluding a very specific type material that is not full modular dimension. Mr. Taylor said modular brick is a certain kind of brick, so the term "thin brick' should be use Mr. Zimmerman (4), Color, on page 29 and said that he has a problem with stating that the colors can be selected from anyhistoric color palette, because that could result in some bizarre colors. Mr. Hardt suggested, select from historic color pallets from any major paint manufacturer. Mr. Zimmerman said that would work. Mr. Hardt referred to (2), Fagade Material Transitions, on page 29 and thought it should say Vertica transitions in facade materials. Mr. Hardt stated that on the same page, under (3), Roof Materials, it should say roof gardens instead of green roofs. Mr. Hardt referred to (F), Entrances and Pedestrianways, and stated that entrance design should specify location within a bay of unique width. He said he understood that the intent is to make the entrance stand out from the rest of the building. Mr. Taylor referred to (2), Recessed Entrances, and said that could occur when the building is on the property line, except when you define what an entrance, there is a lot listed. He said that could be construed that the porch or stoop while others can be recessed. He suggested adding entrance doorto be clear. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 12, 2012 — Minutes Page 15 of 17 DRAFT Mr. Zimmerman pointed out that on page 30, (H), Windows, Shutters, Awnings and Canopies, for windows, Low E glass is not a tint - it is a coating. He said window makers are starting to use triple glass to meet the energy credit requirements, so it ends up being is three pieces of glass with coating on it. Mr. Zimmerman referred to the wood window requirement, and asked if the intent was for a// wood window. Mr. Phillabaum said the Architectural Review Board had noted that many of the commercial buildings currently have aluminum windows; therefore the requirement will be eliminated as a result of their comment on this requirement. Mr. Zimmerman said old wood windows are first generation lumber which do hold up, but they are now being made of third generation lumber and do not have the same integrity. Mr. Zimmerman referred to (f) regarding window proportions in residential buildings, and stated that he did not want to see horizontal windows prohibited. Mr. Phillabaum suggested limiting horizontally - proportioned windows to non - street - facing fagades. He explained that vertically- oriented windows help create balance, while horizontally- oriented windows can create more awkward building fagades. Mr. Hardt referred to (H), Windows, Shutters and Awnings, on page 30 and asked if the reference to canopies should just say canopies should be clad in g lass, metal or wood. Mr. Hardt referred to the requirement limiting tinted or spandrel glass, because allowing clear glass would be in contrary to our sustainability and green initiatives. He agreed that we do not want heavily tinted glass, so he said asked if there is a number of tint percentage that we could require. Mr. Phillabaum stated that Planning would look at whether spandrel orsimi /ar /y tinted g lass could work. Mr. Taylor referred to the requirements for mid - building pedestrianways at the top of page 30 and asked if the articulation along the pedestrianway is intended to be required to keep the walls from being blank walls. Ms. Ray said that was part of the intent, in addition to safety and visibility. Mr. Taylor referred to the requirements for shutters on page 30 and commented that wood shutters are the least desirable from a maintenance standpoint. He suggested shutters shall be wood or engineered wood. Mr. Hardt referred to (I), Porches, Stoops and Balconies, on page 31 and stated that the text that relates to Juliet balconies should be relocated. Mr. Fishman asked why balconies should be limited to six feet deep. Mr. Taylor pointed out that six feet is the minimumstandard in order to end up with usable space. Mr. Hardt said (b), Connection to Building, and asked why it was not okay to have pairs of balconies. Mr. Phillabaum said we are trying to avoid balconies sharing a support to the ground. Mr. Hardt referred to (J), Treatments at Terminal Vistas, and suggested, If the terminus does not occur at an open space type.... Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 12, 2012 — Minutes Page 16 of 17 DRAFT Mr. Taylor commented that for (L), Vehicular Canopies, on page 32 paragraph two and three, he does not agree with the 22 -foot canopy roof height maximum, because he thought that was comparable to requirements for gas stations. He suggested aligning the maximum heights with the permitted ground story heights for each building type. Mr. Taylor said he was trying to understand how a hotel would fit with a building zone set back far enough so that they could have a porte- cochere at the front of the hotel. He said that a vehicular drop - off area would be desirable for a hotel. Mr. Phillabaum said that vehicular drop -off area presented a difficulty for accommodating that type of structure while encouraging the type of building siting that the Code requires. Mr. Hardt referred to paragraph 6 at the top left of page 33 and stated that there should be something that states that building components that hang over the side cannot interfere with requiring landscaping. Mr. Hardt referred to paragraph (d) under (2), Height, on page 33 and requested clarification. Ms. Ray stated that it means that each building type is required to have a minimum and maximum story height, and the required minimum has to be located within the RBZ. She said if they do have a step back it does not have to fall within the RBZ. She said that can be clarified. Mr. Hardt referred to paragraph 2 under (e), and stated that he does not agree with the last part that states to the tallest point of the ceiling on parapet and flat roofs. He said the front facade that can be seen from the street is where the story height should be measured. He said the paragraph could read to the eave line on pitched roofs and to the tallest point of the roof deck on the front facade. Mr. Phillabaum explained that the intent was to avoid punishing people for roof trusses being included in the floor height. Mr. Taylor asked if the goal was to get as much height as possible for the upper story. Ms. Ray said that was not necessarily the case; rather, Planning was trying to determine the best way to determine how to measure height from the exterior of the building and its overall appearance. Mr. Hardt said it is the overall physical presence of the building whose height we are trying to determine. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested checking codes from other cities to see how they have addressed this issue. Mr. Phillabaum said he had spoken to Jeff Tyler, the Chief Building Official, who confirmed that there are just so many different roof types and interior ceiling treatments, but Planning would give this some more thought. Mr. Hardt referred to (b), Fagade Divisions, at the bottom of page 34 and stated that it should read surface of the facade. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that the Commissioners did not have any further comments on the Building Type requirements. Mr. Hardt asked when the next draft would be provided that includes the Commission's comments on this round of the review. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 12, 2012 — Minutes Page 17 of 17 DRAFT Mr. Langworthy said that Planning is correcting as we go, so as soon as the Commission finishes their review. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed with Mr. Langworthy that the Commission would have revised, clean copies by Friday, January 27 if the expectation would be to potentially vote on the Code on Thursday, February 2 She stated that the Commission would then plan to review the area rezoning on February 16' h . Mr. Langworthy said he have to check with Council and the City's administration on that in order to maintain the schedule that they provided to City Council. Ms. Kramb stated that she thought the intent of postponing the vote on the area rezoning was to let the public absorb the fact that the properties going to be rezoned, and to understand what that means for them. Mr. Langworthy said he understood Ms. Kramb's reasoning, but at this point, property owners in the Bridge Street Corridor are very well aware of the process and the timing, and those that are concerned have remained very engaged throughout the process. Ms. Amorose Groomes noted that there are two readings at City Council as well to assist with the timing and to allow property owners more time to understand the implications of the Code and area rezoning. Ms. Amorose Groomes adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m. I cityof Dublin Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 www.dublinohiousa.gov PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF DISCUSSION JANUARY S, 2012 The Planning and Zoning Commission took no action on the following at this meeting: 4. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- 020ADM Administrative Request Proposal: To amend the Zoning Code to establish a number of new Zoning Districts and regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor. Request- Review and recommendation to City Council regarding amendments to the Zoning Code under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.232 and 153.234. Applicant: City of Dublin, Marsha Grigsby, City Manager. Planning Contact: Steve Langworthy, Planning Director. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4600 slangworthy @dublin.oh.us RESULT: The Commission reviewed Sections 153.057 (General Purpose), 153.058 (Districts Intent) and 153.059 (Uses) of the revised draft of the proposed Bridge Street Corridor Development Code and requested minor changes. The review will continue at the January 12, 2012 meeting. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chris Amorose Groomes Richard Taylor Todd Zimmerman Warren Fishman Amy Kramb John Hardt Joseph Budde STAFF CERTIFICATION Steve Langworthy Planning Director Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 5, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 5 4. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- 020ADM Administrative Request Chair Chris Amorose Groomes stated that this is an administrative request for review and recommendation to City Council for proposed amendments to the Zoning Code to establish a number of new zoning districts and regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor. She stated that the Commission will make a recommendation to City Council on the final draft of the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code once the Commission completes their review and is satisfied with the final product. She stated that no recommendation or vote would be taken on this item this evening. She said the Commission will review Sections 153.057 (General Purpose), 153.058 (Districts Intent) and 153.059 (Uses). Matt Stavroff, Stavroff Interests, 565 Metro Place South, Suite 480, Dublin, said they own 50 or 60 key acres within the Bridge Street Corridor and would like to have the opportunity to come and show examples of what they are considering for their property that they feel would capture most of the spirit and intent of the Bridge Street Corridor Vision. He stated that he would also like to demonstrate why they agree with 80 or 90 percent of the principles, but that it would be impractical or impossible to adhere to 100 percent of the code as it is written today. He said he thinks there is a better way to do it, and would like the opportunity to show the Commission. He said he would like to do that at the next meeting or two with two or three development plans that he believes would not be able to be approved with the code as written today. He said he would hate to see the code and area rezoning approved without properly thinking this through, but he thought that with tweaking, they could all get there. Mr. Stavroff said their property at Sawmill Road and I -270 is subject to a reciprocal easement agreement with a neighboring property owner that explicitly prohibits the type of development that the Bridge Street Corridor is proposing. He said that the good news is that they are working diligently with a cooperative property owner out of Dallas, Clearview Development, and he is positive that they will be able to overcome that easement agreement shortly. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that this is a project in motion, and the sooner they can get their illustrations in, the more expeditious they can be to get what they feel is necessary into the Code. She said the Commission is being very methodical about their review of this Code and certainly share Mr. Stavroff's concern that the code be thoroughly thought through; however, the Commission has been charged to finish their review of the code. She said they look forward to hearing what they have to say. Mr. Langworthy said he would like to have the opportunity to meet with Mr. Stavroff and review the plans to determine whether or not the development could be done through the Bridge Street Code. Mr. Stavroff agreed to schedule a time to meet with staff. Ms. Amorose Groomes announced that the Commission has been through every word of the Code once, and this review will be their second review. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that a memo highlighting the changes to the Code recommended by the Architectural Review Board was included in the packet. Sections 153.057 (General Purpose), 153.058 (Districts Intent) and 153.059 (Uses). John Hardt asked if the Commissioners should begin by reviewing the definitions. Mr. Langworthy said that the Commissioners should begin their review of the Code first. Amy Kramb pointed out that the acronym, "BSC," is not consistently used throughout the text, since sometimes the full "Bridge Street Corridor" is spelled out. She recommended that this be applied more consistently. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 5, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 5 Mr. Langworthy noted that BSC is used to describe the Bridge Street Corridor as a geographic area, and also as a prefix to the BSC zoning districts. Mr. Hardt said he would like to reiterate that he would prefer that the Vision Report be updated to include information that has been acquired and discussions that have taken place to date. Mr. Langworthy said that October 25, 2010, as stated in the code, was the adoption date of the Vision Report by City Council. He said the update to the Vision Report is on Planning's work plan for 2012, and Planning will come back and take a look at that along with the amendment to the Thoroughfare Plan. Mr. Hardt said under Section C, subparagraph 2, the text starts out by stating that these districts are further intended, and in the middle of the paragraph there is a phrase that says providing designs that honor human scale in its details, he thought it should be in "their details" because the details are part of the designs. Mr. Hardt pointed out that there are two references to sections 153.058 through 153.066 and wondered if it should include section 153.057 should also be included. Mr. Langworthy said it was not necessary because 153.057, General Purpose, is not regulatory. Mr. Hardt said the "Intent" in all of the subparagraphs for the Districts Intents all start with, This district is intended to... and while that language makes sense now, these districts will be in place, and therefore the present tense should be used. Ms. Kramb agreed with Mr. Hardt. Mr. Hardt said that in subparagraph 9, the second paragraph on page 3, there is a sentence that says these regulations are intended to establish natural and created open space patterns.. he said he was not sure what "created" open space patterns were, and wondered if "man made" was a better word. Rachel Ray said that was the intent, and that the wording could be changed. Mr. Hardt said that in subparagraph 5 and 6, there is a distinction being made between Existing Structures and Existing Uses, which makes perfect sense now that he has read the minutes from the ARB discussion, but prior to reading those minutes, he did not get the distinction. Mr. Langworthy said that the code deals with Existing Structures and Existing Uses separately, because the two do not mix and match. He said that they needed to look very closely at what the regulations are for Existing Structures and then look at use and take care of use how they need to be reconciled. Mr. Hardt said that as he was going through the pages, he was trying to flip back to the cross reference sections to make sure that they tie together, and he found it confusing. He said on page 6, there is a table, Table 153.059 -A, which is located in Section 153.059(8), and throughout the Code there are instances where a table shares the numerical and letter designations to a section that it is not in. Mr. Langworthy said the numbering conventions are different for tables and figures than sections. Mr. Hardt said he had a question about the intent of the Existing Uses provisions. He said that in the middle of the paragraph, it states that an existing use maybe extended throughout any building orparts of a building which were manifestly arranged or designed for that use at the time of adoption. He asked that this be clarified. Mr. Langworthy said there may be buildings that have spaces that aren't occupied at the time the code is amended, but there may be other parts of the building with an Existing Use in operation that are Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 5, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 5 specifically designed to be occupied in that way. He said if the space is designed for the Existing Use, it can expand into the unoccupied space. Mr. Hardt asked that the language be reviewed, because it seemed to him that they would want to allow a business to expand into any available space within the same building. Mr. Taylor agreed with Mr. Hardt. Mr. Langworthy said that he would look at the text, but it may be limited to a percentage of expansion of an Existing Use, because the intent is to ensure that the business becomes consistent with the code at some point. Mr. Hardt said they have consistently told property owners that they can continue to using the buildings they have. Mr. Langworthy confirmed that there is nothing in the code that changes that. Mr. Taylor asked if he were to add employees to his business and wanted to move them into offices across the hall from his existing office, but the office across the hall was a different use, would that be allowed under this provision? Mr. Langworthy said it may be allowed, but that has to do with the "designed or arranged" part. He said that if they need to remove a wall to design and make it function as one space that, as of the date of this amendment, is not designed to be one tenant, then that is designed to be two tenants. Jennifer Readier said this language is commonly used and is similar to the language used for non- conforming uses. Mr. Taylor said that in paragraph 7, the sentence that begins with this provision shall apply only to planned developments where no construction has commenced, is confusing. Ms. Readier said it intended to for any existing planned districts where there is a text, but there is no construction or that nothing has happened to implement that planned district. Mr. Hardt said then the planned district text remains enforce. Ms. Readier agreed and said it was a concession for the development community. Mr. Hardt said that, with regard to the Use Table, in light of the conversation with the ARB, should parking structures within the BSC Historic Core simply be a conditional use? Ms. Ray said that as the Code is currently written, parking structures would require a conditional use, which would be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, if they are not wrapped by a building, and would also require Architectural Review Board approval just for the architecture and site modifications. Ms. Kramb referred to the Use Table and said that she did not understand why they would not allow Banks in the BSC Office Residential District. She also did not understand why they would not allow a bed and breakfast within the BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District. Ms. Ray said the BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District relates to the building types that are permitted in that district, and that district currently does not allow single family building types. She said that a bed and breakfast would most likely occur in a single family style building as opposed to a single family attached or apartment building. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 5, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 5 Ms. Kramb said she thought that a hotel in the upper stories of the BSC Vertical Mixed Use District should also be permitted on the ground floor, since that is where the entrance would be. Ms. Ray said the intent of the BSC Vertical Mixed Use District is for more intensive mixed use districts that do not currently exist, and that is why they are not recommending this district be applied to any properties yet. She said that the intent was to make sure the first floor was a highly active pedestrian oriented use, as opposed something like a hotel which would be less conducive to creating an active pedestrian atmosphere. Ms. Kramb asked why all the parking lots are conditional uses. Mr. Langworthy said that parking lots need to be sensitively placed and treated when they are stand alone parking and not associated with a use. Mr. Hardt asked about the use of renewable energy such as solar panels and other sustainable energy devices. He asked the other Commissioners if they wanted to allow them on every building because they are not always done well. Mr. Langworthy said he didn't want to discourage anyone from being energy efficient. Ms. Ray suggested changing the language to require them be architecturally integrated into the building. Mr. Taylor said he liked the suggestion to require that they be architecturally compatible. Mr. Hardt said under fueling stations, subparagraph 3 says where pumps are facing anystreet, the owner shall install.. He thought the code should not dictate who installs something, since it may be a tenant responsibility. Mr. Langworthy said that would be changed. Mr. Hardt asked for an explanation of "accessory parking." Ms. Ray said accessory parking is all parking that is required to be provided for a use on a property, so that it is not operated as a for - profit parking lot. Ms. Kramb said she was confused with the requirement stating that vehicle rental facilities shall be located at least 60 feet from a street intersection. Ms. Ray said the Commission had previously discussed a desire to limit these types of facilities from being located on corner lots. Warren Fishman suggested that the code restrict where the cars are stored, rather than limit the office portion of the use, which are common in higher density areas. Ms. Ray agreed to review the text. Mr. Hardt requested that outdoor speakers be a conditional use in all districts initially, and as density occurs and it becomes less of a concern, perhaps the code could be changed to allow them only in specific districts. Mr. Langworthy agreed to change the language. Ms. Amorose Groomes announced that the Commission would conclude their review for the evening, and that they will pick up again on page 14 with Lots and Blocks at the next meeting on January 12. Administrative Business Ms. Amorose Groomes said they had scheduled a Planning and Zoning meeting on January 26', and at that time, she did not realize that she will be out of the country on that day and asked if they could Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 5, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 5 change the special meeting date from January 26"' to January 24 Ms. Kramb said she would only be available for about an hour and a half on Tuesday, January 24 th . Motion and Vote Mr. Taylor made a motion to move the special meeting from Thursday, January 26 to Tuesday, January 2e. Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr. Hardt, yes; Mr. Budde, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Taylor, yes. (Approved 7 — 0.) Ms. Amorose Groomes adjourned the meeting at 11:10 p.m. Office of the City Manager City of Dublin Pho 614 - 1 410.4 0 • Faax: 14 - 10 -44 9 0 10 9 0 Memo To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Marsha Grigsby, City Manager Date: December 12, 2011 Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning Re: Update of December 8, 2011 Planning and Zoning Commission Review of Draft Bridge Street Corridor Development Code Background The Planning and Zoning Commission completed their initial review of the draft Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) Development Code and area rezoning following discussions at a series of regular and special meetings held on October 13, October 20, November 3, November 10, December 1, and December 8, 2011. A final draft of the BSC Development Code incorporating the Commission's comments made at these meetings will be delivered to Commission members on Friday, December 16. Schedule At the meeting on December 8"', the Planning and Zoning Commission discussed their preferred schedule for review and recommendation to City Council for the final draft of the BSC Development Code and the proposed area rezoning. Discussion was held on meeting alternatives. An additional 4 meetings are planned to complete final reviews and make recommendations to City Council. Meeting Date January 5 (Regular PZC Meeting) January 12 (Special PZC Meeting) January 19 (Regular PZC Meeting) January 26 (Special PZC Meeting) Monday, February 13 Monday, February 27 Purpose of Meeting Begin review and discussion of final Code draft. Finish review of final Code draft. Review final changes to Code draft; receive additional public comment on proposed area rezoning. Potential vote on Council recommendation for code provisions. Recommendation to City Council for BSC Code (if not completed on January 19) and Area Rezoning. City Council Vt Reading — BSC Code and Area Rezoning. City Council 2n Reading /Public Hearing — BSC Code and Area Rezoning. The Planning and Zoning Commission Chair has expressed a desire to adopt the code provisions at one meeting and the area rezoning at a second meeting. December 8 PZC Special Meeting The Commission's comments from this meeting are listed below and grouped by code section. The approved meeting minutes will include the broader discussion regarding these comments. 5153.066 Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria (final section of BSC Code) The Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria section of the Code was modified since the October 6 publication date in response to some of the Commission's comments regarding the process. A new draft was distributed at the November 10 meeting, for which the Commission provided comments at this meeting. - The Commission suggested that all types of applications and /or review processes be listed at the beginning of the section for clarity. Memo re. Update re. Planning and Zoning Commission Review of Draft BSC Development Code December 12, 2011 Page 2 of 2 - Noted that no application will be accepted, and no review procedure will begin, until all required application materials are submitted to the City. This requirement is in the code. - Recommended that applications for development in the Historic District also be eligible for the initial Basic Plan review by the Architectural Review Board if desired by the applicant or recommended by the ART. - Requested that public notices be sent to adjacent property owners for any application reviewed by any public body, including the Planning and Zoning Commission, Architectural Review Board, and /or Board of Zoning Appeals. - Agreed that Basic Plan Reviews should expire after one year without filing for Development Plan and /or Site Plan review. - Commissioners clarified the waiver and elective review processes by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Architectural Review Board. The Commission discussed allowing applicants the choice to receive feedback from the Commission on full applications, rather than limiting the review to the requests to waiver from specific code provisions as a method of resolving broader community issues. - The Commission asked for clarification regarding the circumstances in which administrative departures may be approved by the Administrative Review Team, and when the requests are more appropriately approved through the Development Plan and /or Site Plan Waiver process. Commissioners requested clarification on the types of requirements that cannot be waivered from (allowing uses and building types not otherwise permitted in a BSC district), which would require variance approval or rezoning. - Commission members discussed the types of projects that would qualify as minor projects that would go straight to review by the Administrative Review Team rather than first requiring Basic Plan Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commissioners were concerned that multiple - family developments with up to 24 dwelling units was too much and should require Basic Plan Review, and that additions and exterior modifications not exceeding 25% should be reduced to 10% or 10,000 square feet, whichever is less, in order to qualify as a minor project. BSC Area Rezoning In addition to the review of the BSC Code, Commissioners also discussed the recommended zoning map for the Bridge Street Corridor and the modifications requested by several property owners within the Bridge Street Corridor. Although Planning continues to recommend the draft zoning map originally presented to the Commissioners and the public on November 10, Planning also provided a draft zoning map showing the changes requested by a number of the property owners and agreed to by the Commission at the initial review of the map on November 10, with recommendations for each property. Commission members continued to support the requests made by property owners that the BSC Commercial District should be permitted along West Dublin- Granville Road on the east side of the Scioto River, where Planning had recommended BSC Office District for consistency with the Bridge Street Corridor Vision and to prevent commercial proliferation along the SR 161 corridor. Additionally, Commissioners also continued to recommend that the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District (intended for coordinated redevelopment sites) be extended west of Village Parkway consistent with requests from property owners in this area, where Planning recommends BSC Residential to support the commercial and mixed use development of the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District. Planning noted to the Commission that it would be forwarding its recommended zoning to City Council along with the Commission's recommended map. Recommendation Information only. A summary of the comments on the draft BSC Development Code will be forwarded to City Council members following their next review of the final draft of the Code on Thursday, January 5, 2012. 7 c l ityof Dublin Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410 4747 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF DISCUSSION DECEMBER 8 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- 020ADM Administrative Request Proposal- To amend the Zoning Code to establish a number of new Zoning Districts and regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor. Topics: Review and -make a recommendation to City Council on the final draft of the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code (Zoning Code Sections 153.057- 153.066) based on the Planning and Zoning Commission's comments on the October 6, 2011 code draft. Request: Review and recommendation regarding amendments to the Zoning Code under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.232 and 153.234. Applicant: City of Dublin, Marsha Grigsby, City Manager. Planning Contact: Steve Langworthy, Planning Director. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4600 slangworthy @dublin.oh.us RESULT: The Commission continued their review of the draft development code for the Bridge Street Corridor and commented on Sections 153.060 Lots and Blocks, 153.061 Street Types, 153.062 Building Types (General Requirements). COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Chris Amorose Groomes Richard Taylor Todd Zimmerman Warren Fishman Amy Kramb John Hardt Joseph Budde STAFF CERTIFICATI Steve wo I Y Planning Direct r 1. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- O2OADM Administrative Request Chair Chris Amorose Groomes stated that the following is an administrative request for review and recommendation to City Council for proposed amendments to the Zoning Code to establish a number of new zoning districts and regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor. She stated that the Commission will make a recommendation to City Council on the final draft of the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code once the Commission had completed their review and was satisfied with the final product. She stated that no recommendation or vote would be taken on this item this evening, since the Commission will be concluding their review of the Code with Section 153.066, the Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria. Ms. Amorose Groomes announced that the review of Code Section 153.066 would begin on page one of 18. She explained that she would call out each section of the proposed Code for the Commission members to comment on or ask questions. Section 153.066 REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA (B) Required Reviews Amy Kramb recommended that the required reviews be listed up front, so that it would be easier to understand to an applicant picking up the Code for the first time. Section 153.066 REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA (D) Basic Plan Review Ms. Kramb confirmed that the purpose of the Basic Plan Review was to look at the application only in terms of its consistency with the General Purpose of the Bridge Street Corridor. She asked what the point of that would be, since the application would be too basic to get a sense of what is being proposed at that point. Steve Langworthy stated that the intent is to make sure that the application is on the right track and will be consistent with the General Purpose and Districts Intent of the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code. He explained that additional details would be considered later in the process. John Hardt said that he appreciated the inclusion of the Basic Plan Review, because it seems to address some of the fundamental issues that he has had with this process, and he commended the selection of the name "Basic Plan Review." He said that the Basic Plan Review will give the Commission the ability to identify which projects are simple and straight forward, and which ones will be more complicated. He noted that he did not see any mechanism that would give the Commission the ability to make a binding recommendation regarding which review "track" a more complicated application should take, since he thought the Commission should review more complicated applications later in the process as well. Mr. Langworthy explained that the Basic Plan Review gives the Commission an opportunity to provide non - binding feedback, because the proposal would be very preliminary and could be pretty conceptual. Mr. Hardt confirmed that there would be public notice of the Basic Plan Reviews, and asked what would be done with the Commission's comments and any comments received from the public. Mr. Langworthy said that the ART would not ignore the comments. He said that the Code states that the ART should take any of the comments received at the Basic Plan Review into consideration as the development moves forward. Richard Taylor stated that he had to read this section several times before he was able to make sense of it, and he asked if there was a simpler way to word this section to make it clearer that the review period does not start until all of the application materials are submitted. He suggested eliminating most of the paragraph and simply making a reference to Section 153.066(L)(1)(C) on page 15. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 8, 2011 — Minutes Page 2 of 14 Mr. Langworthy agreed to take a look at the wording Mr. Taylor asked whether the Basic Plan Review is binding, because he thought it should not be, because he was not sure that there would be enough information at that early stage to make binding requests. Ms. Kramb pointed out that the review is not binding; however the Commission's comments should be considered during later reviews. Mr. Langworthy explained that even though the Basic Plan Review was not called a "concept plan," it was intended to be conceptual and typically the same level of detail that the Commission would see with Concept Plans for planned developments. Mr. Taylor said he imagined that most of these Basic Plan Reviews would be fairly straight - forward, but the situations where perhaps additional discussion would occur would be in situations where there is a borderline use or building type, maybe something entirely different from what the Code currently imagines or allows. He thought the Basic Plan Review would help determine which applications would be fairly routine, and which would be more controversial, although the review would still be fairly high level. Mr. Langworthy noted that the Commission may end up seeing some of those applications later on if there are waivers requested. Mr. Taylor said he hoped that Basic Plans would already have gone through the review by the Administrative Review Team before it even becomes a Basic Plan Review application and is reviewed by the Commission. He expected that Planning would try to identify some of the potential issues and bring those forward for the Commission's consideration early on, so that if, for example, someone wanted to do purple brick on a building, that would come up early rather than later in the process and the Commission can make a high level recommendation at that time. Mr. Langworthy confirmed that the ART would review Basic Plan applications, and that they planned to identify potential Administrative Departures and Waivers as early as possible. Todd Zimmerman said his general comment over the entire Code is to make sure that it is clear that when abbreviations such as ART, ARB, BSC, and PZC are used, that it clearly states what those letters stand for. He thought it would be particularly unclear for people picking up the Code for the first time. Mr. Langworthy agreed to make sure that the abbreviations were more clear. He pointed out that in this most recent draft of the Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria Section, they have recommended a "drop dead" date of one year after a Basic Plan Review has occurred before a Development Plan or Site Plan Review application must be filed. He said that if the applicant had not filed the application after a year, they would be required to submit another Basic Plan Review and begin the process again. Warren Fishman asked how far into the process an applicant could get before they would no longer be required to start over. Mr. Langworthy stated that once the Development Plan or Site Plan Review application is submitted, all of the time limits stated in the Code would apply. He said that the only time the strict time limits would not apply is if both the City and the applicant agreed to a time extension in writing. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that although the change had not been made yet in this draft of the Code, he would like the Commission to consider allowing the Basic Plan Review procedure for applications in the Architectural Review District to be at the option of the applicant or the Administrative Review Team. He said that as it is currently written, it is the applicant's option, since all applications are required to be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board anyway, and this just makes the process potentially longer Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 8, 2011 — Minutes Page 3 of 14 for simpler applications; however, in some circumstances, either the applicant or the ART may feel that the Architectural Review Board should have a preliminary look at a proposal. The Commissioners agreed to the change. Ms. Kramb asked if public notices would be sent out for all applications that are reviewed by the Architectural Review Board. Mr. Langworthy said that as it is currently written, there would not be a public notice for Basic Plan Review Applications for applications reviewed by the Architectural Review Board. Ms. Kramb asked if there would be public notice of Development Plan or Site Plan Review applications when those applications go before the ARB. Jennifer Readier said there would be public notice of the meeting and the agenda items, but there would be no notices to the individual property owners surrounding the site. Mr. Langworthy explained that the way that the process is set up, it is essentially an administrative approval by the ARB, just as the Commission had requested. Mr. Taylor said that it was unclear to him whether Basic Plans would be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission first before going to the Architectural Review Board. Mr. Langworthy explained that there is only one review process to go through whether someone is in the Architectural Review District or not. He said that if the site is in the Architectural Review District, then it would go before the Architectural Review Board; otherwise, applications would go through the other process with the Administrative Review Team and Basic Plan Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. He said that he would make sure that the separate review procedures for applications in the Architectural Review District would be more clear. Ms. Kramb confirmed that, for example, the Commission would no longer review development proposals such as the redevelopment project on North Riverview Street. Mr. Langworthy agreed and stated that an application of that type would fall within ARB review. Mr. Hardt said that as long as it would be reviewed by either the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Architectural Review Board, he would be okay with the process. Mr. Taylor agreed with Mr. Hardt. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked the Commissioners if they thought that the ARB would be familiar enough with the type and amount of review that some of these applications would require. Mr. Taylor pointed out that the ARB is familiar with the intricacies and specifics of Historic District to the extent that they should be given the benefit of the doubt. He said that he had read the ARB's comments on the North Riverview Street project, and he felt that they were well reasoned regardless of whether he agreed with them. He said he would be comfortable with allowing the ARB to review projects within the Architectural Review District if the Commission would not be reviewing them. Ms. Kramb said that she agreed with Mr. Taylor and thought it would be important to the residents of the Historic District to have an opportunity to comment on such projects. She reiterated that she believe that public notice would be important for any application that would be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board or the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Langworthy confirmed that the Commissioners agreed that public notice should be required for any type of application going before a Board or Commission. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 8, 2011 — Minutes Page 4 of 14 Section 153.066 REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA (E) Development Plan Review Ms. Kramb said that under section 153.066(E)(1)(b), the conditions in which a Development Plan application would be required may not be inclusive enough. She suggested that there be a size requirement, since one structure could be quite large, or a development on less than five acres could still be significant. She thought a square footage criterion be added regarding the size of a building. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that the Commission may want to consider the square footage of the building when they get to the Site Plan Review application procedures. He clarified that the Development Plan Review is less building- oriented than it is site - oriented, in that the site is created through establishing the street network, blocks, and lots. Ms. Kramb noted that if there was a lot of traffic, then they need to consider the building's impact on the street network. Mr. Langworthy stated that he believed that a developer would have an idea in mind of what type of development was anticipated at the Development Plan Review stage anyway, and thought that criterion number 3, requiring a Development Plan application with the design or construction of new streets or a realignment of existing streets, would address Ms. Kramb's point. Mr. Hardt said that he had previously be critical of the distinction between the Development Plan Review and the Site Plan Review applications, because he thought a 4.9 -acre site with one large building on could still have a big impact. He said that after he re -read the section several times, he finally understood that the Development Plan Review is more of a 50,000 -foot view of a site, where the streets and the road network are established to create the site, while the Site Plan Review is more about the building and the architecture and all of the site details. He thought that the names might be somewhat backward, but he compared the process in some ways to the preliminary development plan and final development plan procedures that the Commission considers for planned districts. Mr. Hardt said that his general comment for both the Development Plan Review and the Site Plan Review is that he would like to see a list of the submission requirements for each to understand the nature of the process a little better. Mr. Langworthy said he understood, but stated that the final list might not be ready prior to the Code being finished. He said Planning would make that information available to the Commission when they arrived at that point. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if the flow charts that Mr. Langworthy had presented would be included in the Code. Mr. Langworthy said they would be included in the Code, and probably in the materials that are provided to applicants as well. Ms. Kramb asked if new streets would be public or private streets. Mr. Langworthy said that by definition, if streets are part of the street network, they are required to be public. Mr. Hardt referred to the Development Plan Elective Review procedures, which states that if the ART cannot reach a final determination on an application, then it is "kicked up" to the Planning and Zoning Commission. He said it was unclear whether the applicant has the option of "kicking" themselves up to the Commission, because he thought that it someone wanted to do something that is truly unique and special and feel strongly about it but it does not neatly fit into the Bridge Street Code, then they should have an opportunity to make their case to the Commission. Mr. Taylor asked if that was the purpose of the Waiver Review. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 8, 2011 — Minutes Page 5 of 14 Mr. Langworthy said the Waiver Review was intended to be applicant to make a request of the Commission to allow them to He said that the Commission would only review the elements Waiver. a review process that would allow an not follow a specific Code requirement. for which the applicant is requesting a Mr. Hardt asked if, for example, an applicant were to work with Planning and they arrived at a disagreement, if the ART would have the option of kicking up the application to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review before the application is simply disapproved. He said that he wanted to give the applicant the opportunity to obtain the Commission's opinion first before it's just disapproved. Mr. Langworthy explained that the applicant's options included Planning and Zoning Commission review through the Waiver process for specific requirements, or to file an Administrative Appeal to an administrative decision made by the ART, which would be reviewed by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ms. Kramb asked if an applicant had 20 issues, would they have to get 20 Waivers separately? Mr. Langworthy said the applicant would not be required to go before the Planning and Zoning Commission 20 different times, they could all be reviewed at once. He compared the Waiver process as similar to the Variance process, only it is reviewed by the Commission instead of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Hardt asked if a project had a myriad of issues with the Code, could the process be expedited by going for review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and having the whole project reviewed at once, instead of looking at each Waiver request separately? Mr. Langworthy said that he would not recommend that, because it would simply be an excuse to avoid having to meet the Code because everyone would try to see if they could just make a better argument to the Planning and Zoning Commission than the ART. He said that he would rather they require the applicant to go through the Waiver process, because there are criteria that they would be required to meet in order to receive approval for a Waiver. He explained that the ultimate objective is for everyone to meet the Code and not simply allow anyone to avoid having to meet the Code simply by asking a different Board or Commission for their approval. Mr. Taylor agreed that the Waiver process should not necessarily be easy, but there should be options. He thought that if an applicant is unable to resolve an issue with the ART, they could complete a Waiver Request and go before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that he believes that most of the potential Waivers will be identified even before the Pre - Application Review phase. Mr. Taylor stated that that is one of the things that he likes about the process as it is written, because there is an opportunity at the very beginning to resolve issues, which puts the applicant is in a position in which, if they have something that they are really passionate about, they will have a high hurdle to clear if they are serious about it. He said it would require the applicant to make a good case to the Planning and Zoning Commission if they are really committed to the idea about why the development should not be required to meet a specific Code requirement. He thought that as long as there is the option of making that case, then he would be okay with the process, because he thought that the Elective Review and the Waiver Review procedures would give the Planning and Zoning Commission the ability to have a higher level of review in special circumstances. Ms. Kramb asked Mr. Langworthy to clarify the difference between a Waiver and an Administrative Departure. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 8, 2011 — Minutes Page 6 of 14 Mr. Langworthy explained that the approval criteria are Administrative Departures, while the Waiver criteria are a not meet the criteria for an Administrative Departure, Waiver. He thought that there would be things that would thought that Waivers would probably be more obvious and different, because they are fairly limited for little broader. He stated that if something does it would automatically qualify for requiring a be clear departures later in the process, but he identified early in the process. Mr. Taylor said that he would like to eliminate from the sentence that reads, Rather than reaching a final determination under the provisions of 153.066(E)(2) the ART may elect to forward any Development Plan application to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a decision it if concludes that the application raises complex issues, such as the need for major infrastructure improvements and other neighborhood or community -wide effects, that would benefit from a Commission decision, the portion from "raises complex issues" to "community -wide effects." He said that he wanted to eliminate the list of issues. Ms. Amorose Groomes agreed with Mr. Taylor. Ms. Amorose Groomes noted that there are some consistency issues among different sections of Code that are essentially stating the same thing, but are worded differently. She thought that the wording should be the same. Section 153.066 REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA (F) Site Plan Review Ms. Kramb suggested adding the word "approved" before "Development Plan" in subsection 153.066(F)(2)(b) just to make sure that it is clear that the ART should ensure that the Site Plan Review application is consistent with an approved Development Plan. Mr. Hardt pointed out that under subsection 153.066(F)(4)(e)2, it states that a Site Plan Waiver cannot be used to authorize any use, sign, or building type not permitted in that BSC district. He asked if a use that is not permitted in a specific BSC district might be an example of something that someone might seek a Waiver for. Mr. Langworthy said that Waivers are only intended to go so far, and that they cannot be used to completely disregard the Code in any circumstance. He said that the Director could consider uses that are not listed in the Code and determine which listed use it would most closely resemble; however, to authorize a new use, rezoning to a different BSC district or a Code modification would be required. Section 153.066 REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA (G) Minor Projects Mr. Hardt said that multiple - family developments with 24 units and 20,000- square -foot buildings would not strike him as "minor" projects. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that the Planning and Zoning Commission would continue to review all Preliminary and Final Plats, and that the Commission currently does not review every single single - family home. Mr. Hardt said that he thought that additions of 25% of the gross floor area could potentially be pretty significant. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that even additions would be required to meet the Bridge Street Code, and if they could not, they would have to go through the Waiver Review process anyway. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested that a maximum square footage would be appropriate, such as 10,000 square feet. Mr. Langworthy agreed to make that change Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 8, 2011 — Minutes Page 7 of 14 Section 153.066 REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA (J) Other Applicable Reviews Ms. Kramb recommended that the "provided that" be removed from the Conditional Use, Zoning Map or Text Amendment, and Zoning Variance subsections. Section 153.066 REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA (L) General Provisions Ms. Amorose Groomes recalled that Mr. Langworthy had indicated that an architect would be on the ART. Mr. Langworthy said that there would be an architectural consultant to advise the ART, but that consultant will not be a member of the ART because that person will not be a staff member. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked how the consultant would be selected. Mr. Langworthy said the current process would be used, and Planning expected to contract approximately three architects to have available at any time, in case there is a conflict of interest with anyone. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there was anyone from the general public that would like to comment on this application. [There were no one.] 2. Bridge Street Corridor — Area Rezoning 11 -021Z Area Rezoning Chair Chris Amorose Groomes introduced the area rezoning of 388 parcels totaling approximately 808.7 acres for the Bridge Street Corridor. She explained that the Commission would review the proposed area rezoning and make a recommendation to City Council of the proposed land use map amendments; however, the Commission will not be voting on this application at this meeting. She noted that property owners would be notified when the vote is scheduled and they will have the opportunity to comment at that time as well, in addition the proposed Bridge Street Corridor Development Code. Steve Langworthy stated that Planning did not have a formal presentation prepared. Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out that Mr. Taylor was not present when the proposed area rezoning was reviewed on November 10, and asked if he had any questions of staff. Richard Taylor requested clarification regarding the draft zoning maps dated December l it and November 10"'. Rachel Ray clarified that the map dated November 10"' includes Planning's recommendations with respect to the area rezoning, while the map dated December l it reflects the discussion of the Architectural Review Board who reviewed the area rezoning proposed for the Historic District, as well as the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommended changes. Mr. Taylor stated that he was trying to obtain a better understanding of the differences between the areas along West Dublin- Granville Road recommended for BSC Office or BSC Commercial Districts, and whether the existing property owners would still be able to maintain their current uses regardless of the BSC zoning. He said he was not sure he understood the objections of the some the property owners. Mr. Langworthy presented a slide showing the draft zoning map dated November 10"' and noted that the concern related to the type of character that will be created in this area. He reiterated that form -based zoning is much more integrated than convention zoning regulations, with streets being considered first, and then the development site, and then how the building relates to the adjacent street network. He explained that the uses and permitted building types work together to establish a development character for an area. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 8, 2011 — Minutes Page 8 of 14 Mr. Langworthy presented a map of the Bridge Street Corridor and described the character areas in different parts of the Corridor that were used to create the Bridge Street Corridor zoning districts. He stated that with respect to the east side of the Corridor, Planning considered four broad categories of issues. He listed first the address corridor along State Route 161, with taller buildings expected to be located closer to the street, creating a place where people would want to live close to and work from. Mr. Langworthy said the second area that Planning considered was the Sawmill Road area for its potential to become an entertainment- focused commercial center with high densities and great walkability. He continued that, to support both of these first two areas, Planning looked at the area interior to the Corridor as an area with a critical mass of residential development in order to have enough people living in the Bridge Street Corridor to be able to support both employees that may want to work in offices along the State Route 161 address corridor, as well as the ones that may want to walk or bike over to the Sawmill Center area. He concluded that the strip of land along Riverside Drive relates to the Scioto River provides an opportunity to capture critical park land, and development in this "riverside character" area should relate to the river and the future park. Mr. Langworthy stated that these are the basic principles that Planning considered in terms of forming the character for these areas through the creation of the Bridge Street Corridor zoning districts. He noted that there are some "left over" commercial areas that are currently very well established, but we learned from the consultant who produced the retail analysis for the Bridge Street Corridor that retail in this area really needs to be condensed and located in clusters so that the commercial development can feed off of the activity generated by adjacent uses in close, walkable proximity in order to be more survivable. Mr. Langworthy said that the first zoning character map dated November 10"' shows the density, walkability, critical mass of residential uses, the office "address" corridor, and the riverside character, hopefully the way that they all work together in implementing the Bridge Street Corridor Vision is clearer. He pointed out that Planning had received several letters from property owners interested in different zoning designations applied to their properties, which were reviewed at the November 10"' Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. He stated that the Commission agreed with most of the requests to change zoning districts, and the resulting map is the one dated December li He stated that Planning was concerned that the requested changes to the zoning map recommended by Planning started to interrupt the ability to establish the character areas described earlier by spreading out the Sawmill Center Neighborhood to diminish its compactness, interrupting the address corridor along State Route 161 with commercial development, interrupting the riverside character area with commercial development, and losing the critical mass of residential development. He stated that these interruptions form the basis for Planning's concern with the requested modifications to the recommended zoning map, and that is why Planning continues to recommend the November 10"' draft of the proposed area rezoning map. Mr. Langworthy recalled that Mr. Taylor had mentioned the existing uses operating in existing buildings in the Bridge Street Corridor. He explained that draft Code language was included in more recent drafts of the Code to protect those uses and buildings so that they can both expand and continue to thrive in their current locations until they decide that the Bridge Street Corridor development is right for them. Mr. Langworthy said that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the area zoning proposed for the Historic District, and the one recommended change is the area on North Riverview Street. He explained that this area contains six single family residences, and the ARB's recommendation was that the current designation of BSC Historic Core be changed to BSC Historic Residential to mirror the zoning on South Riverview Street and to maintain that cluster of homes. He pointed out that the Planning Report contains two positions with respect to the proposed zoning for this area, and the Commission should discuss how they should proceed with the ARB's recommendation. Mr. Taylor requested further clarification of the property owners' concerns regarding what happens to the uses they currently operate in their existing buildings. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 8, 2011 — Minutes Page 9 of 14 Mr. Langworthy explained that Planning started by renaming these "Existing Structures" and "Existing Uses" to distinguish them from true nonconforming uses and nonconforming structures, allowing them to be considered conforming buildings and uses. He said that the only restriction is that there is a fifty percent limitation on expansions to the buildings or use areas, and when Planning looked at the affected properties, getting a fifty percent expansion will be difficult because of the need to also provide parking. Mr. Taylor asked why the Shoppes at River Ridge was not recommended for BSC Office. Mr. Langworthy noted that Planning had debated whether BSC Office or BSC Commercial would be more appropriate for that property. He said that with the Council recommendation of a roundabout at the intersection of Riverside Drive and State Route 161, the orientation for the Bridge Pointe shopping center will be more towards Riverside Drive than State Route 161. He said that the office designation on that site will relate better to the future office, residential, and /or park development north along Riverside Drive than commercial would. He said that with respect to the Shoppes at River Ridge, with the configuration of the existing buildings and the age of the buildings, BSC Commercial appeared to be more appropriate. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked Mr. Langworthy to clarify what he meant by the "interruption" created by the commercial zoning designation shown along State Route 161. Mr. Langworthy said he was referring to the type of character that was being created, because in the address corridor, the desire was for taller buildings located closer to the street. He pointed out that one of the building types permitted in the BSC Commercial District is the single story commercial center building type, which can be built close to the street, but a building with fewer stories would not continue the same character down the State Route 161 Corridor. Ms. Amorose Groomes noted that Mr. Hardt had questioned several times why it was important to define what happens within buildings, since this entire area is intended to be mixed use. She thought that that speaks to the point that if we want buildings to look a certain way, we should codify that appearance and spend less time on what happens within the buildings themselves. Mr. Langworthy noted that the uses permitted in each of the districts had been broadened. He said that he is not as concerned with the uses permitted in the BSC districts as he is with the building types that are permitted, particularly within the BSC Commercial district verses the BSC Office district. He explained that the building types are different and generally lower density, and therefore they would miss out on the opportunity to establish the office corridor along State Route 161 that was first envisioned in the 1997 Community Plan. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked, if the building types are more problematic than the uses, shouldn't the building types be addressed? Mr. Langworthy noted that a number of property owners had indicated that they did not want to build two story buildings in the BSC Commercial district. Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed to the proposed zoning map and suggested changing the zoning of the parcel at the southeast corner of the intersection of Tuller Road and Tuller Ridge Road from BSC Office Residential to BSC Residential in exchange for changing the parcels designated BSC Residential to BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood on the west side of Village Parkway south of Tuller Road in order to maintain the critical mass of residential development that Planning was concerned with losing. Mr. Langworthy said that Planning recommends expanding the BSC Residential district wherever possible Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 8, 2011 — Minutes Page 10 of 14 Mr. Taylor said he preferred to see the density associated with the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood on both sides of Village Parkway, instead of concentrated only on the east side of that road. Mr. Langworthy agreed that the density was important, but the zoning recommendation also had to do with the types of uses. He stated that Planning had spoken with the owners of the shopping center site, and their early plans show residential on the west end of the Sawmill Center Neighborhood, and the objective is to start transitioning the intensity of development down, to some extent, into a more residential area. Ms. Kramb pointed out that much of the public comment received at the previous meeting on the area rezoning had to do with property owners not wanting to build two or more story buildings as required in the BSC Office district. She assumed that their concern was that the property owners felt that they would be getting more value from their properties if they are redeveloped with commercial building types instead of office building types. Ms. Kramb agreed with the Architectural Review Board's recommendation to change the zoning of the properties on North Riverview Street from BSC Historic Core to BSC Historic Residential district since the area should remain residential given the limited amount of historic residences in Historic Dublin. She thought that the existing homes should be preserved. Mr. Fishman said that it still was not clear to him why, if the current uses are permitted to remain as long as property owners choose, with some ability to expand, there continues to be objections from property owners. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that Planning had worked with property owners, particularly Mr. Hale, who represents the Bridge Pointe shopping center, to develop the language to protect property owners. Mr. Hardt noted that he was still not convinced that there was enough of a resolution for the vacant outparcel at the Bridge Point shopping center. He noted that the property owner demolished the building prior to the drafting of this code, and now they are in a position in which they would be forced to build the building in compliance with the new code, and he was not sure that that would work. Mr. Langworthy stated that Planning has not seen any proposals for redevelopment of the outparcel, and because we do not know what it would look like, we cannot comment on how it would or would not meet the BSC Code. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on this application. Ben Hale Jr., Smith and Hale, 37 West Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio, stated that he represents a number of property owners within the Bridge Street Corridor and agreed that he has worked very closely with staff on the language that is in the Code, and in the process, believes that many of his clients' interests have been protected. He said that there are several that should be placed in different zoning classifications, including the Byers site on Village Parkway, which would be more appropriately designated BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood district. Mr. Hale said that the owner of the Bridge Pointe shopping center is an unusual situation, because just like the Shoppes at River Ridge shopping center across the street, they have an outparcel with no building on it. He stated that the building was removed not too long ago, and that piece of land has a lot of value if it can be reused, but he believes that the value of that piece of land is destroyed if the BSC Office designation is applied because only a very small percentage of the new building gets to be developed and used as retail. He pointed out that this is the only piece of commercial property that is currently developed with multi- tenant shopping center that is not receiving BSC Commercial district designation. Mr. Hale said that this site has been home to a shopping center for 25 years, and it will Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 8, 2011 — Minutes Page 11 of 14 remain a shopping center site for a long time, and therefore the zoning that is applied to this site should protect the value of the property, which is a reasonable business expectation. Mr. Hale requested that the Charles Penzone site should also receive the same zoning classification as the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood across Village Parkway, and Byers should also receive the same zoning. He pointed out that he did not represent Charles Penzone, but he felt that they should be treated the same as the Byers site. Melanie Wollenberg, Equity, 445 Hutchinson Avenue, said that Equity currently owns the Bridge Pointe shopping center, and the only thing that she would add to Mr. Hale's comment is with regard to her concerns with the lending environment today. She noted that, with the BSC Office District designation recommended for the Bridge Pointe shopping center, lenders get concerned about the uncertainty that results from new zoning districts. She noted that the center had been a challenge, and although the recently approved architectural enhancement would be an improvement, the BSC Office designation would be a detriment. Mr. Taylor asked Ms. Wollenberg to explain what it is about the BSC Commercial zoning district that is preferable to the BSC Office district. Ms. Wollenberg said that the BSC Commercial district allows single story buildings instead of requiring multi -story buildings, which involves more expensive construction. She pointed out that outparcel buildings are typically single story and are generally restricted to eating and drinking establishments. She said that the limitations on this type of use in the BSC Office district are too restrictive for an outparcel. Mr. Taylor asked Ms. Ray if there is a requirement that when a building is required to be two stories, if that is calculated based on actual floorplates, or if it related to the height of the buildings. Ms. Ray clarified that buildings would be required to have the number of required floor plates. She added that, in the upcoming draft of the Code, Planning did make the modification within the BSC Office, Office Residential, and Residential districts to allow personal repair, rental service, and eating /drinking facilities to be up to 10,000 square feet in a single tenant building, so that if a developer could make that square footage work with the permitted building types, there are some options that were not in available in the previous drafts. Mr. Taylor said he compared the building types permitted in the BSC Office and BSC Commercial districts, and in the BSC Commercial district, the mixed use, commercial center, and large format commercial building types are permitted, while the only building type that is shared with the BSC Office district is the mixed use building type. He noted that the commercial center building type allows one story buildings with a minimum height of 21 feet, while the large format commercial building requires a minimum of two stories with a minimum height of 24 feet, and lastly, the mixed use building requires a minimum of two stories and a minimum height of 26 feet. He pointed out that in terms of building form, all three buildings could look almost identical, and he asked if there was a way to allow a one -story building to look like a two -story building while meeting the minimum required height of 24 feet. Ms. Ray said that there are other subtle differences among the building types, such as transparency requirements, front property line coverage, and required building zone (RBZ) width, despite the fact that building form is a major factor. Ms. Wollenberg said that even if the outparcel issue were solved, there would still be the overall uncertainty of this project being classified as BSC Office, because it feels inappropriate for a site that is located at a prominent intersection with 60,000 cars passing by every day and has been a commercial center for 35 years to suddenly be zoned office. She agreed that although there is an opportunity for Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 8, 2011 — Minutes Page 12 of 14 more density under the new code, the use category is changing, which would require office uses that would decrease the property values and rents and increase costs. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there was additional public comment. Paul Reiner, Oakland Nursery, 5875 Kilbannan Court, said he has always been concerned with the impact on property values resulting from commercial to office zoning, and the position that leaves property owners in if they want to expand. He noted that there is a potential to expand or modify 49 percent of the building, but if they wanted to tear down the building and start over, they would not be allowed to if they are zoned BSC Office. He reminded the Commission that the Oakland Nursery site has been commercial for over 50 years, and it is located on West Dublin- Granville Road, which is a four -lane divided highway with an access road intended to serve commercial uses, and therefore the properties along the south side of State Route 161 should remain commercial. He recalled that there had been discussion of how commercial uses should be clustered in certain areas to create a critical mass of similar uses. He said that nursery and garden centers create business and do not feed off of other commercial uses, and if the zoning on his property were changed, it would restrict their ability to expand onto neighboring properties, and therefore the proposed zoning does nothing for the business in the long run. Ms. Amorose Groomes thanked Mr. Reiner and asked if anyone else from the public would like to speak with regard to this application. [There was no one.] Ms. Amorose Groomes requested that the Commission summarize their comments on the zoning maps. Mr. Taylor asked if the Architectural Review Board had made a decision on the recommended zoning for 155 South High Street. Ms. Ray stated that the ARB had agreed with Planning's recommendation that the property be zoned BSC Historic Residential district instead of BSC Historic Core district. Mr. Taylor pointed out that the six parcels along North Riverview Street had been the subject of a redevelopment application that was presented to the Commission, and that the properties had been acquired for that sort of project. He commented that, as long as the parcels are developed in a manner that is consistent with the spirit of the vision for Bridge Street, he would be comfortable with the recommendation to zone those properties BSC Historic Core. Mr. Hardt agreed with Mr. Taylor and stated that although he values the single family homes in Historic Dublin, those six homes seem to be orphaned on the north side of Bridge Street, and that they have been acquired to allow something to be done with them, and he is not opposed to allowing that to happen. Mr. Fishman said that although he understood Ms. Kramb's point with regard to the desire to preserve the few remaining historic residences in the Historic District, he agreed with Mr. Hardt and Mr. Taylor. Joe Budde and Todd Zimmerman agreed with Mr. Hardt and Mr. Taylor. Ms. Amorose Groomes recommended the BSC Historic Core district for those parcels on North Riverview Street primarily because the conditions of some of those homes makes it impractical to try to maintain those structures as historic residences. She said that everything that is designated BSC Historic Residential District south of Bridge Street certainly needs to remain that way. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that the Commission will have the opportunity to review the zoning map at least at one more meeting, and that the Commission will only vote on the area rezoning after they have voted on the Bridge Street Corridor Code so that there is some time between the point at which the Code is voted on and the area rezoning is reviewed once again so that all property owners have time to learn about what the zoning will mean for their properties. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 8, 2011 — Minutes Page 13 of 14 Mr. Budde said he would support the map dated December li with the modifications to the properties on North Riverview Street, and provided the concerns raised by Mr. Reiner and Mr. Hale are addressed. Mr. Fishman, Mr. Zimmerman, and Ms. Kramb agreed with Mr. Budde. Mr. Hardt said he would like to see the issues resolved with regard to the properties at Riverside Drive and State Route 161, and he thought that the zoning along Village Parkway should be aligned with the proposed street grid. He suggested that if the Byers parcel is zoned BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood district, then the parcel immediately to the north of it should be zoned that way as well. He agreed with Ms. Amorose Groomes' earlier suggestion to change the zoning of the parcel in the northwest corner of the residential area to the BSC Residential district, and that the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood should extend all the way down to State Route 161. Mr. Taylor agreed with Mr. Hardt. He said that with regard to the properties at Riverside Drive and State Route 161, he would like to explore the issue further. He noted that despite the zoning, we are talking about a significant amount of time for the Corridor to develop, and what many property owners envision for their futures today and what they might think down the road could be very different. He commented that once the districts start developing, people will start changing their opinions about the value of their properties, and so there needs to be a way to be flexible on some of the key properties in this area, so he was not ready to support either of the zoning maps at this point. Mr. Langworthy stated that he would like to make clear that both versions, including the draft recommended by Planning and the draft recommended by the Commission, would be forwarded to City Council once a recommendation is made. Additional Administrative Business Ms. Amorose Groomes asked the Commissioners to make sure that they had read through the memo from the Deputy City Manager that had been included in the meeting packet. She said that based on her reading of the memo, she understood that there are going to be potential applicants attempting to use what they have to develop in the Bridge Street Corridor, without making the necessary changes to build really high quality development. She said that Planning's responses to many of the requests were very good, with strong push back. She stated that we would need to be clear and deliberate with our expectations for development in the Bridge Street Corridor. She reiterated that the Commissioners should read this memo thoroughly. Mr. Taylor said that when he read the memo, he was disappointed in the development community for making the requests to reduce development quality. He thanked Planning for pushing back and holding up the high standards of the Code. Mr. Langworthy attributed credit for the memo to Dan Phillabaum, Rachel Ray, and Justin Goodwin. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the last issue that the Commission needs to address is the upcoming review schedule. She stated that now that the Commission has made it through one complete review of the Code, they would like to take the time to review and comment on the revisions to ensure that the Commission's comments are adequately incorporated into the final draft. She asked for suggestions regarding how long staff thought the final review would take. Ms. Kramb stated that she did not believe that the Commission would be able to get through the entire Code in one meeting. Mr. Taylor said he thought that if the Commission had two to three weeks to review the Code, they would be able to review the mark -ups at a third meeting. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 8, 2011 — Minutes Page 14 of 14 Mr. Langworthy asked that if questions arise that will needs staff work and research, the Commissioners should email those questions to Planning so that we will have an opportunity to look into the questions and provide responses to all Commissioners to help keep the process on track. Mr. Fishman and Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that they will not be present on January 19, 2012, but Ms. Amorose Groomes said that the vote and recommendation to City Council should not be delayed just because she is not present. She reiterated that the Commission would not vote on the Code until the Commission was satisfied with it. Dana McDaniel suggested that if the Commission needed more time after January 19, the Commission could schedule another Special Meeting on January 26, which would still allow staff to prepare for the February 13 City Council meeting. Mr. Taylor made a motion to schedule a special meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on January 26, 2012. Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr. Budde, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Hardt, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Taylor, yes. (Approved 7 — 0.) Ms. Amorose Groomes commended everyone for their hard work on the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code and said that she respected the efforts that had been put forth. She said that she is confident that everyone will finish strong, and that the Commission's thorough review will produce a better document for having done it. Office of the City Manager City of Dublin Pho 614 - 1 410.4 0 • Faax: 14 - 10 -44 9 0 10 9 0 M e m o To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Marsha Grigsby, City Manager Date: December 8, 2011 Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning Re: Update of Planning and Zoning Commission Review of Draft Bridge Street Corridor Development Code Background At the October 6, 2011 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, members were provided a final draft of the Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) Development Code with the understanding that the draft code will be reviewed in sections at upcoming meetings. The Commission subsequently began its code review on October 13, 2011 and continued their review on October 20, November 3, November 10, and December 1. A special meeting for December 8, 2011 has been added to accommodate the Commission's continued review. Following the discussion on December 8, Planning will prepare a final draft of the BSC Development Code incorporating the Commission's comments made during the previous meetings. This draft will be available mid - December for the Commission for their final review at the regular meeting schedule for January 5, 2012. A summary of the Commission's comments from the Thursday, December 1st code review meeting follows. December 1 PZC Regular Meeting The Commission's comments are listed below and grouped by code section. The approved meeting minutes will include the broader discussion around these comments. 5153.065(H) Site Development Standards — Signs — Pages 96 -100 At the November 10, 2011 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, Commissioners had requested that the sign regulations be reviewed at the December Vt meeting. The Commission also requested graphics to illustrate some of the requirements. For the review of the code scheduled for December li Planning took the opportunity to not only prepare graphics to depict sample applications of the sign requirements, but to reorganize the sign requirements table in response to some of the Commission's comments on other sections of the code regarding legibility and ease of use. Planning has also modified some of the requirements based on further testing resulting from the preparation of the graphics and based on some of the changes that have been made to other sections of the code over the course of the Commission's review of the draft. For example, the draft sign regulations were previously separated by groups of BSC Districts, with specific sign requirements for the BSC Residential and Public Districts separate from the BSC Office, Office Residential, and Commercial Districts, and special sign requirements for the Neighborhood Districts and the historic districts. Since the use table has been broadened as a result of the Commission's comments on the draft Code, and to ensure greater consistency, Planning has combined the sign requirements for all BSC districts, with the exception of those related to the Historic Districts. - Commission members discussed the purpose and intent of the sign regulations, and requested that additional language be considered to clarify what types of signs are desirable, and what types are prohibited. - The Commission discussed the current Zoning Code limitation on the number of colors permitted for signs. The Commissioners agreed that a greater variety of colors would be appropriate to the Bridge Street Corridor; however, some were concerned that opening up the requirements to allow an unlimited number of colors would be undesirable. Following discussion, some Commissioners suggested that if a Memo re. Update re. Planning and Zoning Commission Review of Draft BSC Development Code December 8, 2011 Page 2 of 2 registered corporate logo had unlimited colors, it should only take up 20% of the sign area as a secondary image, with two additional colors permitted in addition to the logo. However, if a business wanted a larger logo, then the total number of sign colors should be more limited. The Commission also discussed whether black and white should be counted as permitted colors, and whether allowing the two additional colors for signs with multi - colored logos should be the same colors as used in the logo. - The Commission commented that wall sign size should be based on the exterior storefront and not the portion of wall applicable to the tenant. - Commissioners requested that ground signs be landscaped where appropriate to its setting. - Commission members requested clarification regarding the use of the term "Building- Mounted Signs" and suggested that this term be defined and consistently used throughout the section. - It was suggested that a table or section be placed at the beginning of the sign regulations subsection to clearly state how many of each type of sign are permitted for each building type or district. - The Commission members discussed the concept of signs for "major tenants," defined as tenants occupying at least one full floor of a building three stories or greater. The Commissioners agreed that this type of sign would be helpful in identifying significant buildings and tenants, but thought that the sign allowance should be simplified to permit a major tenant sign for buildings three stories or greater and permit the owner to determine how the sign is used. - Commissioners requested additional sign provisions to ensure adequate identification for upper story tenants in smaller office buildings. - The Commission discussed window display signs and agreed that some limitation was desirable. The Commission suggested that if window display signs are used, it should be in lieu of a permitted window identification sign. - Commissioners requested that Master Sign Plans be permitted for any building or site that wishes to deviate from the sign requirements, instead of just larger, coordinated sites in the Neighborhood Districts. - Commissioners requested language to clarify that sandwich board signs should allow for a continuous unobstructed path along the sidewalk. 5153.066 Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria — Pages 101 -109 (final section of BSC Code) The Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria section of the Code had been modified since the October 6 publication date in response to some of the Commission's comments and concerns regarding the process. A new draft was distributed at the November 10 meeting, with the intent that the revised draft would be reviewed at the meeting on December li Due to the late hour, the Commission requested that the discussion of this section of the Code be postponed until December 8, 2011. Recommendation Information only. A summary of the comments on the draft BSC Development Code will be forwarded to City Council members following their next review of the Code on Thursday, December 8, 2011. The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 4. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- 020ADM Administrative Request Proposal: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF DISCUSSION CITY OF r,.,., Proposed BSC Districts, Uses, and Approval Process (Sections 153.058, . DECEMBER 1, 2011 Land Use and Code modifications is encouraged at this meeting. Long Range Planning Review and recommendation regarding amendments to the Zoning Code 5800 Shier -Rings Road under the provisions of Code Section 153.232 and 153.234. Dubi n. Ohio 43016 -1236 City of Dublin, Marsha Grigsby, City Manager. Phone / TM 614.410 -4600 Steve Langworthy, Planning Director and Rachel S. Ray, AICP, Planner I. Fax: 614- 410 -4747 (614) 410 -4656, rray @dublin.oh.us Web Site: www.dubrn oh us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 4. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- 020ADM Administrative Request Proposal: To amend the Zoning Code to establish a number of new Zoning Districts and regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor. Topic: Proposed BSC Districts, Uses, and Approval Process (Sections 153.058, 153.059, and 153.066). Public Comment regarding the proposed BSC Code modifications is encouraged at this meeting. Request: Review and recommendation regarding amendments to the Zoning Code under the provisions of Code Section 153.232 and 153.234. Applicant: City of Dublin, Marsha Grigsby, City Manager. Planning Contact: Steve Langworthy, Planning Director and Rachel S. Ray, AICP, Planner I. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4656, rray @dublin.oh.us RESULT: The Commission reviewed the draft sign regulations of the proposed Bridge Street Corridor Development Code. Commissioners commented on the intent of the sign requirements and how signs and graphics should function in a more urban environment. The Commissioners suggested modifications to the number and types of permitted signs. The Commission also viewed a presentation regarding the draft Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria Section demonstrating the main development application review processes. Due to the late hour, discussion on this section was postponed until the next meeting on December 8, 2011. The Commission voted to establish January 12, 2012 as a Special Meeting Date for the BSC Code, if needed, for further review of the final draft of the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Chris Amorose Groomes Richard Taylor Todd Zimmerman Warren Fishman Amy Kramb John Hardt Joseph Budde ST CERTIFICATION Steve ngworth� Planning Director Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 20 4. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- O2OADM Administrative Request Chair Chris Amorose Groomes introduced this administrative request for review and recommendation to City Council of proposed amendments to the Zoning Code to establish a number of new zoning districts and regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor (BSC). She stated that the Commission is scheduled to continue the review with §153.065(H), Signs. Rachel Ray stated that at the November 10 meeting, the Commission requested that the sign regulations be reviewed at this meeting, and that they be provided graphics to illustrate the requirements. She pointed out that Planning had included graphics with the meeting packets, but Planning also took the opportunity to reorganize the sign requirements in response to the Commission's comments made on some of the other Code sections on user - friendliness. She noted that a memo had been included in the packets highlighting the changes to the Sign requirements. Ms. Ray prefaced the discussion with Planning's overarching approach to crafting the sign regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor. She explained that each building type would generally be permitted more signs than would be permitted elsewhere in the city, and that has to do with one of the main principles of the BSC, which is creating walkable, pedestrian- oriented environments and moving away from more auto - oriented designs. She stated that, just as we regulate building form and placement to produce a more walkable pattern, signs are also treated a little differently in form -based codes to produce more pedestrian- oriented places. Ms. Ray noted that the Commission had discussed the importance of integrating signs into the architectural design of buildings in other sections of the Code; the Signs section will define how many signs of each type are permitted, and generally, how they should be sized. Ms. Ray explained that signs are not intended to be geared toward vehicles as much in the BSC, because one larger sign would probably suffice in an environment where vehicles go by at 45 miles per hour. She said one or two smaller signs are more effective in a pedestrian- oriented environment, because they will create more visibility for pedestrians walking down the street, arriving from across the street, or pedestrians who arrive at a building and park behind it. She said that all of these requirements are intended to create a pleasurable walking, strolling, and window shopping experience. Ms. Ray explained that to start, Planning combined the sign requirements for several of the Bridge Street zoning districts, the BSC Residential, Office Residential, Office, Commercial, and Public Districts. She said they also addressed each major type of sign, and noted that whenever a sign is not specifically addressed by the BSC Code, that the requirements would default back to the Zoning Code requirements for signs. Ms. Ray presented the "menu" of permitted sign types. She said that typically one ground sign will be permitted per building, per street frontage. She said however, since the Code will require ground signs to be set back eight feet from the minimum setbacks, the public right -of -way, or the minimum required building zone, the use of ground signs is probably going to be fairly limited in the BSC, based on the limited setbacks of most of the buildings. Ms. Ray said where they are used, ground signs are permitted to be up to a maximum of 24 square feet, whereas the Zoning Code currently allows most commercial ground signs to be up to 50 square feet. Ms. Ray said the BSC Code provides for a combination of two building- mounted signs per storefront, per street frontage. She explained that if there was a tenant space that turned a corner, an additional two signs would be permitted. She said the maximum permitted areas of each building- mounted sign are typically smaller than what the Zoning Code currently would permit, but that is effectively in exchange for allowing an additional sign, allowing for greater visibility for people arriving from different directions. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 20 Ms. Ray said in addition to these primary building- mounted signs, the code would also allow a secondary, smaller sign, limited to six square feet, that would be located on the back of the building to orient people arriving from the parking lot. Ms. Ray said other signs addressed in the Sign Code include directory signs, which generally provide generally information for people coming up to a building for upper story tenants, and display signs, which are placed on storefront windows to advertise goods, services, sales, restaurant menus, etc. She explained that Display Signs are intended to be changed frequently and should not entirely cover the windows. Ms. Ray said sandwich board signs will continue to be permitted only in the Historic District. Ms. Ray said the third category of sign types are the major tenant signs, which are similar to corporate office signs on buildings fronting on I -270 that are intended to call attention to major corporate entities. She said that for the purposes of this Code, "major tenants" have been defined as a tenant that occupies at least the equivalent of the gross floor area of one full floor of a building that is three stories or greater. Ms. Ray said one Major Tenant Sign is permitted per frontage, up to a total of two, and they may be located higher on the building fagade. Ms. Ray explained that the Code allows the Commission to approve special sign plans that would accommodate a wider variety of signs than what the Code currently allows. She presented images from a mixed use development called Crocker Park, which has a very extensive sign plan that allows for a wide variety of signs. She said that in Crocker Park, all signs are highly coordinated with the particular architecture of each building. Ms. Ray said it is this level of detail that could not be anticipated up front to be included in the sign regulations, but the master sign plan provisions would allow for enough flexibility in the future to allow a developer to come in and make a special request, particularly for the shopping corridors in the special parts of the Neighborhood Districts. Ms. Ray concluded her presentation and offered to answer any questions. John Hardt asked for confirmation that the intent was to allow master sign plans only in the Neighborhood Districts. Section 153.065 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (H) SIGNS (1) Intent and Purposes (Page 1 of 9) Amy Kramb said she did not know why an entire page was needed to state the intent of a sign, because they all know it is for navigation and identification. She thought it needed to specify what is notwanted. She said, for example, nowhere in this code does it say whether or not neon, scrolling banner signs, or flashing lights are permitted to be used, and she did not think those sign types would be acceptable. Ms. Ray clarified that the restrictions on neon signs and changeable is included as a general regulation in the Zoning Code, and there is a reference that states that items that are not specifically addressed in the BSC Code would default back to the Zoning Code regulations. Ms. Kramb said she would be more comfortable stating what types of signs are not desired. Steve Langworthy said that the problem with that approach is that you cannot say everything you do not want, and if something is left out, that would make it permitted. He stated that at some point, we would need to discuss new sign technologies and how they should be regulated, perhaps at a future work session. Section 153.065 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (H) SIGNS (1) Intent and Purposes (c) BSC Office, Office Residential, and Commercial Districts (Page 1 of 9) Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 20 Mr. Hardt referred to ...to provide simple and clear visibility and awareness of larger office, commercial and residential uses... He suggested that rather than the word uses, residential development' should be used instead, because the intent is to allow a sign for the overall development, not individual residences. Section 153.065 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (H) SIGNS (2) General Provisions (c) (Page 2 of 9) Mr. Hardt asked about registered corporate trademarks. He said he understood the paragraph and supported it, but he thought for example that the intent was if Company X from a national brand came to Dublin, and they want to put their logo on the sign, we want to let them do it. Mr. Hardt said he was concerned about how easy it is to establish a corporate trademark. He said for $75, someone could file a trademark the day before they submit a zoning application and create a logo with 64 colors in it, expressly for that purpose. He asked if there was a way that language could be crafted that would limit the regulation to allow more colors for corporate trademarks that are well established in some way. Jennifer Readier said that would be tough, but they would give it some thought. Mr. Hardt said that stating regardless of the number of colors obviously has infinite possibilities, and he wondered if it was appropriate for all of the colors in a trademark to count toward one color in the sign, or if all of the colors in the trademark ought to count as colors in the sign. He said for example, if a logo had four colors in it, they could use the logo, but those would be the only allowable colors, as opposed to saying that the logo only counts as one of their allowable colors. Ms. Ray noted that the background itself is also counted as a color, so if you want the logo and copy to stand out from the background, one additional color may be necessary. Mr. Hardt said he supported the concept, and he agreed that signs should be treated differently in this part of the city; however, he said he was uncomfortable with how open -ended it seemed. He thought that the colors in the logo plus a background color should be enough to solve anyone's problem. Richard Taylor said he tried to imagine conditions in which this is going to exist. He said he was okay with allowing a wider variety of sign shapes, because we need that variety. He said he understood why the limitation on secondary image size should be eliminated in this area as well. He said he was not however in favor of a sign with too many colors on it, regardless of whether it is a logo or not. He thought the Code should establish what we want, and allow people to see restrictions and design to them. Mr. Taylor said, for example, if a Home Depot with an orange and white sign came in, he assumes that they would know that they are going to be building stores all over the country with all types of sign requirements, and they would decide to make their sign as simple as they can. He said when there is a local business not looking at the broader, nationwide application of their logo, then that is when he thought they might end up with the "mom and pop" stores wanting to do something really bold on their sign. He thought there should be something in place to keep that from getting out of hand. Mr. Taylor stated that what he thought would make everything lively in the BSC in terms of signage is the potential variation between signs, not so much variation within a sign. He said if there is a round sign with just two colors, and 30 feet away at the next storefront is a square sign that is 20 percent larger with one color, that would be great. He said allowing one sign with lots going on would actually have the opposite effect. He noted that Crocker Park had a lot of interesting signs, none of which had a lot of different colors in any one sign. Mr. Langworthy said that he did not know how to write language that would accomplish that variety among different signs. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 20 Mr. Taylor said he did not know that regulations to require that variety would be necessary. He thought allowing variety in terms of the size of the sign, the shape of the sign, in the amount of the sign that is occupied by the logo, in the fonts, and in the colors, as long as those individual things are limited within each individual sign, that would result in variety. Warren Fishman stated that there might be some signs that look similar, but he thought most businesses will want their signs to be different. He said that was why colors needed to be limited. Mr. Hardt said noted that sign size, shape, and color are the fundamental limitations on signs in Dublin. He thought what Mr. Taylor was suggesting was that the sign in and of itself should have a relatively small number of colors and be fairly simple and clear, but the business next door does not have to do what the other business next door did. He said currently, the Code text does not provide any of the "guardrails" within which a single sign needs to stay, and you can have any shape, any logo size, and any number of colors wanted. Mr. Langworthy clarified that was true, as long as it was within the logo. Mr. Hardt pointed out that the entire sign could be the logo. Mr. Langworthy asked if the Commission was stuck on three colors. Mr. Hardt said a relatively low number of colors would be preferred. Ms. Kramb suggested four colors because most company logos did not have more than three. Joe Budde said the Nationwide logo and sign they reviewed tonight was attractive, even if it did have a lot of colors. He suggested that if the trademarked logo is limited to a certain percentage of the sign size and allowed an unlimited number of colors, he thought that could be attractive with the remainder of the sign limited to the background and the graphics. He said for a Starbucks -type sign that is two or three colors, and the logo is the entire sign, perhaps the number of colors should be more limited. Mr. Langworthy said that could be written. Ms. Kramb said if the logo took up more than one -third of the sign, it would be limited to a specific number of colors. Mr. Hardt agreed, and said then the sign should be limited to three or four colors. Mr. Taylor said he did not think they will find that many, if any, big national companies that have a logo that contains more than two or three colors. Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out that the old Apple logo had the rainbow colors in it Mr. Hardt suggested they could have all their colors and limit the size of the logo, relative to the sign, or they could limit their colors and have their logo occupy the entire sign. Ms. Kramb clarified that 20 percent of the sign could be a logo of unlimited colors and if it was larger than 20 percent, they would need to stick to four colors for the whole sign. Mr. Langworthy said he thought that planning could work on language to require something like what the Commission was suggesting. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 20 Section 153.065 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (H) SIGNS (2) General Provisions (d) (Page 2 of 9) Mr. Hardt referred to subparagraphs one through four, regarding how signs should be measured, while subparagraphs five and six seem out of place because they switch to specific numeric regulations for particular types of signs. Ms. Amorose Groomes referred to subparagraph one and asked about signs that are tethered to a building, using something like cables, and would therefore end up exceeding eight feet in height. She asked if they would be excluding something that might be desirable. Ms. Ray explained that the measurement was only for ground signs, so something tethered to a building would probably be considered a building- mounted sign, which would be measured to the top of the sign itself, not including the tether. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she hoped for great creativity among signs in the Bridge Street Corridor, and she wanted to make sure that we do not create restrictions that would limit interesting designs. Mr. Hardt referred to subparagraph four regarding sign areas for multiple- tenant buildings and noted that the language in the paragraph relates the size of a sign to the front wall of the building as opposed to relating it to the storefront. He said he was concerned with that method because, for example, we might see a retail building designed in an organized orderly way with multiple storefronts that may or may not be the same size. He said that over time, as tenants change out, the landlord could move interior walls for the purpose of creating a certain square footage for the tenant. He said tying the sign area to the wall frontage would end up creating all different sizes of signs depending on how large the tenant space was in a single building. He suggested tying the sign size to the size of the storefronts rather than wall frontage of individual tenant spaces. Ms. Ray presented an example building and explained how the measurement was figured. She said that part of the intent was to consider the vertical fagade divisions, tying the sign design to the building's architecture. She said they would look at the language to address Mr. Hardt's concern. Mr. Taylor also referred to subparagraph four as something that has been discussed on multiple occasions. He said this requirement, at least for a multi- tenant building, seems to assume that we are only talking about signs for the tenants on the ground floor. He said they need to think about how they are going to address upper floor tenants because there is some precedent in Historic Dublin for upper floor tenants to have signs on the upper floors of buildings. Ms. Ray said that they tried to deal with Historic Dublin a little differently for that very reason. She said storefront' is defined specifically as applicable only to ground floor tenants as opposed to upper story tenants. She said for most other BSC districts, they would intend for upper story tenants to be identified either through a major tenant sign or a directory sign approach. She explained that the intent of building mounted signs for tenants with individual storefronts is to allow two building mounted signs per street frontage. She noted that perhaps part of the problem was that it said tenants' and multi- tenant building tenants' instead of storefronts.' Ms. Ray said that Planning could clarify the intent. Mr. Taylor asked if one of the two building mounted signs could be used for an upper floor tenant. Ms. Ray said that that was the purpose of the directory sign, if there is a ground story entrance to get upstairs. She said beyond that, the only other permitted sign would be a major tenant sign. Mr. Taylor stated that in the case of a professional office, only being identified by a directory sign would probably be less of an issue, but there might be concerns for business that do have a lot of walk -in traffic and may want to have some more significant sign presence on the outside of the building. He said he Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 20 would not expect anything close to the amount of signs that a storefront would have, but he could see a situation where someone might build a large multi- tenant building where there is some type of a small galleria or mall that is accessed through a single entrance, and there are multiple tenants accessed from the interior. He said if those tenants are only identified on the interior, they would have no exposure on the outside of the building other than the directory, which would make them difficult to find. Mr. Taylor was concerned that the directory sign would not be very much in the way of identification until you are actually at the building, and therefore upper floor tenants needed to be better accommodated. Todd Zimmerman suggested a blade type of sign for upper story tenants. Mr. Taylor said blade signs were often used for second floor tenants in Historic Dublin, and he liked them. Mr. Hardt referred to subparagraph five regarding wall sign height and asked if the roof eave or top of the ridgeline was considered the roofline on a gabled roof. Ms. Ray said if it was a pitched roof, it would be the eave line. Mr. Hardt understood the intent to keep signs on the vertical building fagades, but he said he could interpret the roofline as being the highest point on the roof. Ms. Ray noted that roofline was defined as the uppermost line or point of the facade or parapet of flat roof structure, or the lower edge of an eave, gable, or rake of sloped roof structure. Mr. Hardt said 14 inches was fairly deep for channel letters and asked about the logic behind the number. Mr. Langworthy explained that the mounting cannot push the letters out more than 14 inches, because after that point, the sign becomes a projecting sign. He said 14 inches was not a magic number, it is just a number that has been used in other communities. Ms. Ray explained that 14 inches would also allow some lighting behind the letters. Mr. Hardt pointed out that 14 inches would be nothing for a major tenant sign on the fourth floor Mr. Langworthy said that at some point there has to be a differentiation between wall signs and projecting signs. Mr. Hardt referred to subparagraph six regarding projecting signs. He thought 10 feet apart was not very far for signs projecting six feet out from a building. Ms. Amorose Groomes said there would not be more than one projecting sign on any given storefront. Ms. Kramb pointed out that there could be two doors next to each other for storefronts extending in opposite directions, or if there were two upstairs tenant spaces close to two other storefronts, they easily could be located within ten feet of one another. Mr. Hardt said it seemed like tying the distance between signs to the divisions in the architecture or the rhythm of the building would make more sense than an arbitrary number like 10 feet. Ms. Amorose Groomes agreed with Mr. Hardt. Mr. Hardt referred to subparagraph seven, regarding different sign types permitted on the same frontage, and said that he guessed this means that one tenant in a building might choose to have an awning sign and a blade sign, and the next tenant might choose to have a wall sign and an awning sign. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 20 Ms. Ray said a tenant could also have a wall sign and a ground sign if the site configurations allowed a ground sign, which is a combination not currently permitted by the Zoning Code. Mr. Hardt asked the other Commissioners if that was what they wanted, or if two storefronts with the same architectural treatment should have the same signs. Ms. Amorose Groomes said if the example of the mixed use building on the screen was consistent, that configuration did not bother her. Mr. Langworthy said that allowing different types of signs goes back to achieving the variety of signs the Commissioners said that they wanted. Ms. Amorose Groomes said to Mr. Hardt's earlier point, she thought those signs did not bother her because they are located in architecturally appropriate places. Mr. Hardt said he understood, but he was maybe only half way there. He said that if there is a building with four architecturally identical storefronts and then one different storefront on the corner, he thought that one should have a special sign treatment. Mr. Taylor noted that the sign treatments are likely going to be similar within the allowable sign types, so the awnings are going to be about the same size and position, they can just choose different types. Mr. Hardt pointed out that as it is written here, the only real restriction is the size, because the colors, fonts, and everything else are not limited. Ms. Kramb said she would be okay with all of the signs being different. Section 153.065 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (H) SIGNS (2) General Provisions (e) (Page 2 of 9) Mr. Zimmerman asked what was meant by, A non - commercial message may be substituted for a commercial message on any sign regulated by this chapter. Ms. Readier explained that this provision allows for First Amendment protection for freedom of speech. Mr. Hardt asked if this was something they had to allow in the code. Ms. Ray explained that the consultants had recommended this provision in the initial draft of the code. She said that it was just intended to confirm that the sign requirements are not intended to regulate content, rather than time, place, and manner. Mr. Hardt asked about a Whole Foods or a Trader Joe's who wanted to have their store name at their main entrance, in addition to their six other storefronts down the sidewalk, and over those, if they wanted to put phrases like Choose Organic; 'Buy Local; Live Healthy,' etc. He stated that those were not commercial phrases, which would be permitted by this regulation. He said if that was not the intent, the requirement should be clarified. Mr. Langworthy stated that those phrases would be considered commercial phrases because they are advertising the business itself. He said something like, 'Get Out of Afghanistan' would be a non- commercial message example. Ms. Readier said she thought that subsection (f), Required reviewing bodies shall not address the content of the sign message, would be sufficient. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 20 Section 153.065 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (H) SIGNS (3) BSC Residential, Office Residential, Office, Commercial, and Public Districts (a) Ground Signs (Page 3 of 9) Mr. Hardt said he concluded from the presentation that there were at least significant parts of the BSC where ground signs are not likely to be appropriate. He said initially, he questioned ground signs being permitted at all, but after he thought about it, he decided that there are some areas where they seemed to make sense. He asked if it made sense to narrow down where ground signs should be permitted. Ms. Ray clarified that ground signs are likely going to be limited because the draft regulations require them to be set back eight feet from the minimum required build zone (RBZ) or setback. She said if you have a building with high a front property line coverage building requirement and a fairly narrow RBZ, there just might not be enough space for a ground sign. Ms. Ray said a building with a courtyard or a greater setback like the commercial center building type, ground signs could be permitted, and those might be the circumstances where they would be more appropriate. Mr. Hardt said he thought that if there is a required build zone in effect, then that struck him as a site where a ground sign would not be appropriate in the first place. He said that his concern was that in a dense, urban, walkable environment, ground signs do not seem like the right kind of signs. Mr. Langworthy said the best example was if there is a courtyard, and the sign is set back from the RBZ, a ground sign could make a nice entry feature, and at that point, it would be more pedestrian- oriented anyway. He noted that 24 square feet, the maximum size permitted for ground signs, is not very big. Mr. Hardt pointed out that in places like German Village, Grandview, or Georgetown in Washington, D.C. you will rarely see ground signs, because it is too dense. He suggested that one solution would be to take the entire notion of a ground sign and define which parts of the BSC where they are appropriate, and which they are not. Mr. Hardt said this seems to say that they are allowed everywhere if you can figure out how to make it happen. Ms. Ray suggested that allowing ground signs in these limited circumstances goes back to trying not to prohibit some more imaginative sign designs. She said if someone really wanted to do something really cool for a ground sign and could figure out a way to do it, they would want to allow that to happen. She said they are most likely to be used with buildings where there is a greater setback like the public building type, perhaps for a library or something along those lines, where a ground sign would be appropriate, as opposed to the mixed use building, where it was expected to be more urban and probably less appropriate, and not always even possible based on site configurations, anyway. Mr. Taylor agreed that there generally should be a blanket acceptance of a variety of signs in the Bridge Street Corridor, and noted that there will be practical limitations on sign type based on the location of the building in the RBZ or its particular setback. Table 153.065 -I: Ground Sign Requirements (Page 3 of 9) Mr. Hardt referred to the requirement stating, Ground Signs maybe landscaped where appropriate, and asked if it should be shall be landscaped instead. Mr. Langworthy said that Planning had had a long discussion about that because they thought about if you had one that was in a courtyard, that you might want to allow a sign that was located within a hardscape design feature, and then putting landscaping around it would look odd. Mr. Taylor noted that it did say where appropriate, so if it is in an environment where it is appropriate to landscape, then it should be required. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 20 Section 153.065 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (H) SIGNS (3) BSC Residential, Office Residential, Office, Commercial, and Public Districts (b) Building- Mounted Signs A. (Page 3 of 9) Mr. Taylor said he was confused by the phrase, In addition to a permitted ground sign, which seemed out of place and redundant. He asked if the intent is that all Building- Mounted signs shall comply with the provisions of Section 163.065 -J. Ms. Kramb said the way it is written, the sign types seem to be cumulative, such that you can have a ground sign, two additional building signs, and so on. Ms. Ray explained that the intent was that a site could have a ground sign if it can fit onto a site, and in addition, it could also have building- mounted signs. Ms. Kramb said that subparagraphs B. and C. under (b) Building- Mounted Signs conflict with each other. Ms. Ray explained that buildings are permitted a maximum of two building- mounted signs, but if the building has multiple- tenant storefronts on the ground floor, each storefront is permitted a combination of any two of the four building- mounted sign type options. Mr. Hardt reiterated that he did not understand subparagraph C, Buildings with two ormore ground floor storefronts are permitted up to two different building- mounted signs for each ground floor tenant. He asked if that meant each tenant could pick two types of building- mounted signs, but not all four. Ms. Ray clarified that an individual tenant cannot have all four types, but there could be all four types on one building associated with different tenants. Mr. Hardt said he was okay with that, but the intent was unclear. He said the only thing he would object to is that display signs in the windows ought to be one of the types in the menu that you choose from. Ms. Ray said the concern was that if there was a restaurant menu sign, it would be part of the 20 percent limitation for window signs. She said that a retail '50% off sale' sign, for example, was intended to be changed frequently, different from what the window sign would be to identify the name of the business. Ms. Kramb asked if a window sign was defined based on content, meaning the name of the business or address because then it could be a display sign in the window. Ms. Ray explained that a window display sign could be up to 10 percent of the window pane area, or 8 square feet, whichever is smaller. She added that a business could also have 20 percent of the area of that window pane for your building- mounted window identification sign. She said in theory, up to 30 percent of one window could be used. Mr. Taylor asked if a display sign could be anything three feet behind a window. Ms. Ray clarified that display signs are anything located within three of a window; anything more than three feet from a window would not be counted. Mr. Taylor said that cleared up something he thought should be changed on page 5, Table 153.065 -L: Requirements for Other Permitted Signs, Display Signs — Location: If not affixed to the window, display signs shall be located at least 3 f. behind the window. He said if it was not affixed to the window, it was not a window sign. He suggested striking the sentence. Ms. Ray explained the intent was that if it was a poster not attached to the window, but hung in front of it to obscure the view of the interior, it would be counted as a display sign. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 20 Mr. Fishman pointed out that a lot of restaurants in urban areas have a framed menu behind glass on a wall beside the door. He asked how that would be handled in the draft BSC Code. Mr. Hardt said that it would be considered a display sign and that it was defined as advertising goods or services, is intended to change frequently, and may or may not be attached to or adjacent to a window. He said as written, the Code allows these signs in addition to two of the four building- mounted signs. Mr. Langworthy said that a menu could be a directory sign because it does not say what has to be on the directory sign. Ms. Kramb asked if a building could have two wall signs, plus a directory sign, plus a display sign, which would add up to a total of four signs. Ms. Ray agreed, and clarified that two of the signs would be the primary signs identifying the business, while the other two would be secondary, usually identifying goods or services offered by the business. Mr. Hardt said the key is the term building- mounted sign; which ought to be defined. He confirmed that Table 153.065 -J has four building- mounted sign types, and you get two, while display signs are outside of the table, and therefore they are not a member of the building- mounted sign "family." Ms. Amorose Groomes said the only note she had on the Table was with regard to legibility, because it is very difficult to understand how many of each sign type are permitted, and in which combination. Ms. Ray said that Planning could look into clarifying the regulations; however, ultimately, she said it was Planning's intent to have a "user guide" or something similar to help clarify how to use the BSC Code. Ms. Kramb suggested something up front to state how many signs are permitted for each property. She said that she thought allowing a ground sign and two building- mounted signs and a directory sign and a display sign would be a lot of signs. Mr. Hardt said that was why he though display signs ought to be a member of the building- mounted sign family. He said he understood that there were four different kinds of building- mounted signs, including wall, awning, projecting, and window signs, and as a retailer, he could pick two; but if he was a retailer that sold cell phones and he knew that as part of his business he wanted to put stickers on his window advertising cell phone sales, he did not think it was unreasonable to say he could do that, but it would count as one of his two permitted signs, and if he put up stickers on the windows, he had to give up one of his permitted building- mounted signs. Mr. Fishman said he was worried about sign clutter. He said in nice areas, there is usually a sign over the door, and a menu sign, and that's it. Ms. Amorose Groomes said in downtown Naples, there are signs everywhere, and it is still a very nice place. Mr. Hardt said any given developer has two options available to them, they can comply with the BSC Code as it is written, or they can submit a sign plan in the two neighborhood districts. He said he would not be opposed to telling the development community in general that they have fairly narrow choices; they can play within the rules if they want predictability and want to know exactly what they are getting, and if they want to do something different, they have the option of showing the Commission the whole picture and getting a sign plan approved. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 20 Mr. Langworthy explained that there were actually two options. He said the sign plan is specifically for the two neighborhood districts, but there is also the waiver provisions, where an applicant can come before the Commission and ask for something different. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she was not a fan of signs attached to windows. She said she did not mind banners as long as they would be at least three feet behind a window. She suggested that perhaps the regulations should consider the signs that are affixed directly to the window itself. Mr. Langworthy noted that the hardest thing to enforce in the Zoning Code are the temporary window sign limitations because they are so easy to change in and out. He said he would rather have some allowance for temporary window signs, so the Code can say that they would be permitted some amount, but not allow them to go overboard. Ms. Amorose Groomes thought it would be easier to say they could have nothing. Mr. Langworthy said he wished that it was, but from an enforcement standpoint, retailers will then argue that they should have something, and at least they can have 10 percent. Mr. Hardt said he thought display signs should be permitted, but the business owner should be able to choose what they want. He said if they want window display signs, they would have to give up one of the two permitted building- mounted signs. Ms. Amorose Groomes and Mr. Fishman said they agreed with that approach. Table 153.065 -3, Building Mounted Sign Requirements (Page 4 of 9) Mr. Hardt said under Wall Signs, the table referred to building orstorefront. He said again, those lead to different conclusions, so he thought storefront' was the right word to use. He said also, under Location, it referred to storefront signs, which is a term not used elsewhere. He confirmed that it meant a wall sign associated with a storefront. Mr. Hardt referred to Awning Signs, and said he thought it meant to say, only 1 sign permitted per awning, instead of for an awning. Section 153.065 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (H) SIGNS (3) BSC Residential, Office Residential, Office, Commercial, and Public Districts (c) Major Tenant Signs (Page 5 of 9) Mr. Hardt confirmed that the intent was that a major tenant was anybody that occupies an area at least as large as the ground floor of the building. Ms. Kramb confirmed that a business could get two building mounted signs, one ground sign, and a major tenant sign, and a directory sign. Ms. Ray said if a business tenant was large enough to meet the definition of a major tenant, then that would be the case. Mr. Hardt said conversely, if there was a building with a 20,000- square -foot footprint, and he was a tenant that occupied 16,000 square feet of the second floor, he got no signs except identification on a directory sign. Mr. Taylor said he did not think there was adequate provision for businesses in denser areas, where significant businesses will be on upper floors. Ms. Ray suggested a projecting sign or a blade sign over the entrance, or one window sign Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 20 Ms. Amorose Groomes said that if upper floor tenants are permitted an additional sign, the area should come out of the area permitted for first floor tenants; otherwise, we are just getting more signs on a building, and more is not necessarily better. Ms. Ray pointed out that another objective to keep in mind is that all of the permitted signs are intended be visible from different vantage points, such as people coming from different directions, and whether they are pedestrians or arriving by car. She said that one would be very unlikely to see every permitted sign from any single vantage point. Ms. Amorose Groomes thought there needed to be a maximum number of signs on a building. Mr. Taylor suggested that if someone wanted to have a sign for an upper floor tenant, they would be required to obtain a sign plan for the entire building, allowing for some negotiation to maintain balance. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she did not know how that would be legislated. Mr. Hardt said that would turn the Commission into a sign review commission. He suggested that if a landlord leased out the second floor, they could have a major tenant sign on the building, and if the third floor was leased they could have another major tenant sign (one each). Ms. Ray explained that if there were two frontages, they could have two major tenant signs; otherwise they got one major tenant sign per building. Mr. Hardt said as a landlord, he could theoretically tell the second and third floor tenants which sign they could have. He confirmed that the two major tenant signs, if permitted, did not have to be the same, and stated that by having this discussion, the Commission has already seemed to agree that signs on the top of a building are okay. He said these signs are permitted as long as a large enough space is leased, but if the threshold was lowered for what it took to earn a major tenant sign, and the landlord was told that they got two major tenant signs, and they can be given to whichever tenants the landlord wanted, one could be allotted to the tenant on the second floor from an earlier example that had 16,000 square feet. Mr. Langworthy asked if major tenant signs should just be regulated by building size; that they are permitted whenever they are associated with a building that is three stories or greater. Mr. Taylor said that addressed a large part of the issue, but the other part was that it did not change the orientation of other signs on the building and the overall accumulation of signs. Mr. Hardt said there could not be a total cap on the number of signs permitted, because you can never state exactly how many retail spaces there might be for a single building. Mr. Fishman suggested limiting the total number of square feet permitted for signs on the building. Ms. Ray said that when buildings come in for review, they will be required to show where all of their permitted signs are going to be located, since signs are required to coordinate with architectural design, and therefore the number of signs will be identified up front. Mr. Fishman reiterated that there needed to be a limit on the number of square feet permitted for signs for each building, depending upon the size of the building. Mr. Hardt said that there were already provisions that said larger buildings get one, two, or on rare occasions, three major tenant signs. He suggested a provision be added that said that in no case, shall major tenant signs outnumber the number of stories. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 20 Mr. Langworthy said that major tenant signs require buildings with three stories to start with Ms. Amorose Groomes asked Mr. Hardt if he was comfortable with the quantity of signs. Mr. Hardt said yes, but he thought he would actually lower the threshold of what was just said, which is to say if you have a substantially sized two -story building, he thought that a major tenant sign to identify the upper floor tenant would be appropriate. He said that he liked the way the major tenant sign provisions had been set up, but he thought in a two -story building, there should be some way to identify second -floor tenants. He said that perhaps it did not need to be a major tenant sign, but a larger sign. Mr. Langworthy said they would have two thresholds. He said obviously, a single -floor building has a set number and a two -story building would have some means of identifying somebody on the second floor, but you could not take that same mechanism or package to a three -story building. He said when you get to a building with three or more stories, you are now into the major tenant sign provisions. Mr. Langworthy said they might have something that has some sign allowance for second floor tenants on a two -story building, and once you go to three and above, you are limited to major tenant. He asked if that would work. Ms. Kramb thought that was a start, but she thought they should still limit the total number of signs Mr. Langworthy said that he had no way to do that, because there are too many different circumstances relating to building type, street frontage, possible number of tenant storefronts, or stories, for example. Mr. Fishman thought that architects could design a building so that it could end up with a ton of signs, simply by putting doors on the first floor that lead to upper floor tenants. Mr. Langworthy said that would not be a storefront, as defined, and therefore they would not be permitted the two building- mounted signs. Mr. Taylor said he was less concerned with the example of an upper floor tenant that did not qualify for a major tenant sign, because he was more worried about small office tenants who cannot rent first floor tenant spaces, yet still experience a lot of walk -in traffic and want to be part of the action in the Bridge Street Corridor. Mr. Taylor pointed to an example of a doctor in his building that sees a lot of business and also has a small sign on a multi- tenant sign on the building. He said he did not know the solution, but that was why he suggested that perhaps a solution is that if a building owner wants to allow upper floor tenants to have a sign separate from a major tenant sign, that crosses the threshold into requiring the whole sign package for the entire building. Mr. Langworthy said he would rather try to come up with a straight - forward provision for a two -story building with upper floor tenants, and then allow the major tenant provisions to come in at three or more stories. Mr. Taylor said you could still have the major tenant sign provisions for buildings with three or more stories, but it still does not take care of the need for a sign for small or large tenants on the second floor. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she did not really like the idea of a major tenant sign on a two -story building because she could not see a major tenant sign on the existing buildings in Historic Dublin. Mr. Taylor said he was talking about the blade signs on the second floor. He acknowledged that allowing each upper floor tenant to have a sign could result in too many signs very quickly, and that was the question. He asked if there was a way to allow second floor tenant signs without cluttering the building. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 20 Ms. Amorose Groomes asked about the types of office clusters, where a building provides reception services for rented out offices. She said technically, they would all be tenants, and there could be 20 or more of these offices on a second floor. Mr. Taylor said it depended how the signs were regulated. He suggested if there were second floor tenants, perhaps they could be limited to two signs and a total of so many square feet, and that way there could be 30 tenants, but they only had so much space for signs. Mr. Fishman and the other Commissioners agreed that they did not think there should be major tenant signs on two -story buildings. Table 153.065 -L Requirements for Other Permitted Signs (Page 5 of 9) Mr. Taylor referred to Display Signs — Intent, and said because he was aware of signs that would fit into the display sign category which are images with no text whatsoever, he thought the last part of the sentence should say, ...and signs that show or describe goods or services, instead of just describe. He said that way, a big picture of something like a wedding dress for a bridal shop would be covered. Section 153.065 Site Development Standards (H) SIGNS (4) BSC Indian Run Neighborhood, Sawmill Center Neighborhood, and Vertical Mixed Use District Signs (Page 6 of 9) Mr. Hardt referred to subparagraph (b) Master Sign Plans, A: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall be permitted to approve master sign plans that depart from the requirements of this section for sites with an approved Development Plan... He pointed out that development plans apply to sites with five acres or more, and he asked if master sign plans are intended to only be an available option for sites with more than five acres. Mr. Langworthy explained that master sign plans were intended to apply to larger development sites, and also for sites with more than one building. Mr. Hardt thought a master sign plan ought to be an option for anybody. Ms. Amorose Groomes, Ms. Kramb, and Mr. Taylor agreed with Mr. Hardt. Ms. Ray explained that the intent was to allow carte blanche only for these very specific, very special parts of the BSC in the neighborhood districts to allow these areas to be something different, a destination, as opposed to other parts of the BSC. Ms. Amorose Groomes said five acres was huge and that there were many places in the Corridor where this could apply. Ms. Ray agreed that there are some areas where a development site may be five acres, but the buildings themselves come in one or two at a time, with a general concept for the larger area. Mr. Taylor stated that creating a master sign plan is something that should be optional because it gives a developer the option of coming to the Commission and proposing something special or different. Ms. Ray clarified that master sign plans were actually required for shopping corridors, which are required in the neighborhood districts. Mr. Hardt confirmed that master sign plans are required in shopping corridors, but are optional in some other places. He asked about what would happen if he wanted to develop an entire block with one large retail building with residential and office uses that only ended up being three - quarters of an acre, but he still wanted to a sign plan to accommodate special signs for the anchor tenant, and a sign plan for all of the others. He asked why not have the option to do that, because it gives the City the opportunity to Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 20 make sure that the signs meet the high standards we have in Dublin, and it also establishes a plan so that when the next tenant comes in, there is already a sign plan in place. Mr. Hardt referred to the last sentence in subparagraph (b) Master Sign Plans, A: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall be permitted to approve alternative requirements for sign number, type, size, height, location, and /fighting, and said that because that seemed to cover just about everything related to signs, he did not know why the sentence was needed. Ms. Ray said it was intended to specify and even encourage vibrant, imaginative sign types and varieties. Mr. Hardt referred to subparagraph (b) Master Sign Plans, B: A master sign plan is required for a planned shopping corridor, and said the sentence was important enough to stand alone with the remainder, The master sign plan shall be submitted prior to approval of Site Plan in a shopping center, in another paragraph. He asked why a sign plan and a Site Plan application could not be submitted simultaneously. Ms. Ray said they could, but they wanted to ensure that the master sign plan coordinates with the architecture and all of the other site elements that are part of a Site Plan application, but they can clarify. Mr. Hardt referred to Table 153.065 -M: Gateway Signs, 1 for each frontage along a corridor connector street. He asked if that was intended to mean that if he had a shopping corridor, and a corridor connector street ran along the edge, he got only one gateway sign along that frontage. Ms. Ray said the intent was to identify where these key gateway locations might be, and perhaps Planning could look at a better way of doing that. Mr. Hardt suggested that a gateway sign might be permitted in places where a corridor connector street is perpendicular to the shopping corridor frontage, so gateway signs would be located in places where streets intersect the shopping corridors. Ms. Kramb asked if this was intended to refer to lot or building frontage. Ms. Ray said it was intended to be frontage for the neighborhood district, and agreed to look at a better way to word the requirements for gateway signs. Section 153.065 Site Development Standards (H) SIGNS (5) BSC Historic Core and Historic Transition Neighborhood District Signs (Page 6 of 9) Mr. Taylor referred to subparagraph (a), and said he appreciated that it addressed some of his previous concerns with regard to the Architectural Review Board's review authority in the Historic District, but he would like to clarify the first sentence to read: A// newsigns in those parts of the BSC Historic Core and Historic Transition Districts that fall within the Architectural Review District boundaries... Table 153.065 -N: BSC Historic Core and Historic Transition Districts (Page 7 of 9) Ms. Kramb referred to Number and suggested that it say, provided that they are all the same type. Ms. Kramb referred to Location, (first block, last sentence): Minimum setback of 8 feet from the right -of way or any property line, and asked if that meant they could choose which property line to use. Ms. Ray said it was intended to say ...and anyproperty /into address side property lines. Ms. Kramb referred to Size and Height, and suggested that the word maximum should be added before the dimensions since that is the format used elsewhere. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 20 Table 153.065 -N: BSC Historic Core and Historic Transition Districts (Page 7 of 9) and Table 153.065 -0: Other Signs Permitted in the BSC Historic Core and Historic Transition Districts (Page 8 of 9) Mr. Taylor said his comment had to do with the conflict with the requirements, especially in Table 153.065 -N and the Historic Dublin Design Guide lines, which are different. He explained that if Table 153.065 -N refers to those parts of the BSC that are outside of the Architectural Review District boundaries and therefore the Guidelines would not apply, that makes sense because at least the same requirements apply to separate areas that are close together; however, below Table 153.065 -0, (c), in the Historic Residential, it says, The requirements of 153.150 through 153.163 shall apply in the BSC Historic Residential District, but that section contains a reference back to the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines, so he thought that there may be a conflict. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that the Guidelines are expected to change in 2012, with any of the regulatory language in the Guidelinesto be removed. He explained that as one of their objectives for the upcoming year, the Architectural Review Board has directed that the Guidelines be made into more of an "Applicant Guide" than a regulatory document. Mr. Zimmerman referred to Sandwich Board Signs, which are required to be constructed with subdued colors, and he asked what this meant. Ms. Ray said sandwich board signs would have to be a natural color; they could not be a bright blue or yellow, for example. Mr. Taylor asked if display signs were currently permitted in the Historic District. Ms. Ray explained that they are currently permitted to cover up to 10 percent of the window area. Mr. Taylor referred to Sandwich Board Signs — Location (second block), Signs shall be placed within 6 feet of the primary ground floor public entrance of the business. He pointed out that in Zoning Code Section 153.155 (Prohibited Sign Locations), it says that Temporary signs cannot be in the right -of -way, and he thought those requirements might conflict. Mr. Langworthy said that was the reason why they need to call out specific provisions like this, so that it is clear when there are intended to be exceptions from the Zoning Coe to the Bridge Street Code. He said the specific requirements override the general. Mr. Zimmerman referred to Sandwich Board Signs — General, Sandwich Board Signs may include chalk and whiteboard elements. He recalled seeing a sandwich board sign with a realtor's picture on it and asked if that would be permitted. Mr. Langworthy explained that it was the realtor's marketing piece and so it was okay. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there was a way to regulate where sandwich board signs are located, since several signs could narrow the sidewalk down to two or three feet. Ms. Ray pointed out that the signs have to have a minimum of 5 feet of unobstructed clearance. Ms. Amorose Groomes thought that all the sandwich signs needed to be located on the same plane. Mr. Langworthy said he could write the requirement that way, but he would not be able to regulate it, because someone would have to be in the Historic District at all times to enforce it. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 20 Ms. Amorose Groomes said she would like it written that way, so that way they can choose to enforce it if it becomes a problem. Ms. Kramb asked if they could say the signs had to be within one foot of the building wall. Ms. Ray said it depended upon how wide the sidewalks were in the Historic District, which could vary. Mr. Fishman said he thought that a couple of sandwich board signs in the Historic District would have been ok, but now he sees them everywhere, and in a high density area, he thought there would be one sandwich board sign after another. Ms. Ray pointed out that sandwich board signs are currently only permitted in the Historic District, and the BSC Code keeps it that way. Mr. Taylor said his favorite sandwich board sign was the Jeni's sign, because every day, a different ice cream is listed, and in his opinion, that was the correct way to use these types of signs. Mr. Fishman asked if the Code could require that sandwich board signs have to provide additional information beyond just the business name. Ms. Readier reiterated that the sign requirements could not regulate content. Section 153.065 Site Development Standards (H) SIGNS (6) Other Signs Permitted in the Bridge Street Corridor Districts (Page 8 of 9) Ms. Kramb asked if street address signs were an additional permitted sign. Ms. Ray explained that the Zoning Code currently allows up to 12 -inch street address numbers, and instead of a major tenant sign, where applicable, a building could have their address numbers be that sign instead, but because the size of the address numbers would exceed what is currently permitted by the Zoning Code, it needed to be clarified here. Ms. Kramb asked if a sign permit was required for addresses. She referred to subparagraph A: Street address numbers shall not require a permit, provided the requirements of Section 153.157(H) are met. Ms. Ray explained that typically, address numbers are incorporated on the sign itself if it is a ground sign, which would require a permit. Ms. Kramb said it made her question what other signs required a permit. She said this was the only time a permit was mentioned. Ms. Ray said there was a Zoning Code section that lists signs that do not require permits or have special conditions. Mr. Hardt said he interpreted this as small address numbers on storefronts not requiring a permit and not considered signs, but numbers greater than 12 inches really function more like a sign and would require a permit. Ms. Ray agreed they could make that clearer. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there was any public comment with respect to the proposed sign requirements for the Bridge Street Corridor. [There was none.] Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 20 Mr. Langworthy provided a brief overview of BSC Development Code Section 153.066, Review and Approval Procedures for development in the Bridge Street Corridor as it relates to the Planning and Zoning Commission to set up the discussion for next week's meeting. He explained that the process begins with a mandatory Pre - Application meeting with the Administrative Review Team (ART), as requested by the Commission, which must be completed within 14 days of request. He continued that after the Pre - Application Review, the Commission had asked for a means of obtaining public input, so the next step is the Basic Plan Review. He said that the Basic Plan Review has to be completed within 28 days, and the public will have ten days notice of that meeting. He pointed out that there is a time limit placed on the basic plan review of one year, so that if a Development Plan or Site Plan application is not submitted within that specific period of time, another Basic Plan Review would be required. Mr. Langworthy stated that after the Basic Plan Review, the applicant would be able to submit a Development Plan and /or a Site Plan approval application, each of which begin with the ART. He explained that when the ART reviews the Development Plan and /or Site Plan application, they must make a decision to approve or deny it within 28 days. He noted that if all aspects of the Code are met, then it moves along to building permitting. He said the applicant would have the ability to request a Waiver from the Planning and Zoning Commission to allow them to avoid having to meet a specific Code provision, or the ART can elect to send the Development Plan and /or Site Plan application up to the Commission for their review, still within the 28 -day time limit. Mr. Langworthy said that once the decision is made on the Waiver and /or Elective Review, the application would then move forward to building permitting. He pointed out that the Commission still maintains review and approval authority for Conditional Uses, the Open Space Fee -in -Lieu Determinations that they discussed in Section 153.064, and Rezoning and Preliminary and Final Plat approvals. Mr. Langworthy explained that the ART Pre - Application Review is mandatory for applications in the Historic District as well, with the same 14 -day timeframe. He said that the Basic Plan Review has been made optional, since there are so many Architectural Review Board (ARB) approvals, like changing paint color, that would have to be approved by the ARB anyway; however, he thought they may want to consider whether or not the ART ought to be able to require perhaps a basic plan review for special circumstances, and not just leave it as an option of the applicant. He said that from that point, the process is the same for submitting a Development Plan and /or a Site Plan application, which would first be reviewed by the ART, who would then make a recommendation to the ARB for their final review and decision. Mr. Langworthy said that the ART has 28 days to make a recommendation to the ARB, who would also review any Waiver requests, before moving on to building permitting. Mr. Langworthy reiterated that the ARB maintains the same review authority that they have always had, and pointed out that the normal Planning and Zoning Commission approvals for Conditional Uses, Rezonings, and Plats would still apply in the Historic District as they do currently. Mr. Langworthy concluded that there are other administrative reviews, including the Minor Project Review, which required ART review and decision within 14 days as well, in addition to Administrative Departures. He noted that anything that does not qualify or is not approved for an Administrative Departure can be submitted to the Commission as a Waiver Request. Mr. Hardt asked if the Waivers can be requested at the applicants' discretion. Mr. Langworthy stated that the applicant can choose whether to request a Waiver, but it would need to meet certain criteria; otherwise, the applicant would need to meet the BSC Code. Mr. Hardt confirmed that if an applicant submitted a project, and the ART were to review it find that it was not consistent with the BSC Code, the ART would have two options available — they disapprove the application, or they can kick it up to the Commission for review. He asked if there would be an Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 19 of 20 opportunity, hypothetically, if the ART were to disapprove an application, for the applicant to say that they would rather pursue a Waiver request. Mr. Langworthy said that was an option, or they could take the disapproval and leave. Mr. Langworthy added that there are also provisions for Minor Modifications to approved applications, which includes language that is nearly identical to the language used for Minor Modifications in Planned Districts. He confirmed that the Board of Zoning Appeals would still review Administrative Appeals to administrative decisions. Mr. Langworthy stated that the Commission's ability to monitor the implementation of the BSC Code is still included. He said that time extensions have to be agreed upon by both the applicant and the City before the extension is granted. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that an abandonment clause has been added. He explained that once a final approval is granted, if an applicant is not actively pursuing completion of the project, or the Director of Building Standards finds a project that has been abandoned, which is defined as when the Building Permit expires, then the approval for that application will lapse. Ms. Amorose Groomes announced that at the special Planning and Zoning Commission meeting scheduled for December 8, the Commission would review Section 153.066, the Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria in more detail. Ms. Ray pointed out that some discussion on the BSC Area Rezoning would also be necessary, since notices had been sent out to property owners indicating a possible decision at that meeting. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked what there was to discuss, since the Commission did not intended to make a decision on the Area Rezoning until they had concluded their review of the BSC Code. Claudia Husak clarified that when the agenda for the meeting on December 8 was set, Planning had assumed that the Commission might be a little further along with the Code, and that there may have been a potential vote on the Code and Area Rezoning, and that is why the notices were sent that way. She said that since there were over 400 property owners and that the meeting was only a week away, they did not have enough time to send out an amended agenda. She suggested that if residents came on December 8 th wanting to hear the Commission's discussion, that they be informed that they would be notified when the Commission was ready to take a vote. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that the public notice did not say the Commission would vote, but that they had scheduled a vote. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she believed that the Commission still had some things to talk about with regard to the Code and the proposed Area Rezoning, and she still wanted to hear from staff and the other Commissioners about some of the changes that had been discussed at the past several meetings. She added that she did not believe it would be fair to vote on the Code and then immediately follow that with a vote on the Area Rezoning, because she thought that if she was someone whose property was being rezoned, she would not feel like she would have enough of an opportunity to digest the new requirements and comment on it, if necessary. She thought the votes should be at least a meeting apart. Mr. Langworthy noted that two City Council readings are built into the process for that reason. Ms. Amorose Groomes, Mr. Hardt and Ms. Kramb agreed that the votes on the Code and then the Area Rezoning should occur at separate meetings. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 20 of 20 Mr. Langworthy said he would discuss the Commission's recommended schedule with the City Manager, and he would relay the Commission's concerns regarding adequate opportunity for public input. Mr. Hardt said he expected to see was a clean, finished, edited, completed draft of the Code before they begin their final review. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that the Commissioners had the first half of the revised Code, and a complete draft would be sent to the Commission as soon as possible after December 8 so that they have adequate time prior to January 5 to begin their review. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she wanted to be clear about expectations. She stated that the Commission is committed to an aggressive schedule for both the Code and the Area Rezoning, but they are categorically opposed to rushing and thereby compromising any of the quality. She concluded that the Commission would review Section 153.066, the Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria at the special meeting on December 8 and also take public comment on the Area Rezoning. Mr. Hardt asked if there should be another special meeting scheduled for January 12"' since it has taken this long to get through the initial draft of the Code. Mr. Langworthy reiterated that he would confirm the schedule with the City administration. Motion and Vote Richard Taylor made a motion, seconded by Todd Zimmerman, to establish January 12, 2012 as a Special Meeting if needed, for further review of the final draft of the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code. The vote was as follows: Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Hardt, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Budde, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; and Mr. Taylor, yes. (Approved 7 — 0.) Ms. Amorose Groomes adjourned the meeting at 10:34 p.m As approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 7 ci of Dublin Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 www.dublinohiousa.gov ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD BOARD ORDER NOVEMBER 15, 2011 The Architectural Review Board took the following action at this meeting: 3. Bridge Street Corridor — Area Rezoning Area Rezoning 11 -0212 Proposal: An area rezoning of 144 parcels totaling 91.6 acres within the Architectural Review District for the Bridge Street Corridor. Request: Review and recommendation regarding proposed land use map amendments under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.232 and 153.234. Applicant: City of Dublin, Marsha Grigsby, City Manager. Planning Contact: Jennifer M. Rauch, Planner II Contact Information: (614) 410 -4675, chusak @dublin.oh.us MOTION: Robert Schisler made a motion, seconded by Carl Karrer, to recommend approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission of this Area Rezoning, with one condition: 1) All properties on North Riverview Street be zoned Historic Residential and 155 South High Street remain Historic Residential. VOTE: 4-0. RESULT: Approval of this Area Rezoning will be recommended to the Planning and Zoning Commission. RECORDED VOTES: William Souders Absent Tom Currie Yes Robert Schisler Yes Carl Karrer Yes Tasha Bailey Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION J nifer M. auch Planner II Dublin Architectural Review Board November 15, 2011— Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 12 3. Bridge Street Corridor — Area Rezoning Area Rezoning 11 -021Z Jennifer Rauch said Bridge Street Area Rezoning, as it relates to the Historic District and as mentioned in the implementation of the Bridge Street Corridor (BSC), is underway with the proposed Zoning Code being the first portion. She said the proposed Area Rezoning is the second portion. She said once the Zoning Code is recommend for approval the Area Rezoning will be recommended to City Council so the districts outlined in the proposed code can be applied to the various parcels throughout the corridor. Ms. Rauch said there are 388 parcels included within the entire Bridge Street Corridor which make up over 800 acres. She said the Area Rezoning has created 10 new zoning districts, which all the properties will be rezoned into. She said the properties will be governed by the soon to be adopted Bridge Street Corridor Development Code, with the overall goal to create walkable coordinated development areas consistent with the adopted Vision Plan. She said it should provide flexibility and transition between the corridors. Ms. Rauch said the Vision Plan outlined the original eight districts in a potential development pattern and this is what was used to create the framework for what these districts would be throughout the corridor. She said each district has a unique character but all have a unifying theme. She said the districts have been transcribed into the proposed Zoning Map, which lists what the properties are currently zoned with what is being proposed. She said the original Zoning Map was provided this past April which lists the changes which were requested and recommended by Planning. She said the Zoning Map was presented to the Planning Commission last Thursday for their review. She said this Board's recommendation is needed to move forward with the Zoning Code. Ms. Rauch said within the Historic District there are 144 parcels over 90 acres which are the subject of this Area Rezoning which will be zoned into four districts. She said the Historic Core is replacing the Historic Business District, the Central Business District and the Central Community Commercial. She said the focus of this district is on sensitive infill development and ensuring redevelopment is accommodated and the core remains walk able. Ms. Rauch said the Historic Transition Area is one of the districts that requires special attention to the location and character of the building, creating additional standards. She said the Historic Transition areas are located between the different zones. She said the Historic Residential District replaces the current Historic Residential District, but is unchanged from the current code to preserve the residential character and the existing patterns within the district. She said the Public District is for public spaces and facilities which includes schools, parks and open spaces, land along the Scioto River and naturally sensitive areas. Ms. Rauch said there have been requests from property owners who have requested changes to the Zoning Map. She said the property owner from 155 South High Street, which is two properties south of John Wright Lane, is requesting Historic Core zoning. She said Planning recommends the property stay within its current district which is Historic Residential because John Wright Lane has been the dividing line between the commercial uses north of that area and the residential area to the south. Mr. Schisler said he would like to see the Historic Residential District extended to North Riverview and see the High Street Corridor remain the business streets. Ms. Rauch said that could be part of the recommendation, that the area be modified to become Historic Residential. She said the intent was for the area to be redeveloped as a larger piece. Mr. Currie said it is the intent of the Board that the area remains Historic Residential. Mr. Karrer asked what the limitations are in height for the Historic Core. Eugenia Martin said to keep the character of the District, it was limited to two stories. Ms. Rauch said this body would review all the projects for this area. Dublin Architectural Review Board November 15, 2011— Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 12 Mr. Karrer asked for the height restriction for Historic Residential. Ms. Rauch said it was two and a half stories. Mr. Schisler asked if the Historic Core height restriction was switched to two and a half stories. Jonathan Papp said he believes it was. Mr. Karrer asked if Historic Residential includes multi - family residents. Ms. Rauch said the current code does permit it. Tom Currie said Historic Residential is proposed as only single family dwellings. He said he believes the Board is being asked to approve the rezoning without a firm grasp of what is being approved. Ms. Rauch said the goal is to retain the Historic Residential District as it currently exists. The Historic Core District would allow for multifamily and mixed used development. Robert Schisler said the Historic Residential is going to remain the same, the lot sizes will remain the same, and no one is going to put in new lots. He said what the code is trying to do is not allow someone to come in and purchase multiple parcels and build one large development on the land. He said a lot of what is being proposed does not take into account what already exists, there are currently lots in this location larger than what the new code permits. Mr. Currie asked if lots can be subdivided in the future. Ms Rauch she said it has to meet the lot and block requirements. She said when this code was developed it was determined how the lots and blocks would layout and how one would develop on a particular lot or block. She said this setup is practical and how development would function in the future. Ms. Rauch said there is an existing use and structure portion which allows for maintenance and retention of property to a certain point before the code has to be met. She said the code does not prohibit residents from maintaining their property. Ms. Martin said the Historic Core consolidates several different zoning districts such as the Historic Business, Community Commercial, Central Business and other categories. Once the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Plan was approved staff tried to consolidate them into one district, the Historic Core. She said Planning was writing regulations to keep the historic character that is already in place and build upon the fabric that has been established. Mr. Schisler said, in reference to the request for 155 South High Street, the applicant wants this small space to be Historic Core and have Historic Residence on both sides. He said to change the district of one resident is not fair to the other residents who do not want to also make the change. Mr. Currie asked what the limitations are on residential business, what kind of business can be within the Historic Residential District. Ms. Martin said it operates similarly to a home occupation. Ms. Rauch said the rule is 20% of a home can be used for business. She said the resident has to be the primary person for the business. Mr. Currie said it seems like we want the area to be walkable and vibrant but don't want to change anything. Mr. Schisler said right now it is walkable, in the future there will be development and the expansion will be buffered by the transition area. Ms. Rauch said the goal as a City is to maintain the historic portion of the City as it is, there are building types and site development standards that have to be met. She said when someone wants to develop, the point of the code is to get the developer to follow a certain form. Ms. Martin said there are currently older structures that do not meet the intent and character, should the property owners want to redevelop the properties there are standards that need to be met. Dublin Architectural Review Board November 15, 2011— Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 12 Ms. Rauch said if a property is within the Bridge Street Corridor the property owner can request to be zoned to another district, they would have to come before this Board, Planning and Zoning Commission as well as City Council. She said it would be evaluated based on the Vision Plan and the Community Plan and a property owner must have a basis for changing their property district. Mr. Currie said if the property owner wants to change zoning they would need to meet the requirements of the code. Ms. Rauch said yes. Mr. Karrer said he is puzzled by the large amount of land that is left public. He said he understood a large portion of the land would be Historic Core. He said he hopes plans for a City Hall does not migrate to the Historic District. He said if the school property should become available in the future, the land should become Historic Core up to the area of transition. He said even the transition land is more limited than it was in the original version. Ms. Rauch said the intent, in the long run, is portions would be transferred to Historic Core. She said currently the land is owned by the schools. She said that does not mean there cannot be future Historic Transition or Historic Core that meet in the middle. Mr. Currie asked why the Zoning Maps are being reviewed prior to the Zoning Code. Ms. Rauch said the thought was this Board has already reviewed the Zoning Code and made comments about the portions that needed changed. She said during the last meeting it was suggested if there were areas of concern, that this Board meet with Planning to get those concerns addressed. She said it was Planning's understanding this Board reviewed the Zoning Code and only needed to review the Zoning Map. Mr. Karrer said the Zoning Code is still in flux which makes it uncertain. He said that has a bearing on how the Zoning Map is viewed. Ms. Martin said the districts are not in flux. She said the parts of the BSC code which were being addressed were landscaping and building types. She said the Zoning Code this Board reviewed in June 2011 has been revised and now the Planning Commission is reviewing the code and addressing minor changes. Ms. Rauch said there are not any large changes. Mr. Currie said the recommendations he made this past summer are not in the draft code, which means they are not going to be changed. He said single family dwellings are not permitted in Historic Transition and he does understand why they are not allowed in those areas. Ms. Rauch said because the intent is to transition from existing commercial into the Historic Core portion. She said it is intended to be a larger coordinated development, not single family lots. Mr. Schisler said we want to maintain the character of the core. He said he would not want to see single family homes in the corridor. Mr. Karrer said we are looking at a development plan which has a goal of increasing population density in the greater district. He said we want to shield the present historic residential areas and keep it the open space that it is. He said we need to also consider accommodating others who may want to live and work within the district. He said we need to allow the bigger growth on the perimeter as long as the architecture is a transition area. Mr. Currie said he does not think it is wise to not permit single family homes. He said the lot width on the street has to be 60 feet which does not encourage high density. Ms. Rauch the design intent is different. Mr. Schisler said the intent is to not have single family residential. He said not everything we comment on has been incorporated into the updated code and may never be. He said he is interested in preserving the homes on the Historic Registry otherwise the area won't be very historic. Ms. Rauch said the comments the Boards, residents and developers made were considered and Planning has to weigh the comments against the intent of the corridor. Mr. Currie said the vision of walkable and convenient was different from his. Dublin Architectural Review Board November 15, 2011— Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 12 Ms. Rauch said as the code moves forward there are going to be amendments. Mr. Schisler said the goal is to have strict guidelines to allow the city to turn away certain developments if need be. He said right now the code does provide that opportunity. Mr. Schisler said the higher density is going to translate to the taller buildings in the transition area. He said he is concerned about the extent of the transition district on the north east corner. He said he does not recall the transition going down that far on the river. He said the lot in line with North Street is being perceived as a desirable location for a pedestrian bridge across the river. He said Historic Residential is being pushed out of the north side, losing that segment to commercial would be disappointing. He said the balance of the district is best served by allowing Historic Residential to extend the full length of Riverview and he questions the Historic Transition south of the river lot. Ms. Rauch said the Community Plan currently shows commercial or mixed use development on North Riverview. Mr. Karrer asked how the river front area is going to be zoned. Ms. Rauch said it is Public. Ms. Martin said land not owned by the City cannot be listed as Public. Mr. Schisler said that does not mean it will not happen if the opportunity arises. Mr. Karrer it is undeveloped at this time and if that parcel and the two that are presently Historic Core were turned into Historic Residential the space would be preserved. Ms. Rauch said that can be part of the recommendation which will go to Planning and Zoning. Mr. Schisler said if this stays residential it is harder to do something other than what is already there. Ms. Bailey asked what level of North Riverview was approved. Ms. Rauch said it has been reviewed as a Concept Plan which is non - binding. She said the demolishment of the six properties would need to be approved by the Board before the area could be rezoned. Ms. Bailey said if it is approved as remaining Historic Residential that does not mean they are unable to do that. Ms. Rauch said the zoning of the area can be requested to be changed. Ms. Bailey asked why it was changed to the Historic Core when the south side was not. Ms. Rauch said the Community Plan currently shows the north side of Bridge Street being redeveloped for more commercial or office uses to make the commercial development vibrant on the north side. She said the south side of Bridge Street would maintain residential. Ms. Rauch said the Board needs to the discuss property owner that is requesting the change Historic Core from Historic Residential. Vito J Checchio, 3565 Schirtzinger Road, Hilliard, Property Owner, said he is preparing the sale the property and was approached by an attorney who wanted to convert the property from a house to an office. He said there is an easement in the back that makes it accessible to build parking in the rear of the property. Mr. Schisler said if this Board votes no, that does not mean another request will not be received to change zoning of a property. Ms. Rauch said that is correct, all of the properties in the area can come in with a request to be changed. Ms. Rauch said the property owner is requesting the area to be Historic Core and Planning requests it remain Historic Residential. Mr. Schisler said it does not seem fair to change one property to business when all the surrounding properties are residential. He said if other properties requested the same change he would not be as opposed to the change. Mr. Checchio said he understands. Ms. Rauch said her understanding is the Board is recommending the properties on the north side of Bridge Street on Riverview be changed to Historic Residential as opposed to Historic Core. She said 155 South High Street remains Historic Residential. Dublin Architectural Review Board November 15, 2011— Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 12 Motion and Vote Robert Schisler made a motion, seconded by Carl Karrer, to recommend approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission of this Area Rezoning, with one condition; 1) All properties on North Riverview Street be zoned Historic Residential and 155 South High remain Historic Residential. The vote was as follows: Mr. Schisler, yes; Ms. Bailey, yes; Mr. Currie, yes; and Mr. Karrer, yes. (Approved 4 — 0.) The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. As approved by the Architectural Review Board. CITY OF DtJBLIN. Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Rood Dub.Jn Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone/ TDD:6'4-410 -4600 Fax: 614.410 -4747 Web Ste* www.dubiin.oh.us Graed'/>'c PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF DISCUSSION NOVEMBER 10, 2011 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting. 1. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- 020ADM Administrative Request Proposal: To amend the Zoning Code to establish a number of new Zoning Districts Todd Zimmerman and regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor. Topics: Continuation of draft code review. Request: Review and recommendation regarding amendments to the Zoning Code John Hardt under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.232 and 153.234. Applicant: City of Dublin, Marsha Grigsby, City Manager. Planning Contact: Steve Langworthy, Planning Director. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4600 saangworthy @dublin.oh.us RESULT: The Commission continued their review of the draft Bridge Street Corridor code covering Site Development Standards, except for signs. The Commissioners suggested changes to the parking and requested that applicants be required to submit a parking study and parking plan for any uses not listed in the BSC Code. Commissioners requested that, like certain building type requirements, certain landscaping requirements should be less proscriptive with fewer specific requirements, with more general language that would allow the required reviewing body to determine whether the intent of the regulation had been achieved. Commissioners also requested that the only type of street wall that should be permitted in the Bridge Street Corridor be the dry-laid stacked stone walls, and all others including hedges and other masonry types be eliminated from the list of options. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Chris Amorose Groomes Yes Richard Taylor Absent Todd Zimmerman Yes Warren Fishman Yes Amy Kramb Yes John Hardt Yes Joseph Budde Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION 5 �' 'I Steve Langworthy Planning Director 1 7 "ITY OF I1?t11.9 3N_ Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Rood Dubl'n. Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone / TDD• 614 -410 -4600 Fax: 614 -410 -4747 Yeb S'le: www dubtln oh.us PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF DISCUSSION NOVEMBER 10, 2011 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 2. Bridge Street Corridor - Area Rezoning 11 -0212 Area Rezoning Proposal: An area rezoning of 388 parcels totaling approximately 808.7 acres for the Bridge Street Corridor. Request: Review and recommendation regarding proposed land use map amendments under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.232 and 153.234. Applicant: City of Dublin, Marsha Grigsby, City Manager. Planning Contact: Steve Langworthy, Planning Director. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4600 slangworthy @dublin.oh.us Affected Parcels: 273 - 000016, 273 - 000071, 273 - 000003, 273 - 000797, 273 - 000040, 273- 000102, 273 - 000088, 273 - 002457, 273 - 009973, 273 - 011148, 273- 009093, 273 - 000028, 273 - 004081, 273 - 000027, 273 - 004079, 273- 004080, 273 - 009147, 273 - 008995, 273 - 000104, 273 - 000093, 273- 000094, 273 - 000039, 273 - 009972, 273 - 009124, 273 - 005565, 273- 000068, 273 - 000042, 273 - 000073, 273- 000107, 273 - 000048, 273- 000012, 273 - 000035, 273 - 000024, 273 - 002459, 273 - 009044, 273- 010405, 273 - 000086, 273 - 012325, 273 - 000108, 273 - 002485, 273- 000029, 273 - 000123, 273 - 000415, 273 - 012260, 273 - 012261, 273- 008868, 273 - 000033, 273 - 000099, 273 - 012295, 273 - 009088, 273- 000794, 273 - 002460, 273 - 000321, 273 - 000121, 273 - 009734, 273- 000109, 273 - 000079, 273 - 009155, 273 - 008958, 273 - 008280, 273- 000106, 273 - 009119, 273 - 009971, 273- 008872, 273 - 008329, 273- 000020, 273 - 008373, 273 - 000037, 273 - 000062, 273 - 000787, 273- 000143, 273 - 003513, 273 - 005566, 273 - 008309, 273 - 009322, 273- 009324, 273 - 009749, 273 - 009978, 273- 009979, 273 - 012181, 273- 012182, 273 - 012183, 273 - 000002, 273 - 000018, 273 - 000111, 273- 000310, 273 - 000208, 273 - 008277, 273 - 003680, 273 - 008316, 273- 010936, 273 - 011236, 273 - 012066, 273 - 012067, 273 - 012068, 273- 012069, 273 - 012070, 273 - 012071, 273 - 012072, 273 - 012200, 273- 009055, 273 - 012174, 273 - 012175, 273 - 012176, 273 - 000032, 273- 000098, 273 - 000010, 273 - 000038, 273 - 004507, 273 - 008286, 273- 008287, 273 - 008288, 273 - 008313, 273- 008314, 273 - 008315, 273- 009750, 273 - 007473, 273 - 002895, 273 - 000269, 273 - 000025, 273- 000077, 273 - 000096, 273 - 000113, 273 - 000044, 273 - 000008, Page 1 of 3 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF DISCUSSION NOVEMBER 10, 2011 FII Bridge Street Corridor - Area Rezoning 11 -0212 Area Rezoning Affected Parcels: 273 - 000089, 273 - 008242, 273 - 008258, 273 - 008377, 273 - 008813, 273- 009030, 273 - 008257, 273 - 000061, 273 - 009077, 273 - 008332, 273- 008333, 273- 000001, 273 - 000122, 273 - 000124, 273 - 008867, 273- 000022, 273 - 000270, 273 - 000274, 273 - 001348, 273 - 001349, 273- 001350, 273 - 008261, 273 - 000081, 273 - 000031, 273 - 000067, 273- 000078, 273- 008327, 273 - 008328, 273- 000034, 273 - 010207, 273- 009035, 273 - 000069, 273 - 008998, 273 - 000013, 273 - 000127, 273- 009099, 273 - 000128, 212 - 000129, 273 - 009079, 273 - 009096, 273- 009150, 273 - 000072, 273 - 008279, 273 - 012251, 273 - 008285, 273- 008308, 273- 008312, 273 - 012184, 273 - 012185, 273 - 009145, 273- 000007, 273 - 001940, 273 - 012300, 273 - 012301, 273 - 008275, 273- 000023, 273 - 000256, 273 - 000136, 273 - 009086, 273 - 000015, 273- 000329, 273 - 012245, 273 - 000054, 273 - 000112, 273 - 003800, 273- 012193, 273- 000005, 273 - 008827, 273 - 009081, 273 - 008907, 273- 008330, 273 - 009101, 273 - 012296, 273 - 000259, 273 - 000014, 273- 000074, 273 - 000053, 273 - 000059, 273 - 000097, 273 - 008245, 273- 000051, 273 - 000315, 273 - 008305, 273 - 010154, 273 - 000132, 273- 000134, 273 - 000080, 273 - 000047, 273 - 008859, 273 - 000046, 273- 012285, 273 - 008334, 273 - 000049, 273 - 000139, 273 - 009974, 273- 009975, 273 - 000100, 273 - 001684, 273 - 000129, 273 - 009149, 273- 000083, 273 - 008284, 273 - 008310, 273 - 008311, 273 - 009084, 273- 000063, 273 - 012062, 273 - 012064, 273 - 012065, 273 - 012342, 273- 000138, 273 - 000177, 273 - 000209, 273 - 000210, 273 - 000211, 273- 000214, 273 - 000215, 273 - 000216, 273 - 000217, 273 - 000205, 273- 000101, 273 - 000324, 273 - 011175, 273 - 010864, 273 - 012199, 273- 000130, 273 - 000131, 273 - 000126, 273 - 000258, 273 - 000052, 273- 000118, 273 - 000785, 273 - 000786, 273 - 009090, 273 - 008266, 273- 001308, 273 - 000110, 273 - 000114, 273 - 000273, 273 - 000344, 273- 000788, 273 - 000257, 273 - 001978, 273 - 008246, 273 - 009148, 273- 008361, 273 - 009146, 273 - 008802, 273 - 000133, 273 - 000056, 273- 009043, 273 - 000087, 273 - 000313, 273 - 000092, 273 - 000262, 273- 000004, 273 - 004077, 273 - 004078, 273- 005564, 273 - 000989, 273- 001530, 273 - 002458, 273 - 002463, 273 - 000091, 273 - 012229, 273- 008335, 273 - 000105, 273 - 000060, 273 - 008304, 273 - 012158, 273- 008306, 273 - 008307, 273 - 008375, 273 - 012198, 273 - 000036, 273- 000084, 273 - 000090, 273 - 012149, 273 - 001976, 273 - 002893, 273- 000019, 273 - 000286, 273 - 002892, 273 - 002897, 273 - 008957, 273- 000050, 273 - 000206, 273 - 000207, 273 - 009095, 273 - 000070, 273- 009082, 273 - 009512, 273 - 000066, 273 - 009732, 273 - 009733, 273- 012138, 273 - 008296, 273 - 009323, 273 - 000125, 273 - 012311, Page 2 of 3 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF DISCUSSION NOVEMBER 10, 2011 2. Bridge Street Corridor - Area Rezoning 11 -021Z Area Rezoning Affected Parcels 273 - 012170, 273 - 008908, 273 -0082 000075, 273 - 000135, 273 - 002075, 008244, 273 - 009080, 273 - 008381, 000043, 273 - 000057, 273 - 000137, 003410, 273 - 003411, 273 - 008820, 008831, 273 - 008832, 273 - 008833, 008856, 273 - 008857, 273 - 008858, 000045, 273 - 012264, 273 - 000212, 000144, 273- 008206, 273 - 008264, 000085, 273 - 009118, 273 - 009121, 009054, 273 - 009094, 273 - 009128, 009152, 273 - 009153, 273 - 009154, 008331, 273 - 012218, 273 - 010406 17, 273 - 00824! 273 - 009083, 273 - 008358, 273 - 000405, 273- 011235, 273 - 008834, 273 - 008869, 273 - 000213, 273- 008805, 273 - 009127, 273 - 009129, 273 - 009085, 273- 008811, 273- 273- 008269, 273- 273- 002474, 273- 273- 000170, 273- 273- 008243, 273- 273- 008838, 273- 273- 008994, 273- 273- 000141, 273- 273- 001186, 273- 273- 009045, 273- 273- 009130, 273- 273- 008913, 273- (RESULT: Commission members requested clarification regarding how the street network planned for the corridor will coordinate with the proposed zoning. Commissioners also commented that it appears that the proposed zoning districts are too use -based and will not allow an adequate mix of uses throughout the Bridge Street Corridor. Commission members commented that the BSC Commercial District should be permitted along West Dublin - Granville Road on the east side of the Scioto River in response to the property owner requests. Planning had recommended BSC Office District for consistency with the Bridge Street Corridor Vision and to prevent commercial proliferation along the SR 161 corridor. Additionally, Commissioners recommended that the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District (intended for large coordinated redevelopment sites) be extended west of Village Parkway consistent with requests from property owners in this area, where Planning recommends BSC Residential to support the commercial and mixed use development of the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Chris Amorose Groomes Yes Richard Taylor Absent Todd Zimmerman Yes Warren Fishman Yes Amy Kramb Yes John Hardt Yes Joseph Budde Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION S� Steve Langwo y Planning Director Page 3 of 3 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 33 1. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- 020ADM Administrative Request Chair Chris Amorose Groomes introduced this Administrative Request for a review and recommendation to City Council of proposed amendments to the Zoning Code to establish a number of new zoning districts and regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor. She said the Commission is scheduled tonight to continue with review with Site Development Standards, Section 153.065, pages 77 — 100. Justin Goodwin said the Site Development Standards cover a few broad topics, including parking, landscaping, screening, and signs. He said there are references to other code sections such as stormwater and utilities. Mr. Goodwin said a few of the sections they had already discussed were being moved to or referenced in this section based on the Commission's comments. He said the Building Types section included provisions for parking for Existing Structures, and the Commission had recommended this language either be incorporated back into the Parking section or that a reference be provided. He said Planning was working on that revision. He said a comment regarding the Street Types section dealing with loading spaces will also be coordinated in the parking section as well. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (B) Parking and Loading (1) General Provisions (a) Applicability 3. (Page 77) Mr. Hardt said he interpreted this section as saying that if there is a change in use that requires a change in parking of less than 30 percent, the property owner is not affected by the parking requirement. He asked how that would apply to a multi- tenant building. He asked whose problem it would be if a retail tenant in a multi- tenant building becomes a restaurant and effectively uses up the 30 percent leeway, and then the next tenant turns over and becomes a restaurant, tipping the whole site over 30 percent. He asked if that had been contemplated. Mr. Goodwin said Planning tried to address this in the second part of the provision which states that when a use changes in a portion of a multi- tenant building, only the parking dealing with that use shall be considered. He said he was not sure that fully addressed Mr. Hardt's concern. Mr. Langworthy said that was typical and similar to when there are sign provisions for a multi- tenant panel sign and one tenant uses two - thirds of the panels. He said it is first in, first served and it becomes the building owner's problem. Mr. Goodwin said this draft of the code includes provisions for shared parking plans specific to some districts, including the BSC Commercial District which includes existing shopping centers. He said the intent was to deal with the issue on a case -by -case basis as needed. Mr. Hardt said part of the reason he was asking the question was because in the BSC, a shopping center could be a completely different animal than what the city is used to. He said he imagined a four -story building that filled an entire block with retail on the first floor, and after a couple of retail stores went out of business or turned over, maybe a restaurant comes in and wants to take over the entire first floor. He pointed out that they could have a substantial impact in these tight sites where there is not as much latitude to deal with it as there is in a greenfield development. He said he had no particular request or solution, he just wanted to know what the mindset was when they were thinking about that. Mr. Goodwin said Planning has had much discussion internally and with the consultants about what is the proper balance between regulating parking by specific use as the city has been used to, while also recognizing that if the Bridge Street Corridor develops as intended, there is likely to be a high turnover of uses throughout the area that are going to have their own different parking demands, and the city will not be able to anticipate all of those situations. He said that is one of the reasons they have included Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 33 shared parking provisions and other methods to accommodate those changes. He said another example is the allowance for parking off -site within certain distances to provide more flexibility for property owners who may determine that a certain location works for their business, but they may need to provide parking somewhere else because the previous use was not set up to accommodate the same amount of parking on that specific site. Mr. Hardt asked that the thought be held because he had a question about this when they get to that section. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (B) Parking and Loading (1) General Provisions (a) Applicability 4. (Page 77) Mr. Hardt asked for clarification regarding the extension for unfinished parking areas. He said he understood the purpose and he thought the development community would love it. He asked if this only included instances where in the construction phase, the contractor cannot get the second layer of asphalt or striping down, but there is a hard surface there, or if it also included situations where they cannot get asphalt down at all. Mr. Goodwin said his understanding was that there may be cases where they simply cannot get the asphalt down at all. Mr. Langworthy said he thought it would be a variety of situations. He took the example Mr. Hardt mentioned about the building taking up substantial, if not all portions of the block, and said the contractor may stage construction in the area intended for parking. Mr. Langworthy said the expectation is that parking will still have to be provided somewhere if the normal parking area is used for staging. Mr. Hardt said he understood what they were trying to do, but opening a building with no asphalt down at all seemed a step too far. He said that for any construction project that lasts more than six or eight months there will be the opportunity to get something down on the ground, but it may not be the final course of asphalt. He said he was comfortable with some latitude where something is not quite complete, but when the paving is not even started, that may be going too far. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (B) Parking and Loading (1) General Provisions (a) Applicability 6. (Page 77) Mr. Hardt asked if the phrase "shall be determined by the Director" was appropriate with regard to uses not addressed in the parking section because other portions of the code refer to the approving body or other similar language. Mr. Goodwin explained that unless specified as a different department, the Director meant the Planning Director. He said it was purposely called out this way here because use determinations are specifically attributed to the Planning Director elsewhere in the code. Mr. Langworthy explained that Directorwas a defined term. Mr. Hardt asked if it was the intent that such a decision would be based on some kind of submitted parking study or data. Mr. Goodwin said it would be permitted in this case, and supporting documentation was specifically mentioned later with regard to parking plans, but perhaps it could be clarified here. Mr. Hardt said he would like to give developers the opportunity to submit data and make the argument. He said the way it reads now, it looks like it is at the discretion of one person. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 33 Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (B) Parking and Loading (1) General Provisions (b) Parking Location (Page 77) Mr. Hardt asked if there was a presumption that all parking structures will be publically available. Mr. Goodwin said that they have allowed parking structures to be partially used if a property owner desires to provide public parking or parking to other sites, but there could be entirely private parking structures for specific property owners. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (B) Parking and Loading (1) General Provisions (b) Parking Location 4. On- Street Parking (Page 77) Ms. Kramb noted that a building can use on- street parking spaces in front of the building. She said in some circumstances that can lead to a presumption of ownership. She thought it should be made clear that those cannot be signed for just that building owner. Mr. Goodwin explained that could be specifically stated in the Code. He said they want to make sure that those parking spaces are publically available. Mr. Goodwin said it is appropriate to allow a building to count those spaces because on- street parking is critical to making the streets function properly, but they also did not want any property owner to have the expectation of ownership over those spaces. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (B) Parking and Loading (2), Required Vehicle Parking (a) Minimum Amount Required and Maximum Amount Permitted 2. (Page 78) Ms. Kramb said as written, it is not clear that the items listed in the paragraph describing a parking plan are actually review criteria. She suggested restructuring the paragraph to read "the required reviewing bodysha/ / consider" or "subject to the following review criteria" and then listing them out individually. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (B) Parking and Loading (2) Required Vehicle Parking (a) Minimum Amount Required and Maximum Amount Permitted 4. (Page 80) Mr. Hardt pointed out the paragraph referring to Table 153.065 -A, was after the table. Table 153.065 -A: Required Vehicle Parking (Page 78 -80) General Comments Ms. Kramb requested that the numeric requirements be reformatted using the word 'per' and not a (slash), because the slash is also used to indicate fractions and it is very confusing. She said as an example, it was unclear if the requirement for religious or public assembly is 1 space per 6 persons or 1 space for each 1/6 of a person. Mr. Goodwin said it was 'one per six persons; but the requirement should work out to the same number under either interpretation. He said that change could be made to clarify the intent. Ms. Kramb said regarding dwelling two- fami /y; she did not understand how that differed from a multiple family dwelling that would have two families. Mr. Goodwin explained that a multiple family dwelling is three units or above as defined in the Code. Ms. Kramb asked why two parking spaces would not be required if there were two families. Mr. Goodwin said because the requirement is one space per unit and a two - family dwelling includes two units, it does require two parking spaces. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 33 Ms. Kramb asked if it would be appropriate to require some type of service vehicle parking space for uses such as an energy plant or community garden that are marked 'not applicable.' She said some parking was needed for those who work in the garden. Mr. Goodwin said that depended on the uses. He said Planning had discussed that for community gardens, on- street parking may be sufficient depending on the location. He said it was difficult to anticipate what that requirement would be depending on the specific conditions, but they could require a parking plan rather than stating 'not applicable.' Ms. Kramb referred to the numbers on the table. She said some of the maximum numbers did not seem high enough to her. She said the church and conference center maximums seemed low and may need to be reconsidered. Mr. Goodwin said it is difficult to determine exactly what ranges are appropriate, but Planning maximums are important to ensure there is not excessive parking on individual lots. Mr. Goodwin said Planning wanted to make sure that they did not necessarily allow properties to automatically develop with parking to accommodate their absolute peak use during the year because that may only be for one day, such as the day after Thanksgiving for retail uses, and there is otherwise a lot of parking that is not regularly used. He said the same argument could be made with some institutional uses like churches. He said the code also provides a mechanism for property owners to request adjustments based on their own specific needs, and that is another way to potentially get additional parking above the 150 percent maximum. Ms. Kramb said she thought the city needed to be careful since it is trying to create such density. She said it will not necessarily be easy for a property owner to come back and keep asking for more parking because there will not be any space. Ms. Kramb said if a use is going to need more than what is permitted in the future, she thought the code should somehow accommodate or allow for a greater maximum up front. Mr. Hardt said that in some of the subsequent paragraphs, his interpretation is that for any site, for any use, there is the opportunity to do a parking demand study to prove something different. Mr. Goodwin indicated that was correct. Ms. Kramb said that a parking demand study seemed costly for a church. Mr. Hardt said that a basic parking study could be done in a day. Mr. Fishman said he noticed that two family units were allowed one car per unit, which is less than the two cars per unit the city currently requires. He said regarding community gardens, when a park is constructed, which is similar, we require that there be parking. He said he thought this needed to be reworked. He noted that there was no square footage on the units. Mr. Goodwin pointed out that for some residential developments, depending on the price point of the unit, there may be an expectation that one of the tenants parks on the street. He said Planning wanted to make sure that the on- street parking was used as well, which is more common in urban environments. Ms. Amorose Groomes said it would be more likely that they would pursue another kind of living arrangement in other parts of the city where they might have two or maybe three parking spaces per unit. Mr. Fishman said they were lowering the standards. He said sometimes economics require people to live in a 1,200 square foot unit and they often have three drivers per unit. He said if the builder is only required to provide parking for one car, it would be advantageous to the developer because it was less expensive. He reiterated that he would like to see parking based on the square footage of the units. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 33 Mr. Zimmerman said he would like to see the minimum parking for live -work dwellings increased from one to two parking spaces because if someone came to see that person, parking should be available. Mr. Hardt said he had that comment also. He said either a customer coming to that business or an employee who works there as well needs to park. Mr. Langworthy agreed to review the single family, two family and the live work unit parking requirements. Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out that Mr. Hardt had suggested it might be more appropriate to base the parking requirement on the number of bedrooms than by the square footage. Mr. Zimmerman and Mr. Fishman agreed and said that was a good point. Mr. Goodwin said they would look at that option. He said there may be some additional administrative issues with requiring parking at a per bedroom level. Mr. Hardt said he shared Ms. Kramb's comment about the use of 'per,' and suggested using a more consistent formatting for the numeric calculations as well. He said for example that the requirement for Handicapped Housing is 0.5 space per dwelling unit, but a use on the next page is formatted as 2 spaces for every 3 guestrooms. He said those were two different ways of expressing fractions and he suggested one be chosen and used consistently. He said similarly, there were places in the table that refer to square footage, gross square footage, and indoor square footage, and he suspected that those were all the same thing. Mr. Goodwin said all of the calculations are intended as gross square footage. He said there are a couple of places where it specifies indoor square footage based on the type of use. He said for instance, that if a personal, repair or rental service included an outdoor component, they did not want that to have to be included. Mr. Hardt said that made sense, but gross floor area and square footage being used interchangeably is confusing. Mr. Hardt said for community centers, he could not confirm or dispute that 2 spaces per 1,000 square feet is the right number, but it occurred to him that a community center could be a lot of different things such as a satellite of the DCRC, a large meeting hall, or something else. He suggested it instead require a parking plan, depending upon exactly what is proposed, similar to the community garden, but on a larger scale. Mr. Hardt said regarding hospitals, tying parking to beds and treatment rooms does not work. He said it is difficult to define exactly what a treatment room is and these facilities convert offices to exam rooms and back to offices daily. He said it will be difficult to keep track of how much square footage applies to each of these areas within those buildings. Mr. Hardt suggested that Planning refer to the parking requirement used at Dublin Methodist Hospital. He recalled having the discussion specifically, and he thought the requirement was based on overall building gross square footage and industry standards. He said as far as he could tell it was working okay. Ms. Kramb said she had a similar comment on schools being based on classrooms. She said some schools have converted service areas to classrooms and it is constantly changing. She said there are many Dublin schools where the parking is not sufficient for times when parents are invited for activities. She suggested parking plans could be used, or it could be based on the number of students. She said especially, at the high school level, there are usually a student parking lot and a staff parking lot. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 33 Mr. Goodwin said Planning hoped that if there are students going to school in this area that they will walk or ride a bike to some extent, but obviously, parking also needs to be accommodated. He said he had seen school parking requirements dealt with in many ways and Planning could research to see if there is a better option. Ms. Kramb said she had similar concerns about day cares. She suggested some type of parking plan requirement that would show where people park when they are dropping off and picking up students. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (B) Parking and Loading (2) Required Vehicle Parking (b) Adjustments to Required Vehicle Parking Table 153.065 -B: Shared Parking Plan Approval (Page 80) Ms. Kramb asked why there was a distinction on the table between individual lots and multiple lots. Mr. Goodwin said the difference was specifically to address the BSC Commercial District to accommodate shopping centers that typically are one lot onto themselves with multiple uses, whereas in the other districts, they would anticipate a greater dependence between different buildings and lots. He said in those cases the lot did not have to be owned by the same person. Ms. Kramb said it was not clear if it could be one person who owns multiple properties or if it has to involve separate property owners. Mr. Goodwin said it could be either of those situations. He said he thought it was implied, and maybe they should clarify that they would have to establish some sort of formal agreement. He said they could not tell the city they are going to use their neighbors' parking without asking their neighbor. Mr. Hardt said that spoke to something he was getting at three pages ago. He said there was a lot of language in the code about shared parking, nearby parking, documenting that sufficient parking is available to meet projected demand, and other adjustments. He said it seemed that in a dense environment when there are uses with cross agreements and maybe a public garage nearby, there could be a lot of different arrangements and documents produced that suggest a given business has enough parking available, and then a year later someone a block in the other direction asks to use the same parking. He asked how the city will keep track of all of this. Mr. Goodwin said that Planning recognizes that this could lead to a lot of administrative issues. He said they think it is important to provide for this flexibility and short of having a better answer right now, they recognized that they may, for a time have to be prepared to keep detailed track of all of these different conditions. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that they do a lot of that already because for a lot of the planned unit development districts, for example, shopping centers they do parking calculations differently. He said some are for all the square footage and some are for each use and as each use changes they have to recalculate every time. Ms. Kramb asked if they had anticipated people putting up signs saying this is my parking'. She asked if they had allowed for or considered that type of signs. Mr. Goodwin said he did not recall anything in the code now, which specifically dealt with that, but they would look into it. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 33 Mr. Hardt pointed out that it was a Historic Dublin problem and people now are resistant to the notion of sharing parking. He said they had an opportunity to fix that problem here before it starts by discouraging that. Ms. Amorose Groomes, Ms. Kramb, and Mr. Hardt said they did not know how to discourage that Mr. Langworthy said the only time you could do that is if they had a shared parking agreement that they agreed, for example two businesses could say on their sign that those two businesses have that parkign because those were the only two that had a shared agreement. He said apart from that, if they provide their own parking on their own site, they have a right to use it themselves. Ms. Amorose Groomes said you would think they would like to rent out the parking to generate revenue if the parking was not being used. Mr. Goodwin pointed out that depending on where the sign was placed on the lot, if the sign was visible from a public right -of -way, it may not be a permitted sign. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (B) Parking and Loading (2) Required Vehicle Parking (b) Adjustments to Required Vehicle Parking (Page 80) Mr. Hardt asked if there had been any discussion or contemplation of bicycle sharing in the same vein as auto -share parking, or was that something that could just organically happen if it decides to happen. He clarified that he was talking about systems in other cities where there are bicycles available to borrow. Mr. Goodwin said that had not specifically been dealt with in the code and he was not aware of anything that would prevent that from happening. He said they would look into other regulations that they should consider facilitating or not making that detrimental, if the Commission wanted. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (B) Parking and Loading (2) Required Vehicle Parking (b) Adjustments to Required Vehicle Parking S. Transportation Demand Management B. c. (Page 81) Ms. Kramb suggested that the last line should be: "on -site office, or project - speck website" because it was not an on -site website. Mr. Goodwin said she was correct. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (B) Parking and Loading (2) Required Vehicle Parking (b) Adjustments to Required Vehicle Parking S. Transportation Demand Management C. (c) Accessible Parking Spaces (Page 81 -82) Mr. Hardt noted that there were many other places in the code including the right hand column on page 82 where they refer to the Uniform Building Code and reference the Americans with Disabilities Act. He said he did not agree that in the case of accessible parking spaces, they should stipulate the number rather than referring to federal standards that already exist. Mr. Goodwin explained that they had that discussion and it was carried over directly from what was in the existing code today. He said he thought it might be appropriate to simply refer to the appropriate regulations. Mr. Hardt said if the federal standards get updated, he did not think anyone would make sure that the Commission sees it, processes it, and changes the code. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 33 Mr. Goodwin said including it there may be more user - friendly for someone looking at the code, trying to determine how many spaces would be required and how many of those had to be accessible. He said however, he saw the reasoning to not include that here. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (3) Required Bicycle Parking (c) Facility Type (Page 82) Mr. Hardt asked everyone in the room whether we ought to have a city standard for the type of bike rack placed in front of buildings and on streets, even if they are on private property. He said his logic was that as a person who uses his bicycle frequently, there is nothing more frustrating than having a particular kind of lock and figuring out the right way to lock up your bike and secure it in public and you do it six times, and you go to another business that has a different kind of bike rack and your lock does not work. Mr. Hardt pointed out that even in downtown Columbus most bicycle racks are the same type and style. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she thought by district, particularly in the Historic District, some kind of standard would be appropriate. Mr. Goodwin said there were two competing interests because Planning had also heard some interest at the policy level of encouraging a variety of bike racks to create an interesting streetscape with street furniture. He said there are some basic standards included here. He said the racks have to be designed to provide two points of contact to the bicycle frame which allows the bicycle to be supported and it tends to make it easier for a variety of locks to work. He said it was a balancing act that they were trying to achieve. Mr. Langworthy said in the Historic District, Parks and Open Space is working so that there are not 50 different rack varieties, but there is a consistency. Mr. Goodwin said he thought as they developed a better understanding of what type of street furniture in general applies in the different portions of the corridor, maybe there could be a palette of recommended or specific types of racks. Mr. Zimmerman said he agreed about the standard functionality of bicycle racks and locks. Mr. Fishman, a member of the Bicycle Task Force, said that they recommended the racks be artsy, but consistent in the way they were locked. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked that the issue be addressed when they come to the next revision. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (3) Required Bicycle Parking (d) Location 2. (Page 82) Mr. Hardt said that "Outside bicycle parking sha // be located in a we / %/t area' was all that needed to be said because the remainder is redundant. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (4) Off - Street Parking Space and Aisle Dimensions — Table 153.065 -D: Off - Street Parking Space and Aisle Dimensions (Page 83) Ms. Kramb said her issue was the figure which she thought they were trying to use as part of the table or something because there was a footnote after it. Mr. Goodwin explained that it needed clarified and a figure reference added. Mr. Hardt noted that the 90- degree parking stall has the width indicated at 8 1 /2 feet, and the city standard was 9 feet. He asked if that was due to today's SUVs and Escalades. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 33 Mr. Zimmerman pointed out that when doors are swung open on small cars, they are 40 inches wide. He said they needed to be opened wide to get in and out. He said he was a firm believer in the 9 -foot wide space. Mr. Hardt said shrinking the regular parking spaces was questionable to him. Mr. Goodwin agreed it would be appropriate to change the dimension for regular spaces from 8 1 /2 feet back to 9 feet, but suggested they maintain the reduced dimensions for compact spaces. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (5) Parking Structure Design. (Page 83) Mr. Hardt said the first paragraph and continuing throughout the rest of this portion of the code, talks about the minimum requirements established by the City Engineer, and the subsequent paragraphs elude to the existence of parking garage design standards of some sort. He asked if the City of Dublin had or established parking garage design standards. Mr. Goodwin said not yet. Mr. Hardt suggested that if there were such a thing they would not need to go into such a detailed list of design requirements. He said he would expect to find that in the Design Standards. Mr. Langworthy agreed. He said they wanted something in place right away. He said once they get Engineering to do that, they will probably come back and take some of that out of the code. He said this was in anticipation of not knowing exactly how long it may take for Engineering to get that finished. He said it actually came from the original COIC code. Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out that the phrase "established City Engineer requirements" needed to be removed. Mr. Langworthy agreed to do so, until they are established Mr. Hardt referred to (c) 4. (Page 83) where it refers to a clearance height of 8 1 /2 feet. He said that was big for a parking lot clearance. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she had experienced difficulty in getting snow clearing equipment to the top deck, and when they are substantially lower, it is difficult to get the equipment to the snow. Mr. Hardt said he agreed, but wondered why that was a zoning issue. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she would expect to see that in the Engineering requirements. Mr. Hardt referred to the top of Page 84, where it talks about pedestrian flow, security and cameras which he said all sounded like great ideas and smart things to do, but that they did not seem like a land use issue. Mr. Goodwin explained that until they have other standards to reference, they thought it was important, but this is subject revision for sure. Mr. Langworthy said he did not know of another place they could put it. He said they do not really address parking structures anywhere else. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she thought they should get some sort of urban safety guidebook together, but until then, they should probably address it. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 33 Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (4) Surface Parking Lot and Loading Area Design and Construction (c) Driveways 3. (Page 84) Ms. Kramb noted ... "driveways shall be limited to one per lot or parcel "and asked if there was a difference. Mr. Langworthy explained that a lot was considered a single lot, but a parcel is a group of lots. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked how it was determined if it was a parcel. Mr. Langworthy said it could be either by ownership or by use. He said more often, it was by use. He said a shopping center with multiple lots would be considered a parcel. Ms. Kramb said that this should read ... one periotorparcel, whicheveris fewer." Mr. Langworthy agreed to work on it. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (4) Surface Parking Lot and Loading Area Design and Construction (d) Curbs and Wheel Stops (Page 84) Ms. Kramb noted that there was no mention as to what materials curbs can be constructed of, and she assumed they want concrete curbs. She said it did not reference any type of material. Mr. Langworthy said those did exist in other regulations. Mr. Goodwin said they could say concrete. Mr. Hardt said it was his understanding that asphalt curbs were not allowed anywhere in Dublin. Mr. Goodwin said there were existing asphalt curbs. He agreed to research it, and if it needed to be specified here, they could. Ms. Amorose Groomes, Mr. Zimmerman, and Ms. Kramb agreed that they did not want to see asphalt curbs in any of these districts. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (7) Required Loading Spaces (Page 84) Ms. Kramb suggested this section be named, Required Off - Street Loading Spaces. Mr. Goodwin said Planning and Engineering had discussed whether or not it may be appropriate to allow, at least for a small truck situation, to use an on- street space rather than always requiring an off - street space. Ms. Kramb said that it really did not distinguish between the two here. Mr. Goodwin said they could clarify that. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (7) Required Loading Spaces (a) Applicability 2. (Page 85) Ms. Kramb noted that loading was based on the size of the building and the use. She said as long as it is a small building, even if it generates a lot of loading, it would not be required as written because of the word and/ She said if a building was 24,000 square feet, but received deliveries every day, she did not know that the size -based requirement will be sufficient. She said that went to her point across the page, Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 33 in paragraph 3, "Loading areas are permitted in the alley; which she did not think they should be allowed to do. Mr. Goodwin said he saw the point about the type of use. He said some uses may have a lot of need for loading space all the time. He said there may be uses that only get occasional loading or deliveries, and it may be appropriate to allow the alley to serve that function rather than requiring a dedicated space that is not used often. He said maybe they could fine -tune that. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (7) Required Loading Spaces (b) Location 2. and 3. (Page 85) Mr. Hardt noted that this does not allow the loading space to be in a vehicular circulation area, even off- street. Mr. Goodwin said there may be cases where that is actually okay. Mr. Hardt said if there is a truck parked there all the time, it is a problem, but it is for a business that gets a delivery once a week at 2 a.m., he would argue that having them unload in their parking lot is preferable to creating this 30 -foot long space that never gets used. He said it seemed there was some massaging needed. Mr. Goodwin agreed to look at that. Ms. Kramb said that she did not understand the six -foot height requirement for the screening because it would not screen a semi delivery truck. Mr. Goodwin explained that it was to screen the loading dock area. Ms. Kramb said that it was talking about a loading space in general, not necessarily a loading dock. Mr. Goodwin agreed to clarify that it was not every single space. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (b) Use Descriptions 3. and 4. (Page 86) Mr. Hardt asked if this was covered elsewhere in the code already. Ms. Ray said they would check the language to see if it was exact, but it was close to what we do require in other residential districts. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (2) General (c) (Page 86) Ms. Kramb pointed out that the definition of protected tree' was not found in this chapter. Mr. Langworthy said the definition could be found in Chapter 153 of the Zoning Code, Section 002. Ms. Kramb asked if the Commission would see the definitions again. Ms. Ray said they would be given a new copy of the definitions. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (2) General (j) (Page 87) Ms. Amorose Groomes said she agreed with the concept of diversity in the District, but not necessarily on a site. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 33 Ms. Martin said that was correct and something they would look into more Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (3) Street Trees (b) (Page 87) Ms. Amorose Groomes asked why the tree lawn was 7 feet in width. Ms. Martin said that they had found that width of tree lawn to work well throughout the city, and they were trying to maintain that general roadway standard. She said the tree well is not necessarily precluded from being covered by a paving material. She said the goal is to create more of a planting zone with structural soil. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (3) Street Trees (c) (Page 87) Ms. Amorose Groomes asked what would be a similar treatment to structural soil. Ms. Martin explained the phrase or "similar treatment "was meant to define that the material makeup would have similar characteristic or composition as structural soil. Ms. Amorose Groomes said rather than "similar treatment "she would like it to say or approved equal. Ms. Martin agreed to make the change. Mr. Hardt said they needed then to say who did the approving. Ms. Amorose Groomes added ... "by the City Forester." Ms. Amorose Groomes said the comment "licensed and qualified producer "opened the door for anyone who had licenses. Ms. Martin said they would look at rewording that. Ms. Amorose Groomes referred to the last sentence and said she thought that was really weak language to say ... "as far as they permit:" Ms. Martin said they would change it to "as far as physical conditions would permit:" Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (3) Street Trees (d) (Page 87) Ms. Amorose Groomes said that a depth of three feet was very shallow for a tree, particularly something that we would expect to grow to maturity. Ms. Martin explained that would be the minimum depth they would excavate for the well. She said a well is not necessarily a concrete structure, but is intended to describe where the structural soils would be located. She said depending upon the caliper size and species of the installed trees, the tree root ball may not necessarily be three foot in depth. Ms. Amorose Groomes recalled seeing the requirements for structural soil to be a five -foot depth. Ms. Martin agreed to look into that further. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked why this said "Structural soils shall not be used in the street tree planting area." Mr. Martin said the intent was to have friable soil with the structural soil surrounding the pit. Ms. Martin said further internal discussion was needed in the best way to address that. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 33 Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (3) Street Trees (e) (Page 87) Ms. Amorose Groomes said she assumed the urban tree wells were the street trees themselves. Ms. Martin explained that it was going to be applicable to the Street Type, so in areas which are to be more of the urban /downtown treatment, not necessarily the residential areas, there would be that type of treatment within the tree well. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that she thought they needed to call out a standard tree grate and probably engage someone to commission an ornamental grate so all the tree wells would have a similar grate. Ms. Martin said that they could do that with the street site furnishings as far as having a complete package, to ensure it all coordinated and made sense. Mr. Hardt said he read this as if every single street tree shall have a grate around it. Ms. Martin said the tree grates would be applicable to the urban tree wells. Mr. Hardt pointed out in other parts of Central Ohio he saw tree wells, in downtown Columbus for example, where the base of the tree has a ground cover of annuals or something around it as well as uplighting. Ms. Amorose Groomes said this does not take into account the raised planters in medians. She said it demands everything have something, but there are a number of instances where you probably would not want them. She suggested it should be ... "where appropriate or where they are likely to have foot traffic." She said if it is not subject to foot traffic, then it should not have to be covered. Ms. Martin recalled that previously, it referenced street types, and that must have been taken out. She said they will look into clarifying it. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (3) Street Trees (f) Species and Size (1) (Page 87) Ms. Amorose Groomes said this referenced the Approved Urban Street Tree List for Dublin Ohio, (available in the Bridge Street Corridor's Applicant Guide). She said the Commission has not seen it yet and cannot vote on this until they do. She asked if the reference should be left here. Ms. Ray said that it was referenced throughout, and she thought there had been a universal comment to delete it. Ms. Amorose Groomes referred the last sentence and commented they would certainly want diversity within a district, but not necessarily on a street. Ms. Martin said it could be by block. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that 300 feet might be short and they might need three blocks. She said they do not want to create a monoculture, but want to look down a street and see a consistent canopy over the street. Ms. Martin agreed it has to be similar in form and character. Ms. Amorose Groomes said they needed to define how the mix is done so that it is not every other tree or something like that. She said there has to be some delineation of how they arrive at that. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (3) Street Trees (f) Species and Size (3) (Page 87) Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 33 Ms. Amorose Groomes questioned why only small trees were permitted in the medians, which is the one place where larger trees are likely to have the greatest chance of surviving. She pointed out that the median is going to be some of our best growing locations. Ms. Martin said the comment was to avoid having small tree species within the urban tree lawn against the back of the sidewalk. She said small street trees would only be permitted to be located in the median. She explained it was not excluding larger street trees being planted there, it was just saying that if you use small street trees, that is where they would be located. Ms. Kramb said she read this as that a median was the only place you could put small trees. Ms. Martin agreed to clarify the language that it is not precluding medium to large size trees. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (3) Street Trees Table 153.0065 -F: Street Tree Spacing Requirements (Page 87) Ms. Amorose Groomes noted three feet was required between the edge of the street and sidewalk. She pointed out that a lot of our islands are eight to ten feet wide and if there is three feet on either side, you lose six feet, so you really have only two feet left to locate the tree. Ms. Martin said she understood Ms. Amorose Groomes' comment. She said they considered vehicle door swing and vehicle parking when making that requirement, but would look at how it impacts the medians. She said to think about how the tree canopy may overhang into the roadway so too much varying may not be a good thing. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she was thinking about islands at the end of a parking lot where you would stack snow. She said they will have to consider street trees requirements. Ms. Martin said this was not necessarily speaking to parking lot islands. Ms. Amorose Groomes said there were still areas where there was head -in parking essentially on the street. Ms. Martin said a back -in parking situation would be the same as far as bumper overhang. She explained current code requirements for parking includes a provision prohibiting two -foot overhang. Ms. Amorose Groomes noted the chart addresses street trees may be planted within ten lateral feet of overhead utilities which will probably be problematic. She said hopefully, all those overhead utilities will be moved underground. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (3) Street Trees (1) Prohibited Activities 3, 4, and S. (Page 88) Ms. Amorose Groomes noted that in 3 and 4 as well as in other places, it talks about the City Forester, and in 5 when it talks about "No person shall buy any type of construction reduced size of tree lawn or tree scape planting zone without prior written approval of the Director; it should read the City Forester instead. Ms. Martin agreed that it should be changed from Directorto City Forester. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (3) Street Trees (j) Municipal Rights 3. (Page 88) Ms. Amorose Groomes referred to "To ensure that street trees thrive, property owners are encouraged to contact the City Forester and provide care for trees as needed" and said there was really no reason to have this language as it does not really say anything. Martin agreed to look at it Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 33 Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (3) Street Trees (j) Municipal Rights S. (Page 88) Ms. Amorose Groomes referred to "The City Forester shall have the right to cause the removal of any dead or deceased tree(s) located on private property within the city and /or cause the removal of branches of trees located on private property that overhang public property,..." She suggested adding "...or impede" because there was a greater chance of tree branches being an impediment. Ms. Martin agreed. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (4) Perimeter Landscape Buffering (a) 1. (Page 89) Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if we really wanted fences and things like that along I -270. Ms. Martin explained the type of buffering option used would be reviewed by the ART as far as what would be applicable and what they are screening. She said there may be cases where a wall for screening is appropriate. Ms. Martin said if residential uses were located along I -270, it could function as a sound barrier wall, in which case there would be a dual function to the screening. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she had never seen a sound barrier wall that she liked and she would prefer to change the use next to I -270 rather than put up a sound barrier wall. Ms. Kramb confirmed they were saying buffering along I -270 is required. Mr. Hardt said he would be concerned if someone constructed a building that is residential in nature, and for whatever reason, it requires a wall, and the next building does not, and as you go along I -270, you will see a wall, a bunch of trees, and then shrubs, then a fence, and then a wall. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she did not know that we should include I -270 in the same vein, because she did not think any walls should be seen along I -270. She said it would be a shame to build something that does not belong there to the extent that we would have to put a wall in front of it to hide it. Mr. Hardt posed the question of would the wall be to hide the building from I -270 or I -270 from the building. He said they needed to figure out what kind of treatment was wanted along I -270. Ms. Martin said it was consistent with current code requirement for buffering along I -270 and gave Verizon and Cardinal as examples of sites which adhere to this requirement. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she did not recall any walls mentioned in their language. She said she would be happy, as long as walls are not being built along I -270. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (4) Perimeter Landscape Buffering (b) 2. Option B, C. (Page 89) Ms. Amorose Groomes asked why we would plant shrubs at eight feet on center in front of a wall. Ms. Martin said code requires the pretty side of a fence or wall to be facing the neighbors. She said the plantings provide an evergreen buffer to the non -BSC District Residential -Only land use, so there is a bit more of a visual appeal to it. She explained eight feet allows for clumping the plants instead of creating an absolute hedge and provides a little more design freedom. Ms. Amorose Groomes said it could be really ugly with one shrub every eight feet. Ms. Martin said the landscape plan would be reviewed by the ART in order to avoid that look. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 33 Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested something be added like a small ornamental tree which she would rather see than a taxus. Ms. Martin agreed. Mr. Hardt said this seemed to be more a prescriptive provision versus an intent provision. He said if the intent is for clumping of plantings with design integrity, then that the code should say that. Ms. Martin said they could add something as far as the intent, but at the same time, developers want to know what is required and has to be provided. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (4) Perimeter Landscape Buffering (f) (Page 89) Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there were places where curbs in parking areas would not be required. She said she did not want to give them the option of putting in a wheel stop over a curb. Ms. Martin said in cases of bio swales or rain gardens, there is a possibility of wheel stops so water to be able to sheet flow into those locations. Ms. Amorose Groomes recalled someplace it talked about openings in the curbs Ms. Martin said that could be done as well. She said there are a couple of different options to do stormwater management with rain gardens under bio swales, it depended upon how it was treated. She said for instance, a roadway with on- street parking, could opt to sheet flow out into a depressed well, and at that point, you would want to make sure that there are wheel stops so that the vehicles do not back off into the area as well. Ms. Martin said she was commenting without being able to refer to the Stormwater Regulations. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she did not think wheel stops should be allowed in any of these districts. She said she thought we should have concrete curbs with breaks in them to allow the water to move. She said we create a host of problems for the city in terms of maintaining wheel stops. Ms. Kramb noted that it said that they needed to be installed "...where necessary to avoid vehicle conflicts. " Mr. Hardt pointed out wheel stops were required for handicap parking spaces Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (4) Perimeter Landscape Buffering (b) 2. Option B, D. (Page 89) Ms. Amorose Groomes asked for an explanation as to why we would not want to go with a living screen versus some of these non - living screens. Ms. Martin said in some cases, it depended upon how the development occurs, whether it is architecturally appropriate to use something which might be more of a structure. She said an example would be Waterford Commons, where the applicant had proposed a physical structure adjacent to the cemetery to provide a separation and privacy between the two different spaces. She said there could be cases where it made more sense to have a physical barrier for privacy and /or security. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (5) Vehicular Use Area Landscaping (a) Street Frontage (Page 90) Ms. Amorose Groomes said rather than trying to say what the requirements are, it needs to say what the intent is because the requirements could come up with something attractive, but she thought they were Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 33 more likely to get something really ugly. She said in every 40 -foot section, you could have a tree and five shrubs, planted at 8 or 9 -foot on center. She reiterated that they needed better direction and this was no better than no direction at all. Ms. Martin agreed to look at this more clearly. She referred to (a) 3 which were the standards applied for HCR ManorCare and said she thought they captured it well. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (5) Vehicular Use Area Landscaping (a) Street Frontage 1. (Page 90) Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if they were looking for specimen type material. Ms. Martin said the intent was to have clear views as it related to the parking lot. She said it was similar to the existing code which requires a 3 1 /2 -foot high mound or screening material. Ms. Amorose Groomes referred to "three deciduous shrubs or evergreen shrubs per 25 linear feet," and said it was not an opacity thing by any means. She said she would like to see some intent language here to help everybody. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (5) Vehicular Use Area Landscaping (a) Street Frontage 3. (Page 90) Ms. Amorose Groomes referred to "The property owner shall install at least three deciduous or evergreen shrubs per 25 linear feet or fraction thereof of parking lot boundary facing the public street, and trees are permitted to be installed, but not required." She asked if we would not rather have trees than shrubs. Ms. Martin said it depends upon how close the parking is going to be to the existing street trees. She explained the intent was to not create a condition where there will be overcrowding and potentially compromising the health of our street trees. She said if the applicant is required to mitigate any trees, this would allow them opportunity to use this area if they were set back 20 feet or greater from the right of way. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she thought there was the presumption in the writing of this that this green area is adjacent to the street, but she did not think it was necessarily there. Ms. Martin said they could try to define that more clearly. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (5) Vehicular Use Area Landscaping (c) Interior Landscaping 2. A, B, and C. (Page 90) Ms. Amorose Groomes said she thought it was proven at this point that parking lot islands do not work for tree plantings. She said there are no great examples of trees doing well in those islands and she has not seen any which were thriving and reaching maturity. She said she did not think that was something they wanted to keep in this district, particularly in the Historic District and in the very high density districts. She said she did not know if the ten -foot parking lot island was appropriate. Ms. Amorose Groomes said an island that size was going to eat up a lot of parking spaces and was not going to provide big, old beautiful trees. She said they should look at a more creative approach. Ms. Martin said they were trying to make sure they still maintain at least the peninsula planting area at the points of ingress and egress, which provides some protection for the cars parked on the end. She said they would rather not see it striped and Option A permits some islands which can count toward meeting interior landscape requirements and help reduce the heat island effect. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 33 Ms. Amorose Groomes said she did not disagree with that at all, but maybe a large deciduous tree is not the right tree to plant there. She said she was not saying the islands cannot be there, but they cannot support the kinds of trees which tend to be put in them. She said we need to come up with something different to put in there. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the interior tree lawn, Option B, was a better way to go. Ms. Amorose Groomes said regarding Option C, she would like the lawn areas limited to a maximum of two large consolidated islands for parking lots with less than 30,000 square feet in area. She said they may want to have two squares and we should encourage the size to be at least 20 foot by 20 foot for survivability as well as possibly more of them in the larger parking islands. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (5) Vehicular Use Area Landscaping (c) Interior Landscaping 3. (Page 90 and 91) Ms. Amorose Groomes said there would be overhang issues with this, but she did not know exactly how to address them. She said it was hard to legislate something you know is going to be a problem. Ms. Martin explained when they talk about where trees may be located from the back of the curb, it actually ends up putting them more at 42 inches which accommodates car bumper overhang or car door swing. She said this was addressed the same in the current code. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (5) Vehicular Use Area Landscaping (c) Interior Landscaping S. (Page 91) Ms. Amorose Groomes noted a reference was made to the Applicant Guide. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if "Trees shall have a clear trunk of at least seven feet above the ground" was new language. She said she thought it was good for our street trees as well and we should legislate they have a seven -foot clear trunk as it will alleviate a lot of plant /person conflict. She reiterated the language should go in the Street Tree section. Ms. Martin agreed. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (5) Vehicular Use Area Landscaping (c) Interior Landscaping 6. (Page 91) Ms. Amorose Groomes said the language, "Ifa curb is located at the edge of landscaped area, planted areas shall be installed at a lower grade than the parking lot pavement and curbing shall have openings and gaps allowing drainage from the pavement to enter and percolate through the landscaped areas," was more appropriate than the wheel stops language. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (7) Foundation Planting (b) (Page 91) Ms. Amorose Groomes said she was pretty sure she did not want to see a shrub every ten feet on a building fagade and she would rather see the sidewalk go up to the foundation of the building. Ms. Martin said that was not the intent and would clarify the intent better. Mr. Langworthy said it was explained in (a) where it stated if there was not hardscape against the building, then there would be foundation plantings. He said the intent was for those areas to have foundation plantings, but it may not say that very clearly. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 19 of 33 Ms. Amorose Groomes said she read it as if she had a 100 -foot building and 10 feet of stoop, she would have 90 feet of landscape area and she could sprinkle nine shrubs in those 90 feet. Ms. Martin said they would clarify it. Ms. Amorose Groomes said if they were going to get into structural soils and things, she read this as all plant beds are required to be 42 inches deep. Ms. Martin clarified that meant the distance away from the facade of the building, not the depth. Ms. Amorose Groomes said in the Historic District now, they were far from 42 inches, although she liked that because it was a more survivable condition. She said they needed to define what the plant bed widths are going to be in the Historic District so they were all consistent so and there is not a change in the width of the sidewalks. Ms. Martin said they could look at language to specifically address the Historic Core which may end up being associated with the Building Type. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (8) Credit to Preserve Existing Trees (Page 91) Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out the American Standards for Nursery Stock talked about methods of measuring caliper and in the glossary, it said, "Caliper in the landscape industry trade is the diameter of tree measured at a point of six inches above the ground line if the resulting measurement is no more than four inches. If the resulting measurement is more than four inches, the measurement is made at a point twelve inches above the ground line. This is in contrast to the method to use to measure caliper in the timber industry, which is to make the measurement at a 4 %z feet above the ground line, or the diameter at breast height." She said we use diameter breast height instead of the landscape industry term and she did not think it was used properly. Ms. Martin explained diameter breast height is a term used in the current code and is how protected or preserved tress were established throughout the city. She said the term has been used in the zoning code as long as there has been a tree protection code section. Ms. Amorose Groomes did not think the term should be continued. Mr. Langworthy concluded the timber industry term was used for tree stands, not individual trees, as was being referred to in the code. He said caliper and diameter breast height were both defined in the definitions section. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (9) Tree Preservation (a) General Provisions 1. Applicability (Page 92) Ms. Kramb pointed out this does not apply to "all public and private properties in the BSC zoning districts." Ms. Martin agreed to make a clarification. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (9) Tree Preservation (b) Exemptions 1. and 3. (Page 92) Ms. Kramb pointed out this did not specify it had to be a new site, only that if they cut down a tree where the building was to be, they would not be charged. Ms. Martin agreed to look at combining or clarifying 1 and 3. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 20 of 33 Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested it say something like during the course of redevelopment which would give it a trigger. Mr. Hardt said he did not understand why 1 was needed if the intent was to say a tree that exists in the footprint of where we want the building to go did not need to be preserved whether it was a new site or a redeveloped site. Mr. Langworthy said paragraph 1 was requested by some of the reviewers of the code. Ms. Kramb said 3 satisfied it and 1 just created the opportunity to cut down all the trees on the property if it was a redeveloped PUD or something earlier. Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out it could become very significant if they were ash trees and they would not be required to be replaced and redevelopment had not happened. Ms. Martin agreed to work on this. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (30) Maintenance and Replacement (b) 1. (Page 93) Ms. Amorose Groomes questioned who was to determine if the required landscaping was in good condition. Ms. Martin agreed to add, "as determined by the City Forester." Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (E) Fencing, Walls and Screening (Page 93) Ms. Amorose Groomes said she recalled the last time they saw HCR ManorCare, the wall in front was not going to be stone, but another material which was more modern. She said the big picture is this is Dublin, and our history and nomenclature goes back to the stone walls. She said if there are going to be walls they should be of stone. She said she thought it was a place- making concept. She said she understood if it was a restaurant or something and a dining space needed to be enclosed and she could see wrought iron if there were some extenuating circumstances. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she thought all walls in the Bridge Street Corridor which were 36 -inch in height should be dry laid stone with bookend top. She asked for the Commissioners' thoughts on that. Ms. Martin said the intent was to have the walls be incorporated as part of the architectural character of the area where they are located, so they coordinate with the building, not necessarily have the same thing everywhere. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she would argue the opposite, that the dry laid stone walls should be incorporated because streetscapes were what they were trying to create. Ms. Kramb said if the wall is screening something on the building, or protecting a patio or something along the street or parking lot, she thought it should be the limestone. Ms. Amorose Groomes said if it was engaged in the public realm, it should be dry laid stone walls with bookend top. Ms. Martin clarified Ms. Amorose Groomes meant if it was in the public right -of -way, it should be stone. She said from a design standpoint, it provides a cohesive tie to whole site if the street wall is associated with the building, or in cases where there is screening of the parking lot, the building fagade is continued so it blends into the background rather than calling attention to the different material. She said the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 21 of 33 intent is to give the ART the ability to review how the street wall makes sense within the fabric of the street and site. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she had a different theology. She said she thought the cohesiveness is not generated by the site, it is generated by the whole. Ms. Kramb said historically, in Dublin, the stone wall's purpose was to divide properties. She said it ran along the frontage of the property with a gate for the driveway. She said the stone wall would still serve the same function if they were trying to say this property went with this building. Mr. Zimmerman said he liked what Ms. Martin was saying about continuing the design of the building between the walls. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked what if the two buildings were of different materials. Mr. Fishman said he agreed with Ms. Amorose Groomes. He said people remember the white fences of New Albany and the stone walls in Dublin. He said he thought any perimeter walls should be stacked limestone walls which were a character of Dublin. Mr. Zimmerman said he saw the white fences in New Albany as streetscape Mr. Fishman and Ms. Amorose Groomes agreed a wing wall or dumpster enclosure should coordinate with the building or anything which was a structure related issue should be the same material as the building. Mr. Fishman said they needed to create as much character as possible in this high density area, and stone walls are a character of Dublin. Ms. Martin explained they were not precluding anyone from having the ability to have dry stacked stone walls with the bookends on top, but it was going to come down to how it architecturally ties into the site. She said for instance, if there is a retail center with parking located against the building with a wing wall or street wall coming off the building to screen some of the parking, the material should be the same as the building, so there was a continuance of the fagade. She said if we follow the principle of using only a dry stacked stone wall, there would be a break for the drive aisle and then the dry stacked stone wall would begin. Ms. Martin said she appreciated the passion for the stone walls, and they were not precluding anybody from being able to use them, but it was more of trying to make sure they were used when it was appropriate. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she wanted to mandate them Mr. Langworthy said he thought that was admirable, but he had the feeling if they gave absolutely no ability to change that in any way, there are going to be some circumstances where that is really not going to look very good and will look out of place. He reminded everyone that this was not a suburban area and consisted of straight stretches of blocks and sidewalks. Ms. Kramb said we have urban treatments and long stretches of sidewalks in Historic Dublin. Mr. Hardt said he was having a hard time imagining a building architecture or building material that is incompatible with stone. Mr. Langworthy said he was not saying that stone, as a material was bad. He said he was saying a stacked stone wall in every single circumstance was probably not appropriate. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 22 of 33 Ms. Amorose Groomes said she was not saying that every inch had to be walled, but if they are meeting the wall requirements, the wall had to be a dry laid stone wall. She said she was only one of the seven Commissioners and that was how she felt. Mr. Hardt said for the record, that he came down on the side of Ms. Amorose Groomes Mr. Langworthy said he thought this would have some unintended consequences which would not be good. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that there had to be a creative way to work it out. She said she thought just driving through some of these areas and seeing different kinds of walls against the street is going to look very disheveled. Mr. Langworthy asked to put some thought into it, that maybe there are some character districts or character areas which could be established where the wall style could be flexible and other character areas where it could be mandated to be dry laid stone walls instead of creating acres of stone walls. He suggested trying to come up with language to make it appropriate in some places and mandate it in others. Ms. Martin agreed it made sense in the Historic District, that was how that district had been established and it was appropriate. Ms. Kramb pointed out there were stone walls all along Riverside Drive and Dublin Road. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she read this as the walls are not required everywhere. Ms. Martin said they are not required everywhere, but if they choose to do a street wall, by saying it has to be dry laid stone, it was saying that all street walls which have parking lots within the 20 feet of the street frontage would be required to have a dry laid stone wall according to Ms. Amorose Groomes. Ms. Amorose Groomes reiterated she did not want to see many different treatments. She suggested there might be minimum requirements, if they wanted a different wall, it had to be over 600 feet away or something of significance to justify it, although she would not make any promises. Mr. Langworthy said he could work on that language. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (E) Fencing, Walls and Screening (1)(b) 2. (Page 93) Ms. Kramb suggested this say six -foot fences were allowed for residential patios only. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (E) Fencing, Walls and Screening (1)(c) Signs (Page 93) Ms. Amorose Groomes asked why management signs were permitted on fences and walls. She said normally, for maintenance issues, it was on an entry door. She said if it was located on a front wall, it was more of an advertisement. Ms. Ray said they would want it in a visible location, but could work on language to clarify it. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (E) Fencing, Walls and Screening (2) Street Wall Standards (b) Street Wall Design and Location (Page 93) Ms. Amorose Groomes said she had already mentioned that (2) should be stricken and it all should be dry laid stone walls with bookends. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 23 of 33 Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (E) Fencing, Walls and Screening (2) Street Wall Standards (c) Types (Page 94) Mr. Hardt noted for all three types, the paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 refer to landscape requirements, and if he was using this code, he would have never found it there. He said he preferred it placed back in the landscape section. Ms. Ray said they wanted to keep the language consistent because if an applicant just had to do a masonry street wall, it would not have the hedge requirements along with it. She said they wanted to include it here because it would be used to screen not only parking areas, but also vehicular circulation areas and other limited applications as well. Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out if the masonry street wall were dry laid stone walls, you would not need to plant anything in front of it. Ms. Martin explained in cases, like the Dublin Road Bikepath, there are sections where there are dry laid stone walls against the bikepath with a bit of a planting strip. She said the dry laid stone wall creates an uneven surface and if you brush up against or hit it, you could disrupt the wall or hurt yourself so some separation was desired. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she could see it in those kinds of situations, but if it were in a turf panel or something, there would not be a need for an additional planting. Ms. Martin said under those circumstances, Ms. Amorose Groomes was correct. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (E) Fencing, Walls and Screening (2) Street Wall Standards (c) Types 3.(Page 94) Ms. Amorose Groomes said she did not know if we wanted vines growing over them, but perhaps groundcover like Boston ivy or something might be appropriate in some areas. Ms. Martin said living screens or walls was intended to be something softer which adds a different character and texture. Ms. Amorose Groomes recalled where it talked about living walls elsewhere. Ms. Kramb pointed out it was under (c) Ground Mounted Mechanical Equipment B. Ms. Amorose Groomes said they might want to look at adjusting the opacity. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (E) Fencing, Walls and Screening (3) (d) Outdoor Waste and Storage Containers and Enclosures (Page 94) Ms. Amorose Groomes said it gives landscaping as an approval method of enclosure. Ms. Martin said that was what currently was permitted as far as screening. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she could not imagine in this dense of an environment that you could have a living enclosure and she did not think they should have landscaping permitted as an enclosure in these districts. Ms. Martin said they could look at that. Mr. Fishman wanted it noted that they did not want the enclosures to be made of wood. Ms. Amorose Groomes said this was confusing. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 24 of 33 Ms. Martin suggested "where permitted it could be incorporated into the footprint, "similar to like Building A and B at Bri Hi Square. She confirmed they did not want to permit something like a Skyrocket juniper. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (E) Fencing, Walls and Screening (3) (e) Off - Street Loading Areas (Page 95) Mr. Hardt pointed out the Off - Street Loading Area was the 30 by 12 parking space for a truck to sit in and we are saying here we want a wall around that entire thing. Ms. Kramb said she had the same concern. Ms. Martin said they would make it consistent. She said it was meant to reference the dock area. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (F) Exterior Lighting (9) Wall Lighting (a) (Page 96) Mr. Hardt said he understood what they were trying to do with decorative incandescent lighting, but 100 watts was very bright. He said a retail building with multiple doors with a 100 -watt light fixture over every door would be pretty bright. He recommended they be no more than 40 watts and if they were really decorative, not much more than 15 was needed. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (F) Exterior Lighting (10) Canopy Lighting (a) and (b) (Page 96) Mr. Hardt pointed out that paragraphs (a) and (b) required the same thing. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (F) Exterior Lighting (10) Canopy Lighting (c) (Page 96) Mr. Hardt said "highlyreflective matenarseemed difficult to define. Mr. Langworthy said they would add a clarifying statement saying that the intent is to avoid creating glare. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (G) Utility Undergrounding (Page 96) Mr. Ha rdt sa id he thoug ht they mea nt " That in BSC districts, all utility /fines, including but not limited to ... " Mr. Hardt said the sentence "Unless otherwise dictated by the needs of the building," was too subjective. He suggested striking the sentence and let an applicant make the argument if they need to do it. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (H) Signs (Page 96) Ms. Amorose Groomes said that, due to the late hour, she preferred to postpone the discussion on signs. Mr. Hardt said that he felt ill- equipped to review the sign requirements in a text -based format. He said as part of the review, he would like to see some examples and pictures of how the regulations are applied. Mr. Langworthy agreed to provide some illustrations. Ms. Kramb commented that she found the sign requirements table confusing. Ms. Ray said Planning would look at an alternative way to organize the section 2. Bridge Street Corridor — Area Rezoning 11 -021Z Area Rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 25 of 33 Chair Chris Amorose Groomes introduced the area rezoning of 388 parcels totaling approximately 808.7 acres for the Bridge Street Corridor. She announced that this is the Commission's first review of this application, and public comment on the area rezoning is intended to be received at this meeting. Rachel Ray stated that the land in the Bridge Street Corridor area is recommended for zoning to 10 zoning districts that are only applicable to the Bridge Street Corridor. She said that the 10 zoning districts will be governed by the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code, which is currently under review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. She said the purpose of the area rezoning is to encourage coordinated development and redevelopment in the Bridge Street Corridor consistent with the Vision Plan, while recognizing the need for flexibility and adaptability to transition the character of the corridor over time to a mixed use area with a variety of commercial and residential densities. Ms. Ray referred to a graphic of the Bridge Street Corridor and identified the area rezoning boundaries, which generally include the area south of I -270, west of Sawmill Road, and along State Route 161. She stated that all of the Historic District is included in the Bridge Street Corridor area rezoning. Ms. Ray said in October 2010, City Council approved by resolution a Vision Plan for the Bridge Street Corridor to demonstrate the general land use character that might be expected in the Bridge Street Corridor. She explained that in preparing the area rezoning, Planning looked at the general land use character that might be expected in different parts of the corridor. Ms. Ray said from there, Planning derived a variety of different zoning districts generally consistent with the Vision Plan: 1. Bridge Street Corridor Residential District is intended to be a mixed residential district with mid -rise development generally interior to the Bridge Street Corridor with a small pocket along the southern boundary of the Bridge Street Corridor east of the Scioto River. 2. Bridge Street Corridor Office Residential is concentrated along I -270 on the east side of the Corridor. She said that this district is recommended to have flexibility for both residential and commercial uses, and will benefit from the visibility and access to I -270. 3. Bridge Street Corridor Office District is concentrated along West Dublin- Granville Road on the east side of the corridor. She said that the intent is to establish a signature urban office corridor along State Route 161 as development leads up to the Historic District. 4. Bridge Street Corridor Commercial is intended to accommodate a variety of low -rise commercial uses at the eastern and western gateways to the Bridge Street Corridor. 5. Bridge Street Corridor Historic Core is intended to replace some of the older zoning districts that currently exist within the Historic District that do not apply to anywhere else in the City. The purpose of this district is to apply to the commercial uses in the historic center of Dublin. 6. Bridge Street Corridor Historic Residential is concentrated along South Riverview Street and Franklin Street and is intended to preserve the existing Historic Residential District zoning regulations for the existing neighborhood. 7. Bridge Street Corridor Neighborhood Districts are intended to create signature places in the corridor while accommodating longer term phasing plans. She said that Planning recognizes that these districts will not redevelop all at once, and the Neighborhood Districts allow development to occur time with greater consistency. She said that the three Neighborhood Districts include: a. Bridge Street Corridor Sawmill Center Neighborhood, which is intended to have a mixed use entertainment focus a regional center in the area west of Sawmill Road. b. Bridge Street Corridor Historic Transition Neighborhood, which is partially within the Architectural Review District that the Architectural Review Board reviews. She explained that this district is intended to allow mixed use development and additional residential uses to transition from the scale and character of the Historic District of greater development scales and densities to the west. c. Bridge Street Corridor Indian Run Neighborhood, which is a mixed use district with more employment and supporting services. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 26 of 33 8. BSC Public District is intended to be applied to the existing public uses throughout the corridor, including the school site, library, cemetery, open spaces, and the AEP substation. Ms. Ray indicated since the map was initially published in April of this year, Planning has met with a number of property owners to discuss what the proposed zoning districts mean for their properties and discuss any of the property owners' concerns. She reported that several property owners have submitted requests to change zoning districts, or to be excluded from the corridor. She said that the properties include the LaScala restaurant, LaScala apartments, Acura Columbus, the Bridge Pointe Shopping Center, and Oakland Nursery. Ms. Ray said the recommendation for the LaScala restaurant is to be zoned to the Bridge Street Corridor Office District. She said that Planning has worked with the owner to develop the Existing Uses and Existing Structures provisions to address many of their concerns. She said that the LaScala apartment site is recommended to be zoned Bridge Street Corridor Residential, which is an equivalent zoning district based on their current zoning of R -12, Urban Residential District. Ms. Ray that the recommendation for the Acura site and the Bridge Pointe Shopping Center is also Bridge Street Corridor Office District to establish the signature office corridor along State Route 161. She noted that the Bridge Street Corridor Office District is important for the Bridge Pointe Shopping Center site because of the strong relationship this site will have to the Historic District as well as future uses to the north along Riverside Drive. Ms. Ray said the Infiniti Columbus site has requested that they be part of the Bridge Street Corridor Sawmill Center Neighborhood District in order to better coordinate with future development on that site. She reported that planning also recommends that some of the surrounding parcels along Tuller Road, including the three hotels on the north side of Tuller Road and the AMC Theater site, also be included in the Bridge Street Corridor Sawmill Neighborhood for the same reason. Ms. Ray indicated the Cardinal Health South Campus, which is currently zoned PUD, was originally recommended for zoning to the Bridge Street Corridor Office Residential District. She stated that Planning recommends that this site be part of the Bridge Street Corridor Indian Run Neighborhood District to allow greater ability to transition over time with coordinated development on the OCLC campus to the west. She said that the three residential lots wrapped by the Cardinal Health site are also recommended to be part of the Bridge Street Corridor Indian Run Neighborhood District as well. Ms. Ray noted that the property owner at 155 South High Street has requested Bridge Street Corridor Historic Core District zoning for his property, which is currently recommended for Bridge Street Corridor Historic Residential District. She said that the Architectural Review Board will review this request at their meeting next week and will make a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission on this site. She continued that on the west side of the cemetery, Planning is recommending the whole block of land be zoned Bridge Street Corridor Historic Transition Neighborhood District to coordinate with any future development that may happen across Bridge Street to allow for a more coordinated transition from the interchange into the Historic District. Ms. Ray presented a summary list of all of property owner requests for zoning district changes or exemptions, with Planning's recommendation for each property, along with a list of the properties that Planning has recommended a change since the April 14, 2011 draft of the proposed zoning map. She said Planning has reviewed this application with respect to the considerations for a request for an area rezoning, approval of the area rezoning is recommended at either the December 1, 2011 or December 8, 2011 meeting with the modifications noted following the recommendation on the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code. Ms. Ray asked that the Commission discuss the draft zoning map, the property owner requests, and the changes to the April 14"' zoning map that Planning has recommended. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 27 of 33 Ms. Amorose Groomes clarified that although there are two possible target dates for a vote on this application, and she wanted to be clear that the Commission will not vote on the area rezoning until they are satisfied with the development code and have voted on that item. Ms. Amorose Groomes invited public comment on the proposed Bridge Street Corridor area rezoning. Ben Hale Jr., Smith and Hale, 37 West Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio, said he represents two properties in the Bridge Street Corridor that he would like to discuss. He said he has worked with staff on the Code, since staff has given the business community the opportunity to review draft document. He said that he worked with staff to draft provisions for existing businesses so that they will remain conforming and not become nonconforming, which will allow them to continue to operate as they do currently and even replace existing tenants in the future. He said he appreciated staff's cooperation in resolving this issue. Mr. Hale said that the Bridge Pointe Shopping Center recently received approval for remodeling the existing buildings, while the proposed zoning is for Bridge Street Corridor Office District. He stated that this site has been a commercial shopping center for 25 years, and with the changes to the code to address Existing Uses and Existing Structures, the owners will be able to continue to change out tenants; however, one of their concerns is that there is an outparcel that at one time had a bank on it. He said that the outparcel building no longer exists, and building a new building on that site that complies with the BSC Office District will be difficult if not impossible. He said he believes that the center should be zoned BSC Commercial because the development standards would allow the existing uses to remain within this classification. He noted that all other shopping centers in the corridor received BSC Commercial and asked that the Commission make a recommendation to City Council for Bridge Street Corridor Commercial for the Bridge Pointe Shopping Center site. Mr. Hale said the second site he represents is the Byers dealership on Village Parkway, which is located across from the AMC Theater. He said the dealership has been there for a while operating a car dealership within two existing buildings. He said Byers lost their Chevy dealership, and now they are primarily a used car dealership. He requested that the Commission consider the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District instead of the BSC Residential District for this site due to the nature of the current uses and how the site could be reused. He reiterated that the zoning should be either BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District, or the site should be exempted from the area rezoning and remain zoned PUD. Mr. Hale said the other clients he represents, including Cardinal Health and OCLC, are generally satisfied with the proposed zoning classifications, with some changes in the zoning requirements that he has recommended to staff. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that Cardinal Health is satisfied with their re- classification to the BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District and asked if there are any others that Mr. Hale represents that may have concerns. Mr. Hale said he has worked with the Leo Alfred Jewelers, the Lexus dealership, Cardinal Health, Byers, an office building along Tuller Road, the driving range site, and the Bridge Pointe shopping center. He said he has made suggestions with regard to the language of the draft code, but generally seem to be okay with the rezoning. Amy Kramb asked if the difficulty with redeveloping the Bridge Pointe Shopping Center had to do with the permitted uses or the building types. Mr. Hale said the outparcel is small, and when they look at the BSC Office District building types, he believed the value of the outparcel would be destroyed, compared with the building types permitted in the BSC Commercial District, which are still difficult, but may be possible. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 28 of 33 Ms. Kramb said that she wanted to clarify, because the use table includes a nearly identical list of uses for the BSC Office and BSC Commercial district, but the permitted building types are much different. Mr. Hale indicated that the property owner's biggest concern was with the potential for a restaurant, since the there are severe limitations on size. John Hardt inquired about the size of the outparcel. Melanie Wollenberg, Equity Inc., 445 Hutchinson Avenue, Worthington, said the vacant outparcel site is approximately half an acre, and they also own a second outparcel containing the building that used to be occupied by a Mark Pi's restaurant. Scott Phillips, Frost Brown Todd, 9277 Center Point Drive, Suite 300, West Chester, Ohio, 45069, said that he represents the Joseph Auto Group, which is the former Hummer dealership located at 4300 West Dublin- Granville Road. He indicated that he had written a letter dated June 9"', 2011 and that he has been in constant communication with staff about their concerns with the proposed rezoning. He said that they are recommended for zoning to the BSC Office designation, which would move the car dealership from a conforming use to a non - conforming use, and therefore the property owner has requested to be excluded from the area rezoning. Mr. Phillips indicated that he had been practicing for over 20 years and had never had a better or more responsive experience than working with Dublin's Planning staff on his client's concerns. He said the car dealership will become a "conforming" non - conforming use, or an Existing Use, which he thought was a creative approach to dealing with nonconformities. He said he had not received notice of the previous meeting to discuss the draft Development Code; however, the good news is that they are happy with the language that has been drafted. He said his client would prefer not to be rezoned, but if it is necessary, they are happy with the language provided. He said that he was concerned that their objection had not been duly noted. Paul Reiner, 5875 Kilbannan Court, Dublin, Ohio, said he is the president and owner of Oakland Nursery. He said that Oakland had moved to Dublin approximately 5 years ago after they had purchased and restored the old Frank's Nursery building. He said that they spent a tremendous amount of money, and they are spending more money to build a greenhouse. He said he firmly believes that if their zoning is changed to BSC Office, it will result in a by making the use nonconforming and limit future expansions. Mr. Reiner said that he had not expected this when he moved his business to Dublin and after they had spent so much money, time, and effort on what he feels is the most viable business in the area. He stated that the site is perfect for his use, and in the future, he would have liked to expand, but he is concerned that with the new zoning regulations, they may not be able to do so. He said that the "downzoning" from commercial to office will debilitate their opportunity for growth, and he felt that he should be compensated for the lost value and creditability with their lenders. Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out that the Commission has now heard several comments about how the zoning designations will cause an existing corporate citizen a hardship, and asked how Planning had considered this site in their zoning recommendation. Steve Langworthy said that the Existing Uses and Existing Structures language will apply to this site just as all of the others, allowing the owner to maintain the existing use and even allow them to be eligible for some expansion. He stated that Mr. Reiner had pointed out to staff that the code did not address outdoor use areas, so Planning is looking at language to accommodate outdoor use areas as well to accommodate this site and others in the area. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 29 of 33 Ms. Amorose Groomes asked Mr. Reiner if there is any way he could become more comfortable with the proposed rezoning. Mr. Reiner said it is difficult for him to get comfortable, because regardless of whether he is thinking short term or long term, he has spent a sizable amount of money building a green house on this building, so it is not as if he is looking to redevelop this site in 10 or 20 years. He said that the building has been built for its current operation. He said if the zoning is changed, then it will demean the value of the property and ability for banks to lend to them in the future because they are no longer commercially zoned. He said he has been working with Planning on the zoning text as it refers to the uses outside of the building, because otherwise, it would have meant the death of his business. He said that he is trying to make this as clean as possible because he doesn't want to contend with problems in the future. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked Mr. Reiner had explored the BSC Commercial District, and what he thought of that zoning district. Mr. Reiner agreed that the BSC Commercial District would be much more satisfactory. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if all the properties along State Route 161 that are currently zoned Community Commercial were satisfied with the BSC Office zoning, or if they all preferred BSC Commercial zoning. Ms. Ray indicated Planning has only received letters from Mr. Reiner with Oakland Nursery, and the owner of the LaScala restaurant and the LaScala apartments, but Planning has not heard from the owner of the Tommy's Pizza site. Mitch Grant, 5075 Galway Drive, said he is a concerned Dublin resident and that he has been involved in the recent discussions regarding the bicycle paths and other improvements to Brand Road. He said that he was very disappointed in Council's decision to severely restrict and destroy eight properties on Brand Road. He thought the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Plan is very enticing and exciting on the east side of the Scioto River where Dublin Village Center is in need of redevelopment, and he thought that this plan shows a lot of foresight. He said that he is not so sure about the west side of the Scioto River however, and if the City staffs and Council's ideas of infrastructure with respect to Brand Road is any indication, he felt that the scenic nature of the area around Historic Dublin may be destroyed, and Dublin as it exists today will be changed forever. Mr. Grant said that this plan is a really big deal, and it needs to be very well thought out. He stated that the rights of tax payers and citizens who have bought homes in this community need to be respected. He said he has listened to all of the consultant presentations on the Bridge Street Corridor website, and the word that keeps coming up is "urban." He said that Dublin is an exurban, rural community, and not in his opinion, "urban." He said that Dublin was developed as a community of single family homes, neighborhoods, and an excellent school system. He noted that there is no new school shown in the Bridge Street Corridor, which will do nothing to help the existing schools, which will need help in the future. He said that Dublin is going to expand in the future, probably with more single family homes. He stated that he believes this plan would be great on the east side of the river where the Dublin Village Center is located, but he questions the traffic and the density and the historic nature of Historic Dublin. He said that he believed that the surrounding area could be compromised and destroyed forever if it is not handled very carefully. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that Mr. Grant's comments are valid and that it is the Commission's desire to engage the public as much as possible in this process. She said that as it is today and in the future, one of the Commission's greatest desires is to keep the public engaged in the process as the Bridge Street Corridor develops. She said inevitably, there will be some redevelopment on the west side of the Scioto River on the OCLC site, and the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Plan will act as a guide to redevelopment Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 30 of 33 that will be driven by property owners. She said that the intent is to make all development as great as it can be for everyone living in Dublin. She said that she feels that it is pivotal that the community be engaged every step of the way so that folks can come forward and be heard. She reiterated that the Vision Plan is a guide, and not something that will be forced on anyone. She said that the Commission will do what they can do to allow whoever is in the Corridor to continue doing what they are doing for as long as they care to do it, with the knowledge that the needs of the citizens already living in Dublin should be balanced, since they have certain expectations of the community that they have moved to. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that redevelopment is going to happen, and there is nothing they can do about that, but the best thing they can do is to structure the redevelopment in a way that is well thought out and well planned like the balance of the community. Mr. Grant said he appreciated Ms. Amorose Groomes' comments and said his family loves Historic Dublin and that they love to come downtown to the Indian Run Park. He said that Dublin is a high quality place to live and he loves Dublin and wants to see Dublin continue to grow strong. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there was anyone else who wished to comment. [There was no one.] Joe Budde said he likes the concept of the Bridge Street Corridor, but he understands the concerns expressed by the property owners, and he said he wanted to make sure that their concerns are addressed. He said that he was surprised that others in similar situations were not present to voice their concerns, although he thought that staff has done a great job of putting this information together. Warren Fishman said that he is confused by the conforming /nonconforming issues, because as he understood it, Mr. Reiner's use would always be conforming. Mr. Langworthy agreed with Mr. Fishman's statement and said that the existing use has been protected along with the outdoor areas, and the code also allows for the ability to expand the building. He said that the language is important between conforming and nonconforming, because the code currently allows for a fair amount of expansion for Existing Uses and Existing Structures, as well as protects the uses that are there. He pointed out that the code also gives property owners the ability to change ownership. He stated that existing property owners will be able to exist as long as they choose, and that they can opt in to the Bridge Street Code when they choose to do so. Mr. Fishman asked why the zoning on the nursery site should not be changed to commercial. Mr. Langworthy said that the objective is to avoid turning State Route 161 into another commercial strip like Sawmill Road. He said that this area is intended to be a distinctive "address" street with a high quality office presence and a different kind of look, and not a commercial strip. He said that that is why the building types are restricted to more mixed use and office buildings as opposed to single story commercial building types, to create a different atmosphere along State Route 161. Mr. Fishman asked if zoning to BSC Office was a downzoning, and if the property owner had the right to exempt himself from the area rezoning. Mr. Langworthy said that the Commission has the right to make that recommendation to City Council. Mr. Fishman said he is worried about the Indian Run Estates neighborhood and the higher density, mixed use development expected around it. Mr. Langworthy said that there is a provision in the existing zoning for the Cardinal Health South Campus for a substantial landscape buffer between that neighborhood and whatever may happen on the Cardinal property. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 31 of 33 Ms. Kramb asked why the Bridge Pointe Shopping Center should be recommended for zoning to the BSC Office District when the Shoppes at River Ridge site is recommended for BSC Commercial. She thought the Bridge Pointe Shopping Center and Oakland Nursery should be zoned BSC Commercial. She noted that it seems as though the objective is to limit car dealerships along State Route 161 in the future, because those uses have been excluded. Ms. Kramb agreed with Mr. Hale with regards to the Byers dealership, and felt that the zoning map goes too far with showing BSC Residential. She thought that the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood should be permitted on the Byers site west of Village Parkway. Ms. Kramb said that she did not understand why there is a sliver of land with the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District that reaches south to State Route 161. Ms. Ray stated that the land is part of an existing parcel recommended for zoning to the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District, and currently contains a driveway with access from State Route 161. Ms. Kramb said it seems odd to have two small parcels recommended for BSC Office on the north side of State Route 161 on either side of that driveway. She recommended that the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District be extended south to State Route 161. Mr. Hardt said he would like to see a version of the zoning map that shows the proposed street network to see how the maps relate to one another. He agreed with Ms. Kramb with respect to the zoning along the north side of State Route 161, because he thought that the development in the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District would want the visibility from one of the largest and most highly traveled roads in the city. Mr. Hardt said when this process began, one of the stated intents was to create a mixed use development with a variety of uses, where people could live on one side of the street and buy a cup of coffee on the other side of the street. He said that the City has decided to accomplish this by using a form -based code. Mr. Hardt said that his understanding was that, as he had learned from the consultants, form -based code regulations are intended to govern the size and shape of buildings and how they interface with the street and public realm. He said that he is concerned they are getting back into a use -based code by dividing the Bridge Street Corridor into these use - centric districts. He thought that this approach would be detrimental to property owners, contrary to the stated intent of the Bridge Street Corridor, and that the names of the districts are misleading. He recommended that the BSC Office and BSC Commercial districts be combined to address some of the concerns that had been raised at the meeting and put more focus on the building form instead of the uses. Ms. Ray mentioned that, since the discussion on uses at one of the Commission's previous meetings, Planning is in the process of reviewing the districts and their list of permitted uses to allow a greater mix of uses. She said that regulating which building types are permitted in each of the districts will contribute to the character of each zoning district. Ms. Kramb that there are few differences between the BSC Office and BSC Commercial districts on the use table, but the permitted building types are much different. She suggested that more building types should be permitted in more districts to help address some of the issues raised at this meeting. Mr. Hardt recommended that Planning revalue the zoning designation for the Bridge Pointe Shopping Center to understand the impact of the BSC Office designation on that property, particularly with regard to the outparcels. Jennifer Readier said that through a rezoning of a property, uses and structures that are no longer permitted in the new district would default to the existing nonconforming uses section of the Zoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 32 of 33 Code, which is very limiting. She said that the Existing Uses section is unique because it is much more expansive then what these property owners would otherwise be entitled to. She stated that the conformity of those uses and structures are preserved; however, the use and /or structure has to be existing at the time of the rezoning. Mr. Hardt said that he voted against the special meeting on December 8, 2011 or earlier because of the timing. He was concerned that with the remaining number of pages left to review, in addition to the new copy incorporating all of the revisions, it does not seem that there will be adequate time to prepare and review all of this material by December 8, 2011. Ms. Amorose Groomes assured the Commission that they would not vote on either the code or the area rezoning until they are ready, and they have the ability to cancel the meeting on December 8, 2011 if they are not ready. She said she appreciates the sense of urgency that City Council has applied, but they also feel an urgency to get all of this right. Ms. Kramb referred to the BSC Office Residential zoning district along I -270 and said that she could not imagine residential uses overlooking I -270. Ms. Ray indicated that the intent of that district is to allow office and residential uses, because the district could go either way depending on market opportunities. She added that the existing development in that area will probably be there for a while as well. Mr. Fishman said he was surprised that, considering the magnitude of this rezoning, there are so few people present to comment on the rezoning. He said he thought that the room would be packed. He said he would like to have another meeting with an opportunity for the public to provide comment. Mr. Langworthy said that Planning has met with a lot of property owners, many of whom are satisfied with their proposed zoning designation and the language written for the Existing Uses and Existing Structures, and that is why there is not more activity or letters requesting different zoning districts — because of the work Planning has done to accommodate as many of property owners as possible. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that there will be additional meetings to discuss the code and area rezoning, and property owners would be notified of those meetings. She said that she agreed with Mr. Hardt's comments on draft code, that the regulations seem to be more function -based than form - based, and she said she did not understand why it would make a difference to anyone what happens behind the fagade of a building, and whether it is a shop or a parking area, as long as the building is properly interacting with the street and the traffic is functioning properly. Ms. Amorose Groomes referred to the comment that they are trying to change the character of State Route 161 so that it feels different from that of Sawmill Road. She said she disagreed that Sawmill will continue to be very commercial and auto - oriented, particularly if we get the type of mixed -use, regional redevelopment that is anticipated for that site. She envisioned that to be very different from State Route 161 now and in the future. She said she thought that State Route 161 is a natural place for businesses like Oakland Nursery. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that the other Commissioners agreed that the zoning map should be modified to be consistent with the requests made by the property owners this evening, including changing the Oakland Nursery, La Scala restaurant, Bridge Pointe Shopping Center, and others along State Route 161 to BSC Commercial, and changing the Byers and Charles Penzone's sites to the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District. Mr. Hardt thought there should be no distinction between the BSC Office and BSC Commercial districts Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 33 of 33 Ms. Kramb thought that the Fifth Third office building and others along the north side of State Route 161 should be part of the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District. Ms. Amorose Groomes thanked the public in attendance for providing comments on the proposed area rezoning. She confirmed that the Commission would take a short break before moving onto the discussion of the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code. Ms. Amorose Groomes adjourned the meeting at 10:25 pm. As approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Office of the City Manager City of Dublin Pho 614 - 1 410.4400 • Fax: - 4490 1090 M e m o To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Marsha Grigsby, City Manager Date: November 23, 2011 Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning Re: Update re. Planning and Zoning Commission Review of Draft Bridge Street Corridor Development Code Background At the October 6, 2011 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, Commission members were provided a final draft of the Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) Development Code with the understanding that the draft code will be reviewed in sections at upcoming meetings. The estimated completion of the review is by December 2011, with a vote on a recommendation to City Council on the code and area rezoning expected at that time. A special meeting for December 8 has been added to accommodate the Commission's continued review. The Planning and Zoning Commission continued their review of the code at the regular Commission meeting on Thursday, November 3, and a second special meeting that had been scheduled on Thursday, November 10, 2011. The Commissioners also reviewed the proposed zoning map and took public comment on the proposed area rezoning at the special meeting on November 10. A summary of the Commission's comments from these two meetings follows. November 3 PZC Regular Meeting The Commission's comments are listed below and grouped by code section. This summary represents most, but not necessarily all of the Commission's comments. The approved meeting minutes will include the broader discussion around these comments. 15153.062 Building Types — Pages 24 -60 Commission members were concerned that having specific dimensional requirements for various architectural elements would be too limiting to designers and might not necessarily achieve the design quality desired. The Commissioners suggested that more language regarding the intent of certain building type requirements should be stated in lieu of dimensional requirements, and requiring that the architectural elements be appropriate to the architectural character of the building type. The building type sections where Commissioners commented that specific dimensional requirements should be eliminated include roof types (pp. 26 -28), entrances and pedestrianways (p. 29), windows and shutters (p. 30), and facade transparency and divisions (p. 34 and Building Type tables on pp. 36 -59). Commissioners recommended that the Architectural Review Board should continue to have authority to review all site and architectural modifications and to require adherence to the requirements of the BSC Code unless they determine that historic precedent should override the requirements. Requested clarification regarding the "Existing Structures" provisions and the circumstances when they apply. Commented that other architectural elements should be permitted on gable ends and long expanses of roofs in addition to windows, vents, and dormers. Suggested that cultured stone should be a permitted primary material, and that other synthetic materials may be permitted by the required reviewing body when the applicant provides examples of high quality installations in comparable climates. Memo re. Update re. Planning and Zoning Commission Review of Draft BSC Development Code November 23, 2011 Page 2 of 5 Commented that the requirement for 1 /2 -inch thick fiber - cement siding was thicker than the industry standard, which is typically 5/16 -inch thick, and therefore could limit the use of siding. Suggested that green roofs be accommodated in the permitted roof materials. Requested clarification between Mid - Building Pedestrianways and Mid -Block Pedestrianways and suggested that the requirements in the Building Types section be coordinated with the requirements in Lots and Blocks. Discussed whether the standard allowing up to 10% of the fagade surface area to be an accent color should be more restrictive. - Suggested that fiberglass be a permitted window material. - Requested that porches only be required to be functional rather than include a specific dimensional requirement. - Stated that columns supporting vehicular canopies should be coordinated with the principal structure rather than required to use one of the primary materials. - Suggested that locations for any signs, including signs that may be added in the future, should be identified on buildings when they are approved by the required reviewing body. - Requested that vents, air conditioners, and other utility elements on building fagades or roofs not be visible without receiving special approval. - Requested that the building type diagrams be modified to have more legible notes and colors. - Suggested that towers be permitted on single - family detached building types instead of prohibited to accommodate certain architectural styles. 5153 063 Neighborhood Standards — Pages 61 -69 - Commissioners were concerned that some of the requirements listed specifically for these special districts might be redundant if they were addressed elsewhere in the BSC Code, and that requirements should generally be listed in one place. - Requested that the requirements in the tables be reformatted to match the format used elsewhere in the code. - Requested that the 1919 Building be eliminated from the BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District graphic since none of the other existing historic structures in the adjacent districts are identified this way. - Clarified how Historic Sites and Structures are designated, and requested that the ARB make this determination. §153.064 Open Space Types — Pages 70 -76 Commissioners requested clarification regarding how open spaces would be adequately distributed throughout the Bridge Street Corridor and how much space will be available. Requested that the requirement allowing an existing open spaces to be used to meet open space requirements be clarified to make clear that payment of a fee in lieu of land dedication would still be required. Memo re. Update re. Planning and Zoning Commission Review of Draft BSC Development Code November 23, 2011 Page 3 of 5 November 10 PZC Special Meeting The Commission's comments are listed below and grouped by code section. This summary represents most, but not necessarily all of the Commission's comments. The approved meeting minutes will include the broader discussion around these comments. 5153 065 Site Development Standards (SDS) — Purpose; Parking & Loading — Pages 77 -86 - Commissioners requested that applicants be required to submit a parking study and parking plan for any uses not listed in the BSC Code. - Verified that on- street parking spaces would continue to be publicly available and may not be reserved for private use. Requested the following changes to parking requirements for specific uses: - Dwelling, Live -work — require a minimum of 2 per dwelling unit instead of 1 space per unit. - Community Center — require parking based on an approved parking plan instead of 2 spaces per 1,000 square feet. - Community Garden — require a parking space for service vehicles and /or require a parking plan instead of not requiring parking. - Day Care — require a parking plan to demonstrate pick up /drop off areas in addition to the requirement for 1 space per 5 persons maximum occupancy. - Schools — modify the parking requirement to better accommodate vehicular traffic (concern that 2 spaces per classroom plus 1 space per 60 square feet of auditorium or assembly hall will not be adequate). - Hospitals — use the standard that was used for the Dublin Methodist Hospital (concern that it is too difficult to determine how the interior of hospital facilities will be used in order to calculate the required parking, since the medical spaces are increasingly designed to be modular). - Religious or Public Assembly — concerned that the maximum requirement of providing up to 150% of the minimum parking will not be adequate to serve vehicular traffic (concern that 1 space per 6 persons maximum capacity in the largest seating area will not be enough). Requested that the Accessible Parking Space requirements be eliminated and that a reference to the federal standards should be included instead. - Suggested that there should be a standard city bike rack style for consistent character. - Requested that minimum parking space width be 9 feet instead of 8.5 feet. - Requested that all references to parking structure design standards established by Engineering that have not yet been established be eliminated from the code. - Commented that loading in alleys should not be permitted and that all loading should occur off- street. - Commented that asphalt curbs should be prohibited. 6153 065 SDS — Stormwater Management; Landscaping & Tree Preservation — Pages 86 -93 Commissioners requested that, like certain building type requirements, certain landscaping requirements should be less proscriptive with fewer specific requirements, with more general language that would allow the required reviewing body to determine whether the intent of the regulation had been achieved. These requests included street tree diversity requirements (pp. 86 -87), perimeter buffering requirements (pp. 88 -89), vehicular use area landscaping (pp. 90 -91), and foundation planting (p. 91). Memo re. Update re. Planning and Zoning Commission Review of Draft BSC Development Code November 23, 2011 Page 4 of 5 - Requested that the reference to the Bridge Street Corridor Districts Applicant Guide that will contain specific strategies and best practices for stormwater management and certain design standards for landscaping be eliminated until the Applicant Guide is created. - Requested that the structural soil requirements be clarified to ensure adequate quality and appropriate installation. - Commented that each street type that will permit street tree grates should be identified, and suggested that raised planters and ground planting should be permitted in addition to pavers and tree grates. - Commented that fencing should not be permitted as a buffer from I -270. - Requested that concrete wheel stops be prohibited or used in very limited applications. - Requested that the tree caliper measurement be modified to use the landscape industry standard of 6 inches above the ground rather than the diameter at breast height, which is used in the timber industry. - Requested that the intent of the tree replacement exemptions text be clarified. 15153.065 SDS Fencing Walls and Screening; Lighting; Utility Undergrounding — Pages 93 -96 - Commissioners requested that the only type of street wall that should be permitted in the Bridge Street Corridor be the dry-laid stacked stone walls, and all others including hedges and other masonry types be eliminated from the list of options. - Commissioners recommended that the regulations be modified to require that no fence exceed four feet except where they are used to separate the rear yards of single - family attached building types. Suggested that landscaping not be required along street walls. Requested that property management signs be prohibited from being posted on any fence. - Requested that landscape material be prohibited from being the sole method of screening dumpsters. - Commented that 100 watts would be too bright for decorative lighting, and that 40 watts would be more appropriate. - Required that all utility connections be kept to the side or rear of the building, instead of allowing exceptions for buildings in need of specific adjustments. BSC Area Rezoning In addition to the review of the BSC Code, Commissioners also discussed the recommended zoning map for the Bridge Street Corridor and the modifications requested by several property owners within the Bridge Street Corridor. Commission members requested clarification regarding how the street network planned for the corridor will coordinate with the proposed zoning. Commissioners also commented that it appears that the proposed zoning districts are too use -based and will not allow an adequate mix of uses throughout the Bridge Street Corridor. Commission members commented that the BSC Commercial District should be permitted along West Dublin - Granville Road on the east side of the Scioto River in response to the property owner requests. Planning had recommended BSC Office District for consistency with the Bridge Street Corridor Vision and to prevent commercial proliferation along the SR 161 corridor. Additionally, Commissioners recommended that the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District (intended for large coordinated redevelopment sites) be extended west of Village Parkway consistent with requests from property owners in this area, where Planning recommends BSC Residential to support the commercial and mixed use development of the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District. Memo re. Update re. November 23, 2011 Page 5 of 5 Planning and Zoning Commission Review of Draft BSC Development Code Recommendation Information only. A summary of the comments on the draft BSC Development Code will be forwarded to City Council members following their next review of the Code on Thursday, December 1, 2011. CITY OF DUBLIN_ Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dubl n. Oh o 43016 -1236 Phone / TDD 614 410.4600 Fox: 614 - 410.4747 Web Site www.dublln.oh.us RECORD OF DISCUSSION NOVEMBER 3, 2011 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 4. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- 020ADM Administrative Request Proposal: To amend the Zoning Code to establish a number of new Zoning Districts and regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor. Topics: Building Types ( §153.062, Pages 24 -59) and Neighborhood Standards ( §153.063, Pages 61 -68). Request: Review and recommendation regarding amendments to the Zoning Code under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.232 and 153.234. Applicant: City of Dublin, Marsha Grigsby, City Manager. Planning Contact: Steve Langworthy, Planning Director. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4600 slangworthy @dublin.oh.us RESULT: The Planning and Zoning Commission continued their review of the draft Bridge Street code focusing on the Building Types, Neighborhood Standards and Open Space Type sections. Commission members were concerned that having specific dimensional requirements for various architectural elements would be too limiting to designers and might not necessarily achieve the design quality desired. The Commissioners suggested that more language regarding the intent of certain building type requirements should be stated in lieu of dimensional requirements, and requiring that the architectural elements be appropriate to the architectural character of the building type. Commissioners requested clarification regarding how open spaces would be adequately distributed throughout the Bridge Street Corridor and how much space will be available. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Chris Amorose Groomes Yes Richard Taylor Yes Todd Zimmerman Yes Warren Fishman Yes Amy Kramb Yes John Hardt Yes Joseph Budde Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ,' f . Stare Langwo Planning Director Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 26 4. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- O2OADM Administrative Request Chair Amorose Groomes introduced the following administrative request for review and recommendation to City Council of proposed amendments to the Zoning Code to establish a number of new zoning districts and regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor. She said they were scheduled to review Building Types, Neighborhood Standards, and if time permits, Open Space Types. She noted there were nearly 50 pages of Code to review. Steve Langworthy pointed out Jeff Tyler, Dublin's Chief Building Official, and Ray Harpham, Commercial Plans Examiner were present to answer any questions about the proposed code modifications or the new edition of the Building Code. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there was to be any discussion regarding the Draft BSC Review & Approval Process Chart that was included in the meeting packets. Mr. Langworthy suggested he would briefly explain it at the end of the Code review. Ms. Amorose Groomes began the Code review with Building Types on page 24. Ms. Amorose Groomes explained she would call out each section of the proposed Code for any comments or questions. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (B) General Building Type Requirements. Amy Kramb made a general comment that throughout this section, Existing Building9 is typically capitalized, but there are several times it is lower case. Dan Phillabaum agreed to make the corrections Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (B) General Building Type Requirements (2) Existing Structures (d). John Hardt noted this requirement dealt primarily with parking and said it might be appropriate to include it in the parking section of the Code. Mr. Hardt said if he were a user of the Code looking for parking requirements, he would not look for it in this section. Mr. Langworthy said it could be repeated elsewhere, but explained that as it dealt specifically with existing structures, and in order to keep all that information in one place, it was placed here. Mr. Langworthy said his preference would be to include the requirement in both locations. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (B) General Building Type Requirements (2) Existing Structures (e) Reconstruction or Movement (2). Todd Zimmerman referred to the first sentence; Any permitted reconstruction shall be started within 12 months of the time of damage and be continued until completed. He suggested a time limit for completion was needed. Steve Langworthy explained there were actually two time limits. He said one will be seen later in the approval section for abandoned structures. He said as long as there is an active building permit, that has to be allowed to be continued. He said the time limit is governed by the building permit itself. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there was a definition included for reconstruction, and asked when construction is considered to have begun as it relates to the time limit. Mr. Langworthy explained the time limit starts at the time a building permit is issued Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 26 Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (B) General Building Type Requirements (2) Existing Structures (e) Reconstruction or Movement (3). Warren Fishman noted the amount of building expansion or reconstruction permitted was 50 percent He recalled it had been 25 percent in the past. He pointed out 25 percent on a large building could be a significant portion of the building, and asked if it was unreasonable to require a building to be brought into conformance at 25 percent. Mr. Langworthy said this was a new provision. He explained under the current Code 25 percent was the trigger requiring compliance with the landscape provisions of the Code. He said 50 percent was a common number used in non - conforming situations, so it was carried through. Mr. Fishman asked if everyone agreed they could tear off 50 percent of the building and still not bring it up to code. Ms. Amorose Groomes indicated if that was standard procedure, she was okay with it. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (B) General Building Type Requirements (2) Existing Structures (g) Exceptions Richard Taylor referred to his comments last week about maintaining the powers of the Architectural Review Board (ARB), and said to make sure that the Code addresses those previous concerns. Mr. Langworthy said that will be seen in the new Procedure section. He said it has been revised to give the ARB the same authority they currently have. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (C) General Building Type Layout and Relationships (2) Shopping Corridors John Hardt referred to Shopping Corridors shall include building types that permit retail uses on ground floors..., and said that 'permit' feels like an administrative word. He asked if it should be facilitates retail uses.' He confirmed they were looking for buildings that accommodate retail on the first floor. Mr. Phillabaum agreed the language can be clarified. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements Mr. Hardt made a general statement about this section and those that follow. He said he had comments tonight on the paragraphs here, but said he was uncomfortable with a large portion of the language included. He said to the extent that they want to say a certain style or form of building is appropriate in different parts of the Bridge Street Corridor, he thought that made sense, and to the extent that we want to say a certain style of building should have either a pitched roof, a flat roof, or it can have any one of a number of kinds of roofs, that made sense to him. He said as soon as they got into prescriptive requirements saying the roof pitch and the overhang shall be a specific requirement, it felt to him like we were trying to legislate architecture. Mr. Hardt said he had previously gone on the record saying he did not think it was even possible or feasible to do that. He said he thought, although the intentions were good, the result is going to be something other than what we are really looking for. Mr. Hardt said he was prepared to comment on this tonight to help make the text as good as it can be, but he would prefer a lot of the proposed language not even be included. Ms. Amorose Groomes requested some justification as to why they would attempt to legislate the architecture as Mr. Hardt indicated. Mr. Phillabaum explained many of the architectural standards in the Bridge Street Code are included to achieve numerous building characteristics that are requested of applicants on a regular basis, but not addressed in the current Code. He said they tried to make it as predictable as possible for someone designing a building. He said, for example, an applicant might design a building with a principal roof pitch less than 6:12, to discover during the ART review that for most structures that pitch will not be acceptable and they will then need to go back to the drawing board. He said they think it is important to have Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 26 numerical standards for many of these architectural elements. He said if the Commission preferred a different numeric standard would be more appropriate or lend more flexibility, they would certainly be open to discussing that. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked why developers needed roof pitch to be dictated. Mr. Fishman said the problem was the Commission does not have the control. He said for years, the Commission told applicants for instance, a 3:12 does not look good in a particular area, but now they will not be able to do that. Mr. Hardt suggested setting aside roof pitches as an example because a roof pitch is something that affects the fundamental shape and form of a building and that may be something, that in spite of his criticism, he might even be comfortable having in the Code. He said as they review the coming pages, it is much more than that. He said they were saying flat roofs, for example, must have an eave and that eave must be eight inches thick. Mr. Hardt referred the recently approved Piada flat roof and said he did not know if it met that number, but he could argue that it ought not. He said there are all sorts of fantastic architecture that do not have exactly an eight -inch thick roof. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if Mr. Hardt could suggest any solutions, from an architectural perspective. Mr. Taylor said his feelings were identical to Mr. Hardt's. He said he kept returning to the goal and intent. He said he was in favor of the part of this Code that specifies the size of blocks, setbacks, and all of those things that specify where a building should be and establish the overall mass of the building with the goal of creating the street fabric. He said that sets the character of the space. He said the details of the facades and architecture are the things that really enliven that space. Mr. Taylor said all the diagrams provide a great example, but he thought more needed to be left to the individual designer to interpret. Mr. Taylor said based on the examples used in previous Bridge Street presentations and in the Code, the goal seems to be to create something similar to mid _191h century commercial block architecture. He suggested if the Code were more general. Mr. Taylor said one of his fears was that we end up with buildings like the picture on page 29 which was much too prescription. He said he was afraid that if the Code is so prescriptive the design choices would be limited and the result is not going to good. He said he would rather someone try something entirely new that they thought met the intent of the character. Mr. Langworthy asked if the basic question was whether they should take all of the numbers out and change the language to more intent statements. Mr. Taylor said his preference would be to have the references to the details be based on examples, and not include prescriptive numbers. Mr. Langworthy asked if it should be a certain number or provide an acceptable list. Mr. Hardt referred to, Windows and masonry bui ldings shall have architecturally appropriate Antels and sills. He said what it did not say was that lintels shall be X inches high and overhang the end of the window by X inches. He said that it did not stipulate the solution, but said if you have a masonry wall, lintels and sills are architecturally appropriate for the style of the building. He said that was all the Code said and did not prescribe a solution. Mr. Taylor said that language left the ART with room to play with it and not be stuck with something that met the Code, but did not look good. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 26 Mr. Phillabaum said they all shared the same objective. He said they did not want to tie any architects hands from being creative. He said when numbers are seen in most cases, it is to protect against a worst - case scenario or design of the lowest common denominator. Mr. Hardt said the Code read like a 30 -year old Code from a community that had been burned here and there on buildings, and someone went through it and wrote requirements to make sure that something never happens again. He said what they would end up with was a new ugly. Mr. Hardt said he would rather stick to the intent than the prescriptive requirements. Mr. Hardt said generally speaking, he was mostly against anything that was numeric. He said roof pitches might be different because they do affect the form and mass of the building and that is at the heart of a form -based Code. Mr. Taylor said he thought the removal of the specificity opens the possibility that now and again, they may get a building that is not as good as it could be, but it also allows the possibility that we will get buildings that are better than what they would be if they followed it specifically. Mr. Langworthy asked the Commissioners to state which numbers were acceptable and which needed to be changed to intent statements as they continued to go through the Code paragraph by paragraph, so that Planning could address that. Mr. Hardt said the Code does not say that you have to have a pitched roof. He said the Code states if you have a pitched roof, the pitch should be in this range, and he was okay with that. He said however, you also have the option to do a building that does not have a pitched roof for certain building types. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (1) Parapet Roof Type (a) Parapet Height (1). Mr. Hardt pointed out the roof deck behind a parapet is often sloped, so they needed to clarify how the parapet height is measured, whether it is from the highest point to the roof. Mr. Langworthy said okay. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (1) Parapet Roof Type (a) Parapet Height (2). Ms. Kramb recalled Mr. Taylor discussing the heights of parapets at the last meeting. She said she wanted to make sure this corresponded with the changes made last time. Mr. Taylor said it was not clear what the parapet height requirements were intended to achieve, and seemed contradictory. He said it was stating roof parapets must screen the mechanical equipment, but they must be no lower than two feet and no higher than six feet, and often times they cannot control the height of the mechanicals. Ms. Amorose Groomes said it might be more effective to state the requirement as a measurement above the mechanicals; a minimum of two feet and not more than one foot above the mechanicals. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (1) Parapet Roof Type (a) Parapet Height (3). Mr. Hardt suggested a period be added after facades in the sentence and to strike the rest of it because he thought it would be open to interpretation as far as what is visible from a public right -of -way, especially when there are tight blocks. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (1) Parapet Roof Type (b) Horizontal Shadow Lines Mr. Taylor confirmed that where the projection needed to create the shadow line was not mentioned. He asked the following sentence be changed as follows, An expression line sha# should, may, or might define Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 26 the parapet from the upper stories of the building..., because he could think of a number of examples of buildings where at least parts of the building do not have a line that separates the parapet from the upper story of the building. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (2) Pitched Roof (a) Pitch Measure (1). Mr. Taylor suggested adding, Principal roof shall have a pitch appropriate for the style of the building, but should generally not be less than 6:12 or more than 12:12. Mr. Hardt agreed the additional language was needed. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (2) Pitched Roof (a) Pitch Measure (2). Mr. Hardt said he was not sure of the intent of this paragraph. Mr. Phillabaum explained this provision was primarily to address roof wells where a pitched roof with no ridge is used to create the well and screen mechanicals. He said there may be instances where a pitch greater than 12:12 might be necessary, and they wanted to allow that flexibility. Mr. Taylor said he was concerned this provision may create the problem that we have with the BriHi buildings, where portions of the roof stick out and look unfinished. He said he worried a roof pitch of 18:12 is pretty close to vertical. He said he was not sure how that was going to work. Mr. Hardt said he would be more comfortable saying that pitched roofs shall be in the range of 6:12 to 12:12. He said if specific unique situations necessitate a steeper pitch they be dealt with on a case -by -case basis, depending upon what they are trying to screen and how much latitude the building has. He said he agreed 18:12 was close to vertical. Mr. Phillabaum explained that was the intent of the paragraph, but it could be reworded to be clearer. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (2) Pitched Roof (a) Pitch Measure (3). Mr. Hardt said he would look for similar modifications with the 3:12 pitch for dormers and balconies. He said he would prefer language that just requires the pitch to be appropriate to the building style. Mr. Taylor confirmed that porches' meant porch roofs. Mr. Taylor said there are other important details on dormers which were very important and can be done either really well or done badly. He suggested language be included to address the appropriateness of the dormer for the style. Mr. Phillabaum said they could add language to deal with other important design details for dormers. Mr. Taylor suggested then, Appropriately detailed and scaled and roofed dormers for the architectural style. He pointed out there were many references available for what is considered appropriate for dormer design. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (2) Pitched Roof (b) Roof Structure (2). Mr. Hardt said locally, in describing retail architecture, they have often referred to false shingled roofs with a well behind them as a mansard roof. He asked if that was what was meant in this section. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 26 Mr. Phillabaum clarified this section was dealing with true, dual pitched mansard and gambrel roofs. He said the Code only permits these roof types for detached single - family buildings, unless it is architecturally appropriate on another building type. Mr. Hardt wanted to make sure they were not prohibiting what the industry has always called mansard roofs on commercial buildings which are really are not a true mansard. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (2) Pitched Roof (b) Roof Structure (3). Mr. Taylor said this requirement had the same issues with prescriptive wording as number 4 below and Mr. Hardt agreed the 75 percent was suspect. Mr. Phillabaum said this could be revised to be consistent with what is architecturally appropriate to the building type. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (2) Pitched Roof (a) Roof Structure (4). Mr. Hardt said he thought one dormer for every 15 feet was too prescriptive. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (2) Pitched Roof (b) Roof Structure (5). Mr. Hardt pointed out the materials listed were nice, but there are some that are notably absent, including asphalt shingles. He asked if that was deliberate. Mr. Phillabaum clarified there was a formatting error in this section. He said (b) 3, 4, and 5, should be indented, as all of those requirements deal specifically with gambrel and mansard roofs. Mr. Taylor said he would like to see good simulated materials permitted for roofs. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (2) Pitched Roof (c) Parallel Ridge Line and (d) Dormers. Mr. Hardt said these two conflict with each other. He said (c) When the principal ridge line runs parallel to any street, gabled end shall occur at least every 100 feet, which would tell him the longest ridge line possible was 100 feet, and then (d), If you have a ridge line greater than 100 feet, you must do these things. Mr. Phillabaum explained they are not actually mutually exclusive. He said there were scenarios where both requirements would be applicable. He said it sounded like in general, the direction from the Commission was to revise the language toward architectural appropriateness, so they could say dormer and cross gable spacing architecturally appropriate to the building type. Mr. Hardt said the provision, When the principal roofpitch is greater than 10:12..., requires you add dormers and he thought that would discourage people from putting steep pitched roofs on the building which is probably not what they want. He was in favor of architectural appropriateness over that prescriptive requirement. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (2) Pitched Roof (e) Gable Ends. Mr. Hardt said this section should include a number of architectural features. Mr. Hardt said he had no idea what ...measured by the average windowsize as used in the upper stories of the building meant. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 26 Mr. Phillabaum explained the paragraph was to be reworded to read a vent or window is required on street facing gabled ends. The size of the vent or window must be at least one -half the area of the average windowsize. He clarified it was not the area of the gable, it was half the area of the average window on the upper floor. Mr. Taylor said he preferred it say An architecturally appropriate ornamentation should occur in gable ends, and leave it at that. He said that could be a window, vent, or in a brick building, it could be a carved medallion of some kind or an accent stone. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (2) Pitched Roof (f) Roof Height. Mr. Hardt said he was not sure what they were trying to accomplish with this paragraph. Mr. Phillabaum said they were trying to avoid buildings in the Historic District that feature a roof mass that overpowers the rest of the building. He said limiting the height of these roofs to not more than the height of the upper story would assist in preventing that situation. Mr. Taylor asked if there was a reason to think that was a problem more in the Historic Core than other areas. Mr. Phillabaum said this part of the requirement is to preserve the traditionally intimate scale of buildings in the Historic District, which is why it was applied specifically to the Historic Core. Mr. Hardt said the second sentence referred to all other districts, and that was the portion of the paragraph he understood the least. Mr. Phillabaum said similarly to the first sentence, it limits in any other district, the roof cannot be more than one - and -a -half times the height of the upper story. He said it is to avoid a building mass dominated by the roof. He said if the upper floor can be 12 feet as measured by the Code, you could have an 18 -foot maximum height of the roof. Mr. Langworthy asked if it was preferred that it say something like, The roof mass should be appropriate both to the location, if it is in the Historic Core, for example, and the building. Mr. Taylor said he would like to add or as prescribed by the Architectural Review Board to the end of the first portion of the requirement. He said there are buildings in the Historic District of front gable facing cottage type buildings, where a taller roof is entirely appropriate. Mr. Phillabaum said ARB could make that determination. Mr. Taylor said if the ARB has the authority to apply this or not requirement, then he is very happy. Mr. Langworthy said the Bridge Street Code gives the ARB the same review authority as the current Code. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (2) Pitched Roof (g). Mr. Hardt asked if an occupied space within a roof counted as a floor. Mr. Phillabaum said it did. He said it would be classified as a half -story. Mr. Hardt asked that be clarified. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (3) Flat Roof. Mr. Hardt said he disagreed with the provisions requiring eaves on flat roofs as well as the dimensional requirements listed in this section for the reasons he had previously stated. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed it be revised to read more as an intent statement to achieve architectural appropriateness. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (4) Flat Roof (e)(2). Mr. Hardt said the four feet limitation for vertical walls seemed arbitrary and he did not know what they would be trying to prevent. Mr. Phillabaum agreed it could be removed. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 26 Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (4) Flat Roof (f). Ms. Kramb said this section should be stricken because she did not know how there could be occupied space behind a flat roof type. Mr. Phillabaum agreed. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (4) Towers (c) Tower Width. Mr. Hardt said he thought 20 feet was building specific and arbitrary. He said it was all a matter of the width of the tower is proportional to its height, not to the rest of the building necessarily. Mr. Taylor said a solution could be to take the language from (a) and add it to this section to give the ART, or required reviewing body, the power to approve it. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (4) Towers (d) Horizontal Expression Lines. Mr. Hardt said he thought that, ...unless the tower element is a major architectural element extending from the ground story, was the definition of a tower. He said the requirement that an expression line must pass through the tower was fairly random. He said there are wonderful examples of towers that have expression lines and those that do not. He suggested striking all of (d) because it was situation specific whether horizontal expression lines were an appropriate design feature or not. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that (d) should be stricken. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (E) Materials (1) FaSade Materials (b). Ms. Kramb pointed this was a fragmented sentence. She suggested changing the period after doors to a comma to make it one sentence. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (E) Materials (1) FaSade Materials (c). Mr. Taylor said he had the same comment as he did regarding the roof materials. He asked if cultured stone was prohibited, and suggested there are excellent examples of cultured stone and other stone -like materials, that were not real stone. Mr. Phillabaum said they could add cultured stone. Mr. Hardt pointed out the thickness of one -half inch is noted for the fiber cement siding, but one of the market leaders in that category does not meet that requirement. Mr. Phillabaum said there are manufacturers such as James Hardi that have product lines that meet the requirement. He explained the objective of the greater thickness was to create very strong shadow lines across the fagade. He asked a minimum thickness be suggested for inclusion, to avoid the specification of paper -thin siding that results in a very flat fagade with no shadow whatsoever. Mr. Taylor said he agreed with intent, but he did not know if one -half inch was the right number or not. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (E) Materials (1) FaSade Materials (e). Mr. Hardt recalled that last time, they talked about striking the word local. He suggested instead, they might instead say... high quality installations in similar climates instead. He said what was relevant was if a product would hold up if applied in climates similar to ours. He asked if he was the only one concerned about it. He said he did not think it had to be local. Mr. Zimmerman agreed. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (E) Materials (2) FaSade Material Transitions (a). Mr. Hardt pointed out this did not distinguish between vertical and horizontal transitions. Mr. Phillabaum said a graphic would be added to depict the meaning. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (E) Materials (3) Roof Materials (a). Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 26 Ms. Kramb noted there was no material listed for flat roofs. She said shingles would not work on a flat roof Mr. Hardt suggested adding a paragraph, Flat roofs can use any appropriate material. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (E) Materials (3) Roof Materials (b). Mr. Hardt said he had the same climate versus local comment for this section. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (E) Materials (3) Roof Materials (c). Ms. Kramb asked how possible it was to finish roof penetrations to match the color of the roof. Mr. Phillabaum said typically they are painted to match the color of the roof. Mr. Hardt referred to Where these elements on any other street facing facade are unavoidable, particular care must be taken to render these elements less visible. He said he understood it, but it was open to a lot of interpretation depending who is applying this requirement. Mr. Phillabaum explained the first part, prohibited roof penetrations from being visible along principal frontage streets, and the second part of the provision requires they be painted to match when visible from any other type of street. Mr. Hardt said the two scenarios were covered when it said they could not be on a principal frontage street and if it was anywhere else, they have to be colored to match the roof. He said it seemed there could be a period there and omit the rest of the paragraph. Mr. Taylor said there is a possibility that a two -story building is built next to an existing four -story building with windows that would look down on the lower building. He said in that condition, the roof color and the color of the roof penetrations need to be coordinated and may be more important than not seeing those elements from the street. He said many cities have a provision dealing with these situations. Mr. Taylor confirmed that green' roofs were allowed on flat roofs. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (E) Materials (4) Color. Mr. Hardt recalled Ms. Kramb had pointed out last time that historic palettes had not been defined. Ms. Amorose Groomes recalled last time, the definition was going to be by the paint manufacturer, Sherwin Williams. Ms. Kramb said their National Trustcolor palette could be used. Mr. Phillabaum said nearly every manufacturer has a line of historic color palettes, and that are appropriate to a number of different eras and would allow a sufficient amount of choice. Ms. Kramb said she had issues with Other colors may be utilized for details and accents, ... which would allow for any color to be used and would not necessarily be from these historic color palettes. Mr. Langworthy suggested leaving it at historic palette that they could be contrasting. He said they would still stay within the historic palette, but it would be a different color. Ms. Kramb said that was fine. Mr. Phillabaum clarified the 10 percent permitted for details and accents was intended as 10 percent of each facade, and not as 10 percent of the cumulative area of the building fagades. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (F) Entrances & Pedestrianways (3) Entrance Design (a). Mr. Hardt said this read like Architecture 101 on how to design an entrance, and was unnecessary unless there was a particular problem to be solved. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 26 Mr. Phillabaum explained the purpose is to avoid potential problems. He said in most cases, an architect or designer is going to understand how to effectively call attention to the principal entrance. Mr. Langworthy suggested language be included. Mr. Taylor said they should clearly call out the entrance, engage the street, and be pedestrian in scale. Mr. Langworthy suggested examples be given. Mr. Taylor and Mr. Hardt agreed with Mr. Langworthy's suggestions. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (F) Entrances & Pedestrianways (3) Entrance Design (c). Mr. Fishman said he assumed this was for residential doors, and there were no other materials that you can think of except glass. Mr. Hardt questioned the need for this paragraph if almost every material a door could be made of was listed. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (F) Entrances & Pedestrianways (3) Entrance Design (d). Mr. Fishman said this seemed to restrict creativity for commercial doors. He said there could be very attractive solid doors proposed containing no glass installed adjacent to large display windows on either side. He questioned the need to require commercial doors include glass. Mr. Hardt said the purpose of this paragraph was unclear. Mr. Langworthy explained that it was preventing blank, inoperable doors along the sidewalk. He said this would require even interior emergency doors to be consistent in design with other entrance doors from the exterior. Mr. Hardt asked if it was for all doors, or just principal entrances. Mr. Phillabaum said the principal entrance is what this is primarily addressing, but added the total number of entrances required is dictated by the individual Building Types. Mr. Hardt asked if there had ever been a problem with the principal entrance to a business not having hardware on it. Mr. Phillabaum said the issue is not the door lacks hardware, but the hardware was not operable by patrons. He pointed out Mr. Sushi at BriHi Square as an example has two entrances —one on North High Street and one adjacent to the upper plaza. He said although the entrance door on North High Street is inaccessible to the public, they worked with the owner to maintain the appearance of an entrance door given the prominence of that door location. He explained an objective of the Bridge Street Code is for functional entrances along the public right -of -way. Mr. Hardt said this says one of two things. He said if the intent is that all doors to a business must be operable and have hardware on it, he disagreed because he did not think many businesses will want every door to be operable. However, he said if they are just talking about the principal entry door, then it is a requirement without a problem because a principal entry door is always going to be operable. Mr. Taylor said he disagreed with Mr. Hardt that there was a problem with the first sentence because to him, the intent was that if there was a door required in a location that looked like it should be an entrance, it should at least look like an entry door. Mr. Hardt said he was okay, now that he had heard the explanation. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (F) Entrances & Pedestrianways (4) Mid - Building Pedestrianways. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 26 Mr. Taylor said he had commented at the previous meeting that this requirement should be coordinated with Mid -Block Pedestrianways. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (G) Articulation of Stories on Street Facades. Mr. Hardt asked about the sentence: Unoccupied stories are permitted only under the roof eaves. Mr. Phillabaum said that would be deleted. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (H) Windows, Shutters, Awnings and Canopies Mr. Zimmerman pointed out windows with glass divisions or grids were not addressed in the Code. He said if this was a quality they wanted to achieve some language should be added. Mr. Hardt said language should be included that windows shall have architecturally or historically appropriate lite patterns. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (H) Windows, Shutters, Awnings and Canopies (1) Windows (b). Mr. Hardt pointed out this seemed to be in conflict with Section (N) Building Types General Requirements (4) Fagade Requirements (a) Fagade Transparency (1) on page 34. He said both refer to transparency percentages but were not the same number. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (H) Windows, Shutters, Awnings and Canopies (1) Windows (d). Mr. Zimmerman noted this section referred to wood window frames. He explained the frame of the window holds the glass in place, so frames should be struck and replaced with wood windows. Mr. Zimmerman said in the Historic Core, specific window materials are required, but beyond that District fiberglass windows were not listed as being permitted. He said they were superior to vinyl windows and should be included as a permitted window material. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (H) Windows, Shutters, Awnings and Canopies (1) Windows (e) Mr. Hardt said the 3 -inch recess dimension noted went back to a conversation they had at the last meeting. Mr. Phillabaum said they had discussed this requirement with Mr. Tyler and others in the Building Department. He said they understand there may be certain restrictions to achieve a three -inch recess in all instances, but it was a standard they would like to keep. He said they are discussing how these restrictions can be accommodated while still achieving the expression of wall thickness that recessed windows can provide. He said they would include their alternate language in the revision. Mr. Taylor said he agreed with the intent, and said the more you can push the window in, the better the appearance. He said Mr. Hardt's comment was regarding the practicality from a construction detail standpoint, and a typical residential window cannot meet that requirement, unless you have a masonry clad building. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (H) Windows, Shutters, Awnings and Canopies (1) Windows (f) • Mr. Zimmerman asked if they were doing away with transom type windows. He said transom windows are getting more use in the residential setting for bathrooms and living areas where the homeowner wants more wall space on the interior. Mr. Phillabaum said transoms could be included in the paragraph. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 26 Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (H) Windows, Shutters, Awnings and Canopies (2) Shutters (a). Mr. Hardt pointed out a typo, ...whether the shutters are operable or not. He explained if we are requiring operable hardware, then they are, by definition, operable. He said he thought it should say, ...whether they are operated or not instead. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (H) Windows, Shutters, Awnings and Canopies (3) Awnings and Canopies (a) General (1). Ms. Kramb referred to the last sentence, and suggested, ...provided the bottom of the canopy is at /east eight feet from the sidewalk, to make it clear where the measurement was from. Mr. Phillabaum suggested adding ...the lowest portion of the awning. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (H) Windows, Shutters, Awnings and Canopies (3) Awnings and Canopies (a) General (2). Ms. Kramb asked if we were saying you cannot have a canopy or awning by a door and the only place you can mount them is the window. She asked if they could be mounted on door frames. Mr. Taylor suggested removing the word windows, and say openings. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (H) Windows, Shutters, Awnings and Canopies (3) Awnings and Canopies (b) Awnings 1. Mr. Hardt said this requires awnings to be triangular in section. He pointed out there are some retail centers in Dublin where the awnings are semi - circular in section. He asked if there was an issue with including those. Mr. Phillabaum said awnings that were semi - circular in section were not necessarily a problem and the reference to awning shape could be removed. Administrative Business Ms. Amorose Groomes called a short recess. The meeting reconvened at 8:05 p.m. Mr. Langworthy reported the Code was reviewed by three residential home builders in central Ohio who provided point -by -point comments and were provided responses to each point by Planning. He said some areas were modified to reflect their comments, explanations were given where they had questions. He said a couple of typographic errors were called to our attention, one of which will be pointed out when we go through the tables with the eight -unit single family attached units. He said they are still working through several of their issues, and those that cannot be resolved may be brought back to the Commission to have additional discussion. Mr. Langworthy said some of their issues we were unwilling to bend on, so we explained our reasons why, and hopefully they will understand and accept it. Mr. Hardt asked at some point after all the changes are made to the text, whether they are initiated by a third party or by the Commission, they come back to the Commission in a marked up format where they can see the changes. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (H) Windows, Shutters, Awnings and Canopies (3) Awnings and Canopies (c) Canopies (1). Mr. Hardt said the materials listed, specifically called out iron and steel, which are two kinds of metal, but do not include aluminum and several kinds of metal that are common. He asked if they just mean metal' or if there was a conscious decision to include just those two. Mr. Phillabaum agreed to change it to metal Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 26 Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (H) Windows, Shutters, Awnings and Canopies (3) Awnings and Canopies (c) Canopies (2). Mr. Hardt noted the section said canopies can be of any shape, but at the end of the paragraph, it says they should principally project outward from the bui lding in a rectangular shape. Mr. Phillabaum said they would clear up that inconsistency. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (H) Windows, Shutters, Awnings and Canopies (3) Awnings and Canopies (c) Canopies (3). Mr. Hardt said he understood the intent of them being supported by cables, but in reality they are rarely cables, they are more typically rods and he thought that was what was meant. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (I) Entrances and Balconies (1) Balconies. Mr. Phillabaum clarified that through the different versions, a Juliet Balcony had one requirement that was accidently omitted that dealt with Juliet balconies built in conjunction with doors may project up to 24 inches, and may be up to flue feet wide, and Juliet balconies used in construction with windows may not exceed the width of the windows... He said it will be included in the next version. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (I) Entrances and Balconies (2) Porches (b) FaSade Coverage. Ms. Kramb asked if the porch had to cover exactly 50 percent. She said it seemed odd to prescribe. Mr. Phillabaum clarified it was a minimum of 50 percent. Ms. Kramb asked if there was a reason for requiring porches on every residence. Mr. Langworthy explained that was part of the eyes on the street' common to more urban styles of residential buildings. Mr. Hardt asked why we were stipulating a minimum size of a porch. Mr. Phillabaum said in order for a porch to be functional, they needed to be of a minimum depth, and in order for porches to not be treated as an afterthought by designers, they should be a substantial component of the residence. He explained the width requirement was based on the narrowest potential residential building type and how wide a porch would need to be to be functional. Mr. Hardt suggested it be simplified to require a porch be incorporated of sufficient size to be functional. Ms. Kramb said you could have a porch a little narrower than the building fagade, but because it was deeper it would be used. Mr. Taylor said there are examples of porches that were extremely important architectural features in a building, and are not near 50 percent of the width of the building. He said that seemed like one of the more arbitrary things here. He said he understood the goal was for porches to be incorporated into the design of the building and be appropriate to the style, but thought prescribing the width went too far. He said the stipulation of the 50 percent is what concerned him. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested going back to Mr. Hardt's suggested language. Mr. Taylor said he got that they did not want someone to stick something on an elevation that looked like a porch. Mr. Phillabaum said he believed they had some other requirements in terms of the depth farther into this. He said a minimum six -foot depth was functionally what was needed for that to be usable space to have a chair and walk around. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 26 Mr. Taylor clarified the six feet was the clear dimension inside the porch to allow for a chair and someone to be able to walk past it. Mr. Phillabaum said they could change the minimum 50 percent requirement and might still achieve the objective through intent language, as long as the minimum depth requirement is maintained. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (I) Entrances and Balconies (3) Stoops. Ms. Kramb noted they began using the acronym, RBZ here and it was the first time she recalled using it. She asked if there was a place where acronyms were defined in this text. Mr. Phillabaum said that was introduced in Lots and Blocks. He said if this was the first reference to it in the Building Types, they can spell it out and parenthetically say RBZ to establish it in this section. Mr. Langworthy said they could carry that style through the document. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (3) Treatments at Terminal Vistas. Mr. Taylor recalled discussing this during the last meeting as it related to lots, blocks and streets. He said the concern would be how they deal with a situation where the building exists and then the street comes later and terminates at the building. He said unless the street locations were locked in, and they knew where terminal vistas would be located, a building design could not anticipate meeting the terminal vista treatment. He said he did not know how they can deal with that. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (3) Treatments at Terminal Vistas (2). Ms. Kramb asked when the term, 'bay' is used in the list of elements that can be used to terminate the view, are they referring to a window or door, and if not, to what they are referring. She said the term bay was not clear. Mr. Taylor said to him, it meant a structural bay. Ms. Amorose Groomes said they needed to work on that Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (K) Building Variety Ms. Kramb said in general this paragraph was awkwardly written, because the first sentence said ... atleast two of the following materials, and then nothing is listed for a while. Ms. Kramb said the reference to Figure Kwas also incorrect. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (L) Vehicular Canopies (3) Mr. Hardt referred to the last sentence, ...supporting columns shall be composed of or enclosed by materials matching the primarymaterials of the principal structure, and said that was another example of his issue with prescriptiveness. He said earlier tonight, they had a case where a canopy and its supporting material were entirely different than the primary materials of the building and they approved it as a consent item. He reiterated his point that generally, trying to legislate architecture is a failed endeavor. Mr. Phillabaum said that it could be reworded to coordinate with the architecture of the principal structure. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (M) Signs (2). Mr. Hardt asked if the section was talking about signs that were contemplated initially upon building opening or about all of the signs that might ever be installed on a building. Mr. Phillabaum said it was the latter, because in most cases the buildings are constructed speculatively, without all of the tenants lined up. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 26 Mr. Hardt said it needed to be clarified to say, ...locations of all signs intended to be affixed initially, or in the future, or something like that. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested adding ... by subsequent occupants. Mr. Taylor said that was an issue they had in the past where there was not a clear sign panel on the building and the signs got placed anywhere they could fit, with poor results. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (N) Building Type General Requirements (2) Height (a). Mr. Hardt asked if that was really what they wanted, or did they want the portion of the building in the RBZ to be the tallest part of the building. He said he thought if you had a building in which some portions were taller than others, you would want the tallest part on the street. Mr. Phillabaum said depending upon the degree that the building steps outside of the RBZ, it could look odd and fail to reinforce the streetscape if the shorter part of the building is permitted to count as meeting the RBZ requirement. Mr. Langworthy said it would be preferable to be more specific such as the portion of the building with the greatest number ofstones. He said they would work on that language. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (N) Building Type General Requirements (2) Height (e) (2)• Mr. Hardt said for measuring the uppermost floors of a building, using the ceiling height was irrelevant. He suggested finding a way to measure that uppermost floor to the eave, roofline, or something on the exterior that is more relevant to the height of the building. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (N) Building Type General Requirements (3) Uses and Occupancy Requirements (b) (3). Ms. Kramb asked what When parking is permitted within the building, a specked depth of space shall be occupied by users on a daily bases meant. Mr. Phillabaum explained that if parking is located within the building, it cannot extend to the front of the building. He said a portion of that building must be occupied space, and the required depth of this occupied space varies by building type. Ms. Kramb confirmed that meant that parking could not go to the front of the building. Mr. Hardt pointed out that it might be more clear if written the opposite way, ...from the front of the building, a certain distance back you have to have space that is occupied on a daily bases by people, not cars. Ms. Amorose Groomes agreed Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (N) Building Type General Requirements (3) FaSade Requirements (a) FaSade Transparency (3). Mr. Hardt referred to ...shall also be met on the upper stories of all facades with street frontage... He said for a multi -story building with retail on the first floor, they would not likely want the same degree of transparency on the upper floors as required for the retail. Mr. Phillabaum said they had noted this requirement needed to be clarified. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (N) Building Type General Requirements (3) FaSade Requirements (a) FaSade Transparency (5). Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 26 Mr. Zimmerman said he would like to see the in -wall HVAC units eliminated and if an applicant is unable to eliminate them, the Commission should determine how effectively the vents are hidden. Ms. Amorose Groomes and Mr. Fishman agreed that should be really encouraged. Mr. Hardt confirmed there should be a period after ...shall not be placed on any building facade, and the rest should be stricken. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (N) Building Type General Requirements (3) FaSade Requirements (a) FaSade Transparency (6). Mr. Taylor said this requirement was related to the previous discussions on Mid -Block and Mid - Building Pedestrianways and should be coordinated with those requirements. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (N) Building Type General Requirements (4) FaSade Requirements (b) Building Entrances (1). Mr. Hardt questioned the necessity of the last sentence. Mr. Phillabaum said it went back to their discussion earlier. He said the principal entrances —those located adjacent to the sidewalk —could be potentially locked by business owners, forcing people to enter from the rear of the building to the detriment of an active street life. Mr. Budde pointed out some banks with double doors will lock one of the doors for security purposes. He said in the event that something inappropriate happens, they might hit the wrong door and slow down. Mr. Hardt said unlike the previous paragraph, this does not refer specifically to doors facing streets, so he thought it did not carry the same intent as what they talked about in the other paragraph. He asked why this needed to be repeated here if it was already addressed. Mr. Taylor suggested that maybe the intent of the word principal' here was less the entrance that was used and more the entrance that appears to be the principal interest. Mr. Phillabaum explained principal building entrances are going to be on the principal frontage street, or front facade of the building, and not off a parking lot or some other remote location. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested using the apparent' principal entrance. Mr. Phillabaum said you could have two principal frontage streets, but only one principal entrance. Mr. Taylor said this requirement is defining where the principal building entrance had to be located; not necessarily the door that is the principal means of access. Mr. Hardt asked suggested architecturally significant' entrance doors. Mr. Taylor said that would be another way to say it, but it was something that should be addressed. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (N) Building Type General Requirements (4) FaSade Requirements (c) FaSade Divisions Mr. Taylor encouraged there be a lot of flexibility. He recalled mentioning there were plenty of great examples in this genre of 18' century commercial block architecture where buildings have one very long facade that is uninterrupted by regular vertical facade divisions as required in this Code. He said they need to keep an open mind so that they do not end up with buildings with artificial divisions. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (0) Building Types (1) Single Family Detached Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 26 Ms. Kramb commented that more distinguishable colors would help the graphics be more legible. Mr. Langworthy agreed. Ms. Kramb said she was not sure what occupied space' meant. She asked if it was defined somewhere or was it a common term. Mr. Phillabaum said it was defined in the Definitions section. Mr. Hardt pointed out the information on the right side of the table talking about fagade requirements was appropriate with the exception of fagade divisions. He said as they get deeper into other building types, he did not feel it was appropriate to dictate the spacing of Fagade Divisions. Mr. Taylor said he thought they could either define in the General Building Requirements section, what those requirements are and then allow flexibility in how they should apply to each building type, or specify the details of the building in a format like this and then they do not need the General Building Type Requirements. He said there seemed to be some redundancy. Mr. Taylor said his particular comments on this page and most of the others, were that on all of the Residential Areas, the first floor is 2 1 /2 feet up from the adjacent sidewalk elevation. He said they need to make sure that they do not create a situation for handicap persons that will be an issue. He said he was more concerned about that on the larger buildings than for the single family. Mr. Taylor said under (d)(3) Building Entrance, he wanted to know if front, corner, side; porches are required'meant they had to have porches on three sides of the building. Mr. Langworthy said it said the Principal Entrance Location could be on the 'front, corner, side; porches are required. Mr. Phillabaum said they could add the word 'or' to read, ...front, corner, orside... Mr. Taylor said anywhere but the back. Mr. Taylor said under (d)(5) Fagade Materials, if the same information is repeated in the General Requirements, there is the potential for conflict if the same requirement is in several places. He suggested it all be in a simple chart in one location that could be referred to. Mr. Taylor referred to ...tower not permitted on sing /e family, and said he thought that would be one place they would want to have that because it completely rules out several prominent architectural styles for large residences. Mr. Phillabaum said in the majority of architectural styles for single family homes that had that type of element, it did not extend far enough to be defined as a tower. He said it would just be an architectural feature and would not meet our definition of a tower, and there would be no issue. Mr. Taylor said perhaps there are two different kinds of towers. He said maybe what they were talking about here as not being permitted were roof towers, as opposed to more integral towers. Mr. Phillabaum agreed to look at that how that could be addressed. Mr. Langworthy said generalizing some of the language as they had done earlier would also help here. Mr. Hardt asked about the Minimum Finished Floor Elevations, particularly as they related to residential. He said effectively, with that requirement, they are prohibiting slab on -grade construction. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 26 Mr. Taylor thought they were requiring porches or stoops. Mr. Phillabaum said the intent is give vertical separation from the sidewalk to the windows of the unit. He said given the RBZ and where these buildings will be sited it provides a measure of privacy. Mr. Hardt asked if there had been any feedback from the developers about that requirement. He said it dictates a certain construction method. Mr. Phillabaum said the potential ADA issue was raised, but as for the general requirement the bigger push back was on the whether it should be two and one half feet or a slightly lower height. Mr. Taylor said he had no problem with it. He said there were a lot of good reasons to elevate the first floor of a house and he did not think ADA will have a problem with single - family, but with multiple - family, there are fair housing issues that are required 100 percent. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (0) Building Types (2) Single Family Attached (a) Building Siting Ms. Kramb said it sounded like the two sentences were saying the same thing, but she was not sure what they were getting at. She noted that you are allowed to have a courtyard that is 35 percent and it counts as meeting the front property line coverage. She suggested changing the order of the sentence: The courtyard, when enclosed by bur /dings on three sides, may contribute to the front property line up to 35 percent of the front property line. Mr. Langworthy said they would work on the language. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (0) Building Types - Diagrams Mr. Hardt said what he commented about on the first table applied to all of the tables. He said he agreed with Ms. Kramb's comments about the colors. He apologized if it seemed petty, but the font of the letters in the small gray circles was difficult to read. Ms. Amorose Groomes agreed. Mr. Phillabaum said they could use capital letters and a different font. Ms. Amorose Groomes reiterated that Mr. Hardt's comments on the detached single family table stood for all the tables. Section 153.063 NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS (Page 61) Ms. Kramb pointed out that the descriptions for each Neighborhood District uses very informal language, for example in (A) (1), "it is a singularly unique area," for (B) (1), the Historic Residential Neighborhood is an "important neighborhood;' for (C) (1), the Sawmill Center Neighborhood "offers a unique opportunity, "for (D) (1), the Historic Transition Neighborhood also "offers a unique opportunity," and for (E) (1), the Indian Run Neighborhood "provides a signifcantopportunity." Mr. Langworthy said the language is intended in some respects to be richer and more descriptive because these districts are not typical zoning districts. Section 153.063 NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS (B) BSC Historic Residential (Page 61) Mr. Hardt pointed out that there were many subparagraphs about lot width, height, and lot coverage. He asked if they already existed elsewhere in the Zoning Code. Mr. Langworthy explained that these regulations are the same as what is currently required for the existing Historic Residential District, and they promised the residents in that neighborhood that nothing would change for them. He clarified that the existing Historic Residential District would be eliminated in lieu of the new BSC Historic Residential Neighborhood District, but nothing in effect would change. Ms. Kramb asked if the neighborhood currently conformed to these requirements Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 19 of 26 Mr. Langworthy said that when these standards were drafted, Planning completed an inventory to make sure that as much development would be conforming as possible. Section 153.063 NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS (C) BSC Sawmill Center (Page 62 -63) Mr. Hardt referred to the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District graphic on page 62, and asked if the slivers of land along West Dublin- Granville Road and I -270 were deliberately left out of this district. Rachel Ray explained that the graphics are intended to relate to the zoning districts. She stated that the land along West Dublin- Granville Road was recommended for BSC Office district zoning, while Planning does recommend that the land adjacent to I -270 be part of the Sawmill Center zoning district because its awkward dimensions may make it difficult to redevelop outside of a larger - scale, coordinated redevelopment. She said that the graphic would be changed for the final draft based on the recommended zoning. Mr. Hardt referred to Table 153.063 -B. He noted that the block size requirements were listed elsewhere in the code. He asked why the information was listed in both places, because it seemed redundant. Ms. Ray said that Planning would review the tables to make sure that they remain consistent with the changes to the other section, but she explained that the intent with the Neighborhood District standards is for them to function as a "one -stop shop," just like the building tables, because these areas are intended to function as unified character areas and to maximize coordination over the long -term. Ms. Kramb said that she would prefer that the regulations be listed as paragraphs in the column format rather than in a table format, which she found difficult to read. Ms. Ray said that Planning would reorganize the text and eliminate the tables. Mr. Hardt referred to Sign Plans. He said he thought it should read, "Signs shall meet the requirements of 153.065. " Ms. Ray said there was an intent statement in the sign requirements, saying that signs are intended to create a vibrant urban environment, so with these particular districts, they wanted to give the Commission the ability to approve all different types of signs to provide the most flexibility. She did not think they would not want to limit to the requirements of that section, just to allow for future flexibility. Mr. Hardt said he understood the intent, but he was saying that if you have to meet the requirements of that section, then the flexibility should be in that section. Ms. Ray stated that Planning would look at the language to ensure that the intent was clear. Ms. Kramb asked why shopping center size needed to be mandated. Ms. Ray said the intent is to create a critical mass of commercial activity in each of these important districts. She said these areas should function as the anchors for the Bridge Street Corridor, so that they do not end up with a bunch of spread out use areas that do not relate to one another and cannot be accessed except by car. She said the objective is to make sure that there is at least 300 feet of commercial area on each side of the shopping corridor street to achieve that minimum critical mass area. Mr. Hardt referred to the diagram. He said that he understood the desire for gateways on Sawmill Road and at the southern end of West Dublin- Granville Road, but gateways at the western edges of the district seemed to indicate that this is the end of the shopping area, and it shall not be located any farther west. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 20 of 26 He said that if this area were developed and was wildly successful, and someone wanted to expand the retail farther down the street to the west, he did not see why that would be a problem. Ms. Ray explained that the gateways are also intended to indicate the boundaries between the zoning districts and should be located generally where the principal streets enter into that district. She said the intent is to signal your entrance into a special area. Ms. Ray agreed that if the area was successful, and more shopping corridors were desired elsewhere, that would be fine, but they could determine the locations later. She added that Planning has had ongoing discussions with the property owners for the Sawmill Center and Indian Run Neighborhood Districts, and the graphics are generally reflective of their preliminary thinking on what they would like to do on these sites, particularly with regard to the location and orientation of the shopping corridor area. Section 153.063 NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS (C) BSC Historic Transition (Page 64 -65) Ms. Kramb asked why the 1919 Building was the only building shown on Figure 153.063 -B. Ms. Ray explained that it is a historic structure that is an important placemaking element of the Historic Transition District that should be preserved. Ms. Kramb said that no other historic structure was called out in the text, and since no other structure is called it, she thought it made the 1919 Building seem more important than other historic structures. Ms. Ray said the Vision Plan recommended that the site be preserved, particularly because as a civic use, the result is that it creates a cluster of civic uses with the cemetery, the church and the potential for other civic uses in that area. She said for that reason, it is important that the 1919 Building be identified on the graphic. Ms. Kramb referred to Block Length: "Lots are not permitted between greenways and the street adjacent to Indian Run Westand North High Street." She requested clarification for this requirement. Ms. Ray said the intent was for developable lots. She said that land along the greenway should be open, with no building types to the north of that future street. She said Planning would check the language. Ms. Kramb said it should say, "buildings are notpermitted." Ms. Ray said they would need to check the language, because they may want to have other structures associated with a park or greenway in that area. She reiterated that the intent was that no development happens there, except perhaps park facilities or bikepaths. Section 153.063 NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS (C) BSC Sawmill Center (Page 66) Ms. Kramb referred to Historic Sites and Structures and said "Ohio Historic Inventory" should be struck, because any building over 50 years old can be eligible for the inventory, but that does not mean it is historic. Mr. Langworthy said he would like to review the language with the Architectural Review Board before modifying the language. Ms. Kramb noted that she would also like to make sure that road names are clearly and consistently defined on all maps and graphics. Ms. Ray said that they would check all of the street names. Section 153.064 OPEN SPACE TYPES (C) Provision of Open Space (1) (Page 70) Mr. Hardt asked if Planning had any further discussions regarding a strategy for open space distribution. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 21 of 26 Mr. Phillabaum explained that one of the requirements to deal with open space distribution is the provisions for subsection (D), Suitability of Open Space. He said that this section allows the ART or the approving body to determine whether the space that a developer wants to provide is appropriate, or whether they should pay a fee in lieu of land dedication, or whether they should be required to combine land with another existing open space where we want a larger park. He said the Parks and Recreation Master Plan will guide where we want to see some of the larger open spaces based on the anticipated development patterns and uses. Mr. Hardt asked if it was the reviewing body's responsibility to determine which is route appropriate, or if Mr. Langworthy said in the Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria section, it states that the Planning and Zoning Commission has to authority to approve a fee in lieu of land dedication. He said that applicants have to provide the open space unless the Commission (or the Architectural Review Board) says they can pay a fee instead, but the fee in lieu is not automatic. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she was not sure that was what the Commission wanted, because then, we might end up with all small parks, because no one would want to take the effort to request to pay a fee instead. Mr. Langworthy said that was where the Suitability of Open Space subsection comes in, to help the reviewing body decide when we want to set aside land for a new open space, add to an existing open space, or pay the fee in lieu. Mr. Fishman said he was not in favor of that approach. Mr. Langworthy asked the Commissioners not to dismiss the Suitability of Open Space subsection, which does not allow developers to simply put 200 square feet here and 200 square feet there. He said there has to be some consistency and reasonable decisions, and the criteria helps ensure that happens. Mr. Taylor asked if the Commission's review then would include situations where someone does not want to pay a fee because they have less building than land, and they just want a park there, and the Commission says that they will have to work to properly place the park. Mr. Langworthy said that would occur through the site plan or development plan process Mr. Fishman asked if there was a plan for how much open space the City will end up with in the Corridor, so that they make sure that they end up getting that space. He said he agreed with the other Commissioners that he did not want small patches of park space everywhere, but they certainly did not want to end up at the end of the development of the Corridor, 20 years from now, with a lot of money and no open space. He said there has to be some way to make sure that it is required that they are going to reserve so much open space for every development that comes in. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that there is no way to know where every open space will go everywhere in the Corridor. He explained that we have a plan in terms of the greenways and some of the programmed open spaces we already have. He reiterated that there will be combinations of public and private spaces, and there may be future land acquisitions that are made, but that land cannot be shown on a plan unless the City is ready to buy the land. He said as part of the fiscal analyses, Planning has calculated generally how much open space will result from the densities we might expect. Mr. Fishman asked if there was a way to assure that by the time that the Corridor is built out, that we actually have open space, and not just money. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 22 of 26 Mr. Langworthy said the plan for open space planning, acquisition, and programming is the very same as what has always been done everywhere else in Dublin. He said the City has always made purchases and programmed the areas where they want open space, but they cannot show that land on a map because it would be taking' a property and would be a legal problem. Mr. Fishman asked if the code could require open space to be provided in the Bridge Street Corridor. Mr. Langworthy said that the code already require that open space be provided within 660 feet (a walkable distance) of the development it is associated with. Mr. Hardt said he understood that it was not the developer's decision whether to pay the fee in lieu of land dedication; however, he was concerned that if the developer proposes an open space, and the ART reviews it and determines that the space is not suitable, and then it goes to the Commission for approval of the fee in lieu, then by the time the proposal reached the Commission, they would have no choice but to approve the fee in lieu. Mr. Langworthy said the language should probably state that a fee -in -lieu of open space may be paid to the City if approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission rather than shall. He said anything involving a fee would have to be approved by the Commission. Mr. Zimmerman asked for clarification about combinations of open space provisions and payment of fees in lieu of land dedication. Mr. Phillabaum explained that there are dimensional and area requirements for all of the open space types, and if an open space does not meet one of them, then it cannot count toward meeting their open space requirement. Mr. Fishman said he just wanted to make sure that the city ends up with decent open space within the Corridor, and it is hard for him to imagine that it is going to happen using this process. Mr. Langworthy said what he thought would happen was that if several requests were brought to the Commission, and they flatly rejected all of them, then Planning is going to start suggesting to applicants that the Commission is not likely to just allow developers to pay fees without providing open space, so they better start looking for ways to provide their own open space. Section 153.064 OPEN SPACE TYPES (C) Provision of Open Space (4) Civic (Page 70) Mr. Taylor asked why civic uses are not required to provide open space. Mr. Phillabaum explained that the civic building was the one building type where a building setback is required instead of a Required Building Zone, so the open space will be provided by the setback as a continuation of the streetscape. He added that typically, civic buildings are set into more of a campus -like setting or amongst other open spaces. Mr. Taylor noted that there was a distinction between a civic use and a civic building type. Mr. Phillabaum agreed to modify the text to require. Section 153.064 OPEN SPACE TYPES (C) Provision of Open Space (5) Existing Open Spaces (Page 70) Mr. Hardt asked if this requirement meant that if there was an existing open space, it can be used to meet the required open space provision, but if it is not big enough, then the applicant shall pay a fee in lieu of providing the balance of the land, or add to the open space. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 23 of 26 Mr. Phillabaum said they would still have to potentially pay a fee, even if there is an existing open space that meets the 660 -foot distance requirement. He said the reviewing body would make the determination that the existing open space has been adequately sized and is in close enough proximity where we do not need another open space, but they still would have to contribute a fee for provision of open space. Mr. Fishman said his concern was that, since this will be a high density area, land is going to be very valuable, and it seemed that they are going to incentivize the developer to want to only pay the fees. He said if a developer has to build an acre park, that acre is going to be a lot more valuable than the fee will require, and so that is why they really need to make sure they require the right amount of parkland. Section 153.064 OPEN SPACE TYPES (F) Open Space Types (1) Pocket Plaza (Page 71) Mr. Phillabaum explained that they added this as a new open space type since the previous versions of the code. He said pocket plazas would typically occur with commercial uses. He said in those contexts, smaller, intimate spaces are generally more desirable, rather than large plazas that often go unused. Section 153.064 OPEN SPACE TYPES (F) Open Space Types (2) Pocket Park (Page 71) Ms. Kramb called out a typo on the very long second sentence, ...special care should be taken to minimize potential conflicts... Section 153.064 OPEN SPACE TYPES (F) Open Space Types (5) Plaza (Page 71) Ms. Kramb corrected a typo, Plazas are usually located in areas eAwhere... Section 153.064-A— (Table) Summary of Open Space Type Requirements (Page 74) Mr. Phillabaum pointed out that previously, for each open space type, there was a table that repeated the same categories of information, but Planning thought this was a better way to simplify the requirements all in one area. Ms. Kramb said she did not like the two -page layout and that it would be better as one 11 x 17 sheet. She asked that at least the footnotes be fixed. She pointed out that the diagrams were very small and did not show much, especially the pocket plaza diagram. Mr. Phillabaum said that they could work on the layout. He said the pocket plaza diagram was a new one they created and the graphics need to be made consistent. Ms. Kramb asked if under the Maximum Percentage of Open Water requirements for Greenways, if the Greenway includes the river and streams. Mr. Phillabaum said that the width of the Greenway would have to include usable open space, but otherwise, the open water percentage would not apply to the waterways. Mr. Hardt said he did not know if fountains should be required in Central Ohio because they are empty seven months a year; however, he did not want to discourage them. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there was any public comment with respect to the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code. [There was none.] Mr. Taylor said he watched the City Council meeting that took place at the Dublin Chamber of Commerce on October 17, and he was impressed with what he saw. He said he saw a lot of progress towards many of the things that the Commission had discussed, although he was straining to see the slides that were shown that did not show up well on the screen. He said he could not wait to see those slides because it seemed there was movement in the direction that the Commission had been talking about for some time. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 24 of 26 Mr. Langworthy referred to the flow chart that had been handed out earlier in the evening, and said he had a lengthy conversation with Mr. Hardt about the review and approval procedures. He said obviously, the language is going to be a large part of how this works, but Planning had made a flow chart to show the outlines of what we are thinking now in terms of the process. He said that the Commission had suggested for example, a mandatory pre - application review, which has been included in the revised process. Ms. Amorose Groomes clarified that that was just one of the solutions that the Commission had provided. Mr. Langworthy said the main conversation he had with Mr. Hardt dealt with the informal review, which was similar to what we do now for informal applications, although they would be required for any project except those that are defined as minor projects. He said he was still working on a definition on what is going to be a minor project. He said he was mindful of Ms. Kramb's comment about small things that come to the Commission that should not have to come here, and he was trying to out some distinctions. He said the only thing he made optional for an informal review was with ARB because the Board's cases seem to be so specific and small that a mandatory informal seems like a waste of time, but if a larger project came forward, like the North Riverview project, an informal would be useful. Mr. Langworthy said the next step as you go through the development plan and /or the site plan review, the Commission had requested a two -track process. He explained that a new elective review track was proposed, where the ART would elect to send a plan forward to the Commission, and if the applicant chooses not to follow one or more of the provisions of the code like architecture, a path would be to come to the Commission for approval of those particular items. He said the difference between what he and Mr. Hardt had discussed was that Mr. Hardt talked about having a vote as to whether or not something ought to be reviewed administratively. Mr. Langworthy said his push back to Mr. Hardt was that it was hard to call that process predictable if an applicant had to go through a process to decide what process to end up using. He said therefore, something applicant- driven would let the applicant make the decision where they chose not to follow the code, and if the applicant makes that choice, it would be his choice to go through an additional review process. Mr. Langworthy said if the applicant makes that choice, he will have to obtain approval by someone else other than an administrative approval. He reiterated that this applied to the development plan and site plan. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that there are time limits, as there are for every approval. He said it was in the code now and would stay there that an applicant and the approving body can mutually agree to extend those time limits if they wish. He said it could be longer than 28 days if the applicant and the reviewing body agree that a time extension is warranted. Mr. Hardt confirmed that those were the minimums and they would not be guaranteed any more than that. Mr. Langworthy said if nothing else happens, a decision on the application has to be made within that time period. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that they were not going to discuss this further tonight because they would rather see the actual language. Ms. Kramb said this was a step in the right direction. Mr. Langworthy said they tried to include as many of the Commission's recommendations as they could. Mr. Taylor said there were probably places where this can be tweaked, but the big issue he had was in the lower right hand corner of the chart, where basically, a two -step process has been added to the things that this code already allows the Commission to review. He said he thought the Commission was Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 25 of 26 asking to have this apply to everything, not just development plans with two or more principal buildings or five acres. Mr. Taylor said as written now, the bulk of the Commission's jurisdiction to make decisions is on development plans with two or more principal buildings or sites with five acres or more, which obviously is not going to be everything that happens in the BSC of substantial scale. Mr. Taylor said that this process only applies to those two things, and he thought what the Commission wanted to see was a two - track process that would apply to everything and they would see everything that came in for the BSC. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that would allow the Commission to take public comment on everything. Mr. Langworthy explained that was what the informal review did. He said that everything did come through the informal review, including development plans and site plans. He clarified that Development Plans are only required for developments over five acres or where there are two or more principal structures. He reiterated that the informal review was for all applications, unless it was a minor project. Mr. Taylor said he would like to see that made clearer. Mr. Langworthy confirmed that the Commission wanted to see these plans in that informal review process. He pointed out that informal reviews are also publically noticed. Mr. Hardt said he had a similar concern. He said that he did not necessarily understand and was not ready to agree with the notion that there are different submittal requirements, Development Plans versus Site Plans, for sites above or below five acres. He said it was a distinction that the Commission had not really discussed. He said a 4.9 -acre site is a pretty substantial development. He said generally speaking, his reaction was that what is labeled as Development Plan Process and the Site Plan Process are really one in the same, and he was not sure why. He said that for what was labeled Informa /Review, his image was that it would look and feel a lot like what they now call an Informal Review in terms of the level of information that the applicant would submit, being fairly simplistic in terms of the fact that it is very early in the process so not a lot of time or money has been spent. He thought it should have a different name because he did not think it was informal at all, if it was given public notice. Mr. Hardt said his suggestion was that at the informal review, that should be the time when it is determined whether a project goes down the administrative review process or a process that ends up back in front of the Commission. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that we may not know how the project qualifies, because it may not be developed enough yet to determine which process it should take. Mr. Taylor said he would guess that Planning would have a preliminary evaluation of the project in that regard. Mr. Langworthy said clearly, their intent for this part of the process would be to get them into the BSC code, and he agreed that by the time they enter the informal review process, we will have a pretty good idea of how close they will be to meeting the BSC code requirements. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that the Commission will look forward to seeing the text to supporting the concepts in the chart. She said the Commission needs to make a decision about additional meeting dates. Ms. Ray said that since they reviewed everything they set out to review at this meeting, at the November 10 Commission meeting, they will be reviewing the Zoning Map. She said explained that on that Agenda, the remaining sections of the code, the Site Development Standards, pages 77 -100 will be included, and if the Commission gets through that, a special meeting may not be necessary. She said however, if the Commission wished to schedule one to be safe, it would be cancelled if not needed. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 26 of 26 Ms. Amorose Groomes said she was concerned about the amount of time that will be involved with reviewing the revised document. She pointed out that as scheduled, they are planning to review the entire revised code in one regular meeting, of which they may even have applications to review. She said the potential special meeting dates offered were November 15"' and 17"'. Ms. Kramb and Mr. Taylor said they could not do November 15. Mr. Zimmerman had no preference. Mr. Hardt and Ms. Amorose Groomes were not available on November 17. Flora Rogers pointed out that the Architectural Review Board was scheduled November 15 in Council Chambers. Mr. Langworthy said that they could move the ARB meeting to the Dublin Chamber of Commerce if the Commission met on November 15. Mr. Zimmerman asked what public feedback had been received on the Zoning Map. Ms. Ray said that approximately seven letters from property owners had been submitted, which were included in the meeting packets for the Commissioners to review. She said that they had tried to work with property owners to resolve as many of their issues with the code as possible. Ms. Amorose Groomes said they would have a lot of material to review at the next meeting on November 10. She noted that on December 1, there may be cases and they had to review everything they had reviewed to date. She asked when the code and the area rezoning were scheduled to go to City Council. She noted that December 1 was the Commission's only meeting in December. Mr. Langworthy explained that it depended when the Commission took action. He said that December 8 or 15 were backup dates in case they did not finish by the target, December 1. He said he did not think it was possible to get everything to City Council by their last meeting of the year on December 12 because there will be no minutes or other items for the Council packets. He said even if the Commission finished in December, he did not think they would go to City Council until the first meeting in January. He said it would be helpful if the Commission took a consensus on the preferred date. Jennifer Readier explained that they were setting up a Special Meeting and if they did not vote on a date, they could not have the meeting. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she was not comfortable missing three Commissioners for a meeting with this kind of information. She suggested December 8 for the Special Meeting. Ms. Amorose Groomes adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m Office of the City Manager City of Dublin Pho 614 - 1 410.4400* Fax:b614 --410 -4490 1090 To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Marsha I. Grigsby, City Manager Date: November 10, 2011 Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director of Planning Memo Re: Update re. Planning and Zoning Commission Review of Draft Bridge Street Corridor Development Code Background At the October 6, 2011 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, Commission members were provided a final draft of the Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) Development Code with the understanding that the draft code will be reviewed in sections at upcoming meetings. The estimated completion of the review is by December 1, 2011, with a vote on a recommendation to City Council on the code and area rezoning expected at that meeting. Following the special Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on Thursday, October 13, 2011, which was the first scheduled review of the draft BSC Development Code, the Commissioners continued their review at the regular Commission meeting on Thursday, October 20, 2011. A summary of the Commission's comments follows. October 20 PZC Regular Meeting The Commissioners began their review of the draft BSC Development Code with the following code sections reserved for discussion at the October 13 meeting (comments are grouped by section): 5153.060 Lots and Blocks — Pages 14 -17 Commission members were concerned that the maximum block lengths proposed for the different BSC zoning districts were not coordinated and would not line up evenly, especially for residential blocks built across the street from office blocks. Commission members suggested that the maximum block sizes be modified to require the same maximum block lengths for consistency and to facilitate transitions between different zoning districts. Suggested that the provision 'For increased energy efficiency, wherever possible blocks should be oriented with their longest dimension along an east -west axis to the maximum extent practicable. This block orientation will encourage development of buildings able to take advantage ofpassive solar technology' be removed because they did not feel it would likely be a factor in defining block orientation. - Commented that it would not be possible to prohibit vehicular access from principal frontage streets and that there would be more exceptions than adherence to this requirement. - Commented that requiring vehicular access to blocks to align on opposite sides of the same block and across the street may be difficult to manage and may be too restrictive for blocks that are developed later. Memo re. Update re. Planning and Zoning Commission Review of Draft BSC Development Code November 10, 2011 Page 2 of 2 - Requested clarification regarding mid -block pedestrianways and mid - building pedestrianways (see §153.062(F)(4)). - Confirmed that although building fa5ades along I -270 would not be considered "front" building fagades for the purposes of determining front property line coverage, entrance requirements, etc, elevations facing I -270 would continue to have increased architectural appearance standards. &153.061 Street Types — Pages 18 -23 - Suggested that provisions for delivery zones and /or on- street loading zones be included in addition to Building Access Zones for fire access. - Requested that the colors used on the draft BSC Street Network Map be modified to read more clearly. - Requested additional information regarding the various street type sections, how each type differs and is intended to function, and where each type might be applied throughout the Bridge Street Corridor prior to providing further comment on this section of the code. Recommendation Information only. A summary of the comments on the draft BSC Development Code will be forwarded to City Council members following the reviews on Thursday, November 3, 2011 and Thursday, November 10, 2011. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dubl'n, Ohio 43016.1236 Phone / TDD: 614.4144600 Fax: 614410 -4747 Web Site. www.dublin oh. RECORD OF DISCUSSION OCTOBER 20, 2011 The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the following at this meeting: 4. Bridge Street Corridor — Vision Plan Informal Discussion RESULT: Planning and the Commission discussed Council member comments from the City Council Goal Setting Retreat and Discussion of the Bridge Street Corridor from October 17, 2011. The Commission will be notified when the meeting video is available and Planning encouraged the Commission to view the video. STAFF CERTIFICATION Steve Langworthy Planning Director Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 20, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 6 3. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- 020ADM Administrative Request Ms. Amorose Groomes introduced the administrative request for a review and recommendation to City Council of proposed amendments to the Zoning Code to establish a number of new Zoning Districts and regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor. She said they are scheduled to go over Lots and Blocks, Street Types and if time permits Building Types. Mr. Langworthy recalled an earlier presentation by Planning that illustrated lot, block and street requirements and said this is the section of the Code that begins to lay the framework for what will develop within the blocks. He said they may only have time to get into an introduction of the building types. Justin Goodwin reviewed the changes to Lots and Blocks and Street Types sections from the June 20' version of the Code. He said Planning added an additional exception to the block size and layout requirements by including limited access restrictions that will exist on certain major thoroughfares such as State Route 161 and Sawmill Road. He said Planning has also modified the principle frontage street references in Lots and Blocks by referencing back to the Street Type section. He said the previous draft of the Code designated principle frontage streets by street family, while the current draft illustrates them directly on the street network map. Mr. Goodwin said the new draft provides more flexibility for the City Engineer to determine how block access may occur, specifically with regard to principle frontage streets. He explained that Planning recognizes there may be site constraints that warrant access from a principle frontage street although it would typically be preferable from a side street or an alley. He said Planning has also clarified the provisions dealing with front and corner side property lines on corner lots. He said there may be cases where a single lot line serves as the front property line for one building and the corner property line for another. Mr. Goodwin asked if there were comments. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the Commission would review the Code page by page and began on Page 14 Section 153.060 Lots and Blocks. Code Section 153.060 — Lots and Blocks 153.060 —Lots and Blocks (C) General Lots and Blocks Ms. Kramb suggested moving the phrase "wherever possible" under (C)(1)(c) to the front of the sentence. She also suggested a clarification to (d) regarding the requirement that streets terminate at an open space or building fagade. She said that the referenced provision under Building Types requires a street to terminate at the front or corner of the building, but because (d) only says building fagade, it was unclear if it implied all elevations were acceptable. Mr. Goodwin said that because the general provision references back to a more specific requirement, the more specific requirement would apply. Ms. Kramb suggested that (d) should specify "front or corner" building facades to clarify the intent without requiring a reader to flip back and forth between the sections. Ms. Kramb said the phrase "development to remain" in the last sentence under provision (f) is an awkward statement, and suggested rewording to "remaining or existing development ". Mr. Hardt questioned the requirement under provision (c) that streets should follow natural features rather than interrupting or dead - ending at the feature. He said he doesn't object to it, but is confused by it because streets that follow natural features would run parallel to those features, but if a street were to dead -end into a feature it would be running perpendicular to it and would be a different street. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 20, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 6 Mr. Goodwin said the intent was that streets should generally be aligned to follow features like stream corridors and not end at the stream with a cul -de -sac, but streets could terminate at a natural feature at a "T" intersection with another street. Mr. Taylor asked what would happen if a building is built along a street and then an intersecting "T" street is then built later. He said the building might not meet the street termination requirements under that scenario. Mr. Hardt said that although the block dimensions are maximums, he is concerned the sizes have no relationship to each other. He said if there are office blocks that are 500 feet in size and then there is a transition to a residential district at 425 feet in size they will not line up. Mr. Goodwin said it depends on how the transitions happen between different districts or blocks. He said there is an extensive greenway network envisioned throughout the corridor that will provide a transition point, and there could be larger blocks on one side of the greenway with smaller blocks transitioning on another, which could establish a different pattern in the grid. He said Planning has calibrated the maximum block dimensions to their best understanding of how development might occur in the different districts, including potential development plans for some of the denser development that may occur at the "bookend" locations of the corridor, while recognizing there are difference in character that they are trying to achieve throughout the corridor. Mr. Hardt said he has a similar concern regarding mid -block access described on page 15, which provides a number of different ways to divide up a block, but the last paragraph in the section says vehicular access to blocks should be aligned with other access points on opposite sides of the same block as well as aligned across the street from vehicular access points to another block. He said he is concerned that if one developer creates the "H" configuration and puts the street one third of the way across the site, the next developer has no choice where to put the street and there could be an entire infrastructure of blocks determined by the unit size of one apartment building. He said those cross block access points should be more stringently defined, maybe at the third points and half points, but thinks that as currently written, the Code allows the first developer to set the pattern for huge swaths of land that the City ends up having to live with. Mr. Goodwin said that Planning would discuss this issue with Engineering. Ms. Kramb asked on Page 15 if the term shopping corridor is defined. Mr. Goodwin said it is within the definitions. Ms. Kramb said she is confused with paragraph (C)(2)(c), which states the block length for a shopping corridor shall be 300 feet unless otherwise required by the neighborhood districts section, or if it exceeds 400 feet a mid -block pedestrian way is required. Mr. Goodwin said the requirement can be clarified. Mr. Taylor said he understands the intent of paragraph (C)(3)(c) dealing with energy efficiency but doesn't think it will have an appreciable impact in an urban district. He said if blocks are oriented east to west, the buildings on the south side get exposure to the sun throughout the day, but depending on building heights, they could be casting a shadow on the buildings on the north side. Mr. Langworthy explained this is an example of why the phrases " whenever possible" and "to the maximum extent practicable" have been added to the Code, to account for situations when the requirement may not be appropriate. Mr. Taylor said he thought the orientation of the buildings could potentially provide exposure for both, but that isn't necessarily going to happen and he recommended the requirement be removed. Mr. Goodwin said Planning would consider this. Ms. Kramb asked if the phrases "where designated" and "where provided" in paragraphs (C)(4)(b) and (c) are references to principal frontage streets. She also asked where this designation is actually made. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 20, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 6 Mr. Goodwin confirmed the language refers to situations where principal frontage streets are designated and the text could be clarified. He said principal frontage streets are designated on the street network map in the Street Types Section. Ms. Kramb asked about the limitation on access to principle frontage streets in subparagraph (C)(5)(c), and suggested that it will be more common to have access. Mr. Langworthy indicated the intent to keep principle frontage streets as pedestrian- oriented as possible and not interrupt them with driveways to the extent possible. He said the Code needs to stress that to keep those streets as clean as possible. Ms. Kramb said she understands the Code's preference for access off of service alleys, but when she sees where the principal frontage streets are designated on the street network map in relationship to existing conditions, she does not think the access limitation is practical. Mr. Langworthy said that is why staff has built in flexibility for the City Engineer to waive the requirement if it is impractical. He said that is also one of the reasons to have maximum block sizes to ensure that streets are located frequently enough to provide reasonable access. Mr. Taylor asked if mid -block pedestrianways described in Lots and Blocks could be the same thing as mid - building pedestrianways described in the Building Types section. Mr. Goodwin said they could be the same in some circumstances. Mr. Taylor asked which requirement prevails with regard to street trees, and suggested that landscaping only be required when the pedestrianway is exposed to the sky. He said the different requirements for pedestrianway widths and windows should also be coordinated. Mr. Goodwin said the mid -block pedestrianway requirements were generally geared toward an open pedestrianway design, but the separate design requirement for shopping corridors could also accommodate a covered walkway. He agreed the Code can be clarified to deal with situations where a mid - building pedestrianway is used to meet the mid -block requirement. Ms. Kramb said she opposes mid -block street crossings due to safety issues. Mr. Goodwin agreed they are not appropriate in all locations and said they would be limited to locations such as dense shopping corridors where cars are secondary to pedestrians. He said this condition exists at Easton Town Center and works quite well. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there were any other comments on Lots and Blocks and said they would proceed with reviewing the Street Types Section. Code Section 153.061 — Street Types 153.061 —Street Types (B) Applicability Ms. Kramb suggested the phrase "as required by the City" be stricken from paragraph (B) Applicability, because the statement just added confusion. Mr. Langworthy agreed. Mr. Taylor said he would like to see the street sections developed by Nelson \Nygaard and does not have any comments until he has a chance to review the preliminary designs. 153.061 — Street Types (B) Street Network Mr. Goodwin presented the street network map (Figure 153.061 -A). He said the street family concept has changed as introduced through the consulting work of Nelson \Nygaard and has been a useful framework for organizing street types. He said the consultant has provided nearly two dozen options for street designs and it was not feasible to put all of them into the Code. He said the street network map has also been revised to more accurately reflect the block size requirements and to ensure stronger street connections throughout the corridor. Mr. Goodwin said the corridor connector streets include streets that already exist (State Route 161, Riverside Drive, Dublin Road, portions of Post Road, and Sawmill Road), providing critical connections Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 20, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 6 across the entire corridor. He said an additional bridge option has been added to create an internal loop providing connectivity to both sides of the river with a district connector street system. He said the neighborhood streets are the ones the City has the least understanding of where they might happen, but is important to show some depiction of them to convey to potential developers the general pattern of development that the Code is trying to achieve. Mr. Goodwin presented a series of slides illustrating typical street elements. He the street right -of -way is divided into a vehicular and pedestrian realm, which both need to be coordinated with the private development along the street. He said most streets are recommended to be two lane streets with eleven -foot lanes and eight -foot on- street parking lanes on both sides. He said bicycle facilities include the option of sharrows that would widen a typical lane out to 14 feet to provide enough space for a car and a bicycle to share the lane, and another option is a dedicated cycletrack that would be located behind the curb. He said the next element of the pedestrian realm is a minimum four -foot wide planting or furnishing zone that could be a hardscape treatment with tree wells, a tree lawn in some areas. He said alternative stormwater treatments and street furniture could also occur in this zone. He said that sidewalks will require a minimum of 5 foot clear walking distance. Mr. Goodwin said Planning is working with Engineering to establish a set of guidelines that will help ensure streets are adequately designed for the development that is being proposed, with considerations for the overall character, land use, building types, building heights and setbacks to achieve an adequate dimensional relationship of heights of buildings and the widths of the street right -of -way. He said the Required Building Zone (RBZ) treatment is an important aspect of all the building types, because it is a transitional point between the public realm and the private realm. He said there are a variety of treatment options specified for each building type and in some cases for specified locations within the corridor. He said for example that in some cases the RBZ can be an extension of a streetscape and can function as semi - public space. Mr. Taylor said he would hope they would get more than 5 foot sidewalks. Mr. Langworthy indicated five feet is the minimum clear walking area, but patios and other streetscape elements can outside of that area on wider sidewalks. Mr. Goodwin explained that some street types include much wider sidewalks, depending on the adjacent land use. He said this is also why the streetscape treatment within the RBZ is important. Mr. Goodwin presented examples of recommended street sections. He said corridor connector streets typically include a four lane boulevard street design with the widest right -of -way at 112 feet, and another option is a four lane street without a median that could potentially accommodate off - street parking during off -peak travel hours. He said that is a potential option that could work within the Historic District. Ms. Kramb asked if the example section reflected the existing right -of -way for Bridge Street in the Historic District and said she did not see how the different sections could fit together. Mr. Goodwin said the sections should be viewed as concepts that may need to be adjusted for specific circumstances. He said the intent is to provide enough flexibility so that the street types are workable in different contexts and the primary goal is to provide consistent facilities for the different modes of transportation within street corridors, but also allow for appropriate transitions within the street section to accommodate changes in development character. He said the Scioto River Bridge or a potential roundabout at Riverside Drive and State Route 161 are examples of transition points that would allow a street section to change along the corridor. Mr. Taylor asked if this information could be provided in hard copy form so he could spend more time reviewing the different street section concepts. Mr. Goodwin said Planning and Engineering are in the process of adjusting some of the sections and developing the guidelines for how to apply them with development proposals and they would provide that information to the Commission when it is available. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 20, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 6 Ms. Kramb asked why there is a reference to "existing or approved" alley locations in the explanation of the street network map in paragraph (C)(4)(e). Mr. Goodwin said there is one specific circumstance in Greystone Mews where alleys have been approved but are not yet existing. Ms. Kramb asked why there were no delivery access or loading zone criteria although there are fire access requirements. Mr. Goodwin said those are typically regulated through engineering general requirements, but Planning will consult with Engineering to determine if there are appropriate requirements that could be added to the Code. Code Section 153.062 — Building Types Dan Phillabaum presented the general building type requirements and said Planning had incorporated many of the previous comments from the Commission as well as comments from the development community. He said more specific building material requirements are now included in the building type tables. He said for example that wood and fiber cement siding is now limited to residential - scaled buildings, rather than commercial building types. He said the Code also now includes more stringent measures regarding reflectivity of windows. Mr. Langworthy stated the external reviews by the development community dealt primarily with elements impacting building quality. He said one example is the prohibition on flush- mounted windows, and although there were numerous comments that did not support this, Planning did not feel it was appropriate to change the requirement. Mr. Hardt said he agrees with the intent of that requirement, but explained there is a point in the wall where the cold air from the outside and the warm air from the inside condenses and forms a dew point. He said that is where the thermal break in a window has to be and if placed incorrectly there is thermal bridging where windows sweat on the inside or water will condense inside the wall. He said there is a delicate balance on window placement within the wall cavity, this Code should not try to regulate it. Mr. Phillabaum said the objective is to achieve some dimension or thickness to the walls of residential - scale buildings to visually convey a sense of quality construction and structural integrity. Mr. Taylor said he liked this explanation and suggested that intent language be added to the Code. Mr. Langworthy asked that as they go through the Code to let staff know if if there is an explanation or further information needed. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there was anyone that would like to speak to this application. [There were none.] 4. Bridge Street Corridor — Vision Plan Informal Discussion Ms. Amorose Groomes introduced the informal discussion without a case number, it is a quick recap of the Goal Setting Retreat and Discussion that City Council had on Monday regarding the Bridge Street Corridor. Mr. Langworthy said Ms. Amorose Groomes and Mr. Fishman was present for the presentation, but if they were not able to attend it there was video produced and will be up on the website. They went through a series of Goals as set each year, they reviewed the previous goals and indicated that one of the current goals is to complete the Bridge Street Corridor planning efforts. There was a good discussion and largely the same information that was presented to Planning Commission just in a different format of Transportation, Open Space and Land Use topics. The predominant issues was with open and public space and it was described to them the various kinds of spaces to be created. The major elements was the relocation of Riverside Drive to capture a portion of the park along the river and the actual Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 20, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 6 intersection improvement for Riverside Drive and SR 161 with a roundabout solution that will not affect the Bridge Point Shopping Center that much. Ms. Amorose Groomes said it was one of the most productive conversation that has happened in the three and a half years they have looking at engaging the river front. Ms. Kramb asked if they were keeping the south bound lane under the bridge with the roundabout. Mr. Langworthy agreed they were. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that it is the intention to keep it and Engineering had indicated they could save it. Mr. Taylor thought they need to make it not just a traffic and engineering solution because of the prominent position that occupies there to the whole city and this corridor that be a place making exercise. Mr. Langworthy said they talked about an element within the roundabout itself and there will likely room in the corners to something dramatic as well. Ms. Amorose Groomes encouraged the commissioners to view the video when it is available online, that there was a lot of great discussion of the implementation and challenges for them to think creatively and find solutions and there was a conversation with Mr. Hardt that he had potential solutions that has been forwarded to Mr. Langworthy to working some of the bugs out and will hear about in the future. Mr. Langworthy agreed to send out an email with a link to the video when it becomes available. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there were anyone from the general public that would like to speak to this application. [There were none.] DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MID YEAR GOAL REVIEW AND BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR DISCUSSION MONDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2011 6:30 P.M. — DUBLIN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Mayor Lecklider called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Council Members present were: Mayor Lecklider, Vice Mayor Salay, Mrs. Boring, Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, and Mr. Gerber. Mr. Reiner arrived later. Mr. Keenan was absent. Staff present were: Ms. Grigsby, Mr. McDaniel, Ms. Mumma, Mr. Langworthy, Ms. Crandall, Mr. Hammersmith, Ms. Readler, Ms. Ott, Mr. Philabaum, Mr. Goodwin, and Ms. Ray. Update on Status of 2011 -2012 Council Goals Ms. Grigsby reviewed the goal update provided in the packet, including action steps and progress made. • Business Climate Additional economic development staff (two) has been hired. Continuing to look for economic development opportunities and identifying incentives. ED staff is actively making retention calls in conjunction with the Columbus2020 "watch list." The Battelle Cluster Analysis Study is scheduled for presentation to Council on November 14. • 21 Century Learning Initial discussions have been held with the Library regarding an expansion or a new facility, and what that will mean for an overall learning environment. Staff met with Beverly Sheppard, who was associated with the Institute for Learning Innovation. She is also the creator of the "Learning Cities Model." Information is included in the packet. There are opportunities to coordinate efforts for this 21 Century Learning initiative. • Bridge Street Corridor A separate update was provided on the status of the Code review, and this will be reviewed in detail tonight. • Community Culture of Health and Wellness The Healthy Dublin initiative has been re- launched at the community health fair on October 2. A HealthSpot Care4 station was unveiled at the DCRC recently and has garnered lots of interest. The City is continuing to work with Dublin Methodist Hospital, the Library, and the Schools as partners in this effort. The speaker series continues, focused on healthy living options. • Shared services. Staff has created an inventory of shared services that the City participates in and has also engaged in various regional shared services working groups to explore possible future partnerships. Ms. Crandall and Mr. Earman are also working with the School District on potential future additional shared services, Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 2 resulting in cost savings for both entities and reaching a larger audience. Following the retreat, staff met with reps from COSI and is working closely with them on rec programs and camps. They provide a learning opportunity for Dublin camps. Employee Training and Development A basic supervisory workshop has been outlined and a tentative curriculum identified. A new citywide customer service program will be implemented beginning this month. The first group of participants will be the frontline staff. She summarized that this gives Council a quick overview of the work done since February on the goals, noting that good progress has been made in these areas. Tonight's Bridge Street Corridor discussion is Council's opportunity to give input regarding areas they want to staff focus on, identify other information needed or gain a better understanding of the direction of the project to date. In the notebook is a clean copy of the updated Code, as well as a redlined version showing the changes made since the last version. Staff began the review of the Code with the Planning & Zoning Commission last Thursday evening. In the next packet, info will be provided about what occurred at that meeting. Members of Planning and Engineering staff are present to respond to any questions about the project. She asked Mr. Langworthy to outline the timeframes for the code review. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked for clarification about the "2020 watch list." Mr. McDaniel stated that Columbus 2020 assembled a list of identified companies throughout the region that they believe are potential candidates for merger, acquisition or downsizing. The region is teaming up for active engagement with those companies. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked about the relationship of the Battelle and the KPMG studies. Mr. McDaniel stated that the KPMG study was focused on the cost of doing business. They added a couple of competitive regions this year. This serves as a tool for comparison to other cities. Dublin and the region are very competitive, and the outcome was very positive. He noted that the Battelle study, focused on industry clusters will be presented to Council on November 14 and will include emerging clusters, the key clusters in place and those clusters that are waning. Mr. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that the 21S century learning environment document included in the packet related exclusively to the urban city. Ms. Grigsby responded that this paper focused on Columbus as a starting point because of the contacts the Library had in Columbus and their connection with COSI. They chose Columbus, believing it would be a good place to begin this effort. It has since "sputtered" a bit. The group was introduced to Beverly Sheppard through Dave Baldwin, a work force development consultant, as well as Kim Kill at COSI. Ms. Sheppard has provided additional information and was impressed with all of the opportunities Dublin currently has. Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 3 Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher noted that the foundation of the report for Columbus indicated there may be a variety of inventory present, but they are not actualized. Ms. Grigsby stated that more of the learning occurs in the less formal settings versus schools. A good example is the Healthy Dublin initiative, and providing a learning opportunity about health. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked about the inventory underway of shared services, and whether that internal information will be provided to Council. Ms. Grigsby responded affirmatively. Staff is working to identify areas where partnerships could be established or existing ones extended or enhanced. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher suggested that perhaps not - for - profit organizations could share in purchasing through government contracts at a lower cost. Perhaps they could join with the City and Schools in purchasing. Ms. Grigsby stated that a group initiated at a Mayors /Managers meeting has met to discuss sharing of services such as sign shops, fleet maintenance, cooperative purchasing and training opportunities. Vice Mayor Salay asked Mr. McDaniel how many jobs have been added year to date. Mr. McDaniel responded that he does not have that information available tonight, but the first quarter was very successful with the Alcatel relocation. There are 600 jobs associated with Alcatel, and nearly all of them are now moved into the building. Vice Mayor Salay stated she would like to have this information. Mr. McDaniel responded they are setting up a set of measures that will be shared at the operating budget workshops. Bridge Street Corridor Mr. Langworthy stated that the last revision of the proposed BSC Code was prepared in June, and Council has now been provided with the October version. P&Z began their review last week and has scheduled additional meetings to review the Code. They are reviewing it in sections. The goal is to have a recommendation for City Council by the December 1 P&Z meeting, with a first reading of the Code at Council on December 12, and the second on January 9. Staff has scheduled a public review session on November 10, which may bring some comments regarding the area rezoning. They have met with stakeholders and addressed nearly 80 percent of the issues raised regarding the text. Overall, staff is receiving positive feedback from P&Z, stakeholders, and those interested in developing in Dublin. Ms. Grigsby stated that Council has expressed interest in providing feedback on transportation, parkland and open space. Slides are available, beginning with the vision plan and modifications made recently, based upon the information obtained from the transportation and Code work done in recent months. She asked Council for their input. Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 4 Mayor Lecklider suggested that Council proceed to review the topics as listed on the outline. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher expressed concurrence, but in terms of the process, asked if Mr. Langworthy will share with Council the specifics that Planning Commission recommended last week. Mr. Langworthy responded that the next Council packet will include a recap of the P &Z meeting, separate from the minutes which are not complete at this time. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher noted it may be relevant to hear this tonight. Mr. Gerber asked if staff could recap what P &Z is focusing on at this time. Based on the joint workshop, his understanding is they are reviewing the Code itself, providing opinions and feedback about each segment of the BSC, and discussing the P&Z role and how this will work going forward — from submission of application to permitting. Mr. Langworthy stated that the first and third items are related, and the second item is the subject of tonight's update regarding transportation, land use and open space. Mr. McDaniel confirmed the three focus areas for P&Z. The Thursday meeting was productive, and a discussion of the review process followed. Staff had asked them for input on how they view their role in the review process. On Thursday evening, staff received good feedback on how P&Z perceives the key issues. His assessment is that staff needs to continue working with P &Z to have a process that is predictable and efficient. P&Z expressed concurrence with this on Thursday evening. P&Z will bring recommendations to Council on how that section of the Code will work. Mr. Langworthy stated that the applicants have desired direction at an early point, prior to the administrative process. The other concern related to public input opportunity at some point in the process. Vice Mayor Salay asked if this is the desire for all projects. Mr. Langworthy responded that is not for all, but it has not been determined yet. Mr. Gerber asked about P&Z's progress with their charge' as outlined at the joint workshop. Mr. Langworthy responded that Thursday was the first P&Z meeting specific to the October 6 draft Code review. Mr. McDaniel added that P&Z has done some previous review on the earlier version of the Code as well. Mrs. Boring asked what will happen in a case where a building is proposed that has a nice appearance, but doesn't meet Code. Could the applicant choose to apply for a PUD zoning, knowing it may take longer? Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 5 Mr. Langworthy responded that there will need to be resolution regarding this issue. Applying for an actual PUD zoning is contrary to what the City is trying to accomplish in the corridor. However, perhaps a two -track review process could be established allowing for a P&Z review as well as administrative — under certain circumstances. Staff is working on this issue. Mr. McDaniel added that this was suggested, but there are details to be worked out. Mayor Lecklider noted he is concerned to hear of a two -track process. Given this, why wouldn't an applicant opt for the hybrid PUD process, and therefore, what is the point of all of this? Mr. Langworthy responded that the Code has always included a process for an applicant whose application met all of the Code requirements to have an administrative process. If some aspects did not meet Code, these aspects would be reviewed by P &Z. But for the BSC Code, perhaps P&Z would approve a departure on some aspects, such as building height, if the other details warrant such a departure. The other portions would be reviewed administratively, with the height portion reviewed by P&Z. In other words, the applicant would essentially have an "out" through a public review process, if they choose to pursue such a departure from Code. This was also envisioned. Mayor Lecklider asked for clarification of the comment regarding a review early in the process. Mr. McDaniel added that this began as a suggestion by the Commission for a concept review and early feedback on a project. This would be fine, assuming the applicant doesn't need to have 80 percent of the design done and a significant investment made. It would be a good means to obtain early public input, but he would not want this to become the same informal concept plan process the City already has in place. Mr. Gerber added that in today's environment, with the desire to attract businesses from throughout the world, potential developers review the Code to determine the time required for approval in Dublin. How does this square with a concept plan review process prior to the ART process? Mr. McDaniel responded staff is working on that issue. He appreciates the desire by P &Z to have time constraints for the administrative review process as well, as the focus is on predictability of the process. Staff would want the same for any P &Z process implemented. Staff will bring back some suggestions to P &Z after an internal review. Vice Mayor Salay asked how that process would work for an applicant who receives feedback from P&Z. Who determines whether the applicant met what the P &Z requested? Do they return to staff or to P&Z? Mr. McDaniel responded that one item proposed along with the ART review, as with the EAZ Code is an option of having architects available to advise staff early in the process. Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 6 Mr. Gerber stated that it was always his assumption that Council would likely ask P&Z to monitor the process and identify any problems that are occurring with the new Code. That would give P&Z an opportunity to review the process and report back to Council. Mr. Langworthy responded that the function of monitoring by P&Z is included in this draft of the Code. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher noted that Council agreed to this in a previous meeting, so that the ART process works as Council intended. Although she does believe in efficiency and predictability, she also believes strongly in public engagement in the process at public meetings — not only engagement with staff administratively. Meetings with staff are not viewed as public meetings, and it is essential that occurs. She is not certain this is provided for in this draft. Mr. McDaniel stated that it is not. There was discussion at P&Z about this, and how it could occur, which brought up a concept plan process and what that would look like. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that, historically, issues have been raised about predictability. The timing of approval is often lengthened because of both staff and the Commission. The applicant receives feedback from either party, then returns and receives different feedback. This results in increased costs and frustration. Mr. McDaniel stated that this is not just a P &Z issue. He has challenged City administrative staff to review internal processes to make sure that the processes are as seamless as possible. Mr. Gerber stated that he does not disagree with Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher. The Dublin Methodist Hospital project review was thorough and efficient, using a team approach. He is hopeful that this is the type of process envisioned for the BSC Code. Mr. McDaniel stated that, internally, staff is working to model the successful processes used for IGS, Cardinal, Dublin Methodist, Piada - -using a design team approach. The goal is to educate the real estate /development community about coming in early and often. Most of the problems occur when the design proceeds too far and investments have been made only to find out a project is not viable in the location. Mr. Gerber suggested that creative ways of allowing for public input be considered. Mr. Langworthy commented that all applications that come to the Administrative Review Team (ART) will be posted online and available to the public — similar to what is done now for P&Z applications. He acknowledged there are limitations in terms of finding the information on the website. Vice Mayor Salay asked if the public will be notified of rezonings as presently occurs. Mr. Langworthy responded that staff is working out those details at this time regarding which parties are noticed. All public meetings are noticed. Vice Mayor Salay asked what occurs in terms of public notices if a project meets the Code. Mr. Langworthy responded that currently, buildings in standard zoning districts do not require review outside of the administrative process. Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 7 Vice Mayor Salay stated that she understood that was what was being created for the BSC was a process in which a developer could review the Code, design a project to meet the Code, have it reviewed by ART, secure approval and then build it. What she hears is being considered now is that there will be a public meeting, feedback from P &Z, the applicant will then massage' the project, and return for another review to ensure they have complied with requests of P &Z and staff. Mr. Langworthy emphasized that the details have not yet been worked out. Mayor Lecklider stated that the Code is already very detailed, and he wants to be cautious that people are not discouraged in the review process. Mrs. Boring stated that it is important to work internally as Mr. McDaniel has suggested, but there is also a need for balance and a need to be cautious in terms of those who want something different than prescribed Code. There needs to be an appeal process if something doesn't exactly meet Code — whether it is a height deviation or whatever. Mr. McDaniel responded that staff certainly advocates those cases sent to P&Z as exceptions. Some of those processes are already built into the Code. Mayor Lecklider stated that he envisions a situation where an applicant has checked every box and expects to begin construction, after expending lots of effort and dollars. The City needs to be creative about opportunities for public input or P&Z input, but it can't occur too late in the process or it will add costs to the project for architectural fees and will not accomplish what the City set out to accomplish. Ms. Grigsby agreed that the entire premise of the BSC and Code is that if an application meets the Code, it should be able to move forward. Until there is a chance to demonstrate how all of this works, there may be a need to have a follow -up review process. The goal is not to require a P&Z process for every project. As long as the applicant follows the Code, they can move forward. If there is disagreement regarding interpretation of the Code between the staff and developer, or if the developer wants to do something other than what is prescribed in the Code, that is when it goes to P&Z. It is important that everyone is in agreement about this. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated she remains concerned with the lack of ability for the public to have input. Online input is not public input. She envisions an interchange in a public setting taking place. It is hard to comprehend that the Code will be so dynamic that a great project results from all applications. She can't understand the lack of public input proposed for this process, as public input has been so important to this and former Councils over decades of experience. Ms. Grigsby responded that part of this entire process has been the public input process and the review of the Code at P&Z and then at Council. Recognizing that as projects are proposed and the City does not obtain what is envisioned, then it will be necessary Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 8 to revise the BSC Code. In the past, there was really not a Code that was adhered to and there was nothing specific. Essentially, each PUD has its own Code. Mayor Lecklider stated that this Code may not be perfect, but with tweaking over time, it will hopefully be closer to what is desired. The concern is with what will occur if the application meets the requirements in the ART review, seems to "pass muster," and then a public meeting occurs with public displeasure with the application. What is then the next step? Mr. Langworthy responded that the way to account for that is to have that type of review early in the process. The Commission suggested that maybe a pre - application process would be required so that the applicant is forced to come in early and often. Mr. Gerber asked if that step is envisioned as requiring public notification. Mr. Langworthy responded affirmatively, noting staff is still working on this process. Staff will bring back some options to implement this suggestion. Mr. Reiner stated that the positive aspect about this process is that it is so detailed that it won't require the negotiations that can drag on for years. But is there still opportunity at the end of the process to have P&Z do one review to consider any concerns of the community? Is that out of the question? Would that defeat what the City is trying to do? Mr. McDaniel responded that is the key issue — how to involve the public, at what point, and how often. No one is opposed to this, but the issue is how efficiently this can be done. If the expectations are known, the predictability of the process improves the timeline and the efficiency. Mr. Gerber stated that this Code is written like a PUD. Public input is certainly important, but he is not certain he would want a body to decide there should be deviation from this prescribed Code. The Code will be carefully monitored. It is an issue of balancing all of this. Mr. McDaniel stated that perhaps public input only needs to occur based on certain trigger points — size, density, certain districts. These need to be better defined. Mr. Gerber stated that he wants staff and P &Z to do two things: 1) determine how to get through this Code or an application quickly; 2) how to consistently apply the law; and 3) with that, determine how best to incorporate the public input. There needs to be a dialogue between staff and P&Z about this. No one at this table wants to discard this process in lieu of a huge PUD. Ms. Grigsby stated that, clearly, the process is very different than what has been done previously. A level of comfort is needed, after it is clear how the guidelines will work. The first few projects may be different and should provide a level of comfort going forward, based on experience. Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 9 Mr. Langworthy added that staff has been applying the Code to some buildings and sites to understand how it would work. Based on this, staff has made some adjustments to the Code. The Code also includes a "kick -up" clause if staff believes the project has some wider community impact and should be reviewed by P&Z. Vice Mayor Salay asked who makes up the ART. Mr. Langworthy responded it includes the Director of Planning, the Economic Development Manager, the Director of Parks & Open Space, a Fire Department representative, and the City Engineer. The ART can also request consultations from architectural experts. Mr. McDaniel added that staff believes they need the ability to reach out to architects who have expertise and experience with similar projects. Mr. Langworthy added that was a suggestion made by P &Z. Mr. Reiner stated he is supportive of the concept of having architects as consultants to the ART. The mission of the BSC Code was to expedite and make this a more predictable process for the developer. Perhaps there could be one P &Z meeting at the end of the process so P &Z could have one review of an application. This would provide for community involvement and involvement by P&Z. Mr. McDaniel stated that the Delta Energy project was a straight zoning, and it was taken to P&Z for review. It is a good example of a case with one P&Z review, although it was not required by Code. There was good input from P&Z, and the architects were appreciative of their suggestions and made some modifications. Mr. Langworthy stated it was a use review only. Vice Mayor Salay stated that P &Z made suggestions regarding this straight zoning but they were non - binding. What about the concept of a P &Z Commissioner serving on the ART as the public and the Commission's representative? If he /she was not comfortable with the application, it could be referred to the entire Commission for review. Mr. Langworthy responded that he understands there were some issues raised by Legal staff related to this suggestion. Vice Mayor Salay asked how other communities do this. Dublin is certainly not the first community to have a form -based code. Mr. Langworthy responded that the form -based code is a relatively new process, which has gained prominence over the past 5 -7 years. They are numerous processes, but they are generally tailored to the community. Nearly all emphasize administrative review as the key to speed the process by having precise procedures. However, in the end, they all are different varieties. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that several months ago, Council indicated they have been told that New Albany had created a process to accomplish these goals. What has staff learned about that? Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 10 Mr. Langworthy responded that Mr. Elliott was asked about his experience in different locations. New Albany's version of form -based code affects only 5 -10 acres. Many of the others referenced are also for small areas. Dublin's is the largest form -based code he is aware of outside of a community wide form -based code such as in Miami, Florida. The process differs from one location to another. Mr. McDaniel stated that the initial view of the speed to build idea came from Carey, North Carolina. Their streamlined process was impressive, and their one stop shop was very appealing, creating a seamless internal process. Dublin benchmarked off of that and models itself after that. Mrs. Boring stated she believes there should be a vision in place and a code that brings it alive. However, in this case, it seems the code is creating the vision. Years ago, in the Community Plan, there was quite a different vision for the central corners of Historic Dublin. Then the buildings were developed and changed that earlier vision — right or wrong. Currently, she is not comfortable with the lack of vision for the Historic District. She is concerned that projects will be proposed for the BSC and will eliminate the possibilities as Council envisioned them. Mr. Gerber stated that at the last workshop with P &Z, he understood the intent was for P &Z to discuss each of the six districts, the comments would then be provided to Council, and then perhaps there would be another joint workshop to better define these. Mr. Langworthy responded that the presentation was provided to P &Z, highlighting each of the districts, and highlighting the various issues. Mr. Gerber stated that P&Z has now begun their review, and their concerns at this point are with process. Once the process questions are addressed, P&Z will move back to focus on each of the sectors and the characteristics of each — similar to a mini community plan review. Mr. McDaniel stated that he doesn't believe P &Z envisioned doing this. The feedback he heard from P &Z is that they believe that the Districts as defined are fine. Mr. Gerber stated that he recalls that at the last workshop, the discussion was -- and the consultants agreed - -that it was a good idea for all in the room to review each district, highlighting items of interest in each area, potential themes for areas, items such as a park on Riverside Drive, ideas for preserving the Historic District, etc. Mr. Langworthy stated that there are two ways to look at this: one is the code review process to get the code in place, but the second item is the physical aspects yet to be discussed — such as road improvements, parkland acquisition. There are decisions yet to be made, but these items don't affect the Code one way or another. Mr. Gerber stated he is well aware of that. Mr. Langworthy stated that some of the materials prepared tonight will highlight some of those items. Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 11 Mr. McDaniel stated that one thing staff has struggled with is that it seems there has been a missing link in this: there is a code, a vision and principles adopted. People gravitate toward the Community Plan and area plans. One thing staff informally agreed to do with the Commission was to go back through the vision plan Council adopted and make sure that in each of those character districts the things heard from the public were incorporated so that Council could consider them and adopt them+ Mr. Gerber commented that is what he has just indicated. Mr. McDaniel stated that since that joint planning session, Mr. Langworthy reviewed each of the districts with the Commission, explained the changes, and what staff heard back from the Commission was that it was "good to go." Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that there was the vision plan, the things Mr. Langworthy overlaid in that meeting, and P&Z's recommendation was to overlay those in the vision plan and move forward. Ms. Grigsby stated that in some discussion after the presentation at Council, it was mentioned that when he met with Planning staff, he felt the transportation lead -in was a good way to identify some of these issues and demonstrate how the original conceptual plan of the vision has changed, based on what has been learned. Perhaps it would be helpful to begin with those transportation elements and review them so Council can see how it ties in, and the connectivity through the district, focusing on specific districts where there are concerns. Vice Mayor Salay agreed. Her hope was to discuss the vision tonight and hear any new information from staff. What she hears is that everyone is working through the process issues, the Code review is underway, and Council now needs to review policy issues for transportation and open space, focus on those and make some decisions so that the entire package is ready when it is time to approve the Code. Mr. Reiner stated that it is somewhat of a "chicken and egg" process. Is the City waiting for a developer to bring in a project in order to determine the road network based on the parcel? Does that dictate where the bridges should be to span the river? For this to work, more connectivity over the river is needed. The same with greenspace. How much will be donated, will there be larger parks or packet parks. There is not a plan set for parkland locations. Is the City waiting for a developer to begin the process — and those development plans would then dictate the bridge locations and street width. He is somewhat confused about how this plays out. Ms. Grigsby responded that the City should set the general guidelines, recognizing that, depending upon what is learned, there may be minor changes. Similar to the Community Plan, the actual road alignment may change based upon development. Natural features to be preserved will impact all of this. Perhaps the City can't acquire properties that it desires for what it wants to pay. Changes have occurred from the original version, based on what has been learned — and now it is possible to say this is Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 12 generally where roads or park spaces need to be located. The developers will either provide land or money, and this will be in addition to greenways shown in this plan. Mayor Lecklider suggested that staff proceed with the presentation. Mr. Langworthy stated that staff began with the district framework, working within each district to highlight the issues, who they need to talk to and what about. The character districts are the same as those laid out in the vision plan. The street network underlies what was in the vision plan. One thing to highlight is that the vision plan was done before the modeling, so therefore, the transportation modeling took place after the vision plan was adopted. He showed the changes in the street network that have been made. From the original depiction, there are several changes (he pointed these out). Mr. Goodwin, Ms. Willis and Ms. Wawskiewicz have worked hard to rationalize the street network, providing more connectivity, adding a bridge as result of modeling — not needed from a traffic standpoint, but from a circulatory standpoint. He highlighted other significant items — the Post Road realignment, the Sawmill Center connector, the Bridge Street /Dublin Road connection, connecting to what is now being called "Sawmill Center" as a working name (currently the Dublin Village Center). Lots of other streets are shown, although the layout is not certain, as it will be determined by future development. As lots and blocks are created, streets will go along with that. Therefore, there are limitations in how wide those blocks can be to maintain walkability and to disperse traffic around multiple routes. This also shows the new alignment of Riverside Drive, which will be discussed further tonight. In terms of environmental aspects, the Post Road realignment, the Dublin Road connector, and a road into Historic Dublin will all involve crossings of Indian Run and must be done sensitively. The same is true for the Scioto River bridge crossing, and it will be costly. Mr. Hammersmith will discuss what happens with the existing bridge later tonight. Vice Mayor Salay asked if a pedestrian bridge over the Scioto is included. Mr. Langworthy responded affirmatively, and more detail will be provided in the parkland discussion. He noted that the Frantz Road intersection with 161 had involved discussion with many property owners, and included development potential with relocated Post Road. For Sawmill Road, as development occurs, the entrances into what is being called the Sawmill Center off of Sawmill Road are important. This will involve working with Columbus, finding out how the intersections need to function, and creating some special entrances for the development. Connectivity across Sawmill Road is also important. For Bridge Street and 161, enhancements to promote walkability and pedestrian friendliness will be done in the future. Mr. Langworthy described the staff process for reviewing land uses and intensities. Once the vision plan was established, staff looked at the overall patterns and began to rationalize the street network and how it interacts with land use -- land use first and Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 13 then streets. From there, staff began to look at the open space network, and how to connect open spaces and have them all function together. Staff has been talking with developers (OCLC, Dublin Village Center) about how to integrate their concepts of greenspace with the City's. The focus is on connecting the public and private greenspaces. There would be a wide variety of open spaces — from small, public plazas to walkways (such as the one along Tucci's) in private spaces, BriHi corner square, along with fields and open spaces — a variety of spaces allowing people to congregate. A large greenway is planned through the BSC and all the way to the EAZ. Vice Mayor Salay stated that is essentially all the way to the Metro Park. Mr. Langworthy stated that continuous open space would exist all across this space. Multi -use paths are shown with dotted lines, and plans for connections to outside the corridor are shown as well. This green space network occurs in many ways — through donations, acquisitions, requirements for greenspace, development — and it is important to understand what the City wants to create. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked about the greenways shown east of the river, and the fact that they don't seem as wide as those on the west side. Is there a reason for that? Mr. Langworthy responded that greenways are not meant to be recreation spaces, but rather as ways to move from point a to point b. In some places they will be wide and some narrow — 60 or 80 feet is the minimum width. In the scale of the map of 1,100 acres, it is somewhat difficult to demonstrate. Ms. Grigsby stated that the majority of those wide spaces on the west side relate to the Indian Run, both north and south forks. Mrs. Boring stated that in creating this walkability, particularly for the main greenspaces, she asks that staff consider wider paths to accommodate pedestrians and bicycles heading opposite directions — wherever that is possible. The paths along 745 are eight feet in width, and there are sometimes conflicts between all of the various users due to the width. Mr. Langworthy added that another aspect of public spaces are the sidewalks, and the requirement is for extra wide sidewalks to accommodate sidewalk cafes. There are also some possibilities for cycle tracks. The street then becomes part of that interconnected network of pedestrian movement as well. It is an interconnected network of various kinds of greenspaces, accommodating various pedestrian movements. Mr. Reiner stated that staff has done a great job with this. Lots of work has been done since the last draft, with small infill of pocket parks provided. Mr. Langworthy credited the planners for this work — Mr. Philabaum, Mr. Goodwin, and Ms. Ray. Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 14 Mr. Gerber commented that it would have been helpful to have had this information three months ago. Vice Mayor Salay noted that staff did not have the information ready at that time. She noted that she likes the plan, and it makes sense on many levels. But in terms of crossings of the Indian Run, she cannot imagine vehicular bridges overhead of the ravines. Mr. Langworthy responded that the north bridge has the least moving parts and there has always been one crossing planned at the north. The location shown is likely acceptable. The others must be studied carefully. It would be important to the network leading to the south bridge, but if the south bridge isn't built, this then becomes a connector between OCLC's development and Historic Dublin and so the question is how can that be accomplished. Mr. Reiner stated that this bridge could have a pedestrian component allowing one to view the ravine from above. He reiterated that staff has done a great job in assembling all of this. Mr. Langworthy stated that Mr. McDaniel asked them to focus on how the open space along the river will work and connect up and down the river. The concept is for a continuous connection along the river. He showed the immediate area north of 270, including Scioto Park, the Holder Wright earthworks, the Dublin Arts Center, connecting down to Kiwanis Park to the Riverside /161 connection. The Dublin Springs Park now has a stairwell installed to provide access down to the river. Mr. Hahn is working on several aspects of the park concepts. Riverside /161 Open Space Options Mr. Langworthy stated that staff has assembled three options and two alignments, as shown on the slides. Options A and B have essentially the same alignment, coming off the Riverside /161 intersection as it goes north. The only difference is how the parks are programmed — whether with open space or development. Option A slightly impacts the Bridge Pointe shopping center, but does not involve a total take. The intersection at Dale Drive remains and the City garners about 18 acres of open space. The central core area is approximately 12 acres, and a rendering has been assembled to show the size of this large space. This shows two bridge crossings and also shows a pedestrian bridge. One of the issues is with landing the pedestrian bridge. Shifting the roadway alignment provides a decent landing space for the pedestrian bridge. Council will recall viewing the Greenville bridge. There are various options for potential programming of this area, including a path underneath the bridge or perhaps an esplanade. There is a desire to better interact with the river, through cliffs or plateaus along the river for observation. This is all conceptual and is designed to show the programming that could occur in the space. Option B is a development option. It adds in some development to have a central point, perhaps nice retail or restaurant space that is a walkable distance from Historic Dublin on a pedestrian bridge. It is similar to the Greenville riverwalk. Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 15 Option C is more dramatic and includes a roundabout. Options A and B can also include a roundabout, and both a traffic signal or a roundabout will handle the traffic — the decision is one of character /atmosphere to be created. Option C keeps the larger open space and pushes the development area down toward Bridge Pointe in the space garnered by moving the roadway. Mr. Hammersmith can discuss the implications of other things needed, based on the intersection decision. Aside from the acquisition of Bridge Pointe, the other issue is replacement of the 161 bridge and at what point that must occur. He shared an overview slide of the three open space options as discussed. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked what the City is doing currently to the 161 bridge. Mr. Hammersmith responded that currently, a stairway is being constructed by Parks to provide access down into Dublin Springs Park. Ms. Grigsby stated that this project is interesting, and she encouraged Council Members to visit the park. Riverside Drive /SR 161 Intersection Options Mr. Hammersmith stated that the intersection decision is not so much about operational issues as character and feel. The various alternatives were reviewed by Council a few years ago. A benefit of the roundabout shown on the slide (shared previously with Council) is that it maintains a south bypass lane with through movement north to south and provides for left turn movements at the intersection. With a signalized alternative, the left movements would be restricted and therefore left turns would have to be done at Dale Drive as now. With a roundabout, aesthetic features can be added in the central island that ties in with the greenspace initiative along the river. There is flexibility with the bridge, allowing time to rework the bridge. Under the signal alternative, a right turn is needed going eastbound on the bridge itself. Because of delays at the signal, there is a need for stacking storage. That is one of the disadvantages of a signal. The roundabout, however, does require a right turn lane going into the Shoppes at River Ridge. Staff is somewhat concerned with stacking at the signal, which would cause back -ups in the roundabout. Therefore, this drives the need for the right turn lane into Shoppes at River Ridge. A con to the roundabout is the impact to the parking at the Bridge Pointe shopping center, due to the much larger footprint needed and larger right -of -way acquisition needed. Mr. Reiner asked if that Center could still be functional with diminished parking. Mr. Hammersmith stated this really would involve the outparcels, and some of those businesses previously located in the outparcel locations are now closed. Another con of the roundabout is that there would be need for a retaining wall, based on the difference in elevations. Presently, there is not the need for a retaining wall. Yet another con for a roundabout is there would not be protected pedestrian movements as would exist Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 16 with a signalized intersection. The signal would assign a right of way /protected phase for the pedestrian movement. Vice Mayor asked if there would be adequate breaks in the traffic to allow for safe pedestrian crossing. Perhaps the key is having a break and a safe haven island available. Mr. Hammersmith agreed that even under the signal alternative, there is limited space for the pedestrians due to landing on the "pork chop" island. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that if a pedestrian bridge is added, it would land just to the north at Dale Drive, so this is an alternative to consider. Staff expects the area to the northeast to develop at fairly high density residential, generating lots of pedestrians. It is important to know where the pedestrians originate from and are traveling to so safe travel can be provided. Ms. Grigsby stated that when modeling was done for this intersection, it was prior to any consideration of the possibility of additional bridge crossings to the north of this intersection. Some of the updated modeling could change the conditions, and would warrant additional review regarding need for lanes. Vice Mayor Salay asked when Council will need to make a decision about this. She assumes that modeling information may influence the decision, and there are cost implications as well. Mr. Hammersmith stated that obtaining the modeling information will require a couple of months. However, Council should make their decision based upon the character desired. Staff can then affirm if the decision will work with the traffic. With two bridges to the north, they will help provide for connectivity in the corridor and district. However, there will still be heavy through traffic movement on 161. He does not expect huge differences in the modeling results. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked for confirmation that "Alternative 2" would still preclude having left turn lanes. Mr. Hammersmith responded it does not. It could allow them, but if a left turn lane is added to Alternative 2, the level of service greatly diminishes. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that this does not therefore seem a viable alternative, although it is less expensive, as it does not accomplish some important goals. Mr. Hammersmith stated that in terms of vehicle maneuverability, that is true. In response to questions, Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher clarified that, currently, cars traveling east on SR 161 cannot turn left (north) on Riverside Drive, so instead they turn left (north) on 745 (Dublin Road) and turn east onto the Emerald Parkway bridge. Mrs. Boring asked where these motorists originate. Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 17 Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher responded they are coming off the freeway and onto 161, or from the businesses at Metro. Mrs. Boring stated that would be a benefit of a loop road taking traffic around Bridge Street. Vice Mayor Salay asked if the completion of Emerald Parkway will remove traffic from the 161 corridor. Mr. Hammersmith responded that it likely will not significantly reduce traffic, as the destination remains I -270 and out to Marysville. Mr. Gerber stated that if 270 is backed up heading north, drivers exit at Tuttle and cross over to Dublin Road, bringing traffic to Historic Dublin. Mayor Lecklider stated that Alternative 2 may be less expensive itself, but may require other improvements to the bridge. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the estimate for bridge components is $14 million. Adding another lane on the south side of the bridge is not practical. It forces the reworking of the entire bridge structure. Mr. Reiner stated that one advantage of Riverside Drive is the few traffic lights on a major north /south corridor, which keeps the traffic moving. For this reason, a roundabout is appealing, as it also keeps the traffic moving. Mayor Lecklider asked about the timeframe for this decision. Ms. Grigsby stated that staff needs to complete some modeling before any decisions can be made. Vice Mayor Salay noted that, for her, it seems the roundabout would have some attractive features built into it. It's a traffic control device, but can be aesthetically appealing and contribute to the character for the corridor. But in terms of impacts to pedestrian walkability/mobility, does a signal slow and stop traffic and provide a better pedestrian environment? She recalls hearing this previously. Mr. Hammersmith stated that Nelson- Nygaard mentioned this. In an urban area like the Short North, signals lend themselves well to a pedestrian environment. But in this corridor, the pedestrian movement will generally be coming from Historic Dublin. Having a signalized intersection would result in a very large intersection — larger than Frantz /161 -- and would be intimidating to pedestrians. In signalized corridors and with a downhill movement, vehicles build lots of speed. It is difficult to control speeds. Mr. Langworthy commented that from a character standpoint, Planning believes a roundabout is acceptable and doesn't dramatically affect the character the City is trying to create in this location. Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 18 Vice Mayor Salay stated that her concern is that everyone expected to have a roundabout in this location, but someone had indicated it could really impact the pedestrian character of the Historic District in the corridor. What she hears tonight is that it would not be a factor as was once thought. Mr. Hammersmith stated he does not believe it would be. A roundabout provides a calmer, more tranquil environment. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she has recently observed walkers in this corridor, coming from south of Riverside Drive, walking in the street. She is not certain of their destination. She also observed someone walking who may have been shopping at Kroger — they were walking east over the bridge. There is a noticeable increase in pedestrian traffic in this corridor. Mr. Langworthy noted that the sidewalk connection required of Bridge Pointe will help with pedestrian traffic. Mayor Lecklider summarized that he is hearing a preference from Council for the roundabout design for the intersection of Riverside /161. Vice Mayor Salay and Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated they support a roundabout at this location. Ms. Grigsby stated staff will continue to gather information for Council. Vice Mayor Salay stated she would be uncomfortable with the size of the intersection needed to accommodate a signal. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that her issue relates to the continued inability to turn left with the signalization. Mr. Hammersmith stated that with moving the intersection east -- either scenario will work. Mrs. Boring asked if the bypass lane under the bridge will be retained. Mr. Hammersmith responded it is possible, noting there is much benefit from this operationally. Mr. Langworthy stated that the bike /pedestrian connection would also be improved for this lane as well. Vice Mayor Salay noted that as there is more diversity in the community, this brings more walkers to access grocery stores on a daily basis. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked Ms. Readler to comment about why a Planning and Zoning Commissioner cannot serve on the Administrative Review Team for the Bridge Street Corridor. Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 19 Ms. Readler stated that this issue came up on Thursday at the PZC meeting. Historically, the City has not created hybrid commissions that include administrative staff and appointed /elected officials. Staff is reviewing whether or not this is a feasible option and will report back. Vice Mayor Salay commented that this would be an option to involve the public and PZC, yet keep the process streamlined. Mrs. Boring asked about the bubble illustration previously shared with Council. She noted that mixed residential is identified on it. There was discussion of flex space in outlying areas. Is there not a need to define flex space differently, so that shops could be located in the bottom of apartment areas? It doesn't appear that the typical definition of types of zonings are being changed as Council has discussed over past yea rs. Mr. Langworthy responded that what is shown on the bubble illustration is the predominant land use. The way the form -based Code is set up is that there are possibilities for mixed uses to occur, but they don't dominate the building. What is being shown is the predominant land use for the area. It could include retail on the ground floor. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that in the Easton area, separating the residential from the retail area was a flaw in the design. She hopes the City can improve upon this. It seems that the Easton area resulted in two distinct communities. Vice Mayor Salay agreed that the Bridge Street Corridor should stay away from that model of separating land uses. Mrs. Boring stated that she hopes that for residential use, there would not be that level of traffic. She assumes this is a smaller scale than Easton. Mr. Langworthy noted that the lots and blocks must be walkable and smaller, and will have higher density residential and more livable environments. Vice Mayor Salay stated this is different from any residential development Dublin has previously done. People will be drawn to this location due to the active nature of the development. Mr. Langworthy added that, currently, this type of land use generates the highest level of inquiry and activity. Mayor Lecklider commented that he is familiar with this market interest, based on his daughter residing in the Victorian Village /Short North area. Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 20 Mayor Lecklider noted that on the last page of the staff memo, it indicates some decision points related to policy issues in the corridor. Have they been addressed tonight? Mr. Langworthy responded that there is more detail needed to be brought to Council. Staff is now looking at what are the implementation phases /steps needed — what must happen in each of the districts in terms of future CIP projects. This information will be brought to Council in the weeks and months to come. Mayor Lecklider asked how Council will be involved, short of the first reading of the Code anticipated in December. Mr. Langworthy responded that, much like the roundabout decision discussed tonight, there are some key decisions needed — but adequate information is needed for consideration in future work sessions or joint sessions with P&Z. Key capital project decisions must be made, as there are alternatives to be considered. Council can provide input and then decide. Mayor Lecklider stated that as those arise in the next couple of months, he expects that staff will request that Council schedule workshops as needed. Ms. Grigsby stated that there has been a lot of interest and discussions with those looking at some type of development on the OCLC site as well as Dublin Village Center and the Sawmill Center area. As information is available, especially regarding transportation systems, staff will continue to bring information to Council to obtain policy direction. Vice Mayor Salay asked if staff believes more workshops are needed, and if so, these should be scheduled at this time. Ms. Grigsby responded that can be done. Mr. McDaniel stated that some of the priorities will be opportunity driven. Council commended Planning staff for the graphics prepared for this meeting. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that there may be certain PZC meetings that Council could observe — particular sections of the Code that may be of interest to Council based on the difference from past practice. Council could benefit from their discussion. Mr. Langworthy stated that Thursday's meeting will focus on lots, blocks and street types and building types. The Code is being reviewed in sequence. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked what has been decided in terms of the review process of the Commission and the public input. Mr. McDaniel wants staff to have continued dialogue with the Commission to see what consensus can be obtained regarding the review process. Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 21 Mr. McDaniel added that the TischlerBise study is now essentially completed, and staff should be able to present the results very soon. The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Clerk of Council Office of the City Manager City of Dublin Pho 614 - 1 410-4400* Fax:b614 --410 -4490 1090 Memo To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Marsha I. Grigsby, City ManagerVA;�'--. Date: October 20, 2011 Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director of Planning Re: Update re. Planning and Zoning Commission Review of Draft Bridge Street Corridor Development Code Background At the October 6, 2011 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, Commission members were provided a final draft of the Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) Development Code with the understanding that the draft code will be reviewed in sections at upcoming meetings. The estimated completion of the review is by December 1, 2011, with a vote on a recommendation to City Council on the code and area rezoning expected at that meeting. A special meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, October 13, 2011 where members of the public, including property owners and other interested stakeholders, were invited to provide comment on the draft development regulations. (Comments on the proposed area rezoning have been reserved for the November 10, 2011 special meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission.) Following the public comment, the Planning and Zoning Commission began their review of the draft code. A summary of the meeting follows. October 13 PZC Special Meeting Public Comment Summary Time was set aside on the agenda to allow public comment on the text of the final draft of the BSC Development Code. The Commission requested feedback from the public in attendance regarding the draft code. Although several interested stakeholders were in attendance at the meeting, only one registered person spoke. The speaker commented on the proposed review and approval process in the draft code and indicated that the proposed review process by the Administrative Review Team (ART), which would afford greater predictability and efficiency in the development review process, was favorable; however, the speaker would appreciate the flexibility to deviate from certain regulations, either through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process or through a special appeal to the Planning and Zoning Commission for specific provisions. BSC Development Code Review Summary The Commissioners began their review of the draft BSC Development Code with the following code sections reserved for discussion at the October 13 meeting (comments are grouped by section): &5153.057-.058 General Puroose BSC Districts Intent — Pages 1 -6 - Requested that the date of the Vision Report adoption (October 25, 2010) be removed or modified. Memo re. Update re. Planning and Zoning Commission Review of Draft BSC Development Code October 20, 2011 Page 2 of 2 - Requested that references to the BSC Districts Applicant Guide be struck from the code since it has not been completed yet. The BSC Districts Applicant Guide will include additional graphics and design details for items such as the specific street sections and stormwater management techniques that are either not ready yet or inappropriate for inclusion in the code. - Commented that PUDs should continue to be permitted in the Corridor. §153.059 Uses — Pages 7 -13 - Questioned whether it may be appropriate for certain uses to be restricted to the ground floor of certain buildings, since some uses are restricted to upper stories. - Suggested that the use category for Library, Museum, Gallery also be permitted in the BSC Commercial district in the use table (Table 153.059 -A). - Suggested that additional accessory uses be permitted in the BSC Residential district, including ATMs and eating and drinking facilities. - Commented that the screening requirements for outdoor recreation areas for daycares may need to be adjusted for the urban environment anticipated in the Bridge Street Corridor. - Requested clarification regarding the use specific standards for drive in /drive throughs, accessory dwelling units, and outdoor display and seasonal sales. - Suggested that furniture for outdoor dining and seating areas should be coordinated among tenants within each building. - Suggested that all renewable energy equipment using wind power be subject to conditional use review, rather than just ground- mounted equipment. §153.066 Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria - Pages. 102 -109 The discussion for this part of the Code was more general in nature, rather than a review of specific language. Accordingly, the points made below, while brief, were discussed in some detail. - Expressed concern over the lack of public notification for applications for administrative review. Commission members emphasized the importance of public involvement in the development process and wanted to ensure that the public had adequate notice of applications and opportunity for meaningful involvement in the process. - Suggested that the pre - application review process [ §153.066(D)] be mandatory and include review by the Planning and Zoning Commission for certain application types. - Commented on the potential for a "two- track" process for applicants who may not wish to follow some provisions of the form based code. - Suggested that additional criteria be provided for administrative departures to ensure that adequate flexibility is available to encourage unique site design and architecture. Recommendation Information only. A summary of the comments on the draft BSC Development Code will be forwarded to City Council members following the next scheduled review on Thursday, October 20, 2011. 7t PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF DISCUSSION OCTOBER 13, 2011 Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin. Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone/ TDD: 6 Fax: 614 -410 -4747 Web Site: www -dubi n oh.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- 020ADM Administrative Request Proposal: To amend the Zoning Code to establish a number of new Zoning Districts and regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor. Topic: Proposed BSC Districts, Uses, and Approval Process (Sections 153.058, 153.059, and 153.066). Public Comment regarding the proposed BSC Code modifications is encouraged at this meeting. Request: Review and recommendation regarding amendments to the Zoning Code under the provisions of Code Section 153.232 and 153.234. Applicant: City of Dublin, Marsha Grigsby, City Manager. Planning Contact: Rachel S. Ray, AICP, Planner I. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4656, rray @dublin.oh.us RESULT: At this special Planning and Zoning Commission meeting members of the public including property owners and other interested stakeholders we invited to provide comment on the Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) Development Code draft development regulations. The Commissioner's comments and concerns included the applicant guide being referenced in the draft code even though this document is not yet created, allowing PUDs to continue in the Bridge Street Corridor, permitting certain uses only in certain districts and limiting the permitted uses in the BSC Residential District, and the lack of public involvement in the proposed review and approval process. The Commission suggested the pre - application review be made mandatory and include PZC review for certain applications. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 13, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 16 1. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- 020ADM Administrative Request Chair Chris Amorose Groomes introduced this Administrative Request for review and a recommendation to City Council to establish a number of new zoning districts and regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor. She said it was the first meeting where the Commission is to review the Code in detail. She explained the purpose of this Special Meeting is to review the General Purpose, the Bridge Street Corridor Districts Intent, the Uses, and the Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria of the proposed Bridge Street Corridor Development Code. Ms. Amorose Groomes said time had been set aside for public comment on the text of the final draft Code, and the Commission will address the public comments as they pertain to each section of the Code, which may be at future meetings. She said the Commission may request feedback from the public in attendance and discuss their general thoughts on the draft Code. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that the public should know that the proposed Bridge Street Corridor Zoning Map is scheduled to be reviewed by the Commission on November 10, and comments regarding the proposed zoning of any properties in the Bridge Street Corridor should be made at that meeting. Steve Langworthy pointed out that the Commission had a very ambitious schedule for reviewing the Code, so after they got through the public comment portion, he asked that any minor corrections to grammar and punctuation be given to him or Rachel Ray after the meeting. He also asked that if the Commission got stuck on a particular section, that it be set aside as a topic to be covered later, so that they can get through as much as possible. He said that Planning may be able to provide additional information or research those items if needed. Ms. Amorose Groomes requested that they begin with Sections 153.057, 153.058, and 153.059, pages 1 through 13, covering the zoning districts, general provisions, the uses, and the use specific standards. Mr. Langworthy suggested that because this meeting was set aside for the public to comment on any portion of the draft Code, some members of the public in attendance may have comments on sections not scheduled to be covered this evening. He suggested that the Commission receive public comment first to record the comments to address as they reach each section. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that the Commission would go through the first part of the Code, and then take public comment, and conclude with the section on Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria. She stated that if at any time, anyone had any questions or comments regarding a specific Code section, to please raise their hand so they may be afforded the opportunity to comment. Code Section 153.057 — General Purpose John Hardt stated that he would like to make a general comment about this section. He said the General Purpose statement and the introduction to the Bridge Street Corridor Districts repeatedly refer to the creation of walkable, vibrant, mixed -use districts, which he thought they all agreed was one of the primary intents of the Bridge Street Corridor. He said then, by virtue of the title of each zoning district, the location of each district on the zoning map, and the uses permitted in each district, they seem to go back to use separation, limiting residential in certain districts, commercial in other districts, and office in elsewhere, which he did not feel was conducive to creating a mixed use environment. He said for example, if he looked at the BSC Residential District, the permissible uses in the next chapter do not even allow a coffee shop or a walk up ATM, and so he thought the intent was missing. Mr. Langworthy said he understood Mr. Hardt's concern. He recalled that when Planning reviewed the very first draft of the Code, Planning also noted that the uses were very restrictive and did not really seem to allow a great deal of mixed use. He said that since that time, Planning added more uses to a lot more districts, but suggested that if the Commission thought that there was more that they should or could do in terms of permitting a greater range of uses in each district, Planning could look into that further, but they were not really supportive of permitting all uses, everywhere. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 13, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 16 Mr. Hardt said that was not necessarily what he was suggesting, but when there is a district called Office Residential, certainly by name alone, it implies that retail is not welcome there. He said he was not suggesting anything should be permitted everywhere, but he thought they ought to consider that a mixed use environment is exactly that, and if someone wants to construct a four -story building with retail on the first floor and condominiums above, and the second building next door makes sense to have offices above retail, that is what the Bridge Street Corridor is about. Mr. Langworthy said Planning would take another look at the uses permitted in each district. He explained that in Mr. Hardt's example, the BSC Office Residential district does permit retail, it just size limits it so that the retail does not become the dominant use in the building. Rachel Ray added that Planning also wanted to try to concentrate certain land uses to specific portions of the Corridor, simply to obtain a critical mass for the uses to be successful and complement one another. She said that for example, the BSC Sawmill Center and the BSC Indian Run districts are to be centers of activity, so instead of spreading everything out, those areas benefit from the advantages of concentrating uses in specific areas. She said another point to consider is that certain densities and land use types were modeled with the transportation, infrastructure, and other studies, so there are some general assumptions about where certain types of land uses are anticipated in the overall Bridge Street Corridor. She said that a mix of uses was assumed in every district, but there will be a predominant land use in each district. Richard Taylor said he agreed with Mr. Hardt. He said when the Commission first began looking at the concept of a form -based code, he took the opportunity to review a couple of form -based codes used elsewhere. He said he liked the form -based part of it, but he was concerned that this was turning into a use -based code, because there are at least as many use -based regulations as there are form - based, although he thought it was clearly necessary to have some use direction. He said he would like to make sure that they keep the emphasis on the form. Mr. Taylor said that when he looked at the draft Zoning Map and the street network map in the Code, and then compared it to what we have now, it seems as though we are wiping the school site clean, along with Wendy's Headquarters, Lowe's, Dublin Village Center, the OCLC Campus, the Golf Center of Dublin, and Digger and Finch. He said that the roads on the street plan suggest we are going to wipe all those buildings off the space between Tuller Road and I -270, and yet in all of these, the Indian Run Estates and Greystone Mews neighborhoods remain untouched. He said he did not understand why, when the others are shown to be eliminated. Mr. Langworthy said that Mr. Taylor's comment was a good one. He said that when Planning was looking at the proposed street network, although the Greystone Mews neighborhood is a very nice development, it is somewhat disruptive of the proposed grid street network. He said that in creating the conceptual street network map, Planning had to make some assumptions about which developments were likely to remain in their present location over the long term, and which were likely to redevelop at some point. He said both neighborhoods are ringed by greenways and district connector streets. He explained that the street network included a hierarchy of streets, with some roads that are intended to carry higher volumes and carry traffic in and through the Corridor, while we do not necessarily know where neighborhood streets are going to go, since those will develop over time. He said for the purposes of the street network map, the concentration is on the major streets. Mr. Taylor said that would make more sense if there were lines drawn through the Indian Run neighborhood. He pointed out that there was a roundabout and road that went south through the middle of Lowe's. He said on the Zoning Map, the school site is designated Public, but elsewhere, it is shown with commercial development. He said he understood that they draw lines that might represent future roads because it allows them to plan for street connections; however, he asked why these two neighborhoods were not treated similarly. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 13, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 16 Mr. Langworthy said that Planning and Engineering are satisfied that there are enough roads to accommodate traffic. He pointed out that there is a potential road shown along the west side of Greystone Mews to connect to the land uses on the north and south sides. 153,057 — Genera/ Purpose (A) Mr. Hardt reiterated his comment that the Vision Report that is referenced in this paragraph be updated before the Commission votes on the BSC Development Code. Amy Kramb and Mr. Taylor agreed with Mr. Hardt's comment. 153,058 — 85CDistricts Intent (A) Scope Mr. Taylor stated that he would reserve his first comment regarding the provision that prohibits planned unit developments in the Bridge Street Corridor for the discussion on the Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria. He referred to the last sentence about the Bridge Street Corridor Districts Applicant Guide. He asked when the Commission might see that document, or what it might contain. Mr. Langworthy said he was waiting for approval of next year's budget before they can finalize the Applicant Guide. He said that Planning has started on the Applicant Guide, and timing of its conclusion would depend on the changes made to the Code. Mr. Langworthy said that perhaps an outline of what is expected to be included in the document could be provided to the Commission. He explained that, for example, the City had received 24 different street types from Nelson \Nygaard for potential application in the Corridor, and Planning determined that there was no way to include that many different street sections in the Zoning Code without becoming confusing, so Planning and Engineering intended to show the different street types in the Applicant Guide, where there would be flexibility in determining where each type could be applied. Mr. Langworthy added that the document would also illustrate some of the more complicated Code requirements and would help applicants navigate the Code and approval processes. Mr. Taylor suggested that if the Guide was not going to be completed, he would like to strike all references to it now, and when it is complete and the Commission has a chance to review and approve it, it can be added back into the Code. Mr. Langworthy said it was not critical that there were references to the Applicant Guide included in the Code at all. He said Planning would check the entire Code to see all the places it had been mentioned first, but it was likely that the references to the Applicant Guide could be struck. Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out that it would be helpful for applicants to know that there was an Applicant Guide, so she said it would be important to add it back in once the Guide is completed, reviewed, and approved. 153,058 — B.SCDistricts Intent (B) Intent Mr. Hardt asked what street- oriented office' meant. Mr. Langworthy explained that most of the time, street orientation refers to retail, window shopping, and the like. He said this is intended to suggest that there can also be a similar kind of environment, only with offices instead. He said the intent was to ensure that even though it was office and not retail, it still needs to have a street presence by having visibility on the street. Mr. Hardt said that street - oriented retail uses were the types that the public would wander in to, so what he took from this was that they were describing an office use that the public would wander in to, like a medical office or a financial advisor. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 13, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 16 Warren Fishman asked if this type of development would be in one specific area of the Corridor Ms. Ray said the BSC Office district is primarily located along S.R. 161, east of the Scioto River. She said the intent throughout the Corridor is to have buildings oriented toward the street, but the point was to have it reference West Dublin- Granville Road, but not have to name all streets in all cases. Mr. Langworthy explained that one of the consultants' comments was to not use so many specific geographic references because we do not always know exactly where the districts might be applied in all cases, since the zoning districts may shift around some in the future. Ms. Kramb referred to the last sentence, The district will accept bui lding types that are consistent with the historic development pattern of the Historic District. She asked if that should be Historic Dublin, which would be consistent with the other references. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that Historic District' would be changed to Historic Dublin.' Mr. Taylor said his comment was for (5) BSC Historic Core and (6) BSC Historic Residential, relating to the scope and the authority of the Architectural Review Board (ARB). He was concerned that in the Bridge Street Code, the ARB's review authority is inconsistent with the review authority of Zoning Code Section 153.172. He said he also noticed that on the Draft Zoning Map, the Historic District included BSC Public, BSC Historic Core, BSC Historic Residential, and part of the BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood, but that did not match the Code text. He asked how that would be reconciled. He noted that the ARB uses the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines, and asked if the duties of the ARB would be changing. He explained that he had previously served on the ARB, and he thought it was special because of the relationships they formed with the residents and merchants in that area. He preferred to see that the ARB maintains complete control over everything in the Historic District. Mr. Langworthy said there would be no change in the Historic District, and the ARB would maintain the same authority under the Bridge Street Code. Mr. Taylor noted that under the Code, the ARB would be constrained by the building type requirements, where before the details were up to them to decide. He said he would prefer to see the ARB continue to have that power. Mr. Langworthy asked that they wait until they get to the Building Types section and see if there is something there that can be done for the building types that apply to the Historic District to address some of Mr. Taylor's concerns. Mr. Taylor said he did not think that would satisfy his concerns. He thought that part of the charm and vitality of the Historic District is a result of the relationship that the ARB has with the Historic District itself in having total control over what happens there in terms of architecture. He said currently, if the ARB members find that a particular project that meets this Code is inconsistent with what they believe the Historic District should be, or vice versa, they would not have any flexibility to make those judgments, except through the appeals process. Mr. Taylor said for the record, he would prefer that this Code exclude the Historic District, perhaps with an exception for buildings fronting on Bridge Street. Mr. Langworthy said that Planning would look at the Code to make sure the ARB has the proper review authority. He noted that the changes really only applies to development in the BSC Historic Core, since the Historic Residential district was left unchanged because that was what they promised the residents. He said the intent of the Code was not to completely restrict the ARB. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 13, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 16 Ms. Kramb pointed out that the word Neighborhood', was not used in the titles of the three neighborhood districts, but it was shown on the Zoning Map. She suggested removing the word neighborhood' from those districts on the map, or adding that to the titles in this section. Mr. Hardt said that each district intent paragraph that they had just reviewed referred to uses listed in Code Section 153.059(8), which is just a reference to Table 153.059 -A, which he thought was confusing. He asked if it could just refer to Table 153.059 -A instead of having a five -word paragraph. 153.059 — Uses (A) General Provisions Mr. Hardt referred to the descriptions of what P, U, and C meant in the table. He asked should there be uses only allowed on the first floor. Ms. Ray said none had been contemplated. 153.059 — Uses (A) General Provisions (6) Existing Uses Ms. Kramb pointed out that paragraph (a) was a run -on sentence that was difficult to read. Mr. Hardt asked about the intent of paragraph (b). Mr. Langworthy said these provisions are intended to be similar to requirements for nonconforming uses, because if a nonconforming use goes away, and a conforming use is established in its place, it cannot be replaced with another nonconforming use. Mr. Langworthy said that Planning was less clear about how to address multi- tenant buildings, because if you deal with them one tenant space at a time, it is a lot more difficult from an administrative perspective than if the uses are addressed per building or per lot. Ms. Kramb referred to the last sentence, This provision shall be app lied separately to each individual building on the lot or parcel. She said she thought that would create a problem in centers like the Bridge Pointe shopping center, which had multiple buildings. She thought it would be easier to apply this regulation to the entire complex. Mr. Langworthy agreed that Planning would think that regulation through a little more because he wanted to check to see how other sites in the Corridor might be affected. He confirmed that the intent as written is per building. He said he was less concerned about multi- tenant buildings than he was about single tenant buildings on lots with multiple buildings. 153.059 — Uses (B) Use Table (Table 153.059 -A: Permitted & Conditional Uses in BSC Districts) Mr. Hardt noted that all the residential uses are obviously permitted in the BSC Residential district, but farther down, basic things like banks, personal services, walk up ATMs, even eating and drinking are not permitted. He said that went back to his earlier comment that if he lived in a "mixed use area," he would want to be able to walk across the street to get a cup of coffee or cash from the ATM. He thought some re- evaluation of the use distribution would be appropriate on the table. Mr. Hardt said that in addition, Park and Rides and Transit Stations are not permitted in the BSC Office Residential district, which he did not understand because every other city clusters residential and office uses around transit. He noted that Parking Structures and Surface Parking Lots are not permitted in the BSC Residential district either. Mr. Langworthy pointed out the distinction between lots that are only used for surface parking lots and parking structures as principal uses, as opposed to accessory parking lots and structures, which are permitted (or conditionally permitted) in the BSC Residential district as long as they are associated with a permitted principal use. He said for example, a multiple - family building could be built with either surface parking or a parking garage incorporated into it. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 13, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 16 Mr. Langworthy said regarding ATMs and other types of commercial uses, the intent is that most of these types of uses will be within a walking distance of the residential areas. They may not be at the front door, but they may be within a walkable distance. Mr. Hardt said he understood in principle what Mr. Langworthy was saying, but if he was living in a condominium building in the BSC Residential district, he would not want to have to walk all the way down to S.R. 161 to get a cup of coffee. Mr. Hardt said this goes back to his earlier comment about uses that might be limited to the first floor of certain buildings. He said he was not suggesting that every use across the board should be allowed in every district, but perhaps certain commercial uses could be conditional uses and reviewed by the Commission on a case by case basis. Mr. Langworthy noted that restaurants and coffee shops are permitted in the BSC Office Residential district, generally located on the north side of Tuller Road. He said that he understood Mr. Hardt's intent, but Planning thought that there ought to be some places in the Corridor that are fairly limited to residential uses to establish a neighborhood character, but make sure that commercial uses are available within a walkable distance, but agreed that Planning would take another look at the table to address Mr. Hardt's comment. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked why Libraries, Museums, and Galleries are not listed as permitted or conditional uses in the BSC Commercial district. She said they did not seem like objectionable uses that we would want to specifically exclude in certain districts. Ms. Ray explained that the parcels designated as BSC Commercial district do not seem as likely to develop with these types of uses, but she saw no reason why those uses could not be added to that district. 153,059 — Uses (C) Use Specific Standards Todd Zimmerman referred to the use specific standard for Live -Work dwellings, which states, Up to two non - resident employees are permitted in addition to the resident(s) of the dwelling. He asked if there was a specific size limit on the live -work units, because if there was a live -work townhouse with 1,500 square feet on the first floor for only up to three employees, that might be too limiting. He asked if it would be possible to regulate the number of employees to square footage instead. Mr. Langworthy explained that the intent was that for uses at that size, the use qualifies more as a principally commercial, and less as a Live -Work unit, and should probably be located in a different, more appropriate building type or zoning district. Mr. Hardt pointed out that the number of people in the Live -Work unit would also have an impact on parking. He said if there were six employees, plus the resident, there may not be enough parking in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Langworthy agreed to look into the best way to regulate the size of the commercial aspect of Live - Work uses. Mr. Taylor asked with reference to the Day Care uses, what landscaping requirements are envisioned to be appropriate, because when he thought of dense, urban areas, he was not sure that an outdoor recreation area surrounded by shrubs and trees would be a great idea, or even feasible. Ms. Ray said that the landscaping requirements were taken directly from the recent Zoning Code update regarding Day Care uses in residential districts and the Suburban Office and Institutional district. She thought that they could limit the landscaping requirements to address more urban conditions. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 13, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 16 Mr. Taylor referred to the use specific standard for Bed and Breakfast uses, and said that the requirement almost matched the definition, and if it was repeated in the definition, it should be eliminated from this section. Ms. Ray explained that regulations cannot be written into definitions, and therefore if the regulation is intended to apply to the use, it would need to be stated in this section. Mr. Hardt pointed out that the requirements for commercial Eating and Drinking facilities include size limitations that state "whichever is smaller," while elsewhere in the Code, the language states "shall not exceed the lesser of." He said he would like to see a consistent use of language for these types of requirements. Mr. Taylor referred to the use specific standards for Vehicle Sales, Rental, and Repair facilities regarding the limitation from locating these uses on corner lots. He recalled a similar discussion in the EAZ Code regarding gas station locations that these facilities could try to locate pretty close to a corner without actually being defined as a corner lot. He suggested a distance requirement instead. Mr. Langworthy agreed to look at revising the requirement. Mr. Hardt noted that the second paragraph beneath Drive -in /Drive- through uses contradicts itself. Ms. Ray stated that Planning had already noted the error, and explained that the intent was that Drive - in /Drive- through facilities should not be permitted to face a Principal Frontage Street, but it could be on the side of a building facing a lower priority street, in which case the screening requirement would apply. She agreed to clarify the language. Mr. Hardt pointed out that the third paragraph was redundant. He said the end of the paragraph after principal structure' should be deleted. Ms. Kramb asked why Accessory Dwelling Units could not be located on upper floors of townhomes. Ms. Ray said she the intent was to prohibit Accessory Dwelling Units in attics, and to make sure that each unit would have a separate entrance. Ms. Kramb said it was unclear, because it suggested that Accessory Dwelling Units could only be located in the basement, and it did not seem to allow that instance where the Acessory Dwelling has its own door on the first floor that could take you up to a second floor unit, which she thought would be fine. She said that as long as there is a separate entrance, it should not matter what floor the Accessory Dwelling Unit is on. Mr. Langworthy said they would look at making the language clearer. Ms. Kramb asked what conducted entirely within the principal dwelling' meant with reference to Home Occupations. Mr. Langworthy said that a business could not be run out of a garage, for example, which would mean that the use was taking on something more characteristic of a commercial area rather than a residential use. Ms. Kramb noted that for Outdoor Dining and Seating, speakers and amplification would be permitted on patios. She recalled that this is a topic that had received a lot discussion in the past. She asked what would happen to the restaurants with patios that have been specifically denied outdoor speakers. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 13, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 16 Mr. Langworthy said that all potential noise would continue to be governed by the Noise Ordinance, so if the noise is offsite, the City would maintain the ability to cite the business for the nuisance. Mr. Hardt asked whether, if this regulation is approved as it is written, the City would be undoing all of those previous conditions, or whether this only would apply to future site redevelopment. Mr. Langworthy explained that it depended on where it was located, but if it was written into a development text for a PUD, the development text requirements would no longer be valid since the Code would govern development on all sites that are rezoned to BSC districts. He said he thought that there will need to be a balance between encouraging activity and liveliness versus creating disturbances, and the reason for making the reference to Chapter 132, the Noise Ordinance, is to address the potential for disturbance. Ms. Kramb said she continued to be concerned about allowing any outdoor dining area to have speakers and amplified sound, because there has been a lot of public comment on this issue, which is particularly concerning if a new process eliminating public involvement is used. Mr. Hardt agreed with Ms. Kramb. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked that the language be reviewed to reflect the Commission's comments. Mr. Hardt asked if the statement, Dining furniture shall be of the same design, material, and color for all furniture associated with the use was intended to be regulated by use, or whether it should refer to each site. He said hypothetically, if two restaurants shared a patio, or even if separate patios for each restaurant were at opposite ends of the same building, the Commission has required the furniture to be consistent in the past, whereas they have not required the same thing in other places. He said he could see it either way, but he wanted to know what the other Commissioners thought. Mr. Zimmerman said he thought the same furniture for the entire building would look best. Mr. Langworthy agreed to review the language. Ms. Kramb noted that for Outdoor Display or Season Sales uses, the regulations stated, Merchandise shall only be displayed during the hours of operation for the principal use. She did not think this would be reasonable for retailers selling Christmas trees, flowers, hay bales, or things of that nature. Mr. Langworthy said this was intended to address sidewalk sales. Ms. Ray said that Zoning Code Section 153.099 deals with the outdoor plant materials that Ms. Kramb is referring to, and that is why the reference to that Section is in the Code. She said the rest of the regulations for this accessory use are intended to address sidewalk sales for books, clothes, etc. Mr. Hardt said that with reference to Renewable Energy Equipment, the first paragraph states that only solar and geothermal energy equipment is permitted, and then the fifth paragraph and the following subsection (k) goes on to talk about wind power. He said that seemed like a conflict. Mr. Taylor noted that these provisions were identical to what was approved for the EAZ, but if the concept for the Bridge Street Corridor was to create a dense, urban district, ground- mounted wind equipment could be up to 40 feet higher than buildings, even if the facility would have to be set back by at least 40 feet from the property line. He said he was concerned with how well the wind equipment would even function, and if it is even appropriate to have the same requirements for this portion of the city. Mr. Hardt recalled that for the EAZ, after much discussion and with some exceptions, they decided that there are so many unknowns about this type of equipment; they felt like wind power equipment just Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 13, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 16 needed to be approved through a conditional use process to look at facilities on a case by case basis. He said he was in favor of requiring conditional uses for all wind power equipment, including ground and building mounted. Ms. Amorose Groomes invited public comment on any section of the code that had been reviewed so far. [There was no one.] 153.066 — Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria Ms. Amorose Groomes introduced the next Code section for discussion, the Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria on pages 102 — 109. She suggested that the Commissioners discuss this section in terms of big picture comments, rather than going section by section. Mr. Zimmerman referred to subsection (E) Applicability. Development Plan and Site Plan, (6) Abandonment. He said these provisions reminded him of the partially built structure on Stoneridge Lane, and asked if there was something tighter that could be written about responsibility for restoring the site to its previous condition. He said that if the owner had abandoned the structure, he assumed they were already bankrupt, so the demolition expenses would presumably come from either a bond posted, or from the City. Jennifer Readier said that abandonments could be problematic, because the implication is that there is not enough money to finish the project or return the site to its original condition. She noted that the City does not currently have provisions like this, and therefore the City has to proceed to take action under nuisance provisions. She said this regulation was another tool that the City can use, but ultimately the owner is responsible for the parcel. Mr. Zimmerman asked if the City could salvage the abandoned material. Ms. Readier explained that could be a possibility. She said that under this provision, the City could clean up the site and then attempt to put a lien on the property to recover the costs. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed with Ms. Readier that this was the best approach to address these types of situations. Ms. Kramb pointed out that in the (6) Abandonment paragraph, it states, Once a final approval is granted by the required reviewing body, if work is not started within one year..the approval shall lapse. She noted that on page 102, in paragraph (13)(5), it states, All Development Plan and Site Plan approvals...shall be valid fora period of two years. She asked for clarification regarding the difference in approval times. Ms. Ray said that Planning would review the provisions and clarify the timing. Mr. Fishman asked about the Pre - Application Review, which is encouraged, but not required. He assumed that developers would still be able to submit an application, follow the Code to the letter, and there would be no way the Commission would be able to make any changes later. He said there should be a Pre - Application process where the applicant could come in with their preliminary plans to ask the Commission if they are heading in the right direction and following the intent of the Code. Mr. Langworthy said that Planning had debated whether to require a mandatory Pre - Application Review. He explained that they had debated whether or not it would be a good idea, particularly for out -of -town applicants who are not used Dublin's process and requirements. He said if the Commission had a preference about mandatory Pre - Application reviews, Planning would not have any issues with making that change. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 13, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 16 Mr. Zimmerman confirmed that Mr. Fishman was suggesting an informal for the Architectural Review Team (ART), and asked if the other Commissioners agreed. Ms. Kramb referred to paragraph (E) Applicability.' Development Plan and Site Plan, (2) Site Plan on page 106, where it states that minor modifications do not require a site plan, regardless of whether it is a new improvement or a modification to an approved site plan. She said that suggested to her that developers would not be required to submit a site plan with minor modification applications. Mr. Langworthy clarified that they would still be required to submit a site plan, but not necessarily require prior approval of a Site Plan application. He said that was similar to the existing process for minor modifications to approved Planned Unit Development Districts, where developers submit a new site plan showing the minor modification, and it is administratively approved. Ms. Kramb asked if the term new improvementwas intended to refer to a modification to an existing site or structure, or if it was intended to be something new entirely. Mr. Langworthy said that it was intended to refer to a modification, and there can be no modifications unless there is something already approved there to modify. Ms. Kramb noted that it was not clear that applicants would be required to submit anything. Mr. Langworthy said that Planning could make the intent clearer. Ms. Kramb referred to the flow charts on pages 106 and 107. She said the graphics seemed to indicate that there will be a public hearing or meeting if the application involves new roads and infrastructure, or if the application goes to the ARB, or if the developer appeals a decision; otherwise, she stated that there would be no public involvement under the Site Plan review process. Mr. Langworthy clarified that anytime an application is reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, Architectural Review Board, or Board of Zoning Appeals, there would be public notice. Ms. Kramb asked if she understood correctly that a Development Plan would only be reviewed by the Commission if the developer appealed an ART decision. Mr. Langworthy said that was correct. [Joe Budde arrived.] Ms. Ray clarified that the graphics could be modified to be easier to understand. Ms. Kramb noted that within ten days of receiving a complete application, a letter would be sent to property owners within 300 feet of that property to inform them when the ARB or Commission is going to meet and when that meeting will be held. She said the applicant will be given at least five days notice before an ART meeting (Section 153.066(8)(3) on page 102). Mr. Langworthy explained that the noticing requirements are similar to the existing requirements. He said that notices were not sent to surrounding property owners for building permits for development in standard zoning districts, applications just go directly to a building permit. Ms. Kramb asked if there would a sign or any other indication that something was proposed on a site. Mr. Langworthy confirmed that there would not, just like the current process in standard zoning districts. He explained that an ART application number would be assigned to the proposal, and the application Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 13, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 16 information would be posted online so anyone could look at the material submitted. He said that would be more than what is done now, because building permits are not posted for public review. Ms. Kramb asked if there was an existing timeframe used now. Ms. Ray said there was a timeframe for the ART to make decisions on applications in the EAZ, but there are no timeframes for applications that are reviewed by the Commission or the ARB. Ms. Kramb stated that if the intent is to speed up the process, she questioned why the ART would have 28 days to make a decision. She said that seemed like a long time. Mr. Langworthy said that 28 days is shorter than the required decision timeframes for building permits. He asked if Ms. Kramb had a suggestion for how long the review timeframe should be. Ms. Kramb said she did not have a suggestion, but she was concerned that if the purpose of this administrative process is to expedite reviews and approvals, the 28 days could add up, particularly if new information needs to be submitted in order for the ART to make a decision, which could add another 28 days. She reiterated that it seemed like it could take a long time. Ms. Ray pointed out that the Code required a maximum of 28 days, so there could feasibly be shorter review periods for simple applications. Ms. Kramb reiterated that she did not like that public involvement was being eliminated. She said if a new Code is being drafted, she thought there should be room for public input, particularly for what goes into public spaces. Mr. Hardt said his general views on this section regarding Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria are well documented. He said he found it difficult to add constructive feedback on text that he fundamentally disagreed with. He said the notion that the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Architectural Review Board would only be involved in development in the district in very limited circumstances, and the notion that the public would not be notified of most development applications are just two aspects that are really uncomfortable for him. He said he put a lot of thought into what they are trying to do here, and he thought he would like to suggest an alternative approach. Mr. Hardt said the first paragraph of this section states that the intent of these regulations is to have predictable and expedited reviews. He said he had been through the process himself as an applicant, and he understood this intent, which he thought was a laudable goal. Mr. Hardt said he tried to think about how he would accomplish this objective if he was an applicant. He said the developers that he has spoken to want predictability more than anything. He said the way the process works now is, an applicant comes in to the City and meets with staff, and they have discussions about the proposal and work through the site plan, building details, and other site details. He said they eventually get to a point where they submit an application, and then Zoning, Landscaping, Engineering, Fire, and all the various entities review the application, which can take about 28 days. He said that a staff report is then issued and the application goes before the Commission. Mr. Hardt said he thought the complaint from the development community is that if there is a hang up at the Commission review, there is the potential that the rug will be pulled out from underneath a project at the eleventh hour after they have already spent thousands of dollars on architecture and engineering fees. Mr. Hardt said this approach is one way to resolve this problem, but it was not one that he is comfortable with, nor did he think that others in the development community would be comfortable with this approach. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 13, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 16 Mr. Hardt suggested that an alternative is to move the Planning and Zoning Commission review to the front end of the process. He said the Commission currently looks at informal applications with a brief presentation of a basic site plan, description of the proposed use, and conceptual. Mr. Hardt suggested a scenario where projects would go before the Commission for a review that is very similar to the informal review process, and at that time, the Commission would take public input to potentially resolve some of the concerns of the Commission or the public. He said this process would allow the development community to leave the informal review knowing whether the use is acceptable, whether the site layout is acceptable, and it would allow them to hear any input or concerns from the public, and they can walk out knowing that the project is acceptable before they invest countless dollars in architecture and engineering fees. Mr. Hardt said that once the developer gets over that hurdle, he thought there could be two possible review tracks. He said one track would require applications to go before the ART and continue to work out the details of the project to ensure that it meets every requirement of the Code. He said that on the other hand, a developer could have an awkward site that may not be able to meet every Code requirement, or perhaps they want to do something truly unique that does not fit neatly within the bounds of the Code. He said that being the case, it seems like they ought to be able to offer the development community, either at their discretion or the City's, the option to go back before the Commission for a subjective review. Mr. Hardt said that it seemed to him that if basic feedback and public input is provided at the front end of the process before a lot of money is invested and then offer two paths for approval, one being a "check box" approval process through the ART and the other being a subjective review by the Commission, we have offered the development community the opportunity two possible routes for approval. Mr. Hardt said that he had talked to colleagues that develop in central Ohio on a regular basis, and they seemed to think that getting an early review would be helpful to alleviate most of their concerns. He suggested that staff may need until the next meeting to think about these suggestions and give the Commission feedback on the possible pitfalls, but he wanted to offer a suggestion for the Commission to consider. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that sounded like a great suggestion, and at least a step toward resolution. She thought there were a host of problems with the approval process as it is currently written, and therefore they need to come up with alternative solutions before the Commission can get comfortable with the Code. Mr. Zimmerman noted that if they are looking for the Commission's stamp of approval somewhere in the process, then the Code should be written as tight as possible with all of the high quality standards. He said that if an applicant came before the Commission for approval, the Commission would also be limited to the Code in their review and approval. Mr. Hardt stated that it was also intended to provide the public an opportunity to have input, which can only happen in a public meeting. Mr. Zimmerman pointed out that they are looking for a different approach in this part of the City. Ms. Kramb stated that she was not opposed to doing things differently, but she was opposed to what has been presented, because she was not convinced that this is the correct change. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she thought it was important to note that it does need to be different, and no one is arguing that point. She thought the issue is with what is efficient,' and whether it is intended to mean fast or good. She asked if efficient' meant that the citizens of our community are satisfied, and that they feel they have been heard. Ms. Amorose Groomes noted that the intent states that the objective is to enhance Dublin's reputation for high quality development, while a/ /owing the Bridge Street Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 13, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 16 Corridor property owners to compete efficiently and effectively for development consistent with the Vision Principles and direction articulated in the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report. She said that assumes that all Bridge Street Corridor property owners think that speed is equal to efficiency. Ms. Amorose Groomes continued that the review and approval procedures and criteria are also intended to ensure that new development and redevelopment is served by adequate and efficient infrastructure so as to not burden the fiscal resource of the City, and generally to protect the health, the safety, and general welfare of its residents, occupants, and users. She said that said to her, the way that the administrative approval process is set up is the City saying to the people, we know what is best, so trust us and we will implement it, which she did not believe was a core value of this community. She thought there was a core value in this community that states that we want to involve the community in the process, let them have a say, and give them the opportunity to take a leadership role in the process. Mr. Fishman agreed with Ms. Amorose Groomes, and stated that he felt the process had worked well in the past. He said the community has put its stamp of approval on most development in the city. He stated that, for example, he remembered that the Lowe's developer said that this store looked nothing like any other store that they have built in the United States, and it was due to community input. He said what bothered him about this process was that it is mandatory. He said they are eliminating the public review process, and therefore development will not have the community's stamp of approval on it. He agreed that public input was important and that it should be mandatory. Mr. Langworthy said that specific suggestions of what the Commissioners are looking for are very helpful, and Mr. Hardt's solution was something that Planning could look at as an option. Ms. Amorose Groomes recalled a discussion about a hybrid committee or board that would call on the strengths of various professionals, particularly for architectural design elements. Mr. Langworthy stated that he had budgeted for architectural consultants to advise the ART. Mr. Taylor said the philosophical point that he wanted to make, and what he was hearing from the other Commissioners, is that they are not suggesting anything that would slow the process down from what is proposed in the draft Code, and in fact it might even help simplify the process. He said he had also heard that the bulk of this Code is great, and that it will be easy to edit later on if necessary. Mr. Taylor said that he sits on three architectural review boards outside of this Commission, and on each one, he has required that they institute a concept review in the beginning. He said that whatever is brought in can be changed, and the idea is to direct applicants and set them on the right track before they spend too much time or money on the project. Mr. Taylor said he had also experienced, particularly in neighborhoods with very complex and detailed codes, that it was easy to create a building that meets the Code in every detail, and still not be a very good building. He said he talked to many people over the last ten years about the Residential Appearance Code in Dublin, which has lofty goals, but often results in mediocre buildings. Mr. Taylor said while that may not be the case here, he thought the point is that there is room in the process for someone that represents the public to review projects with a more aesthetic objective. Mr. Taylor reiterated that from a broad philosophical standpoint, he was extremely uncomfortable with a process that essentially eliminates public input. Mr. Taylor preferred Mr. Hardt's second two -track suggestion, where applicants are offered the opportunity to meet every aspect of the Code and go right through the process, or they can choose to pursue a different route that would still be subject to the same Code requirements, but with another layer of subjectivity so that it could go through something similar to the PUD process. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 13, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 16 Ms. Amorose Groomes said she also liked the two -track approach, with one caveat. She said that, when looking at the proposed Zoning Map, there are areas that are significantly more sensitive to the rest of the community. She said the BSC Indian Run Neighborhood district as it is redeveloped will probably not have the same connection with residents as the BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood district would. She thought one of the triggers could be generated from the public input portion of the meeting, and she liked the idea of having that meeting up front. She said if there was a lot of public input at that meeting that might trigger an application to take a different path so the public can be assured that they were heard, even if not necessarily implemented. Ms. Amorose Groomes thought both tracks on some level should provide for citizen leadership and input. Mr. Langworthy said these suggestions give Planning something to consider. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if Planning had considered other alternatives. Mr. Langworthy said that Planning had explored a series of ideas before this draft. He pointed out that even this draft has changed quite a bit from earlier drafts. He said he really appreciated having specific suggestions about what the Commission would like to see, because it would help Planning think through the implications of what they are proposing while trying to maintain efficiency. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she thought one of the expeditors will be the Code itself. Mr. Langworthy agreed that was the predictability part that would help speed up the process. Ms. Kramb said that with regard to deciding which projects would proceed along which path, she understood some applications would be simple, and would not require the public meetings. She suggested having a checklist with standards to indicate the complexity level of the project and identify which track it should take. She thought public interest should be a big component in determining which path an application should take. Mr. Hardt suggested that the Pre - Application review could help with this, so that Planning could try to ascertain whether there is public interest in a project before the applicant even gets started. Ms. Amorose Groomes was concerned that staff is not necessarily ingrained into the community well enough to make that determination, and that is why it is important to offer a real avenue for input early in the process. Ms. Amorose Groomes referred to (H) Administrative Departures, paragraph (3), and stated that it is unclear to her how the administrative review process is resolved. She noted that it refers to each 'required reviewing body's decision.' She asked about the criteria that each body would use. Mr. Hardt said he had a similar question about this section, because if the ART is not able to come to a determination on a given issue, it is sent to the Commission or the ARB, who can only review the issue based on the same criteria the ART used. He asked if the ART was not able to come to a determination, what makes them think Commission or the ARB can? Mr. Langworthy pointed out that different reviewing bodies can reach different conclusions. He asked the Commissioners if they felt that more criteria would necessary beyond the four listed. Ms. Amorose Groomes said there should be more options, perhaps allowing the applicant to present their case in a new way. She said if everyone looks at the same exact thing from the exact same perspective, with all of the same information, they will most likely reach the same conclusion. She thought there should be more discretion, since that is why applicants seek an appeal. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 13, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 16 Mr. Fishman agreed with Ms. Amorose Groomes, and said he did not want to forget that the Commission was appointed by City Council because they represent the citizens of Dublin. Mr. Hardt said in the scenario he was suggesting, that was exactly what the second parallel process would be for. He said it would allow a developer that says he knows he is in the BSC Residential district, but he thinks it is appropriate to put a small coffee shop in the building even if it is not permitted by the Code. He said the developer should have an avenue to make the case that it makes sense. Mr. Langworthy said there was an avenue for that in the use variance process, which involves a public review. He said that approving additional uses is not something that the ART can do. Mr. Hardt said that the public should be allowed to chime in and the Commission should be able to make that decision based on subjective criteria. Mr. Langworthy said he wanted to be careful because decisions should never be entirely subjective. He said they always have to review applications against a set of criteria because there has to be some expectation on the part of an applicant that if they meet the criteria, they ought to be approved. Mr. Hardt that was the first path he was describing. He said they have the option of complying with every requirement of the Code. Joe Budde referred to page 104 where it described the members of the Administrative Review Team, and asked if it made sense to suggest that either the chair of the Commission or their designee be a member of the ART. Ms. Readier said they had to be careful because the whole concept of having the ART was having it staffed by Directors who have the authority and expertise to make decisions based on objective criteria. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there were other comments or questions. Mr. Langworthy said the discussion was helpful. He said that getting specific ideas was very helpful and allowed Planning to think through the process to address the Commission's concerns. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to comment on the Code. Kevin McCauley, Stavroff Interests, 565 Metro Place South, said he had more questions than comments based on what he had heard from the Commissioners. He said the Stavroffs and other developers he had talked to had envisioned this Code as being a very clear -cut process, meaning if a project met all requirements, it would be approved. He said it was very clear that the Code was very specific and on their end, they believe it to be very one -sided with no room for public comment or the vagueness that exists in the current Zoning Code. Mr. McCauley said he agreed with this idea, but he did not know if he liked everything about the Code. He said if it was his choice, they would rather come back and say that a lot of great groundwork has been laid, and they all want a walkable environment that people will want to visit, but still have the ability to go through the PUD process with some of this on the line. He said he thought the two -track process made sense, but he did not understand why the review would be necessary if they met all the requirements. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she did not know that they would have answers to all of those questions this evening since the discussion was conceptual. She thought the big focus behind that was that every project on some level ought to have an avenue for public participation. She did not think any of the Commissioners knew what that would look like yet, but she thought that was critical to the success of this community. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 13, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 16 Mr. McCauley asked how that would be different from the existing PUD process Mr. Hardt said the idea he suggested was that both processes could exist simultaneously. He explained that he was suggesting that either track would begin with a high level, informal review that allows for public input at the beginning of the process. He said if they get a room full of people who are all concerned about a particular issue, then hypothetically, the applicant could leave the meeting knowing that it is an issue and knowing that they would need to deal with it before designing the project. Mr. McCauley said he appreciated the concept. He said from his perspective, efficiency is related to predictability. He said if he had a use in a building, and he met every Code requirement and could therefore get an approval, that is efficient because it is predictable. He said if another element is added, saying that even if they meet the Code, the public still gets to review and comment on the project, that was fine, because the predictability would still be present. Mr. Taylor said he believed that what Mr. Hardt was talking about was a process that is informal and not regulatory, and if there are comments from the public up front about an issue with some aspect of it, some aspect of it, the public still has their opportunity to provide input, and the developer could choose to address the comments, which he hoped they would do. Ms. Kramb said she could foresee a list of projects that would be exempt from the formal public review process, or could be expedited based on a set of criteria. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she understood Mr. McCauley's concern, but she did not know who should 'win,' either the citizens of the community that have made Dublin what it is, or the developers that want to come in, build something, and leave. She said they knew they needed to get to predictability, and her goal was to have the most predictable process possible without silencing the community. Mr. Taylor said it seemed like Mr. McCauley was having the most difficulty with the initial, up front review. Mr. McCauley said that, assuming his project could meet every Code requirement and go straight to permitting, he would always go that route instead of going through the PUD process, unless there was something new and different not addressed in the Code. He said the Commission review would be a great alternative in that instance. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if Mr. McCauley had ever brought or seen a project come through the public review process that was better when it was finished than when it started. Mr. McCauley said he had, but he had also seen projects that he thought were not better than when they started. He reiterated that he was not against public comment, and most of the time, they had more success than not with public review, but it does not always add something to the project. Mr. McCauley clarified that he was not suggesting that they completely skip the public review process, but that they should choose a predictable approach, and they have historically had the most success with informal reviews. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there were additional comments. [There were none.] She adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m. As approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, September 26, 2011 Minutes of Meeting Mayor Lecklider called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers. Present Council Members: Mayor Lecklider, Vice Mayor Salay, Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, Mr. Gerber, Mr. Keenan and Mr. Reiner. Mrs. Boring was absent (excused). Staff: Ms. Grigsby, Mr. McDaniel, Mr. Smith, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Goodwin, Ms. Ray, Mr. Thurman, Ms. Crandall. Mayor Lecklider stated that the purpose of the meeting is for Council to receive an overview of the Bridge Street Corridor form -based code. Mr. Langworthy stated that the presentation will address the various elements of the Bridge Street Corridor form -based code. It will include many familiar elements — parking, signs, landscaping — but some unfamiliar elements as well. The first part of the discussion will focus on how the streets and buildings relate to the properties. The second part will address building requirements. Streets and Building Orientation Mr. Goodwin stated that he will review how the draft Bridge Street Corridor development code will create the walkable urban form depicted in the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Plan. The slides depict a hypothetical block of residential development that could occur under the Code. The discussion will address requirements concerning street types, street blocks, street frontage or building siting, parking location, and open space. The City's zoning code traditionally divides the City into different districts, each with a different set of permitted and conditional uses. The Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) code does that as well, but it is only one part of the larger strategy of form -based zoning. The BSC code allows for a greater mix of uses within the various districts. Each district is intended to foster a different balance of uses, so that there are different character areas and or neighborhoods. The BSC code contains an emphasis on building types, as it is recognized that streets play an integral role in creating vibrant, walkable places. The BSC code contains a draft street map. It categorizes the different streets, existing and planned, for the BSC industry families, two of which are the primary address streets and the neighborhood address streets. They are similar to the functional classifications used in the Thoroughfare Plan within the existing Community Plan. They do not focus only on the traffic volume function of the streets. They also emphasize that the street is part of the development area, a place where the buildings interact with the public realm, through which people travel via different modes. The primary address streets are a higher level of street, similar to collector streets, which are intended to connect different neighborhoods to provide a higher visibility front door to development within the corridor. The neighborhood address streets do not receive a high volume of traffic; they serve local destinations. A new term within the BSC code is "principal frontage street," which recognizes that certain streets receive priority in establishing a pedestrian - friendly Dublin City Council Study Session September 26, 2011 Page 2 of 6 streetscape. With pedestrian - friendly streets, there are designations concerning how buildings are located in relationship to the street and how vehicle access within the block is permitted. Within the BSC corridor, the various districts have different maximum block sizes. The intent is to ensure that all the blocks in this new street network are walkable with multiple safe crossing points. For example, in the BSC residential district, the maximum block size is 425 feet x 300 feet. A 425 -foot block length is approximately a two - minute walk. Vehicle access into blocks must be through rear alleys, service streets, and private driveways. Blocks cannot be located off the principal frontage streets. For blocks longer than 425 feet, mid -block pedestrian ways are required. Different building types in the BSC residential district include: apartment buildings, single - family attached, and loft buildings. All lots must have street frontage. The Code establishes the concept of a required building zone. Unlike the typical minimum building setback, residential building zone (RBZ) states that the front fagade must be located five to 20 feet from the front property line. The purpose of this is to reinforce the character of the street, and begin to create a street "wall' -- not of continuous buildings per se, but to create a frame for the pedestrian realm — avoiding vast, open areas. Parking cannot be located between the front door and the public sidewalk. The building type requirements establish a minimum distance across the front property line that each building must cover. For instance, with an apartment building, 75 percent of the front property line must have a building fagade. A front courtyard could meet that requirement. Generally, the BSC code requires parking to the side or rear of the buildings. For some commercial areas, parking along the street would be permitted. There would also be vehicular use area landscape requirements appropriate for urban areas. The BSC code contains specific parking landscape requirements, which could include alternative stormwater management as part of the parking lot design. On- street parking is an integral part of the BSC street types. It will provide additional parking, slow vehicle movement, and serve as a barrier between pedestrians and the street. Open Space Requirements in Residential Districts Every dwelling unit is required to provide 200 square feet of open space. Every 50 square feet of commercial development must provide one square foot of open space. All development must contribute to the open space requirements within the BS corridor. An apartment building with 36 dwelling units would therefore require over 1 /10 acre, which would require a pocket park open space. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher noted that the Parks Master Plan did not contemplate requirements for the BS corridor. Mr. Goodwin stated that it would be reviewed to ensure that it provides sufficient spaces in response to the BSC vision plan. Dublin City Council Study Session September 26, 2011 Page 3 of 6 Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she envisions a different type of park within densely created areas. Perhaps the terminology should be updated. For this type of area, it appears to be a landscape engagement with the building. She would not call that a park. Mr. Goodwin responded that the term "pocket park" can mean many different things. In the latest Code version, a pocket plaza for commercial areas is also included. The streetscape treatment can also provide open space. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that initially the concept was to have immediate engagement with open space, even in walking to your car. Mr. Keenan noted that in Savannah, there are many squares surrounded by many types of buildings all around, and that is engaging. The BSC concept is almost the opposite in terms of the engagement with the landscape and the topography. Is the Savannah concept not possible here, due to the economy? Mr. Goodwin stated that there is a limit in the illustration he has provided. What Mr. Keenan describes is actually what this code is intended to achieve. With this illustration, he was attempting to address the relationship of size to the number of dwelling units being developed. Mr. Langworthy stated that the BSC code deals with 1,100 acres in a wide range of environments. There will be a wide range of different spaces within the corridor, beginning at the street and moving on to larger parks. Some of the spaces will be public; some will be private. Mayor Lecklider asked how a private developer would provide a required open space, if the space is not available on his lot. Mr. Goodwin stated that the size and timing of individual developments will have an impact on how open space is provided. Either the developer would need to acquire more land or pay a fee in lieu. The development could therefore occur and the open space would be provided at a later time in coordination with other development. In larger development plans, it is possible to plan that open space earlier in the process. An entire block could potentially become an open space, surrounded by buildings. Mr. Langworthy noted that the Code requires that larger parcels be divided into smaller, walkable blocks. When they subdivide the property, one of the blocks could be set aside as open space. Dublin City Council Study Session September 26, 2011 Page 4 of 6 Building Architectural Requirements Mr. Reiner stated that a developer shared with him a concern that the City was taking a major risk by not establishing an architectural style for this area. He is concerned that the requirements have been written sufficiently tight to achieve a unified look for the area. Ms. Ray stated that she would address the intended form and character of the buildings, and how the Code requirements will ensure the expected Dublin quality is achieved, while at the same time allowing for creativity and diversity on the part of architects. Mixed -Use Buildings A building type permitted in many of the districts in the BSC corridor is the mixed -use building. There are several key requirements of this building type. The BSC form - based code differs from the traditional code in respect to building height. In the BSC code, height is measured by the number of stories per building with specified floor -to- floor heights. A mixed -use building is required to be at least two stories and a maximum of five stories. When a building is located in a high pedestrian activity area, the ground - floor height is permitted to be slightly taller than the other stories to accommodate commercial uses. Because ground -floor commercial uses are anticipated in mixed -use buildings, there must be opportunities for window shopping and other ways to create an interesting pedestrian experience. The BSC code has a ground -story street facade transparency requirement that requires glass to make up at least 70 percent of the area of highest pedestrian visibility, between two and eight feet above the sidewalk. The upper stories have lower transparency requirements due to the more private nature of the uses on those floors, such as office or residential. A minimum of 30 percent transparency is required. The Code prohibits large expanses of blank building facades. The required building mass is broken down in order to provide comfort to the pedestrians. In addition, vertical facade divisions are required a minimum of every 45 feet along the building facade. That is achieved through recesses and projections a minimum of 18 inches along the facade. The height of the building appearance is brought down by requiring a more horizontal facade division, which can also be created by recesses and projections, or a cornice or brick course at the top of the ground story. The roof planes are divided to coordinate with the vertical facade divisions. Entrances to the buildings are required along the principal frontage street. This will help achieve the active, vibrant streetscape desired. Certain architectural features on building entrances are also required to provide emphasis. In summary, very specific architectural elements are required to help ensure that buildings are constructed with careful detailing and scaled to the pedestrian level. That is a fundamental element of the form -based code — bringing the mass of the building down to a pedestrian scale. Building Materials and Windows Another critical element to the pedestrian environment is building material. The buildings are meant to be experienced "up close and personal' and therefore, high Dublin City Council Study Session September 26, 2011 Page 5 of 6 quality materials are necessary. The BSC code requires that at least 80 percent of the building be made up of primary building materials, specific for each building type. Up to 20 percent may be of a secondary material, which will allow accents to give a building character. Windows are also critical to have buildings of enduring quality and character. In residential buildings, flush- mounted windows will be prohibited. This will create shadow lines that help to depict depth and thickness to the buildings, giving an impression of both age and endurance. The overall design parameters for the Bridge Street Corridor buildings are intended to create buildings of the lasting, high - quality character that is expected in Dublin, but also allow design flexibility for architects to create buildings that are interesting. Mr. Gerber stated that during planned development reviews, Dublin has traditionally asked one final question: "Does the building aesthetically fit with the surrounding area ?" Will there be that type of "catch all" provision in the BSC code? Mr. Langworthy that the review criteria for the site plan and development plan provide for taking in account the surrounding environment. In regard to Mr. Reiner's comment concerning an architectural theme — none has been defined. There are 1,100 acres and a wide range of activities throughout this corridor. It may be that themes are developed along the way in different subareas of the corridor. For example, the Historic Dublin theme is not desired throughout the entire corridor. It is important that a building fit within the environment of its subarea, not the entire corridor. At this point, the design details appear specific, yet there are many ways in which to accomplish them. A uniform look is not desired throughout the entire corridor. Mayor Lecklider agreed that unique areas -- not the same from block to block -- are much more interesting. Mr. Langworthy stated that the BSC code also provides the ability for the Administrative Review Team (ART) to have architectural consultants. This will provide staff an outside viewpoint on how one style of architecture fits with another and how to create statements in different locations. Mayor Lecklider stated that the Short North provides an attractive visual example of architectural variety from block to block. Mr. Reiner stated that he recently returned from Europe, where he had an opportunity to tour approximately 20 neighborhoods -- some by bus, some by foot. They were interesting, built in different time periods with different architectural styles. He noticed that, although there were variations in architecture, all the neighborhoods were tied together with street trees. Dublin City Council Study Session September 26, 2011 Page 6 of 6 Mr. Langworthy responded that the streets will be included in the design process, along with the lots, blocks and buildings. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she is familiar with the building in Grandview that was provided in the presentation as a visual example. However, there is also a building on Tremont in Upper Arlington that she finds overpowering when driving by, and assumes that it is particularly overpowering for passing pedestrians. What is provided in the BSC code that will prevent that type of building design? Ms. Ray responded that the second building she references is residential condominiums and it stands out in stark relief next to adjacent single - family buildings. In the BSC area, building heights within the same district must have a relationship to one another, particularly if there is an adjacent development that is not within the BSC. Much of the BSC corridor is constructed near I -270, but there will be some instances in which there will be a non - Bridge Street Corridor lot next to a Bridge Street Corridor lot. The height requirements in the code will help address those situations. Mr. Keenan asked about the setback on the building on Tremont in Upper Arlington, which was mentioned. It seems to be much less than that of the Grandview building -- perhaps that is the problem. Ms. Ray stated that one building also has landscaping along the frontage. The building on Tremont does not have much transparency along the ground floor. Having transparency and breaking up the mass of a building make it more comfortable to pedestrians. Mayor Lecklider thanked staff for the presentation. The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Clerk of Council CITY OF DUBLIN- Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone/ TDD: 614 - 410 -4600 Fax: 614- 410 -4747 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us RECORD OF SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the following at this meeting: 2. Bridge Street Corridor Vision Plan Character District Elements Informal Discussion RESULT: Planning presented an update on the special features and critical development characteristics within the seven character districts of the Bridge Street Corridor which have been identified over the last several months by City Council, Board and Commission members, and staff. The Planning and Zoning Commission had an informal discussion regarding the various topics and challenges provided, which included development, land use connections, architectural, transportation, street, open space, aesthetics, and environmental characteristics. STAFF CERTIFICATION S�- Steve Langworthy Director of Planning PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 15, 2011 — Minutes Page 1 of 13 1. Bridge Street Corridor Vision Plan Character District Elements Informal Discussion Chair Amorose Groomes introduced the Bridge Street Corridor informal discussion regarding the special features and critical development characteristics desired within the Bridge Street Corridor which include development, land use connections, architectural, transportation, and street, open space, aesthetics and environmental characteristics. Steve Langworthy explained the Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) has been divided through the Vision Plan into Corridor Character Districts. He said since the Vision Report came out, there have been various meetings, open houses, discussions with property owners, Joint Work Sessions with City Council, and discussions at the Commission meetings and at City Council meetings about various aspects of the corridor. He said the results of these meetings and discussions have been organized by each of the character districts. He said tonight he would describe some of the major elements within each of the districts. Mr. Langworthy said at the end of this discussion, that he would provide the Commissioners with information to study for another discussion later. Mr. Langworthy highlighted a few of the major character elements of the districts. Character District 1: Bridge Street Gateway District Mr. Langworthy presented a map showing this area. He said issues described for this district were the natural and aesthetic character of the Indian Run. He said one of the major elements is the greenway connections across the OCLC property. He explained there had been discussions with OCLC before the Vision Report about greenway connections across their property and they have been amenable to it. He said staff has been working with OCLC in their planning efforts to incorporate the greenway connections along that portion of the Indian Run. Mr. Langworthy said another important element was how to transition from a purely suburban character to more of an urban character. Mr. Langworthy said from the beginning there has been the concept of how to transition from the highway traffic speed element down into the pedestrian -scale environment into Historic Dublin. He said this district begins the transition out of that character into the other. He said we need to be careful how the street is designed and how the buildings are built up to the street and how we begin to transition that character. Mr. Langworthy said the other part of it is the redevelopment of Post Road. He said as it exists, it has some inconveniently shaped properties affected by the Corridor Stream Protection Zone of the Indian Run. Mr. Langworthy said the planning challenges are: is Post Road going to be realigned and how to cross the Indian Run. He said there are multiple options. He said the biggest problem is the resolution of the Frantz Road and Post Road /Bridge Street intersections. He said if Post Road were aligned north of the Indian Run, then it opens up the properties and provides the area with more cohesive development potential. Mr. Langworthy said the relationship of Post Road to the Indian Run is important both in the crossing and how development backs up to and how we use the Indian Run. He reiterated the biggest issue is the resolution of the Frantz Road /Bridge Street intersection with the left hand movement from Metro Center and Blazer Parkway offices getting to I -270. Mr. Langworthy said numerous options for solutions have been discussed, and the redesign of the I -270 interchange also has an impact. Character District 2: Indian Run Mr. Langworthy explained the same issues exist in the Indian Run District regarding how to treat the natural and aesthetic character of the Indian Run as in the previous Bridge Street Gateway District. He said there are green way connections, working with OCLC, the existing greenway along the Indian Run, and greenway corridor along I -270. Mr. Langworthy said another important aspect is how or do we connect, and how to get from one district to the other, such as how to get out of the Gateway Bridge Street District into the Indian Run District, then out of the Indian Run into the next district. He said OCLC and the Vision Plan show a connection across the Indian Run to connect with areas through Historic Dublin and the anticipated gridded street. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 15, 2011 — Minutes Page 2 of 13 Mr. Langworthy said the high visibility areas along I -270 and the uses are another aspect to consider for this District. He said existing corporate entities such as Cardinal Health anticipate building significant structures. Mr. Langworthy said the planning challenges are how a highly- urbanized character transitions out into a quaint' historic character and how the residential areas are maintained. He mentioned the Post Road realignment and the Indian Run crossing continue to be a challenge in this District. Mr. Langworthy said fiscal analysis is another important factor and becomes a very delicate balance between what the City and what the developers need to do and how it gets paid for when it comes to structures, parking, bridges, roads, and utilities. He said fiscal analysis is mentioned multiple times throughout the presentation and should be completed shortly to provide a better idea of how the larger capital improvements are funded and by whom. Character District 3: Historic District Mr. Langworthy said transitioning from the modern into the Historic District and integrating new development that complements the existing Historic Core is important. He said if at any time the school site should choose to be available for redevelopment, the question is how do we transition from and utilize the street pattern and the building pattern that exists in Historic Dublin from the school site to the Indian Run District. He said the pedestrian environment also needs to be improved. He said a big issue was how we do cross Bridge Street, as it is seen as a psychological barrier within the Historic District. He said improvements have begun. Mr. Langworthy said another important aspect is civic space and how new civic space is integrated in Historic Dublin to complement existing uses and activities. Mr. Langworthy said access to the Scioto River is needed. He said it has to be determined what is meant by access,' because at different points it will likely mean different things. He said some areas of the river are inaccessible due to cliffs and topography. Mr. Langworthy said some of the challenges were locations of pedestrian /vehicle crossings and how they will function and work. He said that was also very important in the parking situation in Historic Dublin and where people can park and walk to their destination. Character District 4 Riverside District Mr. Langworthy said the greenways and civic spaces that were shown are more organized because they have to be constructed' and planned since the natural features that occur like in Indian Run do not exist. Mr. Langworthy said regarding connectivity across the Scioto River, in the Nelson /Nygaard study, four new bridges were offered, but realistically four were probably not needed, but it was likely that at least one and maybe two would be needed. He indicated on a map where a new bridge could be built and where a pedestrian connection could logically be located. Mr. Langworthy said in this district, they will be transitioning from office to residential and residential - related uses. Dana McDaniel reiterated the Nelson /Nygaard model determined one bridge would be sufficient, but additional bridge(s) would create better connections. He said the additional crossings are beneficial, but not a requirement to make the system work. Mr. McDaniel said the City would reserve the right to provide additional crossings if and when opportunities present themselves. Amy Kramb asked for clarification about the areas and connections included in the traffic analysis. Mr. Langworthy explained the Nelson /Nygaard study assumes 40 percent of the trips would be captured within the Bridge Street Corridor by either transit trips or inner - district trips within the Corridor, not move outside the Corridor. He said the results show the City could function with one bridge because 40 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 15, 2011 — Minutes Page 3 of 13 percent of the pedestrian, bike, or transit traffic is captured, which significantly reduces the need for new bridges. He pointed out that during the interim period, until you reach the 40 percent capture, it creates a potential problem and may require additional bridges and connections to accommodate the increased traffic. Ms. Kramb asked for the level of service from Dale Drive to SR 161 with the added connections. Mr. Langworthy said he would have to check the available data. He said it actually worked better to have the cross streets because it diffuses traffic and all the traffic is not concentrated on one or two streets. Mr. McDaniel recalled in Nelson /Nygaard's presentation, the data and modeling were shown validating Mr. Langworthy's description. He said Ms. Kramb could meet also with Jeannie Willis to discuss the model. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that traffic movement in this corridor was different than what the city is used to doing. He said it takes a while to get through the corridor and depending on the level and type of development, some of these streets will you will not be traveling 35 mph. He said it was an urban environment as opposed to the suburban model that we are used to having. He said it would be a different character that will look, feel, and drive differently. Mr. Langworthy said the development relationship with the Scioto River was also important. He said that we will look at what happens to Riverside Drive, what the character of it is, whether or not it is relocated to capture additional green space along the river. He said another key element was the intersection of Riverside Drive and SR 161 and how it gets reconfigured. Warren Fishman asked if staff were going to gain input from Dublin residents about the different traffic patterns and congestion. Mr. Langworthy said the feedback received from the open houses and workshops is residents are interested in seeing this kind of development in this corridor. He said there was a clear understanding that it is going to be a different part of Dublin. He pointed out they were not only planning for residents today, but the generation of people who want to live here 10 -30 years in the future and the kind of living environment they will want as well. He said residents will still have a suburban choice like Muirfield or Ballantrae. He said the Bridge Street Corridor was only 6 percent of Dublin and the other 94 percent of Dublin will be as it is today, unless a future Council decides to do something different. Mr. Fishman said everyone will be affected who drives SR 161. He said he heard at those public meetings people are stressed about existing parking and traffic in Historic Dublin, but he thought it was wonderful. He said at meetings he is often asked why it is so congested and when is there going to be a parking garage. Mr. Fishman said he wondered what kind of feedback they were getting from the Dublin residents. Mr. McDaniel said the challenge with Historic Dublin has been they are trying to retrofit an existing area with a number of constraints. He said the City continues adding parking and working toward solutions within the District. He said when making an investment like a parking garage, we want to make sure it is done in the right place. Mr. McDaniel pointed out when you look at the Bridge Street Corridor as a whole you have a greater opportunity to address more situations than you do when you look at Historic Dublin on an individual basis. John Hardt said he did not agree with everything the consultants had done, but one thing he did agree was that a dense street grid as shown does not equate to congestion. He said it provides distribution. He said the cars get spread over multiple smaller streets instead of one major street. Mr. Langworthy agreed and said it would be a higher density of traffic because there would be a higher density of use, but the proposed grid gives multiple streets to reach the same destination. Mr. Hardt said in that philosophy, count him as one that believes all the bridges are needed, and that is why. He said he was not sure that he subscribed to the fact that one bridge was enough if you have the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 15, 2011 — Minutes Page 4 of 13 proposed development on both sides of the river and then everyone gets put through a funnel to cross the river. Mr. Fishman said he agreed with Mr. Hardt. He said he liked the additional connections, but he was asking is this what Dublin residents want. Mr. Hardt said in Woodlands, Texas they have a manmade canal running through the commercial area with restaurants, bars, and condominiums on both sides, and a span of the canal has six bridge crossings. He said he visited it and there is a certain feel to it he thought the City would like to achieve. He said if you are walking around and you see a restaurant on the other side of the canal, getting across the canal is easy and you do not think twice about it. Mr. Hardt said to get the kind of environment that we are after, that is what we have to have. Todd Zimmerman mentioned a similar span in San Antonio at the River Walk. Character District S. Dublin- Granui0e Road Mr. Langworthy said Dublin- Granville Road to him is probably the most challenging area. He said establishing the gridded street network is almost entirely new and they have to work around existing development. He said the Greystone Mews development complicates how a gridded street system is established because it interrupts the grid and it is too new to think it is going to go anywhere soon. He said the gridded street system is going to be a difficult factor, but it is one we can work through. Mr. Langworthy said this area has office development and will have commercial anchors. He said there is a commercial node at the other end at SR 161 and Sawmill Road. Mr. Langworthy said this area has been discussed more than any other single area in the District. He said there is a lot of exciting redevelopment potential in this area. Ms. Amorose Groomes expressed concern about the predictions the consultants make regarding how successful the development of this corridor is going to be and the pent -up demand. She said she did not know and she is concerned that the consultants are equally as likely to be correct than wrong. She asked if we were trying to do too big of an area all at once rather than to do from just east of Riverside Drive to I -270 and if it is wildly successful then expand to the larger area. Mr. Langworthy said it was a fair point. He said one of the things to be remembered is this corridor will be market - driven. Ms. Amorose Groomes said imposing a new code on our residents may be viewed as an imposition. She said she was wondering if we are going to be as successful as the consultants think and if that is the case she would think a line would be forming outside the door, knocking wanting to come in and develop. She said that doesn't seem to be the case. Mr. McDaniel said he had spoken to quite a few owners and there are some who are unsure about how the proposed code impacts the significant investments they have in their existing property. He said therefore, when we began talking about the rezoning and the code, they got nervous, because they are concerned about their future and how the proposed changes may impact the success of their businesses. He said the key became how can we bridge you to the future and provide an opportunity to redevelop or change in the future if they desire it. He said we have talked to companies about what they desire in the future, without saying anything to them about Bridge Street, and the concepts they want are everything the Bridge Street Corridor offers. He said these businesses want to be able to have a campus that recruits and retains the next generation worker. He said so much so, that they are willing to leave an existing campus to create a whole new dynamic environment. Mr. McDaniel said that he found in talking to residential builders, they were very excited about the opportunity. He said there is truly pent up demand that has wanted to be in Dublin for a long time. Mr. McDaniel said there was a study validating the residential piece, which states retail and commercial will Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 15, 2011 — Minutes Page 5 of 13 come slower because of the market. He said if we get the residential, the other uses will follow, meaning residential may have to take the lead to make this successful. Ms. Kramb asked if big places like OCLC, Dublin Village Center, and Wendy's would prefer this new Code over a PUD. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the people she had talked to wanted to be part of the PUD process and come to the table to work through the process. Ms. Kramb asked what makes the Code better or more encouraging to those people rather than the PUD process. Mr. McDaniel said predictability and speed are all he ever hears from site consultants or developers. He said they liked the concept of the Code for predictability purposes. He said there were companies who have an existing PUD they fought hard for and got approved and they would like to stay with that model. He said however, there are others who would like the option to have the Bridge Street Code process. Mr. McDaniel said it was a mixed bag. He said he has heard both, but he thought the ones that wanted to advocate for a PUD are the ones that already have it and do not want to lose their approved text and plans. Ms. Kramb said developers are familiar with the PUD process and to them it was not cumbersome and to them it is predictable. She said this new Code is not predictable. Mr. Hardt said at the Open Space Workshop there was a lot of discussion and an amazing amount of consensus about people interested in the possibility of relocating Riverside Drive. He said he understood there were political and financial implications, but the over - riding concept he thought most people had in their minds was the notion of creating a large public gathering space, a green space, a park along the river. He said he was among those that thought this was an obvious solution. Mr. Hardt said since then, it occurred to him that one of the challenges they have been struggling with in the BSC and the City in is how to make the river an amenity and something to draw people to rather than an obstacle that is to be overcome. He said one of the ways to do that is by making that small section of riverfront between SR 161 and I -270 special by making it a gathering place that you cannot find anywhere else in the near area. He said he realized there is green space all the way from Griggs Reservoir up to SR 42, and one possibility for this small piece would be to do a 180 degree opposite of what has been discussed, and that is build it — build down to the waterfront, put restaurants, shops, patios, and things like that down on the river and draw people to it that way. Mr. Hardt asked if that had been thought about. Mr. Langworthy said three different options and two variations of one of them have been discussed. He said one option, 'the development option' where we have more or less of promenade with development which would be kind of the Greenville model, which meant not too much would need to be done with Riverside Drive. Mr. Langworthy said the second option is what was shown on the screen, which was to capture the larger green area. He said some of the details were on the handout. He said our pedestrian bridge, making both landing points attractive so that people would cross the river and have something on the other side that would be attractive. Mr. Langworthy said a variation in the larger green space is to do both, development and green space with a dog park, an event field, or an amphitheater. He said they have calculated on the alignment of up to seven football fields worth of area available there. He said they are looking at all those options, and the development option is one that they are studying. Mr. Hardt said the development option is becoming more intriguing to him the more he thinks about it. He said as nice as green space is, we have a lot of it, and dog parks and all those kinds of things and amphitheatres exist or can exist in other parts of the City, including Coffman Park. He said if the goal is for something truly unique, he thought most Dublin residents would enjoy being able to sit on a patio and Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 15, 2011 — Minutes Page 6 of 13 have a drink on the riverfront, as opposed to in a building that just happens to be in the vicinity of the river. Mr. Langworthy said those were options they have to provide City Council to review and decide. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked Mr. Langworthy to continue his presentation. Mr. Langworthy said with the development that could eventually take place in this district, one of the things we are looking at is the different varieties of open space. He said we tend to think of open space as parks and big green areas, but open spaces are also plazas and squares, and places where pedestrians sit, walk, and communicate. He said all of those options will be available in this district from green space down to the small spaces that are more intimate in nature. He said challenges include a huge power line easement that divides the area that we will have to use some creative solutions. Mr. McDaniel said he would like to hear the Commission's thoughts on the greenways, green spaces connections because he thought he heard there is not enough green space in this plan. He said when he saw the plans there was a lot of green and he wanted to be sure he heard and understood the Commission's concerns. Ms. Amorose Groomes said there was no argument they want good pedestrian, bicycle and automotive connectivity. She said when Mr. McDaniel heard the Commissioners say a green space — they probably are misspeaking and they probably would be better served to use the term public space.' She said it had been amazing to see since Mezzo has opened, the number of people standing on the corner. She said the corner is not a desirable corner because it was busy, loud, and hard with no green buffering, or trees on the street. She said if it was a more desirable location imagine how many people would be there. Ms. Kramb agreed and added the word useable' in front of public space because on many of the maps there is green fluffy areas that will never be used, such as a detention pond. She said she did not want to see green visual connections. She said she wanted a few key usable public spaces. Mr. Langworthy agreed. Mr. McDaniel thanked Ms. Kramb for her comment. Mr. Hardt said his comments at the Joint Work Session were misunderstood. He said the reaction from consultants was to give an example of Dublin Village Center when it is redeveloped perhaps there might be some town square or some kind of element as part of that redevelopment, and they argued that the developers ought to have the latitude to be able to figure out that goes and how it fits into their development. Mr. Hardt said he agreed with that. He said it was never his intent in the comments he made here or in the Joint Work Session to imply they should try to micro manage the location of every speck of green. Mr. Hardt said what he was after and he thought was missing from the overall effort was the large public spaces that are going to be actively used by the City for community events and public gathering spaces. He said it was important for the City to identify desirable locations for those and put a stake in the ground early. Ms. Amorose Groomes said they should believe in themselves enough to go out there and get it. She said the Nelson /Nygaard representative opened his comments for the evening talking about the great public spaces in the world and how the cities went out and made the places happen. She said he closed the meeting telling them that they should not do that, and that was really confusing to her. Mr. McDaniel said his interpretation of the comments were if the City has a great amenity or locations, like the riverfront, that opportunity could slip through our hands very quickly. He said those opportunities were far and few in between, and you have to grab them when we are able, and the City has done a great job of grabbing those opportunities for generations. He said he did not see us doing anything any different with the Bridge Street Corridor. Mr. McDaniel suggested if they had an idea of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 15, 2011 — Minutes Page 7 of 13 where those opportunities are, to circle a map and give it to the staff. He wanted to make sure the staff was hearing and capturing it. Mr. Hardt said part of the criticism is the Open Space Workshop resulted in all these ideas, and subsequent to this, the Vision Plan Map has not been amended. He said he had asked for a version 2.0 of the map because collectively, they have learned a lot since the Vision was published. He said there have been a lot of conversations and input from the Open Space Workshop and other conversations that should be included. He said he thought the time was right to take all that collective wisdom and put it into a new version of the map so it reflects the thoughts and conversations that have happened. He said that was part of the reason for the Commission's reaction, is they see all these ideas that came out of the conversations in March of this year, yet they still have a year -old map that does not reflect these ideas. Mr. McDaniel said we are trying to get there. Character District 6: TuiierlGreenway District Mr. Langworthy said this district is primarily residential in nature and where we expect a large part of the residential development to take place. He said we want to make sure that there are clear, well- defined neighborhoods that are not isolated. He said we want them to have connections to each, either through green space, pedestrian, or some other way so the neighborhoods do not develop in an isolated manner and turn their backs on each other. He said that is one of the aspects the Code requires, as well. He said this area would be concentrated for a lot of the high density residential, 35 to 40 units per acre. Mr. Hardt said this subarea is primarily residential, and immediately north of this area on the other side of I -270 is a planned extension of Emerald Parkway that presumably will have major office buildings and major employers. He said having a dense residential area and major employers and no way to get from one side to the other seemed short- sided. Mr. Hardt said he was asking for an arrow on the map showing that the City wanted to see a connection happen when the area develops. He said this would ensure developers know it was thought about and planned, and should be incorporated when development happens, as opposed to getting ourselves in a situation where we decide 20 years later this connection would be beneficial and have to retroactively account for it and construct it. Mr. McDaniel said he loved the idea because as he has been marketing properties along Emerald Phase VIII he discusses the great potential of the livability and walkability within the Bridge Street Corridor, and Mr. Hardt suggestion would add to the vision. He agreed drawing an arrow or a cloud showing a future connection was appropriate. He said he agreed with Mr. Hardt 100 percent. Mr. Hardt explained he had the same concerns regarding crossing the river because possible connections are shown and he was not sure it was actually possible to build those connections. He said they collectively need to think through what we would like to see happen in the future so opportunities are not missed. Mr. Langworthy agreed. He said they investigated the ODOT rules for a connection in the area Emerald Parkway, Phase 8 and ODOT does not care as long as the City does not want an exit ramp and is not affecting I -270 traffic. He said the only hesitancy he had was that City Council was pretty clear about staying within the defined boundaries for the Bridge Street Corridor. Mr. Langworthy said he thought if they had some support for it from the Commission or others this connection could be shown. Mr. Hardt said at least 50 percent of his criticism' for lack of a better word, is coming up with this amazing plan for the Bridge Street Corridor and stopping at the boundary and not thinking about how it connects to the rest of the City. He said that approach does not do the city any good. He said if we do not have a way to get from the neighborhoods into and out of this corridor, let alone move around in the zone in the Corridor, all the plans will be for naught. Mr. Langworthy agreed with Mr. Hardt's point. Mr. McDaniel said he could not agree more Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 15, 2011 — Minutes Page 8 of 13 Mr. Langworthy said the development character in these areas against I -270 is constrained and we have to be aware how that development character works, because it is another area of high visibility. He said the other aspect that is important in coming out of this district and through the Riverside District is how it crosses the river. He said the character is affected by the bridge crossings because, as Mr. Hardt mentioned earlier, the bridges become the funnels, and impact traffic movements. He said the number of bridge crossings has a big affect on the character of the roadways and the types of roads and streets used through the area. Mr. Langworthy said defining the neighborhoods without isolating them is a planning challenge for this district, as well as, continuing the grid street network, and providing connections to the east are two more important aspects. Character District 7 — Sawmill District Mr. Langworthy said in this district, he would like to see the name, Dublin Village Center stop being used because he thought it had a bad connotation. He said the issue in this district is going to be creating the blocks and lot connections we need, both with the street connections and the open space connections. He said the open space connections will probably shift to more of a greenway down to hardscape and then integrate themselves into the development that occurs in the Sawmill District. He said they expect this area to be an urban core with a high density of uses. Mr. Langworthy presented an early view of a drawing provided by the Stavroffs about how they expect development to occur. He said they have been studying it with the Stavroffs as to how we can make it work. He said they began to put the block and lot descriptions that more or less came close to what the code requires. Mr. Langworthy said they expect this to be an area of a more contemporary design, different looking than the buildings they've seen in the past. He said one of the planning challenging efforts is balancing a hardscape and greenscape. He said the developer has been looking at the potential of a long greenway boulevard running through the center. He said other challenges include how Dublin Village Center relates to the other districts, how they get connectivity into and out of the district, and connections into and traffic through this area. Character District 8 — Scioto River Mr. Langworthy said they previously discussed the park area along Riverside Drive and how it might occur. He said they were also very concerned about making sure they protect the existing neighborhoods, such as the Indian Run Estates. He said preserving the unique character of the Scioto River is important and determining what access' means, and what are we going to do for connectivity across the river needs to be decided, such as what we are going to do for bridges, pedestrian crossings. He said the questions are how we are going to integrate the river and use it to connect the two sides, instead of using it as a barrier. Mr. Langworthy said as we talked about earlier the number and location of the bridge connections, how the park is programmed, whether it is a developed area or a green space; how it is programmed, and the public contribution are key components. Mr. Langworthy said this was a list of overriding issues that begin to paint a picture of ideas and challenges within the Corridor, which is important because it helps define how we connect and transition between the various districts so they do not appear to be separate, but are blended to work together and appear as one. Mr. Langworthy it could be done by using the greenway connections throughout the Corridor. He said how they program the open space and the character and variety of those open spaces are important. He said even the small intimate squares are just as valuable as an event field. Mr. Langworthy said sensitivity to our river and natural features such as the Indian Run, how we get the transportation network alignment in place, what we going to do and how are we going to contribute to Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 15, 2011 — Minutes Page 9 of 13 making this corridor a success and be fiscally responsible at the same time are major themes and challenges. Mr. McDaniel said tonight's presentation was meant to reaffirm the issues that have been identified throughout the Bridge Street Corridor process. He said we looked at how the connections between these districts take place, the greenway connections, the open space character and programming. Mr. McDaniel said we are sensitive to river's natural features and how you interact with the river corridor so it is an amenity and draws people to it. He said he gave staff the challenge to take a hard look at Greenville as an example and how they have positioned commercial, relative to the river. Mr. McDaniel said regarding the transportation alignment, the grid has been laid out and modeled. He said the consultants identified several key public contributions we would need to make for infrastructure. Mr. McDaniel said he wanted to make sure they were not leaving the Commission with the feeling that there are more questions than answers. He said it was the opposite, in that we have a lot more answers than questions. Mr. Hardt said using the river as an example, there are a couple of different scenarios being explored for how the riverfront might be developed and as those are being evaluated, presumably the City's collective wisdom will land on a preferred option. He asked where in all of this does that get decided. He asked where is it documented and how does it fit. Mr. Hardt said the only thing that they have gotten to look at is a Code, which tells him what the building needs to look like that is built across the street. He asked how the City's overall intentions were laid out, who is participating, and how does that process work in terms of figuring out what the best of those options are. Mr. McDaniel explained when the City expresses and interest in purchasing any tract of land, there is a process to interact with City Council and get their guidance or direction to secure an interest and enter into discussions with the landholder to determine a way to acquire a particular property. Amy Kramb said she appreciated the summary before Mr. Hardt's question because as they were watching the presentation, 99 percent of it the Commission had seen, many times. She said she would be interested in hearing the next steps, such as list of the improvements the staff is moving toward. Ms. Kramb asked what the next step might be. She asked if the vision plan would be revised to show the issues and challenges identified during the presentation. She asked what was being asked of the Commission. Mr. Langworthy explained this is an evolving process. He distributed the detailed version that the summary was based on to the Commissioners. He said he wanted them to look at the list and compare it to the Vision Plan and identify anything they think was missed. He stated Planning wanted to ensure all the issues have been identified if the Version 2.0 process happens. He requested the Commissioners make notes and provide them to Planning. Mr. McDaniel said he and Planning understood the direction from City Council at the Joint Work Session to include three main items. He said the first item was to continue to review the Code and get to a final draft. He said the second item was to garner more feedback or insight into these districts, which includes drilling down into the districts, which may include open houses or another joint work session. He said the third item of direction was to define the role of the Commission relative to the Bridge Street Code. Mr. McDaniel said this presentation tonight was an attempt to keep the dialog going with the Commission on his second point, which was these districts. Mr. McDaniel said he it was incumbent upon the Commission and staff to move forward and continue feeding solutions and ideas back to City Council. Ms. Kramb asked if Mr. McDaniel envisioned taking this gigantic list and coming up with the top five things that the City is actually going to do to move this forward, or were they just going to keep compiling lists of what they want to do. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 15, 2011 — Minutes Page 10 of 13 Mr. McDaniel said staff was asking the Commission whether there were other issues or topics that have not been covered regarding the districts, or whether the Commission was done and had no more input to provide regarding the districts, and the detailed list included what they would like to see in the districts. He said staff kept raising the issue because they have to get this to fruition and make sure that they have everyone's final say. Mr. McDaniel said that was what they need to start driving towards. Ms. Kramb asked what would be the next step. Mr. Langworthy said whether or not they do a Version 2.0, the issues and challenges provided will be used in our discussions with the individual property owners about what we are looking for when development is considered in a particular area. He said staff wanted to make sure they have a complete list of all the things the Commission and City Council feel important so they can go to the development community and lay out the items in front of them and say these are the things we are looking for when you consider your private development. Mr. McDaniel said Version 2.0 could drive towards that end, so if they needed to come back to the Commission with a multiple versions to get to 2.0, they will keep bringing that back to the Commission so we can collectively take Version 2.0 back to City Council and tell them we have done what was asked and this is the vision. Ms. Kramb said she thought was necessary. She said a new, more detailed vision plan is necessary to show the work that has been done, because the new Code will reference the Vision Plan, and we do not have a revised Vision Plan to support it. She clarified she was talking about the map within the Vision Plan. Mr. McDaniel said it seemed productive to take a map of each district and identity the critical items in each district. Richard Taylor said they had been there. He said it had been three years and the Commission has been saying the exact same thing, over and over and over. He said specifically, they have been saying 'big gathering space in the center of Dublin; and tonight they were hearing 'do you want a space or do you not want a space ... is that important, or is it not important', He said the Commission has been really clear about this topic and other topics for three years. He said for the past year, they have heard nothing new and he did not know why. Mr. McDaniel asked when they said they want a big space in Historic Dublin, the questions are where is it, what does it look like, and what do you want. He said big space in Historic Dublin does not mean anything to him. Mr. Taylor pointed out there were consultants and 19 people in the Planning department. He said the Commission's job was to review this, but not design this. He said the Commission was being asked what they wanted and he thought they could not have been clearer. He said he came across an email he received from Greg Dale in January when he was interviewed for an hour in Council Chambers. He said he laughed because there were ten things Mr. Dale listed, and they were the exact same things he was being asked tonight. He apologized for getting upset. Mr. Taylor recalled when the last Joint Work Session was set, the charge was extraordinarily clear that City Council and the Commission were to bring to that meeting what they thought was important to include in the Vision Plan. He said the Commission brought four things they worked a great deal of time on and City Council brought zero. He said the Commission had done their part and was waiting for everyone else to do their part. Mr. Taylor said the Commission wants to see a true vision plan and they do not like the one they have because they do not think there is any vision in it. He said there is no vision in the Vision Plan and the Commission has said that over and over. He said that he talked to Don Elliot and David Dixon after the Joint Work Session and told them the Commission was asking to identify the big items. He said they Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 15, 2011 — Minutes Page 11 of 13 want to hear the City is going to have a big park, and let's not talk about whether it is a developed or undeveloped park or whether we are moving Riverside Drive or not. He said the Commission wants to see that the City is committed to making a park at the river, to turning SR 161 into a boulevard, to putting City Hall downtown, etc. He said all they ever keep hearing is what are your ideas.' He said the Commissioners have given their ideas and they were looking for some action. Mr. McDaniel said he heard Mr. Taylor loud and clear and he accept that he had all of the Commissioners' input and they were done collecting. Mr. Taylor said they were waiting on the 2.0 Version. He referred to his long email to Mr. McDaniel a couple of months ago where he very clearly said until they had a new Vision Plan that addresses these things, he cannot support any more of this stuff, and he had not changed his opinion on that. Mr. McDaniel said they could report that back to City Council that until there was the 2.0 Version, the Commission was done. He said they would take what they had and make sure that City Council understood that and if City Council wanted a Version 2.0 that is what they will be given when they tell him to do that. Mr. Taylor said all he could tell Mr. McDaniel was what this Commission has said. He said he did not get anything out of exploring the details of this until they know what we are applying it to. Ms. Amorose Groomes said perhaps part of what is being asked of the Commission is to create a vision plan in a written format, but the Commission is more interested in a vision plan in a picture format. She said it was difficult to say in the Bridge Street Gateway District what the architectural character should be in three bullet points or less. She said she did not know that character was a bullet -point communicated item. She said character is what you touch, feel, and experience. Mr. Hardt referred back to Ms. Kramb's points and a Version 2.0 with more specifics in it. Mr. Hardt said in terms of deliverables, what he thought would be helpful is almost having a document similar to the Community Plan, or perhaps just forget the Vision Plan map, and maybe just update the Community Plan for this area. He said the Community Plan provides the rest of the City a map and lays out the City's intentions and expectations for an area, and all of the other details in terms of infrastructure, pedestrian connections, and all things are noted, not in specifics, but the City's goals are outlined. He said we probably cannot get there with a single map, but we do not need a 400 -page book, but a few pages that outline the objectives and ideas would work. Mr. McDaniel asked what the difference would be between the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Plan, which broke things down by principle, character, and district and the Community Plan. He said the Vision Report is almost better than what we see in the Community Plan, because the Vision Report provides much more detail. Mr. Hardt said that format might be fine, but it is dated at this point. He said he had a comment similar to Mr. Taylor's about the Code in the last version was in May and there was meeting where the Commission provided some high -level feedback on various components of it to staff, and the Commission has not received an update since. Mr. Langworthy said the June 20"' version was the last version. He said the final draft will be provided within the next two weeks. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she thought something was posted on the website that the Commissioners did not get. She said she did not recall seeing something in June. Mr. Langworthy explained the June 20th version was provided at the Joint Work Session in their meeting packet. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 15, 2011 — Minutes Page 12 of 13 Mr. McDaniel said they committed to updating the website on a routine basis whenever there was an update to each chapter of Code. He said there has not been a posting for a while because the staff is reviewing and trying to completely rescrub the Code based on comments provided by the Commission and others such as OCLC, the Stavroffs, and Smith and Hale. Mr. McDaniel asked how the Commission would like to receive the updated version when it is complete, via the website, email, or hardcopy. Ms. Amorose Groomes said it did not matter how the updates were provided, just that they needed the Code to talk about it. Mr. Hardt said if the Commission's previous comments have been incorporated, that was not clear to him. He said if he was expected to go to the website to get it that was not clear either. Mr. McDaniel assured them as soon as updates are made, they will be on the website. Mr. Hardt said he would like to have a redline version so that he could see where the changes have been made. Mr. Langworthy said they were creating a clean version and a redline version and the Commission will be provided both. Ms. Amorose Groomes said even with meeting minutes, it is going to be challenging to know if what the Commission discussed in May was captured in October. Mr. McDaniel said he wanted them to be aware that they will probably see changes that have been proposed that the Commission did not propose, but others did. Mr. Hardt suggested that changes by others could be flagged. He said he did not want a document where he had to hunt to figure out what had changed. Ms. Amorose Groomes said in response to whether the Commission is finished with their feedback about the Vision Plan. She said she thought the Commission had exhausted their activity on the existing vision drawing, and they felt like elements were missing, and they have outlined those at length. She said the Commission was looking for the plan to come back rather than a bullet point. Mr. McDaniel confirmed the Commission was looking for a map that reflects things that they have identified to date. Ms. Amorose Groomes agreed. Mr. Taylor said one of the things the Commission said several times since the original Vision Plan is that the first time a design solution is presented, it is not the final design. He said the process is that comments are requested as to what is liked and not liked, and what changes were wanted. He said then, that information is taken and the plan is revised. Mr. Taylor said that was his expectation, without asking because that is the way these things work. He said the Commission gave quite a bit of feedback on that plan over the past year, and he would like to see what it has led to. Mr. McDaniel said they would do their best to respond to that. Mr. Taylor said it seemed to him that it ought to be told to David Dixon and Ben Carlson that there is feedback on your drawing, and ask them to do a new drawing and include the Commission's feedback, and the work that was completed at the Open Space Work Shop. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there were additional comments Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 15, 2011 — Minutes Page 13 of 13 Mr. McDaniel said another one of City Council's directions was to define the role between administration of the Code and the Planning and Zoning Commission role. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the Commission had discussed what the consultants' had drafted, and they were not thrilled with it. She said the Commission started to pursue another discussion, and the City's legal counsel advised them that they should not engage in that discussion because it was not published on the agenda. Mr. McDaniel said they would put it on the next Agenda because they definitely needed to have the discussion. Ms. Kramb recalled they wanted a special meeting held with only the process on the agenda. Mr. Taylor confirmed it would be on the October 13"' Special Meeting Agenda. He asked if the architects and developers would be coming to that meeting. Ms. Amorose Groomes recalled that Mr. Langworthy had said there were architects and developers who would be invited to discuss this topic with the Commission. Ms. Kramb asked if the October 13"' agenda would be the whole Code. Mr. McDaniel recommended they review specific sections of the Code and public comment would be permitted with each part of the Code. Ms. Kramb said she the Commission needed a meeting just about the process. Mr. McDaniel asked for some feedback from the Commission about what they would like their role to be in the process, so staff does not have to play a guessing game. He said at the end of the day he would like to look them in the eyes and tell them we have found something that works for all of us, and that they can take back to City Council and say this is what we would like to recommend as a process and a role for the Commission. He said he would like to find something half -way. Mr. Taylor said he thought the Commissioners all agreed on that, but his specific recollection on that topic at the last meeting, the Commission said to get there, they needed a better understanding of what the architects and developers who might be working in this area feel about the role of Planning and Zoning Commission, because the issue of PUD versus form -based code was one that came up. Mr. Taylor said his recollection at the end of last meeting was that they were going to have a meeting on or about October 13"' that focused on a discussion with members of the public on what they thought would be the best process. He said from there the Commission and staff would begin to formulate what the Commission's role might be. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested the minutes of the last Commission meeting reflected what the Commission talked about regarding expediting the process and what the gains, losses, and risks were. Mr. McDaniel said Mr. Langworthy had shared the Commission's discussion. He said he recommended any thoughts that the Commission could share with staff ahead of time about how they would like to see the Commission's role in the process would be appreciated. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she did not think there has been any pushback from the Commission going forward with reviewing the Code. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked for additional comments. [There were none.] She adjourned the meeting at 8:36 p.m. As approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 6 Bridge Street Code Monitoring — Discussion Ms. Amorose Groomes referred to the memo from Steve Langworthy regarding the Bridge Street Code Monitoring discussion at the August 11' Joint Meeting with City Council. She said that the Commission was asked to begin outlining what they thought was the appropriate role of the Commission as it relates to the Bridge Street Code moving forward. She said that Planning had asked the consultants to list what they thought the Commission roles should be which need to be discussed. She asked for the Commissioners' thoughts on the subject. Richard Taylor said he did not like what was proposed in the memo because it did not address the concern that the monitoring takes place after the fact. He said he thought what they were looking to discuss and craft language for a way that the Commission can have a role that occurs before projects are approved. Amy Kramb said she agreed. She said her thought was that the Commission's involvement should be left exactly the way it is because it has been working for years and that it made a great City. She said she could be open to change it, but she had not seen anything better. She said she did not think reviewing it after the fact was better. Ms. Kramb said she did not know what was presented in the memo was much different from what was already in the proposed Code; except that the Commission is getting a courtesy look at it after it has been done. She said the only thing it did was to give them a chance to change the code later, which can be done in other ways. Ms. Kramb said she did not think this was an improvement on what has already been proposed to the Commission. Ms. Amorose Groomes said they would have the power to change the Code whether or not it was written in this code. Todd Zimmerman said the monitoring is supposed to be a streamlined process and it needs to be seen how it works. He said if there are kinks in it, they can be fixed later. He said there will be times that they will come before the Commission. Mr. Zimmerman said he thought the proposal was well written and hits the high points of what needs to be done. Ms. Kramb pointed out that the Commission had not been shown that going to an administrative review team is any more expedited than coming to the Commission. Steve Langworthy explained that the Administrative Review Team (ART) could meet within two to three days of being noticed, whereas a ten -day public notice was needed for the Commission meeting. Ms. Kramb noted that the process would be expedited by eliminating the public input. Mr. Langworthy said it would be similar to what the Commission does now, which is to review only about 25 percent of the development. Ms. Kramb said she did not know if expediting it at the cost of not allowing the public is the best solution. She said if they limited it to what is in the code, they would not have some of the great developments the City has today. Mr. Zimmerman said he looked at it as similar to a PUD in that it has been worked up and out and there were times it fell out of that line. He said it would come to the Commission if it is not exactly within the Code. He said there were times he thought they would see more of these projects than they think they will. He said he did not think they would be able to streamline as many through as Ms. Kramb thought. Joe Budde said he did not have any comments. Mr. Taylor asked if it did not meet all the check boxes on the form -based code checklist, did it automatically come before the Commission. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 6 Mr. Langworthy explained that they can apply for an administrative departure, or if it does not qualify and they want to do something other than what code requires, they can come before the Commission to request permission to do it. Mr. Taylor asked what the process was if an applicant had a project different from the form -based Code document in every way. Mr. Langworthy said it would probably go straight to the Commission because it would not qualify for an administrative departure. He explained that administrative departures tend to be tweaking rather than major departures. John Hardt said he did not think the proposed language was bad, but it differed completely from what he thought the Commission was asked to do. He said it laid out a mechanism by which the Commission monitors the Code and how it is performing in the Bridge Street Corridor, and whether it needs to be changed. He said it does not lay out a process where the Commission monitors development in the Bridge Street Corridor. He said those are two completely different things. Mr. Hardt said he thought the Commission was being asked to work on a mechanism where they could actually monitor development, but do so in a streamlined way that is the best of both worlds or come up with some sort of hybrid approach. Mr. Hardt said he was not comfortable with putting the Commission in a role where they are simply monitoring the Code and being offered a chance to periodically update it. He said that he had a fundamental disagreement with the consultants that put the Code together in that they seem to be selling the notion that if they just write a good enough Code, they will guarantee quality. He said the Commissioners heard in the Joint Work Session that if there was something missed, let the consultants know and they will put that in too, as if they just add more words, eventually, they will get to the point where quality is guaranteed. Mr. Hardt said as someone who has designed commercial buildings all over the Country, using dozens of different codes, he has never seen a code that by itself, guarantees quality architecture, quality development, and quality projects. He said he thought the Code was great as a basis for development and it was well written, but he did not feel comfortable implementing this brand new Code that is completely untested locally and nationally, unlike anything they have ever seen, lifting the review process completely away, and just trusting that everything is going to be okay. Ms. Kramb said that she thought the Code was fine and she thought the Code could be changed, but she did not think everything should be changed at once. She suggested that the Code be changed, see how it works leaving the regular review process as it is, see what they get, and then go from there. Mr. Hardt said to change everything at once and just hope for the best was crazy. He said he had never seen it work. He said it was too many variables at once. Mr. Taylor said he thought the Commissioners all agreed that the goal still has to be to find a way to make this a shorter, easier, quicker path for development to happen. He said it just becomes an arbitrary piece of legislation to help guide projects. Mr. Taylor said he was in favor of the idea of this Code existing to help expedite that. He recalled that he began getting uncomfortable at the third Joint Work Session when he asked Don Elliott from Clarion and Associates for examples of where this has succeeded in the past, and Mr. Elliott mentioned a couple of places and referred to the website to see what was done. Mr. Taylor said he told Mr. Elliott that he was interested in hearing those communities' opinions of whether the form based code achieved the goals they set. He said he asked again for examples where this succeeded, and the only example provided was a place where Mr. Elliott thought that maybe six buildings had been built. Mr. Taylor said that is not an indictment of the form based code process or of this form based code at all, but thought it raised a concern that before they turn over this extraordinarily important chunk of the City to an untested system, they should have to have some opportunity to participate in seeing that this meets the goals that this Commission was formed to address in the first place. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 6 Mr. Taylor recalled that Ms. Amorose Groomes once said that it was a lot easier to add stuff than to take stuff back later. He said if they had a situation where they had a hybrid that they began to see that this is working and is making sense, they could dial it back a little, but he would hate to start with it gone and go from there. Mr. Taylor said he did not know what the solution is and he thought that maybe they were there tonight to see if they could suggest some ideas. He said there was a little bit of a two track system built into this now and he thought it was a good place to start where an applicant has the opportunity to propose it. He recalled that he had asked Mr. Elliott and Mr. Dixon what about the building that does not meet any of the form based code requirements, but it was still a great building, and the two of them said that cannot happen. Mr. Taylor said he thought that should be allowed to happen and if they had an applicant that came in with a world class, fantastic building that did not happen to meet the specifics of the form based code, but still meets the spirit of it which was a building that engages the sidewalk, other buildings, and the public, they are allowed to give it a shot. He said he would like to see the path for that building and application be made easier so that they can come, if it is appropriate, to the Commission to have that reviewed. Mr. Taylor said another possibility would be to have a review by the Planning department where a score was given and if the proposal scored very high and needed to be reviewed by the Commission, they would have a situation where they had a straight up and down vote on it. He said if the Commission approved it, it was gone and they could go for it, and if not, it needed to either go through the administrative process or it had to come back to the Commission for a full review. Mr. Taylor said he understood that there were large chunks of the City that they had no input on, but they were talking about Codes for the most part that have been in place for a long time. He said this is an entirely new form of Code for the Commission and many people. He said he first heard about a form based code in Minneapolis at the APA Conference and he found it fascinating and excited to see it happen. Mr. Taylor said he would be thrilled to see the development community latch onto this and use it in this area and have the whole area take off. He said he would like to see this as the driver for development, but he thought they needed to move a little slower than has been proposed. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the Commission really had only one experience with talking with an architect about this form based code in this part of the City and what they were thinking of doing, and Gerry Bird was there that night. She said that Mr. Bird presented some cool projects that they were considering with a residential component and a commercial component. She recalled that they spent approximately 45 minutes discussing it. Ms. Amorose Groomes said if she called him, he would have said that the time was valuably spent, that there were ideas that came to pass that he perhaps did not have before. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she thought that was a positive experience for both sides and she was not convinced that architects like that, if they truly have a fantastically designed building, would not be hesitant to come before the Commission because they had full confidence in what it was that they designed in knowing that the Commission would recognize that. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that Mr. Langworthy said the ART could convene in three to four days versus ten days for the Commission. She said she would be categorically opposed to silencing our community for six days of gain. She said this community was great because the people have voiced their opinions repeatedly and what is being attempted is to put duct tape on their mouths. She reiterated that she was completely opposed to it. Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out that removing oversight is very difficult to take back. She said they all have made their comments, but the charge for the Commission, from what she heard City Council ask was to come up with something. She said she did not hear Council ask the consultant to come up with something, so the Commission needed to start that business. She said they have to continue to try to explore those answers and come up with something that is a win. She said that was how the Commission can lead in this process. Ms. Kramb said it would be helpful to know how long a project goes through the Planning department before the Commission sees it and what in that timeframe changes in putting the ART in place. She said Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 6 that would give the Commission some insight as to where days could be trimmed. She pointed out that if there was a great new Code and an applicant came in with a much better product that could speed up the entire process. Mr. Taylor said he assumed that there would not be the big concept, preliminary, and final reviews. He suggested that some of the design and development community could come to tell the Commission what they think. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that they could be asked to come to the next public meeting to help the Commission help them and understand what they want. Mr. Langworthy said Planning had already suggested a public meeting where people who had already commented on the Code and others would have the opportunity to come before the Commission to make comments. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the Commission might want to choose from who they want to hear comments. Mr. Langworthy said the architectural community has been commenting on the Code instead of the upper level executives or companies. He said that such a meeting is being planned in early October before the Commission begins their comprehensive review of the Code. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that they should not be set up or told what the Commission wants, but be explained that the Commission has some questions for them. Mr. Langworthy said that the architectural and development community members also had things they wanted on the record as well. Mr. Taylor said it would be a great first step to hear from the end users about to approach this to find out what was and was not appropriate. Mr. Hardt said he had been through the process a few times himself. He referred to the consent agenda approval process and suggested that perhaps the ART could have a mechanism to review a case using a score, and then it came to the Commission for some cursory level of oversight, and handled like a consent agenda item. He said then, if things came to the Commission with their hands being somewhat tied, with only a few things under their prevue, they would still have the opportunity to hear public input, which was important. He said as pointed out by Ms. Amorose Groomes at the last Joint Work Session, the Commission has the ability to behave in different ways in different instances. Mr. Hardt said they have projects now that are in "straight- zoned" sites where they all know are not before the Commission regarding the architecture, but for signs or other things, and they do what they are supposed to do. He said he saw no reason why Bridge Street Corridor projects cannot be some iteration of that. Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out that the Land Use Principles established by City Council on August 21, 2006, talked about the principles to be utilized as development guidelines in conjunction with the existing Community Plan in the evaluation of pending development applications. She said she thought the Commission could come up with some principles for the Bridge Street Corridor that would govern the issues that they review and that those issues would be narrowed down. She said if it was outside of the issues that are governing their focus, then they were off limits. She said it would provide some framework for evaluation that would be, as Mr. Langworthy has requested, more predictable because the focus is more narrow. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she did not think the Commission was particularly unpredictable at this point in time. Mr. Hardt provided as an example, the Commission reviewed a couple of projects where some of their biggest heartburn has been over just the fundamental, where the structure sat on the site and they have had developers who disagreed on the Commission's opinion on that. He said in the Bridge Street Corridor Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 6 Code, it successfully governs that and there will not be much discussion about those kinds of things. Mr. Hardt reiterated that he thought the Code was very well done and can be a great base for development and take many issues off the table, but not all of the issues off the table. He said he agreed that there was an answer in that they all understood that there is the intention here to be development - friendly and streamline the process. Mr. Taylor said he had heard in the past that maybe one of the reasons that this is happening is that they hear from different sources and people, that there is a kind of reputation among some developers, people in town, that Planning and Zoning is an impediment and that it is an obstacle that causes projects to move slower than they should. He said the reality is that in those cases, the Commission acts to prevent projects that should not be built from being built, and gets them corrected. Mr. Taylor said the Bridge Pointe shopping center came before the Commission twice as a great project that the Commissioners universally complimented. He said a few details were left to work out, but they gave approval to begin the project. He said the result was that the applicants could not have been happier and they were on their way. He said he did not know why that process is not suitable for anybody that would build in the BSC. He said the difference in that and projects where the applicants left unhappy was that it came in at a very high level of design, development, and acceptability in this area. Mr. Taylor said that the question has always been that if the projects start with a blank slate, with land having very little context in terms of the physical site around it or in context of regulation on the site, how do they get to that point and where do they start in order to do a building that will please the Commission. He said that the form based code seemed to be a gigantic leap in that direction. He said if they were to maintain a process very similar to what they have now, but review projects that need to go through the BSC, by the time they get to the Commission, they are going to be 95 percent there. He said the Commission will not have site location issues and it will give them the opportunity to be the public's eyes and ears to make sure it is done right. He said if they were to execute that successfully, and later it turns out that the gears are well lubricated and things are going well, they could look at some options for streamlining it even further, but again, the furthest they could streamline it is to remove a few days off the whole process. He said he did not know if on a couple of million dollar project, a couple of days were worth the risk. Mr. Zimmerman asked if the EAZ had a review process similar to this Mr. Langworthy explained that the EAZ was treated like a standard zoning district and it was similar to this with an ART. He said they were trying to consolidate all the language so that the language is only in one place in the Code. Ms. Kramb pointed out the difference was that there was nothing in the EAZ. Ms. Amorose Groomes said this was a small, but important part of the City. She said she would like to make it look as good as they can. Ms. Kramb pointed out that tonight, an applicant went beyond the Code by removing gooseneck lights and adding concrete curbs merely because the Commission asked. She said if this realm was taken out, all that they would get was the bare minimum Code requirements. She said that the forum provided variety. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that she heard four votes saying that this language, written by the consultants, was not what the Commissioners wanted. She said however, the request was that the Commission review the proposed intent and language and provide appropriate comments. Ms. Amorose Groomes said it was time to come with solutions. Stephen Smith said he had concerns with moving into the solutions part tonight because this item was not on the Agenda advertised to the public, and he did not want to get too far away from providing comments on this because it was purely an administrative matter as opposed to an agenda item. He said Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 6 the concern as indicated earlier was not having public involvement. Mr. Smith suggested keeping things focused. Ms. Kramb reiterated her request that for the next time this Code is discussed, the existing timeframe be presented with what the proposed timeframes are with the proposed Code procedure. Mr. Taylor suggested a special meeting be held with the only this discussion on the agenda so that they could spend as much time as needed, the public can be there, and they could decide how they are going to approach coming up with a solution. He said they could take notes and see if they cannot provide a primer. Mr. Langworthy said that a list of proposed dates and topics for Special and Regular Meetings would be presented at the September 15, 2011 meeting. Mr. Taylor requested that as soon as a list of invitees is compiled, it be provided to the Commissioners. He said he would like to see who might be invited and what part of the building design community they represented. He suggested that the meeting Agenda briefly describe this item with one line: A discussion of what the Commission has agreed is City Council's request of the Commission to come up with alternatives to the review process. Mr. Taylor and Ms. Kramb agreed that it was not about the Bridge Street Corridor Code, but the review process. Mr. Taylor summarized that the Commissioners were clearly concerned that in one hand they were completely out of the process for all practical purposes, and on the other hand they were totally in it, and they were trying to find some functional middle ground that everyone can agree to, hence the interest in having the development and design community here so that they know what works for them. Mr. Hardt said he could take that Code back to his drafting table and design a building that meets every single letter of it, and it still would be awful. He said that there are a lot of architects and developers who could do the same, if their hearts were not in the right place. Mr. Hardt said if this Code were adopted by the Commission tonight, it would be in place for 50 years. He said the only opportunity the public has to have any input into any project is to write a letter to the Planning Director. Ms. Amorose Groomes noted that there were no notification requirements included. Mr. Hardt pointed out that not too long ago, the Commission had a hypothetical project on Avery Road where there were about 20 residents that lived adjacent to an institutional use that walked in the door imploring that the Commission vote against it. He said the Commission listened to what they had to say and the applicant talked, then they voted in favor of the rezoning. He said however, by the end of the night, all of the residents left understanding why the Commission voted for it and understanding that by voting for it, they actually made the things they were worried about a little bit better. He said that was a dialogue that would have never happened under the BSC as it is drafted. Mr. Smith interrupted the discussion and pointed out that they were getting off track for what was not advertised for discussion tonight. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there were any additional comments. [There were none.] She adjourned the meeting at 8:07 p.m. As approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR PLAN JOINT COUNCIL /PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION WORK SESSION Monday, August 11, 2011 Council Chambers Record of Meeting Attendance: Council Members Mayor Lecklider, Vice Mayor Salay, Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, Mr. Gerber, Mrs. Boring, Mr. Reiner. Mr. Keenan was absent. Planning & Zoning Commission Members Ms. Amorose Groomes, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Fishman, Mr. Budde and Mr. Hardt. Ms. Kramb was absent. Staff: Ms. Grigsby, Mr. McDaniel, Ms. Readler, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Tyler, Ms. Willis, Ms. Ray, Ms. Rauch, Mr. Goodwin, Ms. Noble, Ms. Martin and Ms. Husak. Consultants David Dixon, Goody Clancy and Don Elliot, Clarion Associates Mayor Lecklider called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in Council Chambers. He noted that the Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) Plan has received positive recognition at the national and local level. This is a transformative undertaking that will, hopefully, ensure the vibrancy of the City for decades in the future. A video created by MORPC, which focuses on the importance of this project and the planning themes that form the basis of this vision follows. [Video presentation of "Rethinking Streets for Successful Communities "] Mr. Dixon, Goody Clancy, stated that this is an opportunity for Council and PZC to bring up questions in the following three areas: • Has the plan matured as it ought; are the right elements present? • Does Council have all the information needed to make decisions about the Code? Are the Vision, the Code, Transportation, Planning and Fiscal Planning integrated and producing mutually consistent and reinforcing answers? • What should the next area of focus be to achieve your aspirations? He has been asked what is the big statement or what defines this project. Watching the MORPC video, he was struck that Dublin thinks regionally and acts locally. Dublin acts with a regional responsibility. To do so, Dublin has the ability to change course and remain a model. With this plan, Dublin wanted to create a community that would continue to appeal to a changing population; to become even more competitive as a desirable place to work and live; to appeal to the changing values that drive investment; and create the "heart' of the entire community. All of these efforts translate into a truly walkable environment, although it can take a variety of forms. Ms. Grigsby stated that this video was shared at a previous MORPC meeting. There was some concern regarding whether the vision was big enough to accomplish what is desired. The Bridge Street corridor is the first major component. However within the overall corridor and planning area, there will be other components, such as pedestrian bridges, that will be incorporated. The question of focus tonight is how the Code achieves that. Council and PZC will discuss their concerns. Mr. Gerber has met with Mr. Langworthy to discuss the Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 2 of 16 form -based Code, and additional training sessions or discussions for Council members can be scheduled. Ms. Amorose- Groomes stated that PZC has extensively discussed this process, and identified some issues. To maximize the time, PZC members decided to come to consensus first, then provide those consensus items at one time. Mr. Hardt has compiled those items and will provide PZC's perspective to Council tonight for purposes of discussion. Mr. Hardt stated that PZC attempted to distill their thoughts into four areas of concern that PZC members believe are either unfinished or need further attention: 1. Concern that the Vision Plan results in the appropriate distribution and configuration of open space. Although the Vision Plan in its current form does include a considerable amount of open space, the draft Code indicates that the Vision Plan is conceptual, not regulatory. Therefore, there is no guarantee that the greenspace on the map will necessarily materialize. Although the proposed Code dictates that each development must have a certain amount of open space associated with it, that approach is no different than the City's current requirements. With existing planned districts, there is a certain threshold for maximum lot coverage, which dictates that any given parcel of land must have a certain amount of open space on it. It does not, however, create cohesive public spaces, nor does it create connectivity. The best parks and open spaces in Dublin occurred when the City took the lead. PZC members believe a similar approach should be taken with the Bridge Street Corridor, versus leaving open space decisions up to future unknown development plans. There should be City- driven direction for open space. 2. Non - vehicular connectivity. The Vision Plan outlines several pockets of very high density development, including the OCLC site, Dublin Village Center, and the Historic District. Those subareas are separated from each other by natural and man -made barriers. Establishing connectivity can be very difficult to do after the fact. Without paying specific attention on how to establish those connections now, there is a risk that the vision in the video will not be realized. The subareas will remain isolated from each other, rather than walkable and connected. They will not succeed as part of an urban fabric because, individually, they do not have the needed critical area. 3. Development review and legal processes. The Bridge Street Corridor Plan is a leading edge, comprehensive approach that will fundamentally change the core of the City in an unprecedented, profound way. There is no room for error. It is important to "get it right" the first time. But the draft Code also proposes that the City simultaneously eliminate the public review process, which has been used successfully for four decades in the City. That seems to put too many variables in play at once. PZC is not opposed to eliminating PZC review, but whatever new system is considered, it is necessary to be able to guarantee the same results in quality and public participation that have previously been present. 4. The Vision Map is conceptual in nature, illustrative, non - binding, but nevertheless, it will serve as a key indicator of the City's intentions. The map has an incredible Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 3 of 16 amount of work and ideas represented in it, but something significant is missing. What is the one singular unifying objective that the City is trying to accomplish with the Bridge Street Corridor Plan? What legacy do we want to leave behind? The map in its current form does not make that clear. It is not easy to identify the primary goal. The Plan needs to be tweaked to crystallize that, and leave behind a plan that future leaders can refer to, where the over - riding goal is apparent. PZC members are all very supportive of the Plan. Ms. Amorose- Groomes stated that PZC believes that staff has done a fantastic job in the research, and has provided much information regarding transportation, utilities, etc. However, the Commission does not believe that a plan has been created that is ready to be presented to the public. The Commission believes they are a well- suited group to participate in this effort, and are very hopeful that Council will entrust to them the ability to work on this project. At the appropriate time, PZC would like to work with Goody Clancy or other identified consultant to "drill down" on the things in the Vision to ensure that the final plan is the best that could have been achieved. Mrs. Boring stated that these things have also been of concern to her, especially the map. It is appears the Code is now being written to satisfy that map. There have been issues with it from the beginning, particularly in regard to the appropriate configuration /distribution of open space. At this time, the map is a "handicap." Mr. Dixon stated that the Plan is not an actual plan. It is instead an illustration of how the vision and the principles would unfold in the area, given the property ownerships and likely market and distribution to different uses over the next 20 years. It is not a bible or a strict interpretation. There is a core idea that could develop in many different forms. For instance, in some places, such as the Stavroff development, it could be a place to go to a movie, shop, live nearby — an urban village. Midway between that development and the river would be a residential neighborhood, perhaps also with corner stores and cafes. Then, next to the river would be a river -front central park where civic events would occur, perhaps with a pedestrian crossing of the river. On the other side of the river would be Historic Dublin, then further west, a newer -scale district; finally, on the far side of this corridor would be OCLC — envisioned by a single developer, a potentially mixed -use subarea. Although there will be a tremendous variety of opportunities to do things, they are all united by the opportunity to interact with the environment in an urban way. The other four factors mentioned have to succeed for this basic vision to come forward. Their firm does much urban campus planning, and everyone wants a "signature" place. With this project, he believes it will become the place that people love within the area — perhaps the river. It is not the core idea, but the best expression of it that occurs. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that they are fine with the Code. What they really want to hear is how this will be made Dublin's. Mrs. Boring stated that in regard to the central park — if it is not made clear now what is desired and planning for that occurs now, developers will be coming in before the Code is finished. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 4 of 16 Mr. Dixon stated that there is always a little of the "chicken versus the egg" in moving this type of process forward. It is important now to determine which aspects need to be better defined. He agrees that the best public realms are City- directed. Private sector may help create them, but the public sector conceived them or championed them. Dublin has a history of this, and it will be true here with the BSC. The best way to move the central park forward will probably be by completing the Code first, and by not approving development until Council has a good sense of the park. Until the Code is complete, it is difficult to say whether the City will need to acquire a certain property. The Code will provide a lot of answers as to what the built environment can be like. When the Code is complete would be a good time to do a public realm plan. That will determine the public policy decisions —what is Council's position on moving streets, buying property, programming and management of a space such as this; also, how does that link to and what is the role of a town green. What will make this a more confident plan is the fiscal piece. Through private - public partnerships, it is possible to invest a lot in creating a great public realm. It will be easier to understand how that will work when the fiscal piece is completed in a couple of weeks. Mr. Taylor stated that the Commission does not want to find itself in a position of hoping that when 20 million square feet of space is developed there will be a great park at the river. It would be preferable to set aside the land, call that area on the map the new central park, and let that direct the development around it. PZC does not want to take the chance of ending up with something Council does not want because there was not a sufficiently clear vision in the beginning. Mr. Dixon stated that more engineering and planning information to more specifically target what Council wants to do is needed. It should be possible to stay ahead of development by making it clear that it is the City's intent to solve this piece. This is in everyone's best interest because it will enhance the value of the land around it, so the private sector should be willing to cooperate in giving the City time to do that. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked how Council should do that additional, more targeted visioning. Mr. Dixon responded that Council would direct staff to select a team of consultants whose expertise is in designing great public spaces, with a full understanding of the planning, programming, design, funding and management involved. They would be requested to develop a conceptual vision that will allow Council to make the policy decisions. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that her frustration is that what Council has so far is consultant- driven, and it appears to have lost the big vision. How can Council have a big vision by asking a consultant to give it to them? She would prefer that Council first articulate that vision. Who is best able to help Council do that, because Council needs an organized, facilitated meeting that helps them articulate the big vision sufficiently after which the map could be drawn. Perhaps it is a bubble map that is drawn while Council is articulating it. It should result in demonstrating the connectivity and significant open space desired. Mr. Dixon responded that he believes Council has enough information to state the foundation upon which they desire to build. Council can now request someone to work with them in a visioning process. In the process, the consultant would bring Council up -to -date, and provide information on what is being done elsewhere that is relevant to Dublin in order to stimulate discussion. From that, Council would then formulate a charge to bring back a Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 5 of 16 proposal that accomplishes the vision that Council, in a more informed way, has been able to develop. Mr. Gerber stated that this project began with a vision report. This was followed by a discussion of what form -based code is or isn't; Council then looked at a code. That code can be worked on. When developers have a picture, that is what they work toward. Therefore, Council wants to have a vision picture that encompasses some of Dublin's core values — open space, scenic areas, etc. Council needs some assistance in putting forth its stated values in the report, thereby letting developers and others know what Council desires. Mr. Dixon stated that it doesn't have to be a completed document for Council to point out to developers that they have heard the intent for the Corridor, and they can figure out where they need to be. Mr. Gerber stated that he is looking for a consensus regarding the vision. He had the opportunity this week to meet with Mr. Langworthy and his staff to learn how form -based code works. It is a good concept, but if there is not a vision on which there is consensus, then the City will lose sight down the road of what it is doing. Mr. Elliott stated that this is not a PUD, not a development by a single owner, but of many owners that will come forward over 20 -30 years, and in an order not anticipated. Because of that, it cannot be viewed as a master plan, as if there were a rich landowner of all that acreage, and all that was required is to create a prettier picture than exists. The comment has been made that there is no big idea here. He believes there is; there always has been. The big picture is a walkable, mixed -use downtown at too big a scale for anyone to identify a site plan, or PUD. It is a process. They did not write a code to implement the picture /map. That picture is very controversial — some did not want one at all; others did. To him, the picture illustrates a flavor of the place that the City desires. That is also what they tried to accomplish with the code. He did say that it was necessary to have a road framework, which will change more than once during the process. The fact that it will be changed does not mean a framework shouldn't be included to align the roads and buildings. The plan is there, and it is a better, more visually compelling and complete plan than many cities have when they have hired their firm to write their code. Therefore, based on his personal experience, this is not an inadequate plan. It is as good as most entities have, and better than many. It is good to resist the temptation to focus on creating a better picture before writing the code. That would be a fundamental mistake. That is thinking as if there were one landowner, you had control over the site plan and could determine where you wanted to place a trail or park. Dublin does not have that control. There are many landowners, and in the future those properties could be divided into more parcels with more landowners or combined with fewer landowners. Whatever may occur, it still must work. Therefore, they have attempted to "get the fabric right" — send a message about lot sizes, mixed uses, and buildings near the street, so that whatever order the development proposals come in, they will be contributing to the overall density, walkability and mixed -use character of the corridor. Does that mean the City does not have an overall vision of what it wants? No -- it is because the City does not have control over the order in which that will occur. The City has control only over the public realm, not the private landowners. There is a plan, but a "snapshot" cannot be taken of that plan. That would be malpractice on their part, because it is only a "guess" as to how the future could unfold, consistent with the values the City identifies. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 6 of 16 Mr. Gerber responded that he understands this needs to be very fluid, as it will occur over a long period of time. However, is there a way to put forth those stated values and objectives? He would like to have more of that type of clarity, which he could share with developers or others. Mr. Elliott responded that can certainly be done. This is a big area, and the City does have a plan, but will never be satisfied with it. With a plan in place, the most common failure is not to zone it at all, which are the very tools that will accomplish what is desired. The City must now do the zoning, knowing that they don't have all the details and cannot. There is a third process involved. The City can help build roads, infrastructure and parking structures. It can decide to build a large central park and determine, through the planning process, its location and on whose property it is located. However, he believes it would be a mistake to attempt to draw that big park on the plan and zone it as such, unless the City has the cooperation of that property owner. The owner might be willing to give that parkland to the City in return for something — for example, giving them a higher density or something else in return. That can be negotiated, but typically in an area this large, the landowner does not want to lock that down in terms of zoning. However, the development will occur predictably, and the City will want to use its powers to decide over time where the best investment of parks is. In his past work, he has tried to lock those things in a Code, but he has very little comfort it will turn out the way it is drawn. There are too many variables in play. What he would likely accomplish is a complaint from a landowner that the City has decided the use of their property. It is preferable that the City lock in the "fabric" and the tools that will eventually achieve the City's vision. In regard to the open space, what is contained in the Code does not paint a picture of a central or big park. The plan indicates that everyone needs to contribute to the open spaces, but it does not have to be on -site; it can be done by a fee in -lieu of. The funds will be used to aggregate open space in the order in which it unfolds over time. That decision does not need to be made today. He recommends that the City not try to visualize the end result. Mr. Taylor stated that PZC does not want to define the open space that closely. They want to look at the bigger picture. There is a lot of green in this drawing, the prospective sketch and in the Code, and that is good. It is the organizational principles that are missing. The concept of a central park has been proposed as an organizing principle to pull this together. The Commission recognizes that designating a large amount of land owned by several property owners for a civic use would result in issues, but that is the hard work necessary to establish a priority of what the City wants to see in the overall plan. It may "step on some toes," but the City will have to deal with that. Cities are often planned and the great spaces of the world are often very well planned, and the pieces fit together to accomplish that. Although the City cannot totally predict how this will all build out in the future, if the City does not have some organizing principle beyond a grid, than there is no hierarchy, no priority. When a project is proposed, it is important that the City approve it only if it still meets the large vision. As an example, the City had an earlier Community Plan that showed the corner of Bridge and High Street as two parks, one on each side. Now, there are buildings in place on both corners. Because the plan wasn't "nailed down," it changed. If what was originally decided was really important, the City should have negotiated with those property owners and developers to have the buildings in place, but still ensure the Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 7 of 16 open space. That is what the Commission does not want to happen with this plan. There is a vision for something, but not the wherewithal to ensure that it happens. They are looking for something to pull the vision all together, and that vision is not just one of density or walkability. If the Code is the "fabric," we still want to define what will be made of the fabric. Mr. Gerber noted that at his earlier meeting with Mr. Langworthy, he pointed out that greenspace can be accomplished in different ways. It can be a street with walkability. The flexibility of this plan is what makes it attractive. He does not believe it would be wise for Council to decide today where that open space will be located. He would prefer that the vision statement clarify the City's values and objectives. This is different than a PUD. Mrs. Boring stated that the present practice has been that the City states where it wants connectivity and has asked developers to contribute greenspace or fees in lieu of land. Isn't it necessary to have a vision of where connectivity of the pieces should occur? Mr. Elliott responded that it is important to work on the issue of scale. This area is twice the size of downtown Denver. He could not have predicted 200 years ago where the trails or streets would go in downtown Denver — it's too big. So, what you do when you can't know exactly where they go is to say the blocks cannot be bigger than this. This achieves the fabric of connectivity, if the blocks are walkable. The reason downtown Portland is a great walking city is that the blocks are small. People can get where they want to go without walking around large areas. The connectivity is built into the street pattern. That does not need to be drawn today; rather, it must be established that as the area subdivides and is platted, the blocks may be no bigger than a certain number. If the block must be bigger for some reason, a mid -block throughway or connection must be made. All those will not line up; they don't line up in any city. If the fabric of the streets is at the right scale, it will be walkable and connected. Their work is not in PUDs. They are typically hired by cities who want to move away from PUDs. Therefore, what he is trying to achieve is not a map where you can see it, but a rule that says they must see it and figure it out as development occurs. Ms. Amorose- Groomes stated that the disconnect seems to be with the consultants' perception of allowing the public space to work itself out. However, she believes Dublin is more inclined to work out the big public space first, make the investment now, and then take the payments in lieu of to reimburse itself in the future. This process ensures that the City gets the right space, in the right place, at the right time. The vision will never be achieved if the City does not believe sufficiently in what it's doing to make the financial investment to "get the ball rolling." Mr. Dixon stated that there are many plans that have been constructed for multi -owner areas. The Daniel Burnham plan for Chicago is the "grandfather" of them all. That plan did certain things very right, and those methods have been successfully copied by succeeding plans. One of the things the Burnham Plan did brilliantly was identify Grant Park and some other very important public places in Chicago. Because of its location next to Lake Michigan and an existing downtown, the focus was on how to let the private sector of Chicago build the city out from there. There are certain aspects of fixing the public realm that are visible. Similarly, Dublin has the Indian Run, and the way in which development occurs next to that natural space is critically important — specific zoning requirements are necessary. Obviously, Dublin cannot move the river or Historic Dublin, so there is a pretty clear area in Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 8 of 16 which Dublin will be doing a lot of planning for a great central park. One great characteristic of Dublin is that the City is able to discuss and work with property owners on its area plans. For some time, Dublin has had in place plans to create a riverfront park on both sides -- it will not be news to anyone, and more specific planning on how to define and accomplish that can be anticipated. There are obvious places where greenways should go. The Stavroff group, which owns much of that land, is conducting planning at this time. What Dublin can state is that the City wants a great public space in that location -- a lively square, but the City cannot tell them where to put it. The best method is to work with Stavroff to find the right place, right configuration, and right uses surrounding it. Also, with the OCLC property, it is in everyone's best interest for them to create a public square, one very different from the Stavroff square. That is the partnership process — the City states its goal, and the property owners decide how they will create it for the City. The next step in the planning process is to determine those things that are very important and how fixed they are by circumstances. The City desires a downtown central park. It now knows more about what is hoped will be created around it. Now is the time to decide what the space could be that would make it the heart of Dublin, and what is the range of things that would be within that space — natural versus programmed elements. How much land is needed for that space? This will involve discussions with property owners, which could best be held during this process. Before long, it will likely be clear what that park should be. It might now be good to look at all the sector plans and identify what needs to be fixed, the important goals, and the qualities to embody in the Code. Vice Mayor Salay asked if he is suggesting breaking this plan down by subarea and defining what is desired in those subareas. Mr. Dixon agreed and indicated the obvious subareas. How those subareas are connected needs to be fixed, including the adjacent activity, so that pedestrian activity is encouraged. There is an opportunity for a transit connection from OCLC to the Stavroff property. It needs enough density around it to work. There are some things that can be understood and fixed now and memorialized in a diagrammatic way, so that goals and place- specific directions are visibly clear and provided as an underlay to the Code. Ms. Grigsby stated that the City has long had a Future Land Use Plan as a guide, along with general area plans that are not specific as to what will be there. The concern is that this diagram would also serve as a future land use map. Vice Mayor Salay asked if the consultant creates future land use maps with this type of project. Mr. Dixon responded that they do, but it is not similar to those the City has had in the past. It might say "mixed -use housing emphasis," or "mixed -use entertainment emphasis," or "mixed -use address street" (Bridge Street). A desired public square for civic use could also be indicated in the Stavroff and OCLC subareas. The next - generation document is developing, which will memorialize these discussions. It will be a foundation document that will serve as a basis for zoning and other decision making. An illustrative plan is not needed, but something that translates policy into land use and other goals. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that everyone is in agreement that is what is being requested. Mr. Dixon responded that the knowledge exists. They can confer with staff, and it should not take long to put together. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 9 of 16 Ms. Amorose Groomes responded that the Commission would actually like to do that work. Mr. Elliott stated that Mr. Dixon has addressed the planning perspective. From the zoning perspective, there are three capital places here, not counting the river, that need to work together. This plan is too big to be one thing; it is three or four things. If those three or four things turn out well, even though they are different from each other, the sum total will be better than making it all one thing. The OCLC area, the Stavroff area and the Historic Dublin area can all be exceptional places. Trying to micro - coordinate them into something that hangs together as one thing is not an effective use of time. There are neighborhood development standards. Perhaps it would be more comforting if it were articulated along with those standards, and shown in a visual way, what open spaces will be there when they are developed. That would be more appropriate than in the overall vision drawing. The open space provision is within the text, but he is aware of a concern about big open spaces, as they are not specifically articulated. Mrs. Boring stated that she is not concerned about the land use, which is pretty clear. Her concern is making sure the connectivity is in place and that the public spaces are gathering places versus baseball fields, etc. She is particularly concerned about the area along the river. Mr. Reiner stated that Council views the river as one of the most important attributes of the City. In a recent visit to Portland, he observed that smaller city blocks allow for improved pedestrian traffic. He believes codifying that in this code will help ensure that occurs in Dublin. He agrees that the big vision is a big urban center. Another vision is the greenspace and river and the connectivity to it. What access does someone in a condominium above a Stavroff area shop have to an open space? He assumes it would be the riverfront. Portland has a lot of bridges, however; Dublin does not. Perhaps the additional street connectors will result in a need for an additional bridge or two over the river. He does understand PZC's concern. Dublin has been a PUD city, and has been very successful with them, creating a superior place in which to live. Many of the best ideas have come from PZC over the last 25 years. They are concerned with eliminating the review process. There cannot be any room for error, and how can the new process ensure that? Is a review process still needed to guarantee the perfection desired? Vice Mayor Salay acknowledged that this first effort will not bring perfect results. After some things are built, revisions to this Code will likely be made. This is a 20 -50 year vision, and things will change over that time. She views this as an evolution. There are many great neighborhoods and buildings in the City today that could be improved upon. However, it is important that everyone agree on the development review process. The goal of this entire undertaking was to achieve a development review process for the BSC that would be much easier and less cumbersome for developers. Instead of a year -long approval process, it would be a three -month process before construction could begin. That is how the City was attempting to make this area attractive for economic development. There is a conflict between an expedited process with a form -based code versus a full Planning Commission review process. The two processes do not mix. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 10 of 16 Mr. Elliott stated that he has been writing code for 20 years. In the last 10 -15 years, without exception, cities that have asked them to re -write their codes have moved toward more objective and specific development standards that are administered by staff -- with the provision that if the proposed project is complex or controversial, it can be pushed up to a higher level of review, usually a planning commission. He has not had a client indicate that they have a staff - driven process that is not working and they want to switch to a commission review process. However, he is aware that Dublin has had success with a public review process based on close review and intense negotiations. It is not the way he observes cities evolving their codes. He believes it is more important for the Planning Commission's focus to be on whether the standards are right, the right messages are being sent to the private sector, and the results are satisfactory. If they are dissatisfied with the results, the answer is to fix the standards. This is the "safe harbor" for developers — if they do what the City's code tells them to do, they will obtain a permit. It is not just a start of negotiations. It is important to re -write the code with higher standards and to articulate what the City wants. Once that has been done, no negotiation is necessary. That is the role most planning commissions play — managing the system, rather than reviewing individual projects. He has researched for places that are similar to Dublin, either in their quality of life or dominance in local markets, who have a form -based code combined with a public review process. In Livermore, California, projects above a certain size are sent to a planning commission, and in Denver, Colorado, a project that meets a certain number of factors can be forwarded for planning commission review. Projects do not automatically go to planning commission. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there is a place within that process for the general public to weigh in. Mr. Elliott responded there is not. The trend is to say that the public has a responsibility to provide its input during the City's periodic review of its standards to ensure they are accomplishing the desired development. Mayor Lecklider stated that the public has traditionally had that opportunity in Dublin. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that when this process began, we understood it would be substantially different for this area of the City, but this part of the City only. Developers have told us that they will not build here because our process is too long and costly. We have to have a different process for this part of the City. The public may not understand that now is their opportunity to weigh in, not later. They are accustomed to waiting until the public review meetings to weigh in. The next BSC public meetings must be aggressively advertised and public interaction encouraged and allowed. The remainder of these meetings must be held in a space that facilitates that public interaction, before any vote occurs. Then, if the standards do not appear to work, in three or six months it may be necessary to revise them. It is important not to wait until this code is seriously outdated. Staff has to also consider doing things differently, not just holding public meetings. There is an urgent need to aggressively educate the community on their need to be involved now. Mr. Gerber concurred. Even with this new process, there will frequently be work for the Commission to do, such as re- reviewing the standards. There is a significant role for everyone. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 11 of 16 Mr. Reiner asked if these standards will achieve the desired elevations and materials that result in the same quality of buildings in the City that PZC has provided to date. The City's consistent "high bar" for quality is an assurance that attracted people to Dublin. PZC is concerned that some architects will now take the opportunity to take short -cuts and produce buildings that are not as high quality as the City has always demanded. The assurance for people coming into Dublin has been that if they build here, they are confident their investment will be solid, because other developers must meet the same standards of quality. Everyone loves that aspect of Dublin — that investments here are sound. Do these standards assure that same level of quality? Mr. Elliott stated that they believe they do so, but they appreciate hearing Council's views on them. If Council believes the materials, signs or elevation requirements are too loose, he urged them to indicate that. He does not advise the government on how they should run their processes. However, if government proposes some requirements, they would advise them as to whether they are good enough. That's the rule of law. If government establishes the rules for a permit, and the public performs according to the rules, then they should obtain a permit — that is how America operates. Ms. Amorose Groomes responded that she believes PZC has the opportunity to react differently on different things brought before them. The Commission operates differently on a PUD than it does on sign permits and informal reviews. PZC operates differently, depending upon what the application is for and the intent of it. She believes PZC should continue some review. She can't agree with eliminating the public input component. The public is simply not going to comprehend that now is their time for input. Frankly, how can that occur if this plan is evolving over the next 30 -40 years? People cannot provide input now if they don't even live here yet. PZC members agree that the development of this area needs to be handled differently than the City has previously handled development applications. It might be more of a "check the box" review of whether the required standards regarding architecture, street orientation, etc. are met. If it is possible to codify the rest of this, those standards could be codified as well. Mr. Gerber stated that he envisions a situation where PZC would actively monitor the process and provide a report back to Council or staff. Then the process can be tweaked as it moves forward. There is a very active role for PZC in this area. Its role will be different, but still a fairly vital role. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that perhaps it won't be this body, but another review body that is developed. Regardless, she believes that a citizen -based body should provide that review. Mayor Lecklider stated that, conceptually, this bears some similarities to the COIC zoning and some other recent rezonings. The overarching motivation with this effort was to respond to the economic times and the evolution that is taking place in the development world. Ms. Grigsby responded that part of the PUD process for this area will be replaced with its code and the code's review. Typically, every proposed project begins on the ground floor and then is moved through a review process. The effort with the code for this area is that the application received will essentially be where it needs to be -- or close to it, allowing for some variation based on size or the type of project. However, the Code and the zoning will basically be the PUD. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 12 of 16 Mrs. Boring stated that the concern she has is that some applications will meet the criteria, but with others, staff might decide it sufficient that they meet the intent. Meeting the intent is not acceptable in this case. Mr. Dixon responded there are both zoning and planning perspectives, and they're in sync. It is not conceivable that Council will not find a way to incorporate an appropriate level of community review of this district as it develops. It probably won't be building by building, but people need to have the ability to tell Council whether the environment that is being created is one that they support. This is a community that is very inclusive in its thinking. It will not be comparable to the sort of public hearings or open session design review that the City has provided for other projects, because design review probably will occur at the staff level. There will likely be a comparable checking process, which is yet to be determined. Perhaps PZC will be doing that, but Council will determine the approval process. However, this review will never be simply "checking boxes." While there will be some boxes that always have to be checked, this Code will have to be realized in spirit as well as in letter. There will always be some art to this — it will never be a science. As an example, years ago he shared a brief conversation with the director of the Boston Development Authority, who had been presented with a project that met every legal requirement of the City of Boston. Yet, he hated the project, and indicated that although he could not disapprove it, he could extend the review process significantly, meaning, the City will always have some leverage. Conscious of that, Council can be assured of liking the results. He doesn't know what form that approval process will take, or the public input. Clearly, the entire process will need to be monitored, and not by the staff that is implementing it, because it is their activity that will be monitored. The code for this area will not provide the overview; somebody who has the awareness and legitimate responsibility would do that. That body will have three review roles: (a) determining if the system is working; (2) determining how the public is involved, yet in a very different way than in the past because this is a different challenge; (3) determination of when something in the process needs to be changed and how. The review process is something you will need to resolve with each other. Mr. Taylor concurred. It isn't necessarily that PZC needs to be involved in every project review, but PZC is concerned that a proper level of public input be assured. Commission members have all reviewed projects that meet every requirement, but are really bad projects. However, there is also the project that doesn't meet any of the requirements, but is a wonderful project. There should be room for both types of projects to be massaged to achieve a satisfactory result. Mr. Elliott responded that the last criteria is that the application complies with all other requirements of the BSC district on which the land is located except as authorized by administrative departure, and that departure not be by more than a minimal percent. Their intent with the draft code was to require that the application meet the Code, not just the intent of the Code. The application must meet the standards, or in one of four situations, a request to the director can be made to change the compliance for that situation by a minimal amount, such as 10 percent. With that limited level of flexibility, the City will not get something that is very different from the Code. Council will inform staff how they're supposed to make those decisions. Outline them as clearly as possible, so it is apparent when it isn't done right. This draft has attempted to achieve that, but perhaps it needs to be tightened up. The direction with this area is more objectivity, clearer standards and more discipline, but the process will not get there completely. The goal is to have government operate the process by a few rules and then see if they work. If not, the rules are changed; the applicant is not the problem. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 13 of 16 Mrs. Boring inquired if the process could include that, if an application does not meet the standards through negotiations with staff, at that point the application must be forwarded to PZC. Mr. Elliott responded that the draft code already indicates that the director can forward those up . if they choose. However, the code could indicate that it MUST be forwarded. In general, if it's a complex project, it should be sent up; otherwise, it should not. In his experience, staff's judgments are made on sound planning bases. Some triggers for forwarding applications could be provided in the Code. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she believes Council may need to have a draft of what the proposed role of PZC would be in regard to the BSC area, including how they will monitor the process and the tools that staff needs to provide PZC to be able to monitor the decisions that have been made and the results of those decisions. Also included in the document should be a proposed process for public involvement. Council needs a draft document that they can "massage" and agree upon a process /policy to begin with, and then re- evaluate it after implementation. Mr. Reiner noted that PZC members are very knowledgeable about architectural detail. He would suggest that as they're going through this process, they observe what refinements could be made to tighten up the architectural issues. Is this draft the strongest code the consultants have seen in terms of controlling aesthetics? Mr. Elliott responded that it is, in terms of materials and articulation, but Council and PZC may identify issues they would typically raise. He is not a professional architect; he is a lawyer and planner who writes codes. Whatever level of detail this body wants can be written into that code. He would suggest caution, however. What makes a great city is not that every single building is a beautiful building; instead, it is the place. The goal is to achieve a place that attracts people because it is high class. In such a place, people can invest with confidence, and they will not be undercut by their neighbor. Their neighbor may not have the same level of fapade articulation that they have, and have preferred to spend their money in a different way, but that is acceptable. That exists in downtown Columbus, Indianapolis, Chicago, New York — all these other places. People are attracted because of the place, the public realm, the framing and the overall experience — not because every building has won an award. He would suggest adding everything in, then eliminating 20 percent of it. That allows architects to spend the money in the places the clients want them to spend the money and have some varieties. Mr. Taylor clarified that PZC has already reviewed the proposed Code thoroughly, and reported back to Planning several times on it. In return, Planning has incorporated much of what PZC recommended, and a certain level of detail has already been included in the draft Code. Although some additional tweaking may be necessary, essentially, PZC is in agreement with the draft Code. Mayor Lecklider noted that there are examples of similar areas near Dublin — the Short North, North Market, Victorian Village, Italian Village, the Arena District, where various districts all work. Although they weren't the result of a form -based Code, such as Dublin is doing in the Bridge Street Corridor, they are examples of subareas, which in and of themselves have distinct character, but work together as a larger district. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 14 of 16 Mr. Dixon noted that the exact same Code could exist for the Arena District and the Short North, but they will not look like each other because one has single ownership and one has multiple owners. The goal is a process that will work for both and will produce very different kinds of results in different areas. Dublin will have a similar combination to the Arena District, Short North, and Italian Village, that is much different than Dublin has been. Everyone agrees that City leadership is important here. While Dublin is good in terms of City leadership and doesn't want to lose that, Council must realize that transition at this point in time with this charge. Although it will be different from how things were done in the past, it will not constitute abandoning any responsibilities. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked if her suggestion would be an appropriate assignment for the consultants -- that is, defining the role of PZC, etc. Could they draft something for discussion by the group? Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that is a fantastic way to do it. The one comment she has heard is that if the people don't like what is occurring, they will elect a new Council. Planning staff doesn't work at the pleasure of Council. The Commission does not necessarily want to perpetuate anything. However, it is perfectly appropriate that the Commission look at the Code and the implementation process in consideration of what might best serve the City to maintain the best of the past and embrace the best of the future. She is not interested in being like every other city or working like Portland. She is interested in working like the best Dublin that Dublin can be. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher recommended that this assignment be given to PZC, along with whatever assistance is needed from staff in terms of materials to review. It is an appropriate assignment for the group who would be doing it to think through what their appropriate role would be in this different environment, for this part of Dublin only. Their role would not change for the other parts of the community. What things should PZC monitor, and how would that be done? Ms. Amorose- Groomes suggested that perhaps the current process could be scaled. It is much easier to remove review processes than to add them back in. Depending upon the level of success, if PZC did not feel that some area of review was necessary, that part could be removed. This method might help PZC to become more comfortable with the process as it moved forward. Vice Mayor Salay requested clarification of the proposed assignment Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher responded that Mr. Dixon has suggested that the City needs to define the role of PZC in this form -based Code. The form -based Code doesn't define PZC's role; it defines what the developer has to do. He has suggested that PZC's role would be a monitoring role to ensure that the Code we agree upon achieves what we want. The PZC skills and review would be used at a different place in the process than they have been used traditionally. To begin with, a written draft of their proposed role is needed, so that everyone is on the same page when discussing their role — the materials they would use, the process, the timeframes. Ms. Amorose- Groomes asked if she is suggesting the Commission look at the review process as a whole, or only at the role of PZC. Would she like to have recommendations for a holistic review process, including staff? Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher responded she would assume that would be included Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 15 of 16 Vice Mayor Salay asked if the intent is to define the point in the process — after a certain amount has been built -- at which PZC would then review the results and evaluate what has worked and what has not. Is that the role of PZC contemplated for this draft document? Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked Mr. Dixon to articulate this more clearly. Mr. Dixon responded that he had pointed out three things that clearly were not yet resolved, but need to be part of this process. Those tasks appeared to be those in which PZC could probably have significant responsibility. These items would need to be part of the process, and perhaps PZC could do these: (1) A form of public consultation -- public engagement, that is both about education to the public and hearing back. How to keep people informed and aware, for their benefit, as well as the City's? (2) Monitor the whole process to evaluate if it is working — is it catching the egregious projects that are absolutely correct but are "just awful," and the projects that are absolutely incorrect yet absolutely wonderful. Mr. Gerber added: are the policies set forth by Council being achieved? (3) Evaluate when there is a need to change the rules or add to them — they've got to evolve. (4) A fourth role could be defining a safety valve -- it was supposed to go forward, but we need to find a way of dealing with it. Mr. Elliott stated that they were tasked to write a chapter that was very different than anything Dublin has done before. That has been done, and he is sure it will be revised along the way. The things you're talking about would be included in a modern development Code. When he is hired to re -write a development code for a whole city, there is always a section on the role of PZC in each type of approval process, what is the role of Council, and the role of ARB. Because modern development codes typically address those roles for the entire city, he had deferred including it here as this code is for one part of the City. However, that can easily be included and he would advise it. However, he would advise that it be put in once for the whole city, rather than for a section. Similarly, many modern codes have a very clear statement of how public involvement is achieved in the city. Some of the cities who have had the most pleasant experiences with zoning over the years are the ones who treat it as a two -way street — they listen to the citizens and also educate the citizens as to the right places to get informed in the process. The level of education increases dramatically, but the City receives better feedback when the public has a good idea of where they're supposed to be engaged in the process. In addition, although this is not included in the Code as Council is not required to comply with it, there should be a periodic review of the whole Code every six months or annually. A six month or annual review of whether the standards and procedures are working that is based on what was approved in the past year, is good policy, not just for the BSC, but for the whole city. It keeps the Code from getting out of date, and it helps the citizens because they know the defined periods of time when the City will make a concerted effort to get citizen input on any changes needed. Public input doesn't occur when citizens become angry. Instead, it occurs on a schedule that nonprofits and citizen organizations are aware of. Mayor Lecklider stated that he appreciates the discussion regarding community involvement, and that it is a two -way street. The citizens expect their leaders to lead, and that is part of Council's charge. He thanked Mr. Dixon and Mr. Elliott for their contributions to the discussion, and noted everyone's participation is appreciated. In looking at the next steps, in view of Mr. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 16 of 16 Gerber's positive experience with the form -based Code workshop with staff, he suggests a similar opportunity be made available to other Council members and to PZC. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher noted that PZC has already had this workshop provided to them. Vice Mayor Salay stated that Mr. Gerber has indicated he benefited from the one -on -one discussion with staff versus a workshop with everyone present. Although it would involve more staff time, it is important that Council becomes more knowledgeable regarding the form -based Code. Ms. Amorose Groomes noted that PZC's workshop involved only the Commission and staff, so they were able to ask many questions. A small group was beneficial. Mrs. Boring stated that she would prefer a group session so she could hear the questions and ideas of other Council Members. Ms. Grigsby responded that staff can do both. A group presentation can be scheduled before a Council meeting, or on a separate date. If a Council Member also wants an individual session with staff. that can also be scheduled. Mrs. Boring asked about the next step for the BSC plan process. Ms. Grigsby responded that the next step would be a discussion of the draft document of PZC's role in the BSC review process. Because of their familiarity with the things that should be considered in the draft document, she believes it would be helpful to have the consultants provide their ideas and draft the draft document. That document could then be presented to PZC, and then PZC can draft their proposed role. Finally, we can work on merging the two documents. Mr. Gerber stated that a suggestion was also made to create a subarea map, and discuss each subarea with input from all, regarding the features and expectations of each district. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested that there could be an illustrative vision and a text vision. Mr. Gerber agreed, or it could be a combination of the two. There could be another joint workshop for that discussion. Ms. Grigsby responded that staff and the consultants would work on the draft document of PZC's role, then work on scheduling another next joint session to review the subareas. The form -based Code workshop could be scheduled for the next Council meeting, or on an additional off - Monday. It could also be videotaped and posted at the web to educate residents on how the form -based code would be used and implemented. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that it would be very helpful to have it available at the website. Also, even if Council members schedule individual discussions with staff, a form -based Code presentation should be provided to Council as a whole. The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Deputy Clerk of Council PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF DISCUSSION CITY OF DUBLIN- Land Use and JULY 7, 2011 Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Rood Dublin, Ohio 4301 6 -1 23 6 Phone/ TDD: 614- 410 -4600 Fax: 614-410-4747 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took no action on the following at this meeting; 2. Bridge Street Corridor - Informal Discussion RESULT: Planning presented an overview of the modifications made to the draft Bridge Street Corridor Development Code, demonstrated how the Code may be used for a development proposal and highlighted the architectural requirements based on a mixed -use building type. Commission members preferred to discuss the Vision Report and the Illustrative Vision Plan rather than the details of the Code at this point in time. The Commissioners commented that the Vision Plan lacked an organizing vision / "big idea" to inspire development in the corridor, that a green space /public space plan was needed, that connectivity among the districts throughout the corridor was very important as is the Scioto River access and meaningful connections across the river. The Commission was also concerned about the approval /implementation process to ensure quality development. STAFF CERTIFICATION 4 v e Steve Langwort Director Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 7, 2011 - Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 12 Additional Administrative Business BSC Code Discussion Steve Langworthy, Justin Goodwin and Rachel Ray presented a PowerPoint overview of the modifications made to the draft Bridge Street Corridor Development Code, demonstrated how the Code may be used for a development proposal and highlighted the architectural requirements based on a mixed -use building type. Steve Langworthy said staff has been working for 3 months on a Code with consultants that would normally take 12 - 18 months, therefore it is not perfect. He said there are several items which have not been tied down, mainly the street types, which is very important. He said a lot of things flow depending on the street type. He said staff has been reviewing current projects to determine how they can be changed to be made closer to the Bridge Street Code, knowing those projects would be a head of where the code adoption is. He said we have been testing using the information we have against that. Mr. Langworthy said in the past we discussed how to explain this complex code to the public. He said a User Guide will be developed to give a simple explanation of how the pieces fit together. He said staff will review the building and building types, what the terminology means and how it will be applied. Mr. Langworthy said this is inserted into the Zoning Code much like the COIC was when it was developed. He said when changes are made to the Code it triggers changes to be made elsewhere, this is true in this case. He said at some point we expect the BSC Definitions section to be incorporated into the current Zoning Code Section 153.002 so that there will be one consolidated section. Mr. Langworthy said that the BSC Code starts with the uses table that shows what uses are conditional and which ones have a time limitation on them, which uses are upper floor zoning and which uses are permitted. He said Planning spoke to property owners to see which uses they would like to see and added some new uses, such as banks. He said banks are unique because they have drive thrus, and the Code has them separated by banks and banks with drive thrus. Mr. Langworthy said the changes with the drafts is that there are currently viable uses in the area which will be there for while, but on the other hand one of the aspects of the existing use has to do with non conformities. He said if a property is a non - conforming use the owner has difficulties financing from a bank and so the Code considers these types of uses as existing rather than non- conforming. He said it is a subtle change but it allows staff to write letters to owners without using the phrase non - conforming use. He said it is language many property owners have been soothed by. Mr. Langworthy said that the Code allows the owners to stay in place and use the uses, which were in the district just prior to rezoning to the BSC district. He said the language will state the business can continue as is or the business can be sold to someone with the same type of business or a business which would have been allowed in the previous zoning. He said he is not sure what else needs to be done to make business owners not feel as though they are being pushed out of the corridor. Mr. Langworthy said he would like to discuss the philosophy of neighborhood standards. He said the two major neighborhoods are the OCLC property, referred to as the Indian Run neighborhood and the Stavroff Development, the Dublin Village Center area, which is referred Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 7, 2011 - Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 12 to as the Sawmill Center neighborhood. He said we are trying to work with these businesses in their planning process to incorporate their concept and their plan into the neighborhood standards. He said both are very close in nature to what we want to achieve in the rest of the corridor. Mr. Langworthy said the exception is the historic transition area; this is a sensitive area because the bulk of the historic transition is the school site. He said the zoning proposed for the school site is going to be public because it is a public use, the zoning plan will move that into historic transition. He said we are not doing specific standards for the historic transition area until we get that area under one ownership. Mr. Langworthy said open space is a hot topic, when we first saw the open space provisions do not do what we wanted them to do. He said the previous draft did not deal with all sizes and types of developments; it has been changed to deal with those situations. He said diversity was added to the open space types. He said open space works in different ways. He said traditionally people only think of large areas as open space, what we want people to understand is there are different functionalities to open space. Mr. Langworthy said at street level, for example, the Bri -Hi street area is open space, it is not thought of that way because it is not green with grass, but it is a space where people can interact which makes it open space. He said another open space area is between Tucci's and Krema, there is a bench which is also considered open space. He said even in an urban environment one can find a small intimate setting where a few people can gather. Mr. Langworthy said the in the Village Green area is more public space for gathering and up to the levels of parks. He said what we need to get people to think of is there is an array of areas that can be considered open space. He said there is also a new type of open space called pocket plaza or pocket park. He said one thing being considered is if for whatever reason open space is not able to be provided. He said we have developed a payment in lieu of option which allows the applicant to not provide an open space area. He said the fee would need to be approved to prevent applicants from foregoing an opportunity to provide open space. Mr. Langworthy said another aspect of the open space section deals with reducing the amount of open water provided in terms of the percentage of open space to create more usable space. He said we are also looking at doing more innovative stormwater management techniques. Mr. Langworthy said in the past two months there have been a number of requests to rezone properties, the Bridge Point property has requested to be in the Commercial Zone. He said there has been a request from Oakland Nursery, essentially asking to be left alone. He said their request is that they do not want to be altered in anyway. He said these types of requests would come in front of this Commission to make their pitch about what they want to do and why they want to do it. He said at that time the Commission will be asked to make a recommendation to City Council about these individual requests. Mr. Langworthy asked if there were any questions Amy Kramb asked if the Commission will get to see the Zoning Map as a part of this Code Mr. Langworthy yes, but it is also on the Bridge Street Corridor website. John Hardt said he has visited the website, but would like actual documents submitted. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 7, 2011 - Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 12 Ms. Kramb asked if there is any intention to put a map in the open space section Mr. Langworthy said the problem is designating someone's property as park. He said doing that states that the City has the intention of buying part of that property, which drastically brings down the property level. Ms. Kramb said that you can state you are taking private property for a road. Mr. Langworthy said yes, that has been commonly accepted because a road allows access to property. He said the open space is another question. Mr. Langworthy said we want to have a map with the intent to put together an acquisition map that would be placed in front of Council at an executive session. He said City Council can go into executive session for the purchase of land. He said there is a process for purchasing land which can be extensive. Richard Taylor said he understands the potential problems that come with informing a property owner that their land is going to be used for something other than what they are currently using it for. He said at the same time if someone purchases a piece of property with an investment in mind and they do not know the future intent of the property then they will have wasted their money. He said there has to be a way to allow those properties to be programmed in a way that allows this program to exist and allows the owners to still enjoy their property. He said we need to have a plan that has strength and character that we want to proceed with and not one that gets so chopped up until there is not a plan at all. Mr. Amorose Grooms said no one in this room has control over that; it is going to be City Council who has control of it. Mr. Taylor said AI Vrable's project is an example because his project does not meet the guidelines. He said the very first project that is to go in does not do what we want it to do and becomes a hole in this plan. He said those types of things are the things we need to ensure we have the fortitude to take the risks of making people mad or making it more difficult to get a loan from the bank. He said those are things we do not want to make happen. He said those issues are going to happen at the beginning of any major change like this. Mr. Taylor said we want to make sure people see that this is going to be what we are saying it is going to be. He said places like Oakland Nursery could be more valuable if they are a part of this rather than if they are islands. Mr. Langworthy said that point has been made, but the owners know the value of what they currently have and do not know the value of something in the future. He said that is part of the education. Warren Fishman said he if the property owners have the ability to choose zoning then there may as well not be any zoning assigned. He said if the property owners have the ability to pay rather than have open space, they will pay. He said we've been through this before with trees: we really need to make these things specific. He said we have not laid out the ratio of open space to begin with. Mr. Langworthy said there is a portion of open space that must be provided based on the number of units based on square footage. He said the amount of open space provided will be directly proportional to the amount of density. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 7, 2011 - Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 12 Mr. Fishman said but we do not know how the land is going to be divided or who the owners are going to be. He said if someone comes in with an application and he is stuck with a ratio of space he will have to give up that he is unaware of. Mr. Langworthy said it is dependent on the amount of development you have, it is not dependent on where you are or when you develop. He said it is what you develop. Mr. Hardt said the latest edition of the text does say you must have 200 square feet of open space for every dwelling unit. He said it is very methodical and he disagrees with Mr. Fishman because that approach, he fears, could result in what we do not want. He said if we require every development to require a set amount of open space, we will get a developer who only designates the required amount. Mr. Langworthy said that will be addressed. Ms. Amorose Groomes said we may not want every developer to supply green space on their parcel, the city may want to have the fee in lieu of green space and acquire green space for the developer. Mr. Langworthy said we want to write criteria in which that would be decided and a fee would be appropriate rather than providing open space. Ms. Amorose Groomes said it would have to be pertinent open space. Justin Goodwin presented a demonstration of how the site development standards for street types, lots and block requirements, and building type requirements are intended to work together. He explained that when applicants begin a project, they do not typically start at the beginning of the code and work through it from start to finish; rather, how they apply the code depends on the conditions specific to the site and work from there. Mr. Goodwin began with the street type requirements, which he acknowledged is a section that still needs some work because the transportation consultants are still in the process of producing the entire palette of street types that will be recommended for the different areas of the Bridge Street Corridor. He noted that the current draft contains a street network map, which has changed since the original version of the draft. Mr. Goodwin stated that the concept of street families has also changed, since the transportation consultants are recommending a more generalized approach to organizing streets in terms of general character and function. He said that street families are different from our typical Thoroughfare Plan, which runs from arterial streets down to collector streets, then to local streets. He said there is an element of function necessary for any street type, but categorizing streets by function is a vehicular- focused approach. He said the transportation consultants want to make sure that all modes of transportation are considered and that the land use character of the surrounding areas are also considered. He said most of the specific street sections will ultimately be located in the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code Applicant Guide after they are completed. Mr. Goodwin stated that there was confusion at the last Joint Work Session about Bridge Street being included as a street family, which staff agreed was confusing. He said Bridge Street will have its own street sections that will be specifically geared toward Bridge Street in various portions of the Corridor since it would be inappropriate to have one street section for the entire Corridor. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 7, 2011 - Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 12 Mr. Goodwin explained the primary address street family, shown in orange in the presentation, intended for cross -town connections with a higher density of development along them. He continued that another street family is the neighborhood address street, shown in blue in the presentation, and how these street types relate to lots and blocks is very important. He stated that the lots and blocks section of the code lays out maximum block dimensions for each zoning district, and depending on the street types in a particular zoning district and the types of uses a developer might be interested in developing, the lots and block section will provide the maximum size of a block that can be created. Mr. Goodwin presented the three building types that are included in the code demonstration, including the Apartment Building, Single - Family Attached, and Loft Building. He started by showing an example apartment building on a hypothetical lot with parking located to the rear of the building. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that parking could be located in a structure beneath apartment buildings. Mr. Goodwin affirmed and added that there is also a separate building type for parking structures if the parking is located in a separate structure. Mr. Goodwin reported that the Code requires 200 square feet of publicly accessible open space for each dwelling unit. He referred to page 66 of the Code where all of the different types of open spaces that would be appropriate in different districts were listed with dimensional requirements. He stated that one of the issues with the open space types and one of the reasons that Planning thought it was very important to provide a fee -in -lieu of land dedication option, is that it may not always be possible for one of the open space types to actually fit onto a site because there are minimum dimensions and minimum area requirements for each open space type. He said for smaller lots, it would probably not be possible to provide the open space on- site. He referred to the Pocket Park open space type, which is a residential- oriented type of close -knit open space that is a minimum of one -tenth of an acre up to one -half acre. He said each open space type also has different street frontage requirements. He said the intent was to not allow the open spaces to be buried into a site and no longer be publicly accessible or to feel like the public can also access the space. Mr. Fishman said he was concerned about open space in terms of how to make sure that there is a logical connection between where open space is provided and where residential units or office spaces are located. Mr. Goodwin said that was something that they were aware still needed work in the Code. Mr. Zimmerman asked if the dedicated open space would be required to stay in the zoning district. Mr. Goodwin said that was not how it was written, but he thought that was a fair point to consider. Mr. Hardt said that he feared that developers would figure out how to avoid the open space type requirements and provide open space in the left over land available on the site. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested that the Code more clearly state that the ultimate decision of where open space occurs is with a specific body. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 7, 2011 - Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 12 Mr. Goodwin explained that the open space section was written to provide discretion not necessarily for the applicant, but for the reviewing body, whether it is the ART or the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Taylor asked about the purpose of requiring open space, what the open space requirements are expected to accomplish, and why they would not want some blocks to be completely built out, or others to be entirely dedicated to open space. He asked why, in reference to Mr. Goodwin's example, they would want to have one corner of the block open space and the other three developed. Mr. Goodwin said the example was very generalized and not intended to suggest that that exact spot was the most appropriate location for the open space. He said his intent was to show the relationship between the development density and the amount of open space required. Mr. Taylor said he understood the intent of the demonstration, but asked why we would want individual parcels to be required to provide open space. Mr. Goodwin suggested that perhaps one way to think about it is what we do not want to do, and maybe the language needs to be fine tuned, but we do not want to require specific individual parcels to provide the required open space, but every developer should be required to make sure that sufficient open space is provided, not necessarily on the parcel. Mr. Hardt commented that in dense urban environments, the purpose of open spaces is to provide relief from the density. He said it seemed that in Bridge Street, we have yet to create the density before we need relief from it, rather than providing parks that are relief from something that does not exist yet. Mr. Langworthy said that was an important distinction because they are showing residential, but there are also open space requirements for commercial. He said those open spaces adjacent to more commercial- oriented development would not likely include playgrounds with a lot of trees and fields, but it could be a plaza, for example, with a different set of amenities. Mr. Taylor said when he looked at Bri High Square; the green space in the back did not get much use, so he would view it more as half an open space. He said that, had where the veterinarian building is located been designed to be a mirror image of the Bri High Square green space that is similar in size, it would be big enough to function. He asked if by requiring developers to provide open space, are we really gaining anything? He referred to Mr. Goodwin's example of open space and asked if it would not just be better to locate more parking or building on the area shown as open space, and provide a bigger, better open space on its own block across the street. Mr. Goodwin said that the requirement on page 66 in the Open Space Type section is intended to try to make that distinction. He quoted that, in dealing with provision of open space and existing open spaces, If the ART determines that an existing open space can be used to meet the open space requirement, then the applicant shall pay a fee in lieu. He explained that if there are circumstances such as what Mr. Taylor is alluding to, and that block is developed and enough open space is already provided nearby when the next block develops, then in this case, the ART could actually prevent that duplicate open space from being created if it is determined that it is not appropriate to create another pocket park in close proximity to an existing pocket park when one larger park would be better. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 7, 2011 - Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 12 Mr. Taylor suggested that in an area with a gridded street network, where we would want relief from density, if we say that one block is going to be entirely dedicated to open space, and the six blocks surrounding that block would not have any smaller open spaces of their own, then the density of the residential buildings surrounding the open space block would result in four strong street edges with six blocks of residents and employees who all view that space as theirs, and are all going to share that space and find ways to use it together throughout the years. He said the small corner space in the example would only be used by the people in that block, which is a small number of people. He said he thought we might end up with small islands of open space if each development is required to provide one open space for itself. Ms. Amorose Groomes referred to the criteria in the Code, which seems to require either funds or space, and the administration would determine if funds or land is desired for accomplishing what we want with open space. She said if funds were provided, then the City could buy the block in the middle for a larger open space with the funds generated from the six blocks on the perimeter. She said she agreed completely with Mr. Taylor, but the decision lies with the administration. Mr. Taylor agreed and clarified that the idea of where we want those larger open spaces are decisions that need to be made in advance, because if someone drops an apartment building on block that we all wanted to be a park, it would be too late. Mr. Langworthy said this scenario would probably work the best in the three neighborhood districts where we will have the ability to work with a single property owner to identify where the developer will agree to one large block being developed as dedicated open space with development on the surrounding blocks. He said that type of development would be harder in the areas where there are lots of smaller parcels that are split between different property owners, but it would be easier to do in a Dublin Village Center or OCLC development. Mr. Zimmerman asked how the fees in lieu are calculated. Mr. Goodwin explained that the amount is based on the assessed value of the property multiplied by the amount of development. He said that appraisals of land per acre is periodically updated by Finance. He added that the same method of calculation is currently used for open space dedication with residential subdivisions elsewhere in the city. Ms. Amorose Groomes reiterated that the purpose of the Commission's discussion this evening is to understand how the Code is applied so that they will have a better understanding when it is time for the Commission to review the code page by page. She wanted the Commissioners to be aware of the potential holes, then when the draft Code is finalized by staff and the consultants, the Commission can go through the Code and see if the holes still remain, and if so, discuss solutions. Mr. Langworthy confirmed that the Code was not finished. He said he thought what Ms. Amorose Groomes was requesting was to try to identify what might be missing. Mr. Fishman stated that development is market - driven, so we cannot control how and when development occurs. He said the Code needs to have some flexibility, but also a good deal of structure. He was concerned that the Code may require open space to be located a certain way, but it might not end up that way because the developer will argue that it is a hardship. Ms. Amorose Groomes agreed that the administration of the open space requirements will be vital. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 7, 2011 - Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 12 Ms. Kramb said she could not find requirements for curb cut location and the amount permitted in the Code. Mr. Langworthy explained that there are still access management requirements that exist elsewhere in the City's Codes, and will still need to be adhered to in the Corridor. He explained that if topics are not addressed specifically in the Bridge Street Code, then the requirements of the rest of the Code will continue to apply. Ms. Kramb suggested that Engineering carefully review the curb cut standards number allowed because with small blocks and alleys, there could end up being a driveway every ten feet. Mr. Goodwin said the intent of the lot and block requirements is, if there is an alley or a mid - block access point, then vehicular access would occur from the alley instead of the street. He added that vehicular access is also regulated by building type, regardless of whether or not there is a principal frontage street adjacent to a lot. He said most building types would not allow vehicular access from the front property line. Rachel Ray presented a demonstration of the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code Building Type Requirements. She explained that the requirements were applicable to building facades, which are intended to give buildings a sense of character, authenticity, and architectural diversity. She presented photograph of an existing four -story, mixed use building located on Grandview Avenue as an example that nearly fits the character and requirements of the Mixed Use Building Type requirements. Mr. Hardt noted that the example building clearly indicated where signs are intended to be placed on the building through the architectural design. He said that he would like to see sign location added to the list of building requirements. Mr. Fishman was concerned that 80- percent of these buildings could be wood and fiber - cement siding, which are listed as permitted primary building materials. He said that was not appropriate for Dublin. He thought buildings should be at least 80- percent brick or stone, not wood siding or Hardiplank. Ms. Ray said they would want to be careful in applying that across the board. She said some building types, such as the historic building types, it might be more appropriate to have wood siding or more siding instead. She agreed to look at it to see it made more sense to limit siding as a primary material particularly for certain building types. Mr. Fishman said with the density we are going to see, we do not want buildings built mainly with Hardiplank. Mr. Taylor agreed with Mr. Fishman, because when buildings exceed two stories, it gets expensive, if not impossible to maintain non - durable materials, and Hardiplank, although more durable than regular siding, is going to fall into that category compared to brick or stone. He said it could end up looking bad, quickly. Mr. Zimmerman asked if tinted windows were allowed on residential buildings, since Low -E glass, which is more energy efficient, is considered "tinted." Ms. Ray said tinted glass was not mentioned Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 7, 2011 - Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 12 Mr. Hardt pointed out that all glass is now tinted, and regarding being reflective, the text referred to highly reflective glass, which is hard to define. He suggested research to find appropriate percentages or thresholds and to put numeric values to that term. Mr. Taylor was concerned that there was too much homogeneity in the example building. He said he would like to see that there is plenty of provision for a lot more variation in architecture, as long as the forms fit. He said specifically, they needed to make room to allow for a more innovative use of synthetic materials. He said he would hate to see every building brick, stone, and Hardiplank. He said alternative materials would fit wonderfully on that. He said he liked this part of the Code because a good designer could work with it and make really special buildings even with the amount of prescription given. He said he thought even the worst designer would make a tolerable building out of this, although hopefully tolerable buildings will not be accepted. He said he thought it went far enough to make sure the worst stuff we get still generally fits and allows enough room for great things to happen. Mr. Taylor said he hoped that when they get into the sign discussion that they get away from the propensity that we have in Dublin that all development signs should be the same. He said he thought it would be entirely appropriate and with the essence of this kind of development that we end up with unique signs. Mr. Langworthy asked if the three color limitation was still desirable for signs in the Bridge Street Corridor. The Commissioners agreed that there could be a greater diversity of sign color in the Corridor due to the type of development desired. Ms. Ray said the draft Code currently allows sign plans to be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission in the three neighborhood districts to allow a greater variety of colors or types of signs, or something totally different, so they would like to have that flexibility instead of trying to define what all signs have to be right up front. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she appreciated the effort taken in putting these presentations together. Ms. Amorose Groomes said there was a lot of discussion on the table based on the City Council discussion at their July 6, 2011 meeting. She recounted that, through the course of Council's discussion, the pendulum seemed to swing from reengaging public meetings to only having the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council sit down and discuss the main issues. She said the direction would probably fall somewhere with the Planning and Zoning Commission and maybe some other boards and commissions or maybe consultants, because if they start engaging in public meetings again they will have taken a step backward. Ms. Amorose Groomes said her goal for the Commission at the Joint Work Session is that she would like the Commissioners to come as a unified body with one voice about the things that they really want to drive a stake into the ground about, and things that they would be more flexible with and things that they would be less flexible with, and things that they believe are really wrong and things that they can live with. She said there is no doubt that they will see the draft Code and will go page by page and dig into all of the details, and she expects that to be a lengthy process. However, she said when it gets to that point, they are just going to be talking about the Code and tonight, she would like to talk about the vision so they can be prepared to be on the same page at the Joint Work Session. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 7, 2011 - Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 12 Ms. Amorose Groomes said she wanted to keep the vision separate from the Code. She said she would like to let Planning finish their work on the Code and save the discussion of the Code for later. She would like the Commissioners to talk about the vision and what things in the vision are most important. She said that rather than to try to articulate those things separately, if they could be of one voice, she thought they had a better shot of communicating those points effectively at the Joint Work Session. Ms. Amorose Groomes said when it comes to visioning; they really needed to talk about what was their vision for the Corridor as a Commission, and what they feel the vision should be. She asked if the Commissioners had the opportunity to refine and built upon the Vision Report, which she agreed was a good start, what the Commission feels is missing and how can they get the elements incorporated into the vision that they feel are not there presently. Ms. Amorose Groomes said at the last Joint Work Session, she walked out thinking that there is no vision, and although we have a Vision Report, we do not have a 'vision.' Mr. Taylor said what he heard from Council was a discussion of the physical drawing for the Plan, and that Council had concerns about things that might be missing. He agreed with Ms. Amorose Groomes and Council's comments, that the descriptions in the text of the Vision Report are good, but he thought it was interesting that many of the things articulated in the text are not realized fully in the drawing of the vision, and he thought that was where there was a disconnect. Mr. Taylor thought they had all the input needed, and they have talked about elements that may start to satisfy that vision. He said they were at the point now of deciding which of those elements are most important. He said it seemed like a small step to define those important elements and give their feedback as a Commission to Council. He hoped they would then put their feedback together with Council's and then go back to some entity, perhaps Goody Clancy, and ask them to incorporate these missing elements into a new version of the plan. Mr. Fishman said one of the concerns was that they had to make sure that this vision is shared by property owners, Council, and everybody so that it is implemented because they do not want to just put it on the shelf. He said there needs to be a consensus. Ms. Amorose Groomes said a consensus is important, but more than a consensus, that once the vision is agreed upon that the will is mustered up to implement the vision. Mr. Taylor said he did not see the Vision Plan as being very far off track. He said the Code is something that they will continue to tweak and revise, and he thought it would be easy enough to modify the Code when needed. He said he thought there was plenty of time and room to make the plan right and incorporate the ideas that the Commission feels are important. Ms. Amorose Groomes shared a compliment from Council member John Reiner who in their discussion, said that he was looking for the vision to come from the Planning and Zoning Commission because he felt that they had the best skill set to do that. She thought that was a great compliment and a charge. She agreed that the vision is not clear or defined enough to what the Commissioners feels it should be. Ms. Amorose Groomes opened up the discussion to the rest of the Commissioners and asked what elements they thought were missing from the vision. Ms. Kramb said the vision principles were fine and everyone generally seemed to be in agreement with them. She thought however that it was derailed with the Illustrative Vision Plan, the rendering that is in the report that the public sees and that everyone is going by, and she thought that needed to be redrawn. She said the Illustrative Vision Plan did not need to be Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 7, 2011 - Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 12 redrawn by a consultant who does not live here, but by the Commission and City Council, and then it should be shown to the public for their input. She said in her opinion, the only problem with the entire Vision Report is that rendering. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked for the comments discussed at the Open Space Workshop in March. Mr. Langworthy agreed to provide the notes to the Commission. Mr. Hardt said that in his opinion, the Illustrative Vision Plan does not have a big idea. He asked the Commissioners, if they thought 50 years from now, if the legacy for this Corridor is the creation of 'X,' what is that? He suggested engagement of the riverfront, the creation of a town square, or 'X' number of residential units. He asked what the one thing was, more than any other that they wanted to accomplish in the Corridor, and based on the Illustrative Vision Plan, that seemed to be a little bit of everything. He said it was surprising that they could lay out a plan for hundreds of acres in the core of an already developed city and not somewhere along the way find themselves saying in order to make this successful, what they really have to do is this one thing, and it is going to be really hard to do, but we have to do it because it is the right thing to do. Mr. Hardt said the location, distribution, and how green space and public space is handled is universally important to everyone. He said the connectivity between the various areas of the Bridge Street Corridor is enormously important. He said he was fearful that the way this is playing out is that they could end up with five or six little Easton -like pods that do not connect to each other. He said getting them all to work together and feel connected is hugely important. Mr. Hardt said he still had a lot of concern about the approval and implementation process and how quality will be assured going forward. Ms. Amorose Groomes said those were four great points. Joe Budde said although he was a new Commissioner and had not been present during many of the early discussions; he thought that the Scioto River had not been not sufficiently addressed. Ms. Kramb said she thought the Parks Department would be a key contributor to this discussion in knowing what they have planned. Mr. Fishman said his experience with the Parks Department was that there was a certain way parks are positioned and how big they are to how they can maintain them. He said he thought they should provide input. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she thought that would be part of the fiscal analysis. Mr. Taylor agreed that programmed and specifically placed open spaces, better use and access to the Scioto River, and meaningful and purposeful connections across the river need to be discussed further. He said if Dublin is going to have a grid street system, that was great, but he thought it needed to be organized and arranged around some strong visual concept. Ms. Kramb said regarding the grid system, there would need to be main arterials, and there cannot be curb cuts along Riverside Drive every 400 feet or so. Mr. Taylor said one of the best things about Dublin he had heard from many people was the roadway underneath the bridge. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 7, 2011 - Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 12 Ms. Amorose Groomes summarized the main points that the Commission had discussed: That the Vision Plan lacked an organizing vision or one "big idea" that would inspire development in the corridor and leave a legacy; That a defined green space /public space plan was needed; That connectivity among the districts throughout the corridor was important; That access to the Scioto River access and meaningful connections across the river are critical; and That there be an approval and implementation process will ensure that quality development will result throughout the Corridor. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked for feedback regarding how best to organize their comments regarding what they would like to see incorporated in the illustrative vision plan. Mr. Langworthy thought it would be useful if one or more of the Commissioners were able to report at the August l ltn Joint Work Session that they had discussed this topic and found that there are five critical ideas that they thought needed to be addressed in the Vision Plan. Ms. Amorose Groomes offered to present what they felt was missing and then they could assign the specific items to individual Commissioners. Mr. Langworthy suggested that as the Commission put their notes together, that if they have an idea of what they would like to see on some slides to back up their presentation, let Planning know in advance so they can help prepare the Commissioners. Ms. Amorose Groomes said perhaps at the July 21 meeting, assignments could be made. She suggested the Commissioners individually think about what they would want to do that they could briefly speak with some expertise and clarity. Mr. Langworthy suggested that they could adjourn the meeting to the Council Planning Room after the July 21 meeting to discuss what they would like to do at the Joint Work Session. Mr. Langworthy asked that the Commissioners not to forget to read the Character District descriptions in the Vision Report. He suggested they think about what they see when driving down Bridge Street, as you come off the highway in the first block, coming to Frantz Road and what they saw in the next stretch coming into the Historic District, where does the Historic District begin and what do they see from that point, and crossing the river, what do they see. He said they do not really have that level of detail or the answer to those questions. He said part of that was because they have transportation issues remaining to be resolved such as what happens at Riverside Drive and SR 161 and Frantz Road and Post Road. Mr. Langworthy said those things have to be decided before they can really decide those issues. Ms. Amorose Groomes adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m As approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meet inL July 6, 2011 Page 9 Mayor Lecklider commented that he is appreciative that Ms. Grigsby has pointed out the staff efforts that have brought this project forward. Ms. Grigsby commented that this also reduces the City's dependence upon petroleum products. Staff anticipates it will continue to be less costly to use natural gas. By having reduced fuel costs and having secured grant funds and the contribution from IGS, this project will bring significant savings for the City. OTHER Discussion re. Bridge Street Corridor Mayor Lecklider stated that tonight's agenda includes a free exchange of comments among Council Members regarding the initiative to give some guidance to staff. Each Council Member will have an opportunity to make comments. Mr. Reiner commented that at the last Council meeting, there was discussion about the "missing vision" and he is hopeful that tonight's comments can be shared with the Planning group. One of the ideas that came up previously was the riverfront park that now is missing, and there was concern over that. He views the Corridor as three pods that are very important to develop: the OCLC pod, the Historic Dublin pod, and the Dublin Village Center pod. The 161 Corridor is already well handled, as established businesses exist along this corridor, including an international corporate headquarters, a jeweler who has built a beautiful new building, La Scala Restaurant and others. Currently, these active businesses pay taxes and therefore this portion is not in need of redevelopment at this time. There are potential sites for the new type of urban development, and he would like Council to develop a limited statement about what they believe is missing in the vision in the master plan, so that this can be addressed and incorporated. As Chair of the Community Development Committee, he urged Council to keep tonight's discussion brief and to the point. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that in reading the vision statements again, she was struck by the words contained, which supported her concept of what the City was planning to do with the Corridor. However, at this point, she feels she has not heard, or she has missed, or the communication is different from what she reads in the vision statements. There are words such as "exceptional greenspace preserved" and "outstanding natural features." However, she does not see exceptional greenspace, but rather pockets of greenspace, not dramatic enough to draw attention to them. The vision statement speaks to "inviting walking and gathering" — which suggests an area that people are drawn to, with lots of activity within, and not so much passive pedestrian use as a combination of passive and active use. On page 6, it talks of "reinforcing economic development strategies through an enduring commitment to exemplary planning and design" and "will help create places that make Dublin stand out and stay competitive: That is what she does not see in the recent documents — something unique and different. It is simply "cookie cutter pieces," without interconnection to make a dynamic area and statement, drawing people to live and work there, and to enjoy while walking around. On page 8, it speaks of "great cultural connections with expanded civic uses such as libraries." Council talked at length at the goal setting retreat about placing the library in a learning center and discussed exciting ideas of partnership and opportunities between OCLC, the Columbus Metropolitan Library, the Dublin Schools and the City. Recently, there has been extensive coverage in the Columbus Dispatch about the opening of the Scioto Mile park. Alan McKnight, Columbus Parks and Recreation Director spoke of the Scioto River, which has long existed, yet only now is being opened to the external area with the Scioto Mile project. She had anticipated Dublin would do the same with the Scioto River in Historic Dublin — that the river would be the centerpiece and all of the interaction of the public would be inclusive of the river. In more recent discussions, she has heard nothing of this for the Corridor Plan. Tonight, she envisioned this learning center and, depending upon placement, how the river could be incorporated. She is concerned that the exciting ideas previously discussed are being lost. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting July 6, 2011 Page 10 Mr. Reiner mentioned the three pods — with OCLC at the western end and which has a great desire to open their complex to the world, and with the Indian Run close by; the middle portion, which could be the 21 century learning center; and then the river and what could be a central park that extends up into Dublin Village Center. It could be a combination of an entertainment district — retail, business, residential components — with a more urban feel. She is aware that there are many districts included in the Corridor Plan, but perhaps the overall vision is lost in this division. Perhaps the pods need to have more interaction within and be more integrated to the adjacent pod. She had expected this project to be a dramatic centerpiece for Dublin that would complete it in a way that would be comprehensive, with a place in town accommodating all of the lifestyles people desire in different phases of their lives. She does not feel there is "drama" in the presentations to date. Even the transportation system can be dramatic, and she wants Council to consider bold ways of moving people through town — not depending upon COTA or federal and state government. What could Dublin do in a small geographic area that would be unique and different? These are her comments to share. Mrs. Boring noted that she was not present at the last Council meeting, but sent Council Members a memo with her comments on the Bridge Street Corridor. She is looking for more interaction between Council and the Planning department. Council has not had the opportunity to provide ideas to staff for them to explore. The vision plan was approved by Council, but since that time, there has not been opportunity for this discussion. In terms of the pods, there are too many and they are not integrated as they should be. Someone at the last meeting indicated that Dublin has always been proactive, but is now being reactive. This is reflected in the Bridge Street Corridor plan, as well. When questions arise, the response from staff is that, "The Code will address that issue." The way this is developing is that Council is not setting the standards — the developers will address these issues when development comes forward. There has been no opportunity for "give and take" in the process. She believes the library placement must be determined before street locations are finalized; the grid streets make sense, but they do not work in scale. The City should not be so tied to an idea as to lose flexibility. The shocking aspect of the plan is that the greenspace near the river has disappeared. She would like definitions of walkability and connectivity. The last plan included green strips of connectivity, but what about walkability? Is there a difference? Currently, it seems the tool is being developed, which will create the vision. She wants to have a more active discussion between Council and Planning Commission and an opportunity to share and discuss ideas. The interaction needed has not occurred to date. She is not certain about her support of a form -based Code, but perhaps more education is needed. At the present time, she is totally uncomfortable with the form -based Code concept, as it does not result in the vision that Council adopted. Mr. Gerber stated that there is clearly a need to vet the vision for this Code. He has spoken with several architects, and they all seem to have a different concept of form - based Code. The best definition he has received to date is that a form -based Code is not straight line Code, but instead is based upon a concept or vision. On page 16 of the vision report, it indicates, "This conceptual plan should be interpreted as one possible development outcome that reflects market opportunity and the intent of the vision principles. Actual outcomes that differ from this illustrative concept are inevitable, but all development should make every effort to embody the vision principles." He is not certain that everyone is in agreement with what those vision principles are. In keeping with the tradition of thoroughly vetting this, he would prefer to have a workshop where Council, Planning & Zoning Commission and staff — not consultants -- have in depth discussion in a roundtable fashion. This would help everyone to understand each visionary principle. Otherwise, this is just another version of urbanism, which is not what he expected and is not exciting or different. There is clearly a need to "Dublinize" this — as has been done in the past with other plans. There has been discussion of a new 21 century learning center, and now is the time to discuss this. There has been discussion about green space and Riverside Drive, and these items can be discussed in the workshop as well. There has not been RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council N LEr8L B MK INC. FORM 0M July 6, 2011 Held Meetine Page 11 an opportunity for these three groups to review the vision report and make sure the principles are fully understood. He wants to have staff's assistance in helping to understand what form -based Code is. In addition, discussion is needed about who will serve as the gatekeeper. There is an architectural review team established in the Code, but who comprises that team? Those are the people who will carry out the vision. What discretion do they have, and what are the expectations of Council? It is important to have this discussion among Council, Planning & Zoning Commission and staff so that everyone is on the same page. At this point, his sense is that everyone is not on the same page. He is aware that business owners have concerns about property rights, and he is confident that these concerns will be addressed to their satisfaction. For him, the Code is simply a "menu" after the concept is in place. Absent a good concept, he is not certain what the Code will mean. Mr. Keenan commented that he has the least amount of experience among Council Members in this area, but he wants this Plan to encourage the opening of a critical land mass needed to make the entire corridor work. That could range from the relocation of Riverside Drive, opening up the east side of the river and having a learning center as discussed. In terms of connectivity and walkability, a pedestrian bridge across the river, as Council viewed in Greenville, South Carolina should be considered. Continuing to work with the Schools with respect to gaining a critical land mass in the District is important as well as continuing to encourage walkability. In the long run, the City will need to improve its walkability and connectivity, and at some point, if there were a viable option to close roads and redirect traffic to have a walkable area, that should be considered. Perhaps consideration should be given to diverting roads through some of the OCLC grounds, behind the School land, or other possibilities. His belief is that creating a critical land mass is very important for the District. Vice Mayor Salav stated that she is concerned that in the meetings held up to this point, there were many presentations about important elements of the Plan, yet much of this information could have been provided in a memo — indicating that the utility systems are adequate and can support the Plan. That meeting time could have been used in a different way. In terms of the park along Riverside Drive, someone noted at the recent meeting that the land mass was somewhat smaller, and that became a stopping point for any further progress at the meeting. She wants to understand the decisions that are being made with respect to Riverside Drive — including a roundabout or not, the location of the future road and the existing shopping center viability going forward. She does not want the vision abandoned for the Riverside Drive park for the sake of a shopping center that may not be viable long -term. This park is an important part of the vision, although it may not come about in the short term. This is clearly a policy decision for all of Council. She had understood that a roundabout was planned for Riverside Drive /161 intersection, which would be easy for bicycles and pedestrians to navigate. She would like to hear about the ideas the engineers now have for this intersection. She wants to ensure that all of Council understands the form -based Code, and it is important to have architects who understand it on board as well. In previous field trips, Council has learned about pattern books, which helped everyone to understand the vision of a plan in other communities. This may be a good tool for this Plan as well. In terms of the library, a great opportunity exists for this initiative. She is not certain how such a facility can be sited, as the land mass is not under the City's control at this time. In terms of the business owners with concerns, attorney Ben Hale who represents some of these businesses complimented staff for addressing their concerns and their willingness to meet. On the other hand, she does not want a car dealership that has changed ownership to dictate what will occur in this corridor in the future — it is too important and will transcend these businesses over the 20 -year timeframe for implementation. Perhaps the excitement about the vision has diminished because of the format of the meetings, with many presentations and attendees. She was pleased that Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher recently brought up MORPC's Complete Streets video, which has reinvigorated her thinking about the concepts being implemented in the corridor. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meetin July 6, 2011 Page 12 Perhaps another speaker or another vision discussion, revisiting the concepts and reinvigorating the process would be worthwhile. In the meetings to date, the focus has been on individual parts of the Plan, and not on the vision as a whole. It is important to recapture this excitement, use what has been learned, and go forward with this vision. She is very excited about the vision plan that Council has adopted. Mayor Lecklider stated that it appears there is the most consensus regarding the east side of the river. Council has also heard from staff about some of the changes that have taken place after the initial vision document, to the extent that the vision identifies the east side of the river as someplace for this pedestrian bridge that many have had in mind since the field trips. He does not believe that there is any particular project such as that which Council necessarily wants to duplicate identically, but the Greenville field trip presented a concept of something that was embraced by many. What he hears everyone articulating, and what he agrees with is that everyone wants a place to go on the east side of the river — something relatively substantial, perhaps including the redirection of Riverside Drive. That is as specific as he wants to be with respect to any portion of this Plan. There are reasons why this is otherwise conceptual, not unlike the Community Plan in some respects. There was some discussion in an earlier meeting about green spaces and he felt the direction at the time was headed to specifically identifying green spaces throughout this entire Corridor area, and very nearly specifying exact dimensions. His understanding of what was underway was trying to formulate a vision, allowing that to be carried out over a period of time, and having it be market driven. That could change over a period of time. In page 16 of the vision report, it indicates that development will occur incrementally, in different stages and in different places over a timeframe of 20 years or longer. To the extent the City might identify a specific area for a green corridor or specific green space, he is not certain how that might change if the development does not occur for ten years. Although Council has indicated they would like to see a certain amount of greenspace, connectivity, etc., he does not necessarily want to be more specific than that — with the exception of the east side of the river and if there would be strong consensus for a town green in the central Historic District. He envisions that this Plan is purely conceptual, with opportunity for input, but allowing for the Plan to be market driven, with control existing by way of the form -based Code. Personally, he does not have experience with form -based Code. He does not want Council to lose sight of the vision for this Plan. He is hearing tonight that there is much positive feedback about the vision document. In terms of the Plan being "dramatic" — as Ms. Chin nici-Zuercher has mentioned — a concern he has is that the City has been moving toward a more "Dublinized" urbanization — instead of something that will surprise people 20 years out as something dramatically different for Dublin. Mr. Reiner's comments about the three primary areas are on point. The City cannot necessarily site the library of the future, but some believe the OCLC property would be a good location for it. He noted that on NPR radio, he recently heard a story about the early stages of the development of Manhattan. The government leaders engaged in the effort of extensive use of eminent domain, creating a grid system of streets, and made many existing property owners unhappy. Manhattan is now some of the most expensive property in the world. He is not advocating this for Dublin, but is hopeful that Dublin can maintain the vision, while protecting the interests and property rights of those businesses that currently exist, particularly along 161. The City should be sensitive to their concerns. He is hopeful, going forward, that a connection can be drawn between the vision and the Code, recapturing some of the excitement felt at the outset. The meetings held have been useful, but it is now important to let the vision be the guiding force in terms of what is done with the Code. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher noted she is pleased that Vice Mayor Salay referenced the pattern book viewed in Feld trips. The developers in those communities indicated that the pattern book helped them understand the vision. The problem with the form -based Code is that it is just that — a Code — and not a vision as articulated in a pattern book. In terms of parks, she personally does desire having a central park and is willing to purchase the land for it. Things will then come together around a publicly -owned RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meetin July 6, 2011 Page 13 central park. The proposed pocket parks are more similar to the parkland donation set aside by developers at the current time. In terms of vision statements, she supports the ones included in the document. What is troubling is how they are being implemented, and this seems to be where the disconnect has occurred. She does not disagree with the bigger concepts of the vision statements. She added that, following the Greenville, SC field trip, Commissioners Freimann and Taylor proposed a vision for a bridge for Historic Dublin, connecting the river and the east side. They did not receive positive feedback to their proposal. For her, she is seeking something that dramatic — a long term vision — one where people someday would be amazed that Dublin could carry out such a progressive vision at the beginning of the 21 century. Mr. Freimann and Mr. Taylor had imagined that type of dramatic vision for Dublin — putting Dublin on the map with more than pedestrian walkways. Ms. Grigsby stated that staff appreciates the feedback. When the memo was prepared in mid -June for the joint session on June 20, staff recognized that the Bridge Street Corridor timetable needed to be adjusted to allow more discussion time. Currently, staff is proposing the date of August 11 for the next workshop, which will allow the discussion that Council has requested. Other key points that have come up relate to the library and the 21 century learning environment. Staff has continued to have discussions with the library and various universities regarding that vision. From their perspective, it will require time to determine the location, the components, and the university presence at the location. Staff will provide updates to Council when that information is available. In regard to the parks and open space, the discussion held over a year ago was that the concept plan is based on the vision and will not likely be what is implemented. The principles and vision statements with the vision report will guide that development. She acknowledged that there have been many presentations by consultants, but the form -based Code is a major change for the City and the grid street transportation system is also quite different for Dublin. Staff recognized that there is now a need for further discussion in follow up to these workshops. Staff will work to assemble some information, and on August 1 will have a draft agenda for the August 11 workshop for Council to review, if that is desired. Vice Mayor Salay commented that a draft agenda would be helpful. She is interested in staff's recommendations about how to move forward, in view of the feedback provided tonight. She knows that the consultants from Goody Clancy have worked through this process with other clients. Ms. Grigsby responded that in reviewing potential dates, David Dixon's availability was an important consideration. He does a good job in marrying the vision, the Code and transportation systems, as evidenced in other cities where they have worked. Mrs. Boring stated that she agrees with staff providing a draft agenda for the August 11 workshop. She noted that the consultants presented information at the workshop sessions, but there was no follow -up discussion among Council. She is hopeful that Council can discuss the critical aspects at the next workshop. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she recalls a workshop at the Rec Center with working groups, generating wonderful ideas. However, no one took notes at the session. She would like an agenda that allows small group engagement in a dialogue with someone taking good notes and reporting out the concepts to the larger group. The concepts can then be fleshed out in the bigger group. She was very disappointed that the ideas were lost. Other board and commission members have had wonderful suggestions, such as Mr. Souders and Mr. Taylor. People are very interested in this initiative and want to articulate their desires for the Plan. The environment needs to support this dialogue, and the dialogue needs to be captured successfully. Mr. Keenan agreed with having staff provide a draft agenda on August 1 for the August 11 workshop. He encourages Ms. Amorose Groomes to have P &Z members view this segment of the Council meeting on the cable broadcast so they can weigh in on August 11. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting July 6, 2011 Page 14 Mayor Lecklider stated that it would also be useful for Mr. Dixon to hear this dialogue. To clarify, his understanding is that everyone has positive feedback about the vision plan, and no one is suggesting going back to the beginning of the process. What is being suggested is engaging in a discussion to refine what has been done to date. Ms. Chin nici-Zuercher clarified she is not suggesting starting over with the process. She is suggesting more open dialogue about the land and the vision statements. Mrs. Boring stated that everyone has been positive about the concepts in the vision plan. Her issue is with how they are being carried out. Vice Mayor Salay commented about the structure of the meetings. She acknowledged that it is important that everyone be in the same room, but with such a large group and everyone wanting to comment or ask questions, and with the different roles and the individual perspectives of the various bodies of ARB, BZA, P &Z and Council, there are challenges with this structure. Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher suggested that all of the groups should be intermixed so they can share their ideas as well as hear ideas of other groups. The tables need to be mixed with citizens and board - commission members. The City should also encourage citizens to attend the August workshop, which will be an interactive meeting. Mr. Gerber stated that he supports the principles of this, but this is not his expectation for the workshop. The Planning Commission has been asked to vet the Code, and his expectation is that they will vet the visionary principles as well. This may be the appropriate time to define what form -based Code means to staff so that everyone can be on the same page. The vision report must be taken to a place where everyone is working from the same idea and concept in terms of interpreting the Code. He is supportive of this, but wants to ensure that P &Z and Council and staff are on the same page for implementation. His vision of the August 11 workshop is for Council, P &Z, and staff as participants. This is now time to carry out some of the policies for the implementation phase, and that is the role of P &Z. Mr. Reiner agreed with Mr. Gerber about the meeting structure, noting that P &Z needs to refine this because they are charged with the planning and development review for Council. Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher asked what they are being asked to refine. Mr. Gerber stated that he believes it is time to flesh out the visionary principles. He is not sure what they will look like within a form -based Code. Mayor Lecklider stated that Vice Mayor Salay, Mr. Gerber and Mr. Reiner have agreed with respect to those who should be at the table in order to have a productive workshop on August 11 — based on the decisions that have to be made and by whom. Mr. Gerber clarified that he is not advocating anything other than fleshing out the visionary principles to ensure everyone is on the same page for implementation phase — the type of buildings that will come forward, etc. Ms. Grigsby stated that some good points have been made in terms of Council adopting policy that P &Z then implements. BZA and ARB have a more narrow focus, and staff will need to identify how the new Code will impact what they do. As far as the policy discussion and issue of taking the form -based Code and transportation concepts and implementing the vision, it makes sense to have Council, P &Z and staff at the table. This will ensure the focus is on the policy and the citywide implementation. Certainly, the BZA and ARB members can be present in the audience and provide feedback, but this will make meeting management easier. Mrs. Boring stated that she supports what Mr. Gerber and Vice Mayor Salay have indicated. However, she is not convinced that everyone is aligned regarding the vision. She is not certain that it is defined adequately in order to be applied. She thinks the process is somewhat in reverse — the Codes are being drafted and the vision is following. Her frustration is that in the past, Council has set the expectations in the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Meeting Dublin City Council July 6, 2011 Page 15 vision. Now, there have been questions about the vision, but the response has been to wait until the issue is addressed in the Code. Mr. Gerber stated that he is hopeful that the workshop will address this very issue so that the process can move forward. Mrs. Boring agreed that there is not the need for a huge group in this discussion, given the outcome expected. Mr. Reiner stated that in the final analysis, there will be either a well written, form - based Code that everyone supports and that will be implemented appropriately or there will be the need to move away from this and have P &Z return to a modified PUD process to review the vision of this new urban site. These are the two choices. He is hopeful that P &Z will be able to tighten this up so that all the loopholes are closed. Mr. Gerber agreed. Mayor Lecklider commented that he is not suggesting that Council not strive for a 100 percent comfort level, but, personally, he can accept not achieving this. It seems inevitable with something as new and different as this Code. STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Griasby reoorted: 1. The Irish Festival packets will be sent out to Council on Friday, July 22, together with an informational Council packet. Mayor Lecklider asked if Council needs to respond to the letter from Mr. Driscoll, which was included in the packet. Ms. Grigsby responded that there have been discussions in the past with The Edwards Company regarding this matter, and staff will continue to engage in these discussions. Staff will review the impacts of this situation on The Edwards Company and ensure that what they are requesting does not place any unreasonable risk or liability on the City. If The Edwards Company can demonstrate how the City can achieve its security, the City will consider this change in policy. Mr. Smith commented that he had discussions with The Edwards Company today, and staff is seeking additional information from them. Mr. Smith introduced Jim Smolik, an intern now working at Schottenstein, Zox and Dunn who is a junior at University of Dayton and has also worked this summer for Senator Portman in Washington. He is exploring public sector careers and will work at SZD the remainder of the summer, prior to returning to LID. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS /COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Mrs. Borina: 1. Stated that the City has excellent master plan documents and, typically, they include policies, issues and strategies. Recently, there has been much discussion and interest in the topic of public art. She believes that it is an appropriate time to refer the Arts Chapter of the Parks & Recreation Master Plan to the Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission to work with staff to develop some draft policies and strategies. This Committee has expressed interest in becoming a vital part of City policy development for recommendation to Council. It is an ideal time to establish a framework with the public art strategies included in the adopted master plan. She moved to refer this chapter to the Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission to work with staff to begin developing some draft policies for Council's consideration. Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher seconded the motion. Vice Mayor Salay stated that she is very supportive of this, but wants to ensure that staff is able to devote resources to this assignment at this time. Ms. Grigsby responded that staff can do so, because there are some issues related to the pending agreement in process with the Dublin Arts Council. This work could 71 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RECORD OF DISCUSSION JUNE 30, 2011 Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone/ TDD:61A- 410 -4600 Fax: 614- 410 -4747 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us The Board of Zoning Appeals took no action on the following at this meeting: 2. Bridge Street Corridor - Informal Discussion Discussion: An informal discussion to allow Board Members the opportunity to provide comment on the draft Bridge Street Corridor Development Code and implementation studies. Planning Contact: Rachel S. Ray, AICP, Planner I Contact Information: (614) 410 -4656, rray @dublin,oh.us RESULT: The Board members reviewed the draft Bridge Street Corridor Development Code in terms of their responsibility for reviewing variances, appeals, special permits, nonconformities, and other specific applications. The Board discussed the existing uses and existing structures provisions and how the draft Code differs from the existing Zoning Code. Board members requested clarification regarding how each component of the Bridge Street Corridor relates to the vision for the corridor, including the draft Code and the street network plans. Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals June 30, 2011 -Minutes Page 1 of 5 2. Bridge Street Corridor - Informal Discussion Rachel Ray began this Informal Discussion by thanking the Board members for their participation in the Joint Work Sessions regarding the Bridge Street Corridor. She announced that the next Joint Work Session with City Council is scheduled for August 11 at 6:30 p.m. in Council Chambers. She said the intent of the August Work Session is to talk more about the draft Bridge Street Corridor Development Code and how it relates to the vision and the Planning work that has been completed to date. She invited questions or general suggestions about the Bridge Street Corridor code process for the record before the August Work Session. She presented slides which explained the process thus far regarding the draft code to help facilitate the Board discussion. Kathy Ferguson asked about existing structures. Ms. Ray said for example, the previous applicant wanted to make improvements to the facades of the existing building, and with the new Code, the building would otherwise be considered "non- conforming" because it is not consistent with the building types included in the draft Bridge Street Code. She explained that with the existing structure provisions that have been crafted for the Bridge Street Code, a 50 to 60 percent expansion of the existing building footprint could be made without requiring the entire site to come into compliance, which would provide greater flexibility over the long term to make small improvements over time. She said if they wish to redevelop to be consistent with the Bridge Street Code, they would have the ability to do that whenever they chose to do so. Ms. Ray said the Board of Zoning Appeals will continue to be the approving body for non -use (area) variances, the variances to the form -based elements of the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code, Special Permits, Administrative Appeals, and Building Code Appeals, as they currently do. She said differently, the special administratively reviewing body, the Administrative Review Team (ART), is made up of City department heads, the Chief Building Official, the City Engineer, and the Director of Planning, and several others, and they would make recommendations to the Board on many of these applications. She said that the Board will continue to make recommendations to City Council for use variances. Patrick Todoran asked if the ART currently exists. Ms. Ray explained that the ART was formed when the Central Ohio Innovation Center (COIC) zoning district on the western edge of the City was created; however, since it was formed when the economic downturn occurred, nothing has gone through the COIC ART process. She said in some cases, ultimately, the department heads will make the final determination or recommendation to the appropriate reviewing body, but staff will be set up in teams or an individual will be assigned to take lead on certain applications as they currently are. Ms. Newell said that for expansion of existing structures it made sense if it was a conditional use to go before the Planning and Zoning Commission, instead of allowing a percentage expansion by right. Ms. Ray said that was a good suggestion. She said that Planning had recently discussed the same process, allowing some expansions by right, and requiring certain expansions to be reviewed and approved by a reviewing body. She said in some cases, expansions might be appropriate or very innocuous, but in other situations, they want to make sure that they are all working towards the ultimate vision for the Bridge Street Corridor to the extent possible, while Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals June 30, 2011 -Minutes Page 2 of 5 preserving existing property owners' rights. She said that might be a good middle of the road solution to help us get there. Ms. Newell said she liked the form -based code, but she did not see the final vision of what the code is supposed to be. She said she always envisioned a kind of overlay. She said her biggest concern was street development, which may not work everywhere in the corridor. She said the City has always been excellent at looking at the road network before it was needed, but this Code does not appear to do that. Ms. Newell said anytime she asked the question about what is going to happen to the Post Road /Frantz Road /US 33 intersection, no one can give an answer, which tells her that it is not defined. She thought to have a good development, some basic framework is needed that is developed along with the form -based development. Ms. Ray said that was a good point. She said working with the street network and the form - based code is an area that there may need to be policy direction that helps us to define what street character is going to look like in specific parts of the corridor and how that starts to define development character in the area. She said street character is often reviewed as planned unit development districts or subdivision plats go before the Planning and Zoning Commission and then City Council, or alternatively by action of the City, like with Emerald Parkway where they made the decision to create a roadway, with development to follow. She explained that with the form -based code and the street network and street types, it is a little different, and that is something they are currently working through, making sure that we have that clear direction and understand how those decisions are going to be made. She said they are actively working with the consultant teams and with the City administration to make sure that we understand how the street network in particular is going to work. Ms. Ray said as they have been working with the consultants, they are working on creating street types, and the street categories, or street "families." She explained that within the street families, the street types have similar characteristics that will allow the different types to be used together seamlessly. She said it might seem more confusing than it otherwise would, but the differences in the different street types might just be on- street parking or no on- street parking, or cycle track versus bike lane, those types of minor differences. She said however, Bridge Street is probably going to be a very different than the rest of the street families, just by nature of the fact that it goes from an arterial, to the Historic District, to an arterial again. Mr. Page said there seemed to be confusion about seeing an overall vision for the City in the Code. He said that the main focal points that we want to draw the City together and help make the Code make sense and come alive seemed to be missing or unclear, and as a resident and not a planner, those elements were striking. He said he did not have a feel for where they wanted the City to go and that the Code seems to be driving something that seems very business - focused and not in his opinion, resident - focused. He said there has to be a combination of business and resident focus, and we obviously have to be a place where we are a thriving community business -wise and also we want people to feel great about where they live. He thought some of that went back to the vision statement and some of those key words in the statement. He said he was trying to see if we met the vision statement, and he did not think they were there yet. Mr. Page said there were a lot of good ideas and a tremendous amount of planning and discussion that had gone into the Bridge Street Corridor, but when it came down to someone like a resident who wants Dublin to be a great city, he said he did not know what was guiding the planning in the Corridor. He said if he did not have a good answer to that, the people in his neighborhood, who have even less understanding, definitely do not have an answer either. He Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals June 30, 2011 -Minutes Page 3 of 5 said as this moves forward, he would like for things to be put more in layman's terms to what is driving what we are doing. Ms. Ray said she thought Mr. Page's sentiment and thoughts were shared by other Board and Commission members as well based on the feedback Planning has heard. She said staff regretted not having this conversation a little more thoroughly earlier on in the process. She said that zoning codes are rarely very exciting documents, and not very interesting because their intent is to regulate land development. Ms. Ray said while people should be excited about getting behind the possibilities that the type of development can create for this portion of the city, it is ultimately a code document; the vision for the Corridor sets the policy direction that the code is intended to implement. Ms. Ray said part of staff's job at the next Joint Work Session is to explain how the Code came about and how it is intended to work. She said part of the question was, is the Code going to get us what we want, and if not, how can we tighten it up to help get us there. She said that is part of the discussion they want to have and want to hear from the Board and Commission members. Ms. Ray said that they have this vision which was put together by working with many property owners and stakeholders. She said there have been several open houses which many Board members have attended. She said they looked at national demographic and market trends, and providing other choices for housing and transportation options, and a greenway system throughout the corridor. She said the final product of all of the background planning work is the Vision Plan, and what it is intended to do is to embody what the Vision principles are; what the community says - that we want something kind of like this, 20 - 30 years down the line. Ms. Ray said staff's job is to deal with property owners, like OCLC, who want to do major redevelopment and jump to that point in the vision a little faster than folks like the applicants this evening. She said the challenge for Planning and the Code consultants is, how do we help get to that long- term vision, while accommodating existing property owners in the short term? Ms. Newell said that what she envisioned happening is development actually happening in very small pieces where it is going to be difficult to coordinate with the overall vision, and there is a point at which there may result in so much of one type of development that they have lost the intent of providing variety. Ms. Ray said that in the first draft of the Code, parking structures were required in almost every situation for buildings greater than 50,000 square feet. She asked the Board members to picture the 100,000- square -foot IGS building and said that a building half that size would have been required a parking structure, which in an ideal situation would be great in an urban environment. She said however, realistically, the market probably is not there for that kind of development immediately. She said that they have had to pull back on those types of code requirements through discussions with property owners over the past several months and just taking a look at the code and asking ourselves if this will really work in the short term. Ms. Ray said that was one area where they have had to say that maybe those requirements are not really realistic in the short term, so maybe they need to figure out how they can make surface parking work in the short term, and then ultimately set ourselves up so that we could get parking structures in the long term. She said those were the types of situations that are being worked through, so when they say the draft Code is a "90 percent solution," it is only to the point that they are testing the Code and actually looking at specific sites, thinking how buildings would fit, and if it is going to get us what we want. She thought when they get to the August Work Session, they will have an even better understanding of how everything fits together, and they are continuing to work with the consulting teams on that. Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals June 30, 2011 -Minutes Page 4 of 5 Ms. Newell asked if there had been any discussion in terms of defining how those street changes might occur and in conjunction with, if they are going to entertain getting what she perceived more development within this area between retail and housing mix and then having the need for parking. She said she had been in several communities when she read through this code what her mind pictures, that have done similar types of things that she would describe as having a very walkable environment, where there have been publically- funded parking garages, free to visitors to the area, which encourages them to park once and not drive all over the place, and walk around. She asked if there had been any staff discussion about that being something that the City might want to incorporate within the overall design. Ms. Ray said the transportation consulting team had actually first recommended that we do not even have parking requirements in the zoning code at all, with the idea that parking would occur on- street, in municipal lots, or in municipal parking structures. She said that was something that would work great in a big city like Boston where there was a parking authority to manage all of that, and there was already a great mix of uses limiting the need for cars right now, but it is not something that would work for the City in the short term. She reiterated that they had the interesting challenge of working toward a 30 -year vision that is different in many ways from today's market, and figuring out a way to get there. Ms. Ray said as far as how we look at streets transitioning from type to type, that is something that again, as we refine the different street families, she thought would become clearer. Ms. Newell said she was interested in hearing from the fiscal analysis consultant about what contributions the City had to make to make this economically viable or inspiring to the development community. She said we are fortunate to be in a community where we can make those improvements; it was just how we choose what improvements to make. She said she was eager to hear what those recommendations would be. Mr. Page asked what communities had been used as examples in developing the Code. Ms. Ray explained that every zoning code is unique to individual communities, and that was even more the case with form -based codes. She said when originally designed, form -based codes tend to work best in communities where there is already an existing character, scale, or development pattern. She asked the Board members to think of the Historic District, where there are very specific types of buildings, primarily one to two stories in height, having a cottage commercial look with homes converted to businesses over the years, or row -like storefront appearances. She said it has much more of a distinctive character, whereas the rest of the Bridge Street Corridor really does not have anything to define what development could look like in the future, consistent with the vision plan, so that in and of itself is very unique to Dublin. She said they are looking at the types of buildings like the mixed -use buildings where there would be residential, commercial, and office uses in much closer proximity to allow easy bicycle /pedestrian connections. She said it is understood there are going to be vehicles to deal with especially in the short term, and that would need to be dealt with. Ms. Ray said form -based codes are really unique to every community and there is nothing that they can pick up and drop here. She said they are looking at the Columbia Pike code, which is a special district in Arlington County, Virginia that has a form -based code and has not been impacted with the economic downturn as much as other places have. She said they have several projects approved that have been posted on their website. She noted that the Columbia Pike web page also includes a list of minor amendments they have made to their form -based code since it was adopted two or three years ago. She said that staff expects to continue refining the Code, since getting it right 100 percent the first time is not something that any community ever does. She said there will be areas to tweak to make sure we have exactly what we want. Ms. Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals June 30, 2011 -Minutes Page 5 of 5 Ray said Peoria, Illinois also has a form -based code, and that New Albany has their draft form - based code on their website as well. Mr. Gunnoe said that he had not had a chance yet to read the lighting section of the draft code. He asked how it dealt with lighting and light pollution, and from a utility standpoint, when it addresses power lines being buried. Ms. Ray explained that there is a section in the code that requires utility undergrounding. She said that for example, the overhead power lines at the Bridge and High development were buried with the redevelopment of that project. She said for certain projects, they would be encouraged to factor that into their redevelopment plans. She said there was a 100 -foot wide power line easement running through the Corridor along the west side of Dublin Village Center which is a major transmission line that would cost several million dollars to bury, so that is probably one of those overhead lines that we will probably have to live with for a while. Ms. Ray said for the most part, more standard neighborhood- serving lines would probably be buried as development occurs. Ms. Ray said regarding lighting, the consultant team, when they drafted the lighting standards, started with Dublin's existing lighting requirements. She said the existing requirements were developed with the International Dark Sky Association Standards, because the City's policy has always been to minimize light pollution to the greatest extent possible. She said there is recognition that in areas like the Bridge Street Corridor that are expected to be more entertainment - oriented, with pedestrians on the streets later in the evenings, that there could be additional lighting that would be needed or desirable than elsewhere in Dublin. Ms. Ray reiterated that she appreciated the Board members' questions and comments. She said they would like the opportunity with Council, Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board and Board of Zoning Appeals members to walk through the draft Bridge Street Corridor Development Code, how it is intended to work, and how we can make sure that the Vision for the Bridge Street Corridor is implemented. She said that, as a young professional herself, she was very excited about the possibilities for the Bridge Street Corridor contained in the vision. She said staff wanted to make sure that the vision was clear to everyone, so that all can have a better understanding of the vision and the direction for the Corridor, and a desire to get behind the vision to make it happen. Ms. Newell said it would be nice to hear that presentation from staff instead of the consultants, which would give everyone a better understanding about how they envision the Code to work and how they are going to enforce it. Ms. Ray said Planning heard the same comment from the Architectural Review Board and this kind of feedback was helpful. Ms. Ray concluded by reiterating that Board members' questions, concerns, and suggestions were welcomed and appreciated. She acknowledged that the draft Code is complicated, and she gave them a lot of credit for doing their best to work through it and giving constructive feedback. She said that staff appreciated the Board's time and thanked them for their comments. Ms. Newell adjourned the meeting at 7:49 p.m. As approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CITY OF DUBLIN, RECORD OF DISCUSSION Land Use and Long Range Planning JUNE 29, 2011 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone/ TDD: 614-410-4600 Fax: 614 -410 -4747 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us The Architectural Review Board took no action on the following at this meeting: 3. Bridge Street Corridor - Informal Discussion Discussion: An Informal discussion to allow Board Members the opportunity to provide comment on the draft Bridge Street Corridor Development Code and implementation studies. Planning Contact: Rachel Ray, AICP, Planner I Contact Information: (614) 410 -4656, rray @dublin,oh,us RESULT: The Board members reviewed portions of the draft Bridge Street Corridor Development Code pertaining to the Historic District and discussed how the proposed regulations relate to the existing historic character of the district as well as incorporate the requirements of the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines, Board members provided feedback regarding some of the proposed building type requirements and discussed how the regulations would apply to specific properties. The Board requested clarification regarding the process for using the Code, applying the street network, as well as how all of the components of the Bridge Street Corridor Plan relate to the Vision, the Code, and the Community Plan, STAFF CE FICAT N 1 R heI S. Ray, AICP Planner I Dublin Architectural Review Board June 29, 2011 -Minutes Page 1 of 10 3. Bridge Street Corridor - Informal Discussion Rachel Ray began the presentation by thanking the Board members for their participation in the Joint Work Sessions over the previous months. She announced the next Joint Work Session with City Council is scheduled for August 11 at 6:30 p.m. in Council Chambers. Ms. Ray suggested the discussion be focused on the Historic District. She said she would provide a brief overview to highlight the summary of the memo provided in the packets. William Souders pointed out the draft Code was very new to everyone, and he was more interested in the impact to the Historic District, and how the requirements differ from the current Code. Ms. Ray explained the Draft Bridge Street Corridor development code was a 'hybrid' code, with form -based elements for lot and block dimensions, pedestrian- oriented building types, and specific standards for neighborhood districts. She continued that the Code also has elements typical of a conventional zoning code as well, including zone districts, uses, parking requirements, landscaping requirements, and signs; however, the overall emphasis is on form, creating the type of environment desired with the Bridge Street Corridor Vision. Ms. Ray said the draft Code is intended to build on the Vision for the Corridor. She said the challenge she thought was particularly interesting for the Code was working toward a long -term, transformative vision for the Corridor, but recognizing there are some property owners in the Corridor who might not be interested in developing in the manner envisioned for the Corridor for a while. She explained therefore, we have to recognize the Code must allow development to occur over the long term and recognize transition will occur over time. She said the ability to transition was a key component of the Code. Ms. Ray said her presentation would focus on the aspects of the Code which might be specific to the Historic District. She explained there are three districts related to the Historic District. She explained the intention of the Bridge Street Corridor Historic Districts are intended to preserve existing residential properties zoned HR, Historic Residential District, to preserve existing development character. She said the BSC Historic Core District is intended to be applied to all of the commercial properties in the Historic District, primarily along Bridge and High Streets. Ms. Ray said portions of the Historic Transition Neighborhood are also located in the Historic District. Ms. Ray reported the building types in the Code would be applicable to all new and redeveloped buildings within the Historic District, but only at the determination of the Architectural Review Board. She explained form -based codes work best when they are modeled after existing development in terms of scale, the fabric of an existing area, and building types are created which respect the existing architectural character. She said the building types developed for the Historic District are modeled after the existing buildings to respect the character and historic of the Historic District. Ms. Ray said however, the existing Historic Dublin Design Guidelines and the Zoning Code requirements in Chapter 153 will continue to apply at the Board's determination for those special considerations when the Board determines the Bridge Street Code requirements are not applicable. Tom Currie asked if the form -based code would become part of the Zoning Code. Ms. Ray explained the Bridge Street Code will be folded into the existing Zoning Code, and Section 153.170, which deals with the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and their criteria will remain. Mr. Currie asked if the Board could pick and choose which elements of the Code should apply. Ms. Ray explained the Board's decisions would continue to be based on the existing criteria with which the ARB currently reviews applications. Dublin Architectural Review Board June 29, 2011 -Minutes Page 2 of 10 Mr. Currie referenced the Permitted Building Types section, and asked if the Historic Cottage building type was all one type, Cottage Commercial. Ms. Ray presented an example of a Historic Cottage Commercial building type. She said it was intended to model the character of the existing commercial buildings that are commercial structures converted from historic single - family structures. She said the Historic Mixed Use building type was similar to Town Center I and other existing multi- tenant structures. Ms. Ray highlighted the Sign Standards in Section 153.065(H), which has been modified to reflect the Board's discussion on signs which occurred at the April meeting. She said they worked with the consultants to provide a greater variety of sign types to create an exciting, pedestrian - oriented shopping area. She said they also included additional requirements for sandwich boards and display signs. Ms. Ray said in the Architectural Review Board Review and Approval Procedures section, it states the ARB will continue to approve site and architectural modifications, and the ARB will continue to make recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission for rezonings, code amendments, and conditional uses. Ms. Ray concluded by inviting questions and general comments from the Board. Mr. Souders asked for a summary of the major differences between the draft code and the existing Zoning Code. Ms. Ray said at the next Joint Work Session, staff is proposing to demonstrate how the Code is intended to apply and how the various requirements build upon one another. She said the biggest difference is the fact there are building types which have specific relationships to different types of streets. She said a color coded street map was presented at the last Joint Work Session which showed the different types of streets, ranging from large, SR 161 or Bridge Street, down to alleys. She explained instead of a conventional zoning code, which limits specific uses on a parcel that can be built as long as setbacks and parking are factored in to the site plan, the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code is intended to take the overall public realm into consideration to help create pedestrian- oriented streetscapes through street type and building type requirements. Mr. Currie asked if a street network plan was expected from the transportation consultant. Ms. Ray explained the street map which has been presented and included in the Code was developed for transportation modeling purposes, to show street connections from place to place throughout the Corridor, and whether the streets occur exactly as shown or whether they vary will be determined at the time of development. She said the other purpose of the street network map is to generally show where the different types of streets are expected to occur within the Corridor, from significant principal address streets to less significant neighborhood streets. Ms. Ray said the transportation consulting team with Nelson Nygaard worked closely with Goody Clancy and Associates and the code consulting team to develop the zoning districts and the street network to implement the vision. Ms. Ray asked the Board to remember the Vision Plan illustrates a long -term development scenario, and it is not intended to function like a master plan showing exactly where streets and development must go. Mr. Souders recalled, as an example, a project the ARB reviewed which had four stories on a residential street (North Riverview), and it looked to him like North Riverview Street was coded as a residential street. He said if it was coded as a residential street, how multi -story buildings could be permitted. Dublin Architectural Review Board June 29, 2011 -Minutes Page 3 of 10 Ms. Ray referred back to the building types. She said for the example Mr. Souders was referring to, the concept was created before the building types for the Bridge Street Code were developed, so it probably does not exactly fit any specific types shown in the Code. She said the building types are intended to model the existing form and character and scale of the existing development in the District, and taking that specific example, when that development comes back before the Board for review and approval, the Board would take that character into consideration. Mr. Souders confirmed once City Council adopts the Bridge Street Code, it is part of the bigger Code and it is also part of the Historic District, so if a person comes in and wants to do something that large, right off the bat, it meets no zoning which relates to the Historic District. He said it could be built with a variance, but there is nothing in the code provisions for the Historic District which would allow that building to be built. Robert Schisler pointed out only Single - Family Detached buildings are permitted in the Historic Residential District. He said as it is proposed in the Code, a single home can be three stories, which is not appropriate within the District. He said the Code should have a single family building type that limits the height to two stories within the Historic Residential District. Ms. Ray said that was intended to be consistent with the existing character of the area. Mr. Souders said he was concerned that so much time has been spent drafting a new code that he wanted to make sure it would actually work in the Historic District. He said he needed to know what parts would not work. Ms. Ray explained between now and the time the Code goes through the formal review process, Planning would be checking all of the numbers with the consultants to make sure situations are not created that cannot actually be built. Carl Karrer said the Zoning Map for the Corridor seemed to be a work in progress. Ms. Ray said it had not been changed since the Joint Work Session in April. She said there have been requests from property owners to switch districts, and those requests will be raised to City Council for consideration. Mr. Karrer said he had reviewed all three drafts of the code. He pointed out the first draft had no ARB review authority over development in the Historic Transition District, the second draft had full ARB review authority for development in that district, and in the third draft, the review authority was split so the ARB would review development in only a part of the district. He was interested to know what was guiding these changes. Ms. Ray said much of the discussion had centered on the redevelopment of the school site, which may not occur for a very long time, if ever. She said half of the school site is in the Architectural Review District, and the other half is not. She said the intent with that is if development were to occur within the Architectural Review District, and /or within the area that would go to the Historic Core District, would be reviewed by the ARB and the other areas that might not develop at the scale or with the same kind of building types which would be found in the Historic District, would not be reviewed by the Board. Ms. Ray explained as the approval process section is drafted, development in the Historic Transition District would go through the Administrative Review Team and then on to Building Permitting. She said certain areas where development on one side of the streets might be in the Historic District and development on the other side of a new street, like if Franklin Street were extended for example, they would want development on the west side of the new Franklin Street to be reviewed by the ARB because of its relationship to the Historic District's scale and character. Dublin Architectural Review Board June 29, 2011 -Minutes Page 4 of 10 Ms. Ray clarified the school site is recommended for zoning into the Public District while the schools are occupying the site. She said if they were to redevelop, they would determine the appropriate zoning at that point in time. She noted that the 1919 Building would continue to be preserved. Mr. Karrer understood the Historic Transition District was to be just that, that it would relate architecturally to the Historic District with the caveat that it starts to transition toward the objective of having more development infill to allow larger buildings and more population density than we might want in the Historic Core or the Historic Residential Districts. Mr. Karrer asked what the tallest building height was expected to be in the Historic Transition District. Ms. Ray said she thought the code would allow up to three stories. Mr. Karrer asked how a 'story' was defined. Ms. Ray stated stories are measured from finished floor to finished floor, and from floor to ceiling height for the top story. Mr. Karrer asked if a pitched roof was not gabled, would it be considered a story, and if it was, if it was considered a half -story. Ms. Ray said answered it depends on whether there is an occupied space within the roof, and that determines half stories, or if there is a half- exposed basement, that is also considered a half- story. Mr. Karrer stated when he looked at building elevations, and the first floor was a garage with four more stories plus a peaked roof on top, he would not consider that a four - and -a -half story building. He said he would consider it a five - and -a -half story building because the garage was at grade level and is therefore a full story. He noted at the 1919 Building, you go down half a floor to get to the basement level and up a half -floor to get to the first floor, so it is a two- and -a- half story, flat -roof building at street level. Mr. Souders pointed out the Single - Family Detached building type would allow up to three stories. He thought three stories could be appropriate in other parts of the Bridge Street Corridor, but he was concerned about three stories in the Historic district. He thought 'detached single - family residential building' should have a different definition and requirements in the Historic District than elsewhere in the Corridor. He said he was concerned the table just shows a 'dot' in all the districts where the building type is permitted, and perhaps the requirements for single - family residential building should be different for the Historic District. Eugenia Martin explained the building type tables include minimums and maximums, and that was where the review criteria for ARB would become applicable, so it might not necessarily grant everyone three stories across the board. She said the Board would look at the application contextually to see how it relates to the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Souders said he was concerned if the table states the maximums are permitted regardless of whether the Board thinks it is appropriate, someone might spend a lot of money on designing architecture to the maximums because the Code says they can do it, and if the Board feels it is inappropriate, and then they will complain about hardships. He said he would like to avoid that conflict up front. Mr. Karrer said the difference between the Historic Core and Historic Residential is the Historic Residential acknowledges the single family detached and the cottage, and that defines well what is residential use now. He said the Core is sort of the Historic Business District, and building height is limited. Dublin Architectural Review Board June 29, 2011 -Minutes Page 5 of 10 Ms. Martin said the maximum height for the Historic Cottage building type is two stories and for the Historic Mixed Use it was two -and -a half story. She said it also defines the minimum and maximum heights of the ground story and upper story. Mr. Karrer asked if that was the only other structure in the Historic Core District. Ms. Ray explained that permitted structure types in the Historic Core District were Historic Cottage Commercial, Historic Mixed Use, and Civic. Mr. Karrer said his point was that there used to be a building where the Library is now, which was a school building many years ago before the 1919 Building was built. He said it was also the City Hall, civic center and recreation center, and it was three stories high. He said to him, that height was not inconsistent with the Historic Core, given the simple structure. He said they were looking at not only existing buildings but also what would be new infill in this area, most of which is likely to occur on what is now the school property. Mr. Karrer said he thought the old three -story limit was not unreasonable and should be permitted in limited circumstances. Mr. Currie asked if the maximum height was based on what the Fire Department could reach. Ms. Ray said to some extent, fire access is taken into consideration, and if they cannot reach it, there are sprinkling requirements which can help mitigate fire access. Ms. Ray said a building like Mr. Karrer referred to might be classified as a Civic building, and she thought a Civic building would allow up to three stories in the Historic Core, so there could be a city hall, library, or school building that could stand out a little more, which would be desirable for that type of building. She said the Board would continue to have the ability to look at Civic buildings to ensure that they are appropriate based on the character of the surroundings. Mr. Karrer said there had been a lot of discussion that people will no longer drive cars and no more than one car per house is needed, but that would not happen for many years yet. He said they have to allow for a mobile population, and if more residential infill is desired, ground floor parking might be an option. He said he would like the Board's considerations on what is or is not appropriate to be less subjective by having more definitive Code requirements. He said however that a historic town home over a garage would be considered a three -story building or a three - and -a -half story structure and that would not be permitted. Ms. Ray said it would depend how the structure was configured. She asked if Mr. Karrer was suggesting buildings over garages should be allowed or did he have a suggestion on how that scenario could be handled. Mr. Karrer said it merited more discussion before it is locked in stone. Mr. Karrer said the road matrix plan works well as long as somewhere there is a way to get out. He said if they go exclusively with a grid pattern, there are no arteries for fast egress or ingress. He pointed out there was an increasing contention with travelers on US 33 and SR 161 that are going from somewhere else to somewhere else, none of which is the Historic District. He said traffic is bringing us to a shut down today, and yet we want a more dense population in the Corridor. He said we would either have to give up the idea of a Historic District or find a way for that through traffic to get through in a hurry that is neither coming from nor going to Dublin. He suggested an artery was needed, the counter part of Emerald Parkway on the inside of 1 -270. He said something was needed that would extend Frantz Road and come inside the beltway and join with Tuller, so that there is a link to the Sawmill development for the Frantz Road traffic. Mr. Currie said you cannot plan for a massive evacuation from a historic built district with small streets. He recalled at the last Joint Work Session, it was said the street type could change four or five times on SR 161 as you come into and leave the downtown. He asked who makes the decision on how and where the street types will change. Dublin Architectural Review Board June 29, 2011 -Minutes Page b of 10 Ms. Ray clarified what is currently in the Code for the street types are four illustrative examples of what four of the possible categories, or 'families,' of street sections are expected to be. She said maybe five or more examples of street sections are expected within each of those street families, based on the character of the surrounding area. She said the decision will be made through recommendation to City Council by the ART, a member of which is the City Engineer, in conjunction with the other department heads. She said when streets are approved, they go through the platting and subdivision process and that will ultimately go to City Council who will decide how the streets are developed. She explained that each of the street family types would work together. She said there may be a bike lane or a cycle track or on street parking or no -on street parking on different sections. She said it would be fairly minimal in terms of the differences among the street sections. She did not think anyone would disagree that the Historic District warrants a special character. Mr. Currie said he could not see how a bike path could go from Roush Hardware to Lowe's. Ms. Ray said that was just an example. She said there might be other streets where a bike path might be more appropriate because there are streets that are not developed yet. She said it would depend on what those street segments are and she had not seen them all yet because the consultants are still working on them. Ms. Ray said they will have them early in July, but every street type will have some pedestrian and bicycle facilities in order to facilitate this walkable, less auto - dependent environment in the Corridor. Mr. Currie said he asked last week if they had overlayed these street network maps on the actual street map. He said he did not see how a bike path can be squeezed into the corner of Bridge and High Streets. Ms. Ray said maybe that was an area where bike paths are inappropriate simply because of the lack of space. She said with a grid street network, there are going to be other options and other types of bicycle facilities. She said bicyclists might switch to just being on street for that limited section of Bridge Street as the best solution. Mr. Schisler pointed out there might be other greenway bicycle connections as well. Mr. Currie asked why flag lots are not permitted. Ms. Ray explained flag lots are not permitted because form -based codes require buildings to be located near the street, and you cannot have building frontage along streets if the building is accessed from a long driveway. Mr. Kanter said presently, zoning classifications are parcel- based, but there are also zones like the COIC zones. He said the COIC approach was similar to what they were defining as districts within the Bridge Street Corridor. He said he sensed concern at the last Joint Work Session about what the code is and what it is supposed to do, and what the Community Plan is supposed to do, because there did not seem to be a cohesive relationship between them. Ms. Ray said ultimately, the Bridge Street Plan or what is adopted with it would be an amendment to the Community Plan. She explained it was a refinement of the 2007 Community Plan, which would require a new Future Land Use Map, based on the Bridge Street Corridor zoning classifications, and a new Thoroughfare Plan based on the street network modeling. Ms. Ray said one of the things they will talk about at the next Joint Work Session is how the Bridge Street Code and zoning works with the Vision Plan and Community Plan. Mr. Kanter said his perception was the Vision Plan is just that - it something to use as a basis for making decisions. He said it was not the document that governs what we do, but simply a suggestion and the consultants' recommendation. He said the code they are preparing for approval defines what a zoning district is in a way that has not been defined previously. He said Dublin Architectural Review Board June 29, 2011 -Minutes Page 7 of 10 in the Code, they are defining what the Historic District is and what the Historic Transition District is in terms of building types and land uses. Mr. Karrer said the Code is a new venture and they are using the Vision as a prototype for modification of the City plan to apply the Code. He said the Code defines what the Historic Core is, but it does not legally define where it is. Ms. Ray said not yet, because the legal definition would be part of the zoning map. Mr. Karrer said street types are defined in the Code, but not where they will be. He presumed that there would be a place in the Community Plan that would show where the districts and street types will be located. Ms. Ray reiterated the Thoroughfare Plan in the Community Plan would be amended to be consistent with the street network. She said ideally, when a comprehensive plan is created, the next step in implementing it is to amend the zoning ordinance to allow the zoning districts to be consistent with the future land use classifications, and to allow the Thoroughfare Plan to be consistent with the street types. She explained that the zoning classifications were created with the consultants based on the general characters of the different land uses that were shown in the Vision Plan. She said the Vision Plan was created as a result of market analyses, stakeholder interviews, and a general visioning process, much like they did with the Community Plan. She said that was how the zoning districts came to be proposed. Mr. Karrer asked what conflicts in the Code still needed to be resolved. He thought there was concern that there is not a clear perception of how everything works together. Jennifer Rauch explained the purpose of the next Joint Work Session is partly to make sure everyone understands how these pieces fit together. She said a third piece that remained to be discussed was the area rezoning which establishes where the zoning districts apply. She said the draft zoning map shows all the properties within the Corridor and how they are recommended to be zoned into the particular districts. She said the standards City Council will be approving as part of the Bridge Street Code would apply to those specific areas. Mr. Karrer confirmed the Code would legislate review authority for each of the reviewing bodies. Mr. Schisler said if an architect followed the Code which allowed up to 80 percent glass to be used for a primary building material, and someone wanted a three -story structure that was 80 percent glass, they would argue they should be allowed to have a building that is 80 percent glass. He said it would be hard for the ARB to say they do not like it if it is permitted by the Code. He said it was important for these distinctions to be made for buildings in the Historic District. Ms. Ray encouraged Mr. Schisler to submit any additional specific comments to Planning for further review. Mr. Currie referred to Page 93 (D) 1), regarding the requirements for screening of outdoor waste and storage containers. Ms. Ray said the intent was dumpsters would be fully enclosed, consolidated, and not visible. Mr. Currie pointed out enclosure doors are always left opened. He also referred to Paragraph (C) 3): Standards of this section shall not apply if the only feasible location for screening would impede the functioning of solar wind or geothermal energy equipment. He asked what kind of geothermal equipment. Mr. Schisler explained for ground source heat pumps, instead of having a condensing unit outside to transfer the heat, the rods go into the ground so that the condensing unit disappears. Mr. Currie said he had one in his basement and could see no reason it would be outside. Dublin Architectural Review Board June 29, 2011 -Minutes Page 8 of 10 Mr. Souders said his perception is there is some overall disappointment because there are some missing elements from the code. He said the perception he was getting was there is the intent that the Corridor plan should be a master plan, but the focus of all the presentations at the Joint Work Sessions has been the Code itself. He noted the Code is very specific, and as architects and engineers, they prefer everything to be black or white, and straightforward. Mr. Souders said he thought part of it was everybody was looking for the overall master plan, so when you do not see how everything comes together, there is some concern. He said it is difficult to deal with subjective information related to a master plan that will result in a Thoroughfare Plan and a Parks and Recreation Plan. He asked if the relationship between the Vision Plan and the Code will be discussed at the next Joint Work Session. Ms. Ray said they wanted to make sure it was understood that the Vision Plan is not intended to be a "master plan" which tells us where all the buildings and all the roads will go, because they cannot be that specific for such a large area that will develop over such a long period of time. She said there are property owners in the Corridor who have no desire to develop their properties in accordance with the Vision Plan at this time, although perhaps they will in the future. She explained the Code was intended to deal with the long term desire to achieve the intent of the Vision Plan, but also to deal with the short term property owners who might just want small expansions of their buildings or other minor modifications. Mr. Souders said he agreed there should be a master plan. He said when large buildings are developed, regardless of who has the ownership, the master plan sets the vision, and if there are two or three components of the master plan, it may shift because one particular owner does not want it to be there, but it does not change the overall master plan. He said to him, by not showing certain things because someone might be offended, is a lack of having the guts to say that the master plan says there should be a significant greenbelt and the road should be moved, even if it never happens. He said the plan should show these things, and we can worry about reactions to it later. He said he was looking for leadership, and it did not seem like there was any leadership with this document, because they are stuck in the mentality that code only tells them they can and cannot do. He said if he was a property owner, he would not want someone to tell him what to do with his property, but he would want something that says somewhere there should be a greenway which links the east and west together and Indian Run in its concept is extended. He stated one of the goals they discussed at the open space charrette was they would have a wide greenbelt, and that should be included on the master plan. He said if it is not on the plan, no developer is ever going to know that there is a desire to have a large greenbelt outside of the little parks in each small development. Ms. Ray said based on the discussion at the last Joint Work Session, they may end up with something like an open space master plan or something along those lines that would provide the guidance. She explained the Code includes the concrete rules of the game, but we also have the overarching Vision Plan that is going to continue to guide those major decisions for development as it occurs. Mr. Souders thought the Scioto River had hardly been addressed in the Vision Plan. He stated shifting the road may be impossible and may not ever happen, but why not include what we want in the plan. He asked about alternatives if the road cannot be moved. He thought there were other concepts which would work with the grade changes, and he gave Louisville and Cincinnati as examples. Mr. Souders thought there are lost opportunities in the vision for the master plan. He said the Vision Report was an excellent book, and the consultants are top- notch, and everything has been done well, but in his opinion, some of the vision is missing, and he thought that was where the opportunities are missed. Mr. Souders said it is important to get Dublin Architectural Review Board June 29, 2011 -Minutes Page 9 of 10 people to buy in to what the Corridor can be because the developers will be the ones implementing the Vision. Mr. Currie said he agreed with Mr. Souders. Ms. Ray said they heard tonight that they needed to have a clearer vision for how the green system will function throughout the Corridor, and they need to highlight the natural features which were discussed during the visioning process. She said many of the Board's comments are likely to be discussed at the August Joint Work Session. Mr. Souders said the other part he was concerned with is, with all of this undeveloped land, we are going to add several thousand people, who will all be driving cars for the next 10 to 20 years at least, and the transportation consultants are saying we will not have transportation issues and we do not need additional bridges. He said even now, when he leaves work, he cannot get off of 1 -270 because of the traffic on SR 161, and the Corridor has not even started to develop yet. He said the point is now, there are five lanes going through the Historic District, and cars will be added to the population of the Bridge Street Corridor, and he already cannot get through during peak hours. Ms. Ray said she was not qualified to address all of Mr. Souders' concerns, but she stated Staff actually shares some of his concerns. She said in some ways, the consultants are jumping ahead to the 30 -year conditions, assuming the vision has been implemented, and everybody is walking and biking everywhere, so there are no problems. She agreed they all understand maybe 30 years from now we will be in that position, but today, tomorrow, ten years from now, we will be dealing with vehicular traffic. Ms. Ray said she thought that was something that as the consultants are working with Engineering to finalize in the transportation model, and Staff will be tempering what the consultants are reporting with our understanding of how traffic works in Dublin. She said staff understands this particular concern and will definitely continue working on this topic, which is a legitimate concern. Tasha Bailey suggested an explanation about how the various decisions are made or will be made would be helpful. She said when they are presented information at these Joint Work Sessions, they never really know what takes precedent in the decision making process. She asked as they scope the plan for the next five, ten, fifteen, to twenty years, what will take precedent in how decisions are made? She asked if cost was the primary factor, or if the vision was, or if timing was number one. She said that would help her understand better. Ms. Ray said Staff could provide information on that, if it is not covered at the Joint Work Session. Mr. Karrer asked what was the origin of the detail in this proposed Code. He pointed out today was the ARB's first formal review although they had attended Joint Sessions to discuss it. He said they had not met as a Board and reviewed the code page by page yet to talk about specifics. He asked if the specifications came from the consultants or Planning. He asked if the consultants' Vision Plan was translated to the zoning map by staff or the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ms. Ray explained a consultant team was hired to develop the form -based code for Dublin. She said they worked with Goody Clancy and Associates who did the visioning, and staff to understand how Dublin's system works, and then they put the drafts together. She said staff also worked with the consultants on honing the language. She said they have received comments from property owners who have certain concerns, and Staff has debated endlessly talking about all the sections, and really digging into the details of the code. She said that was where many of the changes that the Board has seen to date have originated. She said that at this point, the Planning and Zoning Commission has not thoroughly reviewed the code page by Dublin Architectural Review Board June 29, 2011 -Minutes Page 10 of 10 page yet either, but that is expected to come later. She concluded by thanking the Board members for their time and discussion that evening. She reiterated comments are always welcomed. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR PLAN JOINT WORK SESSION Monday, June 20, 2011 MINUTES OF MEETING Attendance: Council Members Mayor Lecklider, Vice Mayor Salay, Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, Mr. Gerber, Mrs. Boring, Mr. Reiner. Mr. Keenan was absent. Planning & Zoning Commission Members Ms. Amorose Groomes, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Fishman, Ms. Kramb, Mr. Budde. Mr. Hardt was absent. Board of Zoning Appeals members Ms. Newell, Mr. Paige, Mr. Todoran. Architectural Review Board members Mr. Souders, Mr. Currie, Ms. Bailey, Mr. Karrer. Staff: Ms. Grigsby, Mr. McDaniel, Ms. Readler, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Gunderman, Mr. Thurman, Ms. Ray, Ms. Rauch, Mr. Goodwin, Ms. Cox, Ms. Noble, Ms. Willis, Ms. Martin. Consultants Ben Carlson, Goody Clancy; Greg Dale, McBride Dale Clarion Farr; Jason Schrieber, Nelson \Nygaard; and Carson Bise, TischlerBise. Mayor Lecklider called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. in Council Chambers, noting this is the third joint session of the Bridge Street Corridor Plan. From this point forward, the zoning process will follow a more traditional path in terms of review by Planning & Zoning Commission (July review at PZC with recommendation to Council), and Council will then consider the ordinances at the two August meetings. Currently, the target date for passage in some form would be late August /early September. He encouraged everyone with questions /concerns to contact staff. Introduction Mr. McDaniel noted that tonight, staff will provide an update on the ongoing analysis being done of the Code. He encouraged everyone to ask questions in conjunction with the presentations being made tonight. Tonight's agenda includes Mr. Langworthy speaking to the greenspace /open space feedback from the Planning charette held. A presentation will be made by Jason Schrieber, Nelson /Nygaard regarding the outcomes of the transportation /traffic modeling. The pattern book and regulatory framework will also be discussed, and staff is recommending this adoption in a form -based code. Staff can walk the group through the various sections of the form -based code. Staff will provide any information about major changes made over the last 30 days in follow -up to the open houses, and what outstanding issues remain with this code. He introduced the consultants present. He noted that Council adopted Resolution 50 -10, the Bridge Street Corridor Study, eight months ago, which established a vision creating a vibrant, walkable environment with a dynamic mix of land uses and housing types, enhancing long -term sustainability, while preserving and highlighting the Corridor's natural features. The study was developed with significant public input and market analysis to develop the planning principles and the framework. This resolution further adopted a vision statement, the vision principles, and authorized staff to commence the Bridge Street Corridor implementation strategy. Regarding this strategy, Council authorized funding in the 2011 operating budget to move Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 2 of 15 forward with the appropriate consultants to address the various components of the implementation strategy. From a staff perspective, they believe they are significantly complete and are advancing the outcomes of the studies to the policy- making bodies, as evidenced in these joint work sessions. Staff is proposing to meld the district pattern book with the regulatory framework in the form -based code. Staff believes they are at the 90 percent plus mark for completion of this, and continues to receive input. They are working to address the issues raised as they are brought forward. Much written input and phone calls have been received and staff has tried to address those as they arise. The utility modeling is basically complete but for the final written report. Relative to infrastructure cost analysis, staff believes as a result of the studies and ongoing dialogue with several potential near -term and future developments, there is a good sense of what some of those infrastructure investments will be in order to have the Bridge Street Corridor concepts move forward. The fiscal analysis and the operating costs and revenues will be presented by Tischler. in accordance with the schedule. He noted that the recommended schedule has been somewhat modified. Staff is not recommending any formal adoption or vote tonight. The Bridge Street Corridor zoning and Code will be reviewed by P &Z in July and a recommendation made to Council by August 1, 2011. The Commission has added a special session on July 14 to review the BSC items. Council will review the Code and zoning in August. Based on some a -mails and questions after the green space charette, he has asked Mr. Langworthy to provide an update tonight. Open Space /Greenspace Mr. Langworthy noted that the purpose of the open space Code section was to develop a statutory requirement for both diversity and type of use of open spaces, and also have some minimum sizes and requirements for those spaces. They have incorporated the March 9, 2011 workshop findings. This is the vision plan, and he has highlighted the open space network, dominated by the floodplain of the Scioto River and the Indian Run branches, and also a number of open space provisions that are part of the greenway corridor and other small open spaces scattered in different places, including those that are City- owned. He shared an overview of the various zoning districts within the corridor, also the location of the individual greenways and important elements of the greenway termini points that are set. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked what is considered to be a greenway. Mr. Langworthy responded that in the Code, there is a description of a greenway, with a width and a characteristic of what happens there. Essentially, a greenway is an elongated space — not a park per se, but an area used for pedestrian connectivity from major open spaces and major roadways to reach other highlighted points within the corridor. There is a continuous greenway desired from Sawmill all the way to the EAZ. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked for its width and whether it is significant. Mr. Langworthy responded that it is on page 76, which indicates that a wide variety of open spaces are programmed — some on the map and some will occur with development. There are seven different open space types, including pocket park, green square, pocket plaza, plaza park and greenway. Mr. Currie asked for the difference between the brown and green highlighting on the map. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 3 of 15 Mr. Langworthy responded the brown reflects hardscape -- streetscape, pedestrian walkways, which could include brick walks, sidewalks, a variety of things. Mr. Karrer asked if bicycle paths are included. Mr. Langworthy responded these pedestrian- oriented pathways are addressed here. The vehicle portion will be addressed later. Bikepaths fit in different locations and in different ways. Some of those ways will be introduced later. The notations on the maps are from the open space workshops. These include the greenway into Riverside Park across the river; central green in Historic Dublin; the new riverside park along the river, which will be challenging due to the narrow area in which to work. There was a request for improved access to the Dublin Arts Council building, Scioto Park and the Holder Wright earthworks. Part of that will be due to Emerald 8 and improving other projects outside the corridor, in terms of access. Mrs. Boring asked for clarification. Is the park along Riverside Drive going to be narrow? Mr. Langworthy responded there is not much space between Riverside Drive and the river edge. There may be opportunities to capture park space on the east side of Riverside Drive as well. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked if this plan relocates Riverside Drive. Mr. Langworthy responded that this plan does not. It is an issue that remains to be resolved. Mrs. Boring stated that she is very disappointed, as she understood this was part of Council's "wish lists" from long ago and part of the vision. She asked Council for input. Vice Mayor Salay asked for the rationale for not relocating Riverside Drive. Mr. Langworthy responded that tonight's discussion focuses on the Code. There are some other issues yet to be addressed in road improvements. Until other decisions are made, the plan is based on the current conditions. As decisions are made, some provisions can be implemented. Staff would not make a policy decision about the location of Riverside Drive. Ms. Grigsby stated that this Plan does not preclude modifying the alignment of Riverside Drive. As staff began looking at that a couple of years ago, they identified many issues relating to acquisition and the actual movement and construction of the road. As development is initiated, those types of things will be reviewed and evaluated. The pedestrian crossing is still included in the Plan, and staff is looking at ways to incorporate that along with use of the river. Mrs. Boring stated that she understood this was to be a visionary plan — not just text. There was a beautiful plan for the Historic District years ago that included widening SR 161 and added parking, but then buildings were added and there was no longer room to accommodate that plan. Trying to control the development of each building as it comes along puts the City in somewhat of an argumentative position. Having a Community Plan to defend puts the City in a better position. She is concerned the opportunity will be lost. Ms. Grigsby responded some of the things originally identified for Bridge Street in the 1997 Community Plan are no longer what is preferred. As development occurs over time, preferences change, such as depth of setbacks. Any plan would be subject to modifications. It is a guide to be used, recognizing the intent is to look at opportunities to develop the parkland, specifically along the river. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 4 of 15 Mr. Langworthy clarified that staff is not asking Council to adopt this plan in any fashion. This is merely the mechanism used to incorporate Council's ideas from the workshops. Therefore, the statements regarding Riverside Drive Parkway and the new Riverside park are interpreted as wished for now until later decisions are made. Their goal is to codify open space requirements in this area, but not the location of those open spaces. Mr. McDaniel stated that while the Code may not provide specifications for a park along the river, as a result of Council's input, it does introduce green spaces and greenways that previously were not in the Community Plan, particularly as it relates to connectivity to and within Dublin Village Center. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she appreciates the explanation for realigned Riverside Drive not being shown in the plan at this time. However, she understood that to be a critical feature of this current exercise — because of the interest in making the river the centerpiece of this part of Dublin. To make the river the centerpiece would require it to be a larger area than currently exists. That opportunity is made possible by moving the road to the east. It was understood that would mean a significant financial investment, but Council was willing to consider that and plan accordingly because of the significant impact it would have on this part of the community. More importantly, it would set Dublin significantly apart from any other community in central Ohio — not only having a river, but then incorporating it as a dynamic element of the community. Therefore, she is surprised this Code does not take into consideration that the road would be moved. How can the Code be merely a guide, when a Code by nature is specific? Mr. Langworthy responded that this is not in the Code. It is the overview Council requested to show how the different types of greenspace were specified, also examples for how that could be implemented. This is not proposed for adoption. There is also an overview of the street network plan on page 17, and conceptual road realignment is depicted in that plan. Mr. McDaniel stated if it is Council's desire that more elements be depicted in the plan, it is possible to do so. Mrs. Boring stated that this is something that has already been discussed. Why is additional input necessary to include it in this plan? It was known that movement of the road would be expensive, but if it is to be a dynamic component of the plan, it must be included. Mayor Lecklider stated that he views this document as Code, which has minimum requirements, including widths. Perhaps another document could provide a description of what is desired in regard to the treatment of the river in this particular area. It would not be appropriately included here in the Code. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she understood this was to be both a Code and a vision. Mayor Lecklider stated that this part is just the Code. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that it should be a Code that reflects the vision. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she thought the intent was to codify the vision. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 5 of 15 Mayor Lecklider stated that the Code cannot codify each and every parcel of the overall plan. This is to provide the minimum requirements. Mr. Langworthy clarified that staff was asked to provide the results of the open space workshop, and that is what has been presented. They pulled this part of the presentation out from the Code presentation to make it clear these were the elements discussed at the open space workshop. Mayor Lecklider stated that discussion is similar to the streets discussion, in which there was discussion of the different types of streets, widths, etc. Examples of those provided in the presentation wouldn't be what is being adopted — these are merely examples of how the Code might be implemented. Mr. Gerber stated that is true. However, people will be looking for visualization of the form - based Code. Also, during the most recent CIP workshop, there was discussion concerning scheduling of funding the study for the Riverside Road realignment. He prefers not to have a lengthy Code discussion, but prefers the focus be on achieving a better understanding of how this plan would look when implemented. Ms. Grigsby stated that these Code provisions will guide development as it occurs. Funding was programmed in last year's CIP for design of the Riverside Drive /Bridge Street intersection, but that was put on hold until the Bridge Street Corridor study is completed. Originally, a potential roundabout was identified as the best method to improve traffic movement through that intersection. This process has caused that objective to be reconsidered. It may be desirable to slow traffic movement at that intersection. The costs of land acquisition have changed since the original concept and there are other elements that have been re- evaluated. Although different and attractive features along the river are desired to make Dublin unique, the area may not need to be as large as the original concept envisioned. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that there is a fundamental difference between what the Mayor has described and what she believes. She believes Code follows vision instead of Code forcing vision. What she sees is that a Code has been developed, and when a developer comes in with their vision, as long as they meet the Code, their vision will be permitted to be developed. Ms. Grigsby stated that the Code would be followed in conjunction with the Vision that was established as a guide for potential development. Also, some of the planning work has been completed to identify what the land uses will be to enable prediction of transportation needs and projected costs to service those uses. Mayor Lecklider asked if conceptual description of the riverfront greenspace exists anywhere in the Code. Ms. Amorose Groomes responded that the illustrative Vision Plan was not incorporated into the Code. However, on page 17 of the illustrative Vision Plan, which was adopted on October 25, the road is shown as realigned. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 6 of 15 Mayor Lecklider asked if exact details concerning the Central Green are provided anywhere. As he understands, this is conceptual. Ms. Kramb asked if there is a zoning map depicting the proposed locations of the 11 zones that have been identified. Mr. Langworthy responded affirmatively. Ms. Kramb stated that there will be a Public District. Will public areas be zoned? If so, would the area along the river be zoned as a public area? Mr. Langworthy responded that the City can zone only what it owns. He is referring specifically to parkland. Ms. Kramb stated that if the City zones that area as commercial and builds the streets accordingly, what happens if, in 20 years, the City decides it wants to move Riverside Drive? Buildings will exist there in a commercial zone, and they will never be moved. Mrs. Boring added that the land will be more expensive to acquire at that time. Ms. Kramb stated that if the City has an intention of realigning the road -- just as the City now has plans to zone Office along S.R. 161 although those areas are existing retail -- if the City can have the foresight for that future zoning, why can't the City identify future park zoning for this area? Ms. Grigsby responded that this concept plan shows a slight adjustment to Riverside Drive, not the more significant realignment originally discussed. The concept plan also shows a roundabout at Bridge Street and Riverside Drive, and that will likely not be what is adopted. The concept plan does recognize some important features -- the river and a pedestrian bridge over the river, but the park area is not as large as originally envisioned. Mrs. Boring stated that consultants can draft these concepts, but, in the end, who owns the plan? If Council wants to revert to an earlier plan, how could that occur? Mr. McDaniel responded that is influenced by how likely the City is to be able to acquire what is needed. From an area plan perspective, there is no problem with showing the intended greenspace on the plan, as well as a shifted Riverside Drive, if that is what Council desires. Currently, there are businesses and owners making investments in that area, which makes it difficult to purchase land at this time. However, it can be reflected in the plan as a long -term goal. Vice Mayor Salay stated that item 3 on the agenda is "transportation analysis update," which will likely focus on Riverside Drive, Bridge Street and the entire transportation network. It is important for everyone to understand what the ramifications of the decision to move Riverside Drive to the east would be. After analysis is presented and understood, then it will be possible to discuss what to do with Riverside Drive. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she does not disagree, but this is a dramatic change from the expectation. This exercise had contemplated the movement of Riverside Drive -- not an incremental move, but a significant movement. That may have been changed for very legitimate reasons, which may be revealed in future presentations. However, she would like to have known that the vision was dramatically different than what Council had anticipated. That would have permitted Council time to adjust its thinking and consider how the Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 7 of 15 remainder of the area would make up the difference. For instance, at one time, there was discussion concerning a very large greenway that might traverse the area. That central park concept might have been dramatic enough that it could have replaced a plan around the river. At this point, there appear to be pockets of greenspace, but not the "drama" of significant greenspace, as she had envisioned. Ms. Grigsby responded that the plan shows a slight adjustment to Riverside Drive, but not to the degree it was three to four years ago. Information on the current proposed alignment will be forwarded to Council. Mr. McDaniel stated that staff and the consultants have discussed the alignment. Traveling south on Riverside Drive, does Council want Riverside Drive to continue as the thoroughfare it currently is — a higher speed roadway -- or would Council prefer to begin changing the character as the road nears the intersection with SR 161? Beginning the grid pattern closer to the north would create other greenspace opportunities. It may be desirable to change the character of the road as it enters the new Bridge Street corridor. As development opportunities occur between 1 -270 and SR 161, there may be opportunity to change the character of the roadway and acquire greenspace. Mrs. Boring stated that the references to how it "could" or "likely" would develop are of concern to her. It then does not appear a decision has been made regarding how Council wants it to appear. Mayor Lecklider asked if the City has the discretion to move a State route. Mr. McDaniel responded that would have to be coordinated with ODOT. If they are also a funding partner, they will have more input. Mr. Taylor stated that two issues are being confused. Mrs. Boring used the 1997 Community Plan concerning the intersection of High Street and S.R. 161 as an example. There seems to be concern that the vision or drama has been lost. If those elements are established first, then Council can evaluate proposals in terms of those elements. Although there may be huge obstacles to moving the road, if Council doesn't identify now that is the vision, someone will build up to the road and then it will be impossible. The Code is separate from the vision. It is also important to maintain the strong, dramatic vision for the City and not allow the day -to -day realities to get in the way of it. Mr. Langworthy pointed out the hardscape transitions from the greenways to the urban settings on the east side and open spaces within the shopping corridors. There will also be larger plazas along SR 161. There are seven different types of open spaces built into the Code as requirements for development and building construction. There is a wide variety of open spaces and a variety of ways to achieve those open spaces. This is not to be adopted as part of the Code; it is an illustration for discussion tonight. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked if there would be a large central park in the area, Mr. Langworthy responded that there could be, but it is an area not designated, as the area currently is owned by private property owners. The City can have the property owner dedicate the space, and then add to the space via partnerships. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 8 of 15 Mr. McDaniel asked if Council wants a central green area adjacent to Historic Dublin. Mr. Langworthy reviewed the changes from the previous draft of the proposed Code. It now contains a provision of open space that covers all non -civic land uses as commercial and residential, regardless of its size. The requirements of open space are based either on square footage or commercial use, or, if a mixed -use, then the number of dwelling units. Also added is a requirement for payment in lieu of open space, when the requirements cannot be met by the applicant or if the ART determines that the fee in lieu of would be more advantageous to the City than the actual open space. The fee must be used for open space purposes within the Corridor. The maximum amount of open water permitted has been reduced. Mrs. Boring noted that it is possible to plan the building so that the land dedication cannot be met. Mr. Langworthy stated that it is not anticipated there will be many circumstances where the open space dedication cannot be met, other than roadway constraints. Mr. Souders noted that on page 17 is the Corridor street network with disclaimers, providing a concept of where the roads could go. Perhaps that same technique could be used for the greenway spaces – providing the concept, with disclaimers, with the Code a visionary/guide for the greenway linkage? Mr. Langworthy responded that he would discuss the possibility with Legal staff. Jason Schrieber, Nelson \Nvgaard stated that he would be presenting for Rick Chellman. He reviewed the transportation concepts. Most of the modeling has been completed, and they are in the process of documentation. The goal was to achieve a very walkable and interconnected place, which means a significant change in the traffic. Council had asked that they specifically address the river crossings. There will be two new bridges across the Scioto River. Much modeling has been done, including complex intersection analysis. To summarize, the reduction in traffic with two new bridges will not be substantial — only 13 %. That is due to the fact that adding the new connections across the river will result in more people using the connections. The reality is that all that is really needed is the existing bridge. However, bridges mean something for a community. It is all about "place making." Bridges link neighborhoods, and therefore, their recommendation is to add two more bridges. However, the traffic volume is completely supportable by one bridge. The streets in the City's network are the predominant open spaces in many cities. All of the streets need multi -modal connectivity. He displayed excerpts of pages that would be placed in the Code. The primary east -west streets would be the core east -west spine of the District, from OCLC to the Dublin Village Center. These primary streets would ideally also have cycle tracks. The review continued regarding the types of characteristics that would exist with the differing streets. Conservative evaluations by the models indicates a 40% internal capture -- which means the percent of people living, working, recreating, shopping and dining within the Bridge Street Corridor on foot or bike. For that reason Dublin will not need many bridges – it will have an environment that changes the characteristics of how people move around. Some of the maps included are: a recommended loop bicycle pathway network, primary and secondary routes, and potential COTA interface. The existing bridge would need some areas of improvement: pedestrian enhancements on the bridge dovetailing with changes in the Riverside Drive intersection. A roundabout is not the best way to encourage Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 9 of 15 pedestrian connections. The intersection with Post and Frantz Road will be a definite problem and require improvements as the traffic volume grows from the developing community. Review continued regarding other potential road improvements, as outlined in the presentation materials. Mr. Karrer commented on the traffic volume in the Historic District. A viable alternative to the existing roads is needed. He encourages more study of opportunities for the Historic District to have another bypass for S.R. 161 traffic. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked if there has been any discussion on the Frantz -Post realignment. Is the vision that it would ultimately connect to Emerald Parkway and thereby move traffic to the east side of the river? That would provide a traffic bypass around the Historic District. Ms. Grigsby responded that staff looked at some realignments. Funds are currently programmed for a Dublin Road west bypass through the Cardinal Health property. It would not connect to Emerald Parkway. Mrs. Boring asked if a potential connection through the Verizon property was also studied. Ms. Grigsby confirmed that a study was conducted, and it was determined that there was not adequate room for that connection based on height and slope. Mr. Schrieber stated that the advantages of adding a new connection for existing conditions is great. Hopefully, in the future there will be multiple connections to Dublin Road added, ideally every 200 -foot block. The goal is not to create an arterial, or classic bypass. This would be the backbone of a different kind of network. The more traffic is dispersed, the less big roads are needed. Mr. Currie asked in reference to the traffic reduction on S.R. 161, where did the modeling begin. Mr. Schrieber responded that the model is of the entire City. It assumes there are multiple intersections. The traffic volume on the existing bridge is not at its capacity, although it is expected to near that. More of a concern in relationship to the bridge is how the intersections perform at either end. Mr. Currie asked if the model included eastbound traffic on S.R. 161 from Plain City to Worthington. Mr. Schrieber responded that it did. The model assumes that in 20 years of growth, there is also background traffic growth associated with other developments and communities. Mr. Currie asked if the 110 -foot width of the streets is an overlay on existing streets. Mr. Schrieber responded that it reflects new streets to be built. The cross section was illustrative of a primary address street at its widest, such as the OCLC entry or Dublin Village Center. It could also be applied to Bridge Street. To the east of the river, it is wider than 110 feet, and to the west it is narrower. Mr. Page inquired if there are other small cities, similar to Dublin, that are about 10 -15 years further along in the process that could share information on how all this can be achieved. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 10 of 15 Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if the river was to be treated as an amenity or as a barrier to be crossed. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked if the bridges were pedestrian or vehicular. If they are pedestrian, they would be incorporating the river as an amenity. Mr. Schrieber stated that a bridge that will connect communities should have sidewalks twice the width of the existing sidewalk, cycle tracks, and some form of a barrier protection from the traffic. It also should not be four lanes wide, but two lanes only. Vehicle traffic can be part of the bridge function, but the elements need to be very multi - modal. Bridges done well can also incorporate visual access to the river. Vice Mayor Salay stated that there was earlier discussion about changing the character of Riverside Drive from a fast - moving road. There was also discussion regarding the roundabout, which was assumed would be located at SR 161. She requested that he discuss the thought process behind not having a roundabout, the future character of Riverside Drive, and the reason it cannot be moved more to the east so that the park space envisioned can be added. Mr. Schrieber expressed support for Riverside Drive's character changing. It is difficult to address with Code, however, unless a developer is rebuilding it. He advocates narrower lanes, adding walkways and a multi -use path. The key is to humanize a street that will be a gateway or front door for many development parcels, not treat it as a bypass road, but a principal address street, a front door to places. That intent should continue down to its principal intersection with Bridge Street. Although a roundabout does help traffic move more safely, it is difficult for pedestrian traffic. Therefore, it may make more sense to have a compact surface intersection, which would make pedestrian crossings as short as possible. It would require more engineering of details, but it would make pedestrian connectivity an important component. Vice Mayor Salay stated that a big part of the previous discussion focused on not moving the road as far east as initially discussed. Mr. Schrieber responded that it is a place- making decision. It is not really a traffic and circulation decision. That type of movement does not really impact intersection operations. It is the intersection design and the cross section of the street that is relevant. Therefore, he can't speak to changes in size of open space or where the roadway is aligned. Vice Mayor Salay stated that she was hoping to obtain clarity on why the roadway is not being moved. Mr. McDaniel responded that, previously, the intent was to have the road swing widely and for Tuller Road to be realigned. A suburban feel was the intent at that time; now staff is looking at a grid design. They had a $100 million dollar development project proposed at that time, but the shopping center is picking up vibrancy again. It is possible to change direction. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 11 of 15 Vice Mayor Salay stated that it would be helpful to see the dimensions now being considered, and the difference from previous plans. Ms. Newell stated that there was a plan for a 110 -foot wide boulevard street further west. How does that relate to the bridge connection? She assumes the width downsizes as it reaches the river. Mr. Schrieber referred to the street family diagram. Some of the streets are key connections that will reach up to OCLC and change street families. Even within one family, the Code is designed to indicate that there are primary families, but the details involve going to the user guide, which provides detailed cross sections. Any of those cross sections might be used, depending on the adjacent land use and the character of the cross section further down the road. For instance, traveling along North Street, a principal address street, the cross section might vary 20 times across its length. The Code permits for each development that is involved in the creation of that street to be reviewed for what the appropriate cross section would be at that time. In some places, a bicycle path might be needed; in other places, it may not. In other places, the sidewalk could be narrower in areas of lower pedestrian activity; in other areas wider due to more pedestrian activity. He envisions a multitude of cross sections used throughout the Bridge Street Corridor. Ms. Newell stated that the plan indicates Bridge Street and SR 161 at 110 feet; nothing indicates other options. Mr. Schrieber responded that the Code language on page 18, J(2) provides 110 feet as "one example of the street configuration appropriate. Please refer to typical plan and ultimately the table. Refer to the Bridge Street Corridor's District applicable guide for the other cross sections." The language should be bolder for clarification purposes. There is no intention that the example on page 18 is what Bridge Street should look like. Showing numerous possible cross sections would be voluminous. A decision was made for clarity to show a few brief examples, with all of the language referring back to a technical appendix that does show all those cross sections. Ultimately, clarity is paramount, and it could be done differently. Mrs. Boring stated that J(1) does refer to the "intent," so there is not clarity. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that the other examples do not give the name of an existing street. Using Bridge Street as the name makes it confusing; that should be changed. Mayor Lecklider asked about the remaining meeting timeframe. Mr. McDaniel responded that Carson Bise, TischlerBise, will review Code sections, unless Council would prefer to defer that. Mrs. Boring stated that Council has never had the opportunity to discuss these issues, and Council's input should be provided. She believes another workshop is needed. Ms. Grigsby responded that can be done. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 12 of 15 Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she agrees another meeting is needed to discuss the development code, as that is the subject about which Council is receiving letters and phone calls. She would prefer to hear the fiscal review tonight. [Discussion re. Transportation continues.] Mr. Souders stated that traffic in the Historic District is an issue, backing up to 1 -270. If the number of lanes through the Historic District were reduced, does the model still work? Would another bridge, such as a North Street bridge, be needed if the number of lanes were reduced? Mr. Schrieber responded that if the number of lanes were reduced, the model will not work. That would cause a severe reduction in capacity. If the intersection is designed correctly, however, it can handle the volumes projected in any future scenario. Mr. Souders stated that it has been suggested that the Bridge Street bridge would better operate if the number of lanes were reduced, and the amount of pedestrian width increased. Because the bridge is a fixed width, the number of lanes would need to be reduced — but the model will no longer work. Mr. Schrieber clarified that his suggestion was that on Riverside Drive, the lane width be reduced. He would not suggest removing lanes on Bridge Street, but he would suggest doing whatever can be done to change the character of Bridge Street and its bridge. That is the key point. The model will handle the traffic, but it always breaks down when people "begin behaving more like people and less like cars." If the characteristics of the street change, regardless of the level of development, substantial changes in driving patterns will result. Mr. Souders asked if the consultant perceives an issue with pedestrians attempting to cross from the north side of Bridge Street to the south side. Mr. Schrieber responded that he observes there is an issue. Mr. Souders asked if the only solution is to reduce the width of the drive lanes. Mr. Schrieber responded that it is a good way to solve it, but not the only way. For instance, the intersection of Bridge and Dublin Road might warrant some changes in how the signal operates; that could reduce the queues. Mr. Souders asked if it would make sense for current Bridge Street, with reductions, to become one -way, eastbound, and North Street to become one -way, westbound. Mr. Schrieber responded that he would expect that to be a disaster. It would cause significant high -speed traffic that would make pedestrian crossings difficult. It would also cause levels of diversions that cannot be conceived of at that point in time. It would be creating an exploded, one -way couplet that would be detrimental to the character of either side. Mr. Souders stated that the only solution, then, is to keep the lanes and change the width. Mr. Schrieber stated that making the travel lanes on Bridge Street as narrow as possible and introducing active uses, crosswalks and, where possible, on street parking to help create the friction and slow down the traffic volumes will make a difference. It is possible to handle just as much volume but at a slower speed -- 25 mph for the peak period would be Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 13 of 15 good. The problem is that crossing the street in the Historic District any time of the day is difficult. The goal is to design a district that has life all day long. Mrs. Boring stated that, previously, there has been discussion about the stacking problems at the intersection of Riverside Drive /Emerald Parkway, the reason for realigning Tuller Road. In attempts to divert traffic on Emerald Parkway, she is hopeful that kind of situation is recalled. How do drivers make a reasonable north -south connection with Riverside Drive? Mr. Schrieber responded that one of the principles of this network is that the streets are not being designed as bypass alternate straight shots. Not only is the cross section changing, but other than where there are existing roads, there is not an opportunity to actually drive through the entire site without turning the wheels significantly, or making turns at intersections to continue. Doing so helps to preserve the character of those streets as slower -speed streets. They will still relieve traffic, but drivers will be forced to make turns, thereby going slower. It is possible to make an east -west connection in a dozen different options with this network. Mrs. Boring asked if drivers would be forced to use another north -south connector, rather than Riverside Drive. Mr. Schrieber responded that he does not believe any diversion for drivers would occur. The intent of multiple routes is that any additional traffic created by new development would have other options, rather than funneling everyone onto Riverside Drive, Sawmill Road or Bridge Street. In fact, there will be the opportunity for people who work within the corridor to never touch those streets all day, other than to cross them. He would not expect people who drive today on those through routes would necessarily shift their pattern significantly, although they may be intrigued to go elsewhere. The redundancy will reduce the opportunities for folks to find one convenient route, but increase the opportunities for everyone who lives and works in the District to move around. Mrs. Boring stated that she is concerned about the ramifications for people who live to the north of the Corridor and who use Riverside Drive to travel downtown. It seems that part of the focus should also be on giving folks an easier way to travel from Point A to Point B. Mr. Schrieber responded that sometimes they are also asked to conduct a travel -time run. The time to travel on Riverside Drive from Emerald Parkway to Bridge Street today versus the future when, hopefully, the travel speeds are reduced and will be 30 -45 seconds. That time difference will humanize the trip for this District. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher referred to the model for SR 161 traveling east. There has been discussion regarding the addition of left turns at Riverside Drive, as existed years ago. With a roundabout, that would have been possible. A roundabout is not being recommended, but are they recommending a left -turn lane in this location? Mr. Schrieber stated that there should be as much connectivity as possible, and therefore, he believes it would be a good idea. However, they have not studied that intersection in finite detail. That is the reason it is on the list of items for immediate consideration. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 14 of 15 Fiscal Carson Bise, TischlerBise stated that they do not have any hard numbers to share tonight. They have worked several times with Dublin over the past 15 years. Their work focuses solely on cost of growth studies, primarily impact fee studies and fiscal impact analyses. With this project, they are responsible for the fiscal impact analysis and accompanying fiscal sustainability implementation recommendations. Some of the characteristics of the Bridge Street Corridor will be historically different for Dublin, such as the variety of housing densities, different development pattern, and different residential and non - residential products. Their analysis will cover the trip rates from this type of development and amount of local road frontage associated with these land use types that will be added. They will look at the incentives that must be utilized to achieve this vision. Tax increment financing will be used for some of the infrastructure improvement. They will look at the cost of the incentives, intervention strategies, and other actions the City must take to implement this. How will the structured parking be built — with TIF dollars? And how will it be operated? They will be creating a fiscal model that looks at costs on the margin, recognizing the City's existing capacity, and showing the ebbs and flows of surpluses and deficits. They will also be assessing capital facilities - the infrastructure provisions within the study area. [In -depth review of the fiscal analysis plan continued.] The fiscal impact model is 70% complete and he anticipates providing a draft report to the City by the end of July. They are finalizing assumptions for the development program, and the key aspect is phasing. The transportation analysis is needed to complete their work for the final report. Mr. Langworthy asked how similar this analysis is to that done for the Community Plan process. Mr. Bise responded that the difference is they are looking at a small area versus a City -wide analysis, and this development project has very different characteristics than the City's traditional developments. The focus of this analysis is developing the model and determine how it will behave differently in term of trip generation rates, socioeconomic characteristics, assessed values, etc. Mr. Souders asked how the fiscal analysis impacts the existing historic district. The mixed use will compete for the same people in the marketplace until the development takes off. Mr. Bise responded that is not their charge here; that is more of a market analysis. That type of analysis can be incorporated later, if desired. The spinoff of their work would lead to the "what if' questions, such as what happens short and long -term to the Historic District, which can be hypothesized and modeled. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked if, in recommending incentives, they research what other communities are offering as incentives, or what the central Ohio market is doing. Mr. Bise responded that their role is not to tell the City what incentives it should use. They do not have preconceived ideas, although they can offer suggestions if requested. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher requested clarification of what he would be providing. She thought he would be addressing the future, not what has occurred in the past. Mr. Bise stated that they would offer modeling for different types of incentives. Perhaps the City may have to upfront some of the infrastructure. They will be offering implementation recommendations to make the Plan happen. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 15 of 15 Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked if in his experience he is aware of certain types of incentive models, wouldn't he suggest they be modeled in this Corridor? Mr. Bise responded that he would, but that would come later. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked for the timeframe for completion. Mr. Bise indicated the end of July. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she is looking for ideas, not an analysis of what the City is already doing. Is he modeling against the new plan incorporating the types of incentives the City is already doing? Mr. Bise responded that is correct. They would not take the liberty of assuming what the City should do, but will provide a "toolbox" of options. Ms. Bailey asked if it is a bit premature to model with so many items undecided in this plan. How does the City avoid "creeping the plan" to fit the budget? Mr. Bise responded that at some point, someone will have to make a decision as to what type of transportation improvements, for instance, they should model. They can do subsets of scenarios — with Riverside Drive moving or staying in place, for example. Mayor Lecklider asked staff about the timing for an additional workshop, based on tonight's discussion. The PZC review may need to be rescheduled for a later date. Mr. McDaniel responded he would like to check on the availability of consultants and forward those dates to Council for consideration. He would prefer they be involved in the meetings. Mayor Lecklider acknowledged that P &Z would need to delay their review until the workshops are completed. Ms. Kramb asked the percentage of completion of the Code presented tonight would be. Mr. Langworthy responded that it is difficult to provide a percentage. They now need to assess the amount of change needed in the Code language to address the recommendations that have been made, and need to circle back with the stakeholders. Mr. McDaniel responded that a rough estimate would be 90% complete. Ms. Kramb suggested that there are many items in the Code that do not require comment, but where references to figures need to be addressed, where references are not correct. These should be handled by the consultants. The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Clerk of Council BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR PLAN JOINT WORK SESSION Tuesday, May 24, 2011 MEETING RECORD The following were present: Council members Mayor Lecklider, Vice Mayor Salay, Mrs. Boring, Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, Mr. Gerber, and Mr. Reiner. Planning & Zoning Commission members Ms. Groomes, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Fishman, Ms. Kramb, Mr. Hardt, Mr. Zimmerman, and Mr. Budde. Board of Zoning Appeals members Ms. Newell, Mr. Gunnoe, Mr. Todoran, and Mr. Page. Architectural Review Board members Mr. Karrer, Mr. Currie, Mr. Souders, and Ms. Bailey. Staff: Ms. Grigsby, Mr. McDaniel, Ms. Readler, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Hahn, Ms. Ray, Mr. Goodwin, Mr. Phillabaum, Ms. Husak, Ms. Rauch, Ms. Adkins, Ms. Cox, Ms. Willis, Ms. Coen, Ms. Burness, Ms. Clarke. Consultants Ben Carlson, Goody Clancy; Don Elliott, Clarion Associates: Leslie Oberholtzer, Farr Associates; Greg Dale, McBride /Dale /Clarion; Rick Chellman, Nelson \Nygaard; Shane Spencer, and Dr. Taymour EI- Hosseiny, EMH &T, and Josh Reinicke, CDM. Deputy City Manager Dana McDaniel thanked the Board and Commission members in attendance and recognized the Bridge Street Corridor stakeholders also present. He introduced the consultants who would be presenting this evening. Mr. McDaniel stated the purpose of this meeting was to provide updates regarding the progress made with the Bridge Street Corridor implementation studies. He stated the second draft of the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code has been distributed to Council and Board and Commission members. Mr. McDaniel introduced the first speaker, Shane Spencer with EMH &T. He said Council and Board and Commission members would have the opportunity to ask questions of the consultant teams following the presentations. Water Distribution System Model Report Shane Spencer, EMH &T, said he studied the city's existing water distribution system with the objective of determining the ability of the existing infrastructure to serve the Bridge Street Corridor at build -out. He explained the City of Dublin receives water from the City of Columbus. There are two separate pressure districts, which are areas where the hydraulic grade line is maintained at a level to maintain constant pressure. The pressure is often influenced by the topography of the land. He stated there are six water tanks surrounding the Corridor that are filled by the Cleveland Avenue and Henderson Road booster stations. He added in the Bridge Street Corridor, there are 24 -inch main water lines from Sawmill Road west to Dublin Road, in addition to a 16 -inch water main along Bridge Street to the west. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board May 24, 2011 Page 2 of 8 Mr. Spencer stated the water distribution computer model is based on the current model, last updated in 2006, which listed a citywide demand for 6.2 million gallons of water. The new model represents changes in water lines, including working with the City of Columbus' Operation Center to obtain the duration levels and monitoring data of their tanks' booster stations. He said he was able to check that data by running flow tests in fire hydrants to reconcile the model with real variations. Mr. Spencer explained demands on the water system change throughout the year, and these changes help determine when to run the model in terms of identifying peak demand. Historically, late August to early September are the months which require the highest water demand. He said in order to determine how to serve the Bridge Street Corridor development capacity, they reviewed the two significant measurables, including system pressure and fire flow. Mr. Spencer explained the system pressure refers to daily uses and demands on the system. An operating range of 60 -80 psi with a minimum of 35 psi is what we want in our system during typical peak demands. Mr. Spencer said fire flow is the second aspect of the water distribution system studied. He coordinated with the Washington Township Fire Department to identify a goal of 3,000 gallons per minute (GPM) for fire flow, which is above the typical fire flow demands due to the mixed use environment. He said the minimum operating pressure is 20 psi for standard fire flows. Mr. Spencer said it is important to begin the model by reviewing the existing system and existing demands. He said in 2010, the citywide demand was 1.6 billion gallons, and the existing demand in the Bridge Street Corridor is about .6 billion gallons. Mr. Spencer stated overall, the model meets the minimum desired standard of 3,000 GPM at build -out of the Bridge Street Corridor, with one exception around Kilgore Place near OCLC, which will only have 2,300 GPM, but still an acceptable level of service. Mr. Spencer stated in an effort to project future conditions for the model, they reviewed the 2007 Community Plan, which identifies a 1.7 MGD demand in the Bridge Street Corridor, which is about three times the current demand. He said the model estimated a build -out demand in the Bridge Street Corridor of approximately 2.1 MGD, which is 400,000 million gallons greater than the Community Plan projections. These demands were based on residential, commercial and office densities approximated for the build -out capacity of the Bridge Street Corridor. Mr. Spencer concluded potential improvements may be needed to accommodate the build - out capacity of the Bridge Street Corridor. He said reinforcing the network of twelve inch pipes, much of which is already in place, with several key loops to reduce dead ends is really the only improvements that will be needed. He said additionally, any waterline improvements will need to be aligned with the street network and roadway improvements. He concluded the City of Dublin should continue to work with Columbus, but the major conclusion is that no up -front improvements are necessary to support development in the Corridor. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board May 24, 2011 Page 3 of 8 Sanitary Sewer Service Model Report Dr. Taymour El- Hosseiny. EMH &T, stated the sanitary service model studied the existing conditions, the 2007 Community Plan projections, and the build -out capacities projected for the Bridge Street Corridor. He explained topographically, the Bridge Street Corridor sits at the lowest point of the city, and there are trunk sewers discharging from the north and south, eventually reaching the two main trunk sewer lines which run parallel to the Scioto River. Dr. El- Hosseiny explained the peak times for sewer use are during the morning and evening hours, when people wake up and return home from work. During the "dry" times, the average demand on the system is 1 million gallons per day (GPD), and during "wet" times, the demand is up to 5 million GPD. He said the city has meters placed throughout the system to collect accurate measurements on system demand, which was used to determine water flows. Dr. El- Hosseiny reported the Bridge Street Corridor currently produces 4 million GPD demand, while the rest of the city produces 38 million GPD for a total of about 42 million GPD. At build -out conditions, the model projected the Bridge Street Corridor will produce a flow of up to 10 million GPD while the rest of the city will produce approximately 50 million GPD. The total demand for approximately 60 million GPD can be accommodated by the existing system, which can accommodate approximately 62 million GPD. He concluded this demand will not impact the main trunk sewer lines branching out from the Bridge Street Corridor. He stated the current main trunk sewer lines will not need to be increased in size to serve this demand, since the City has consistently installed sewer lines to meet and exceed demand levels. He noted a few specific areas would likely be improved during redevelopment. Storm Water Management Model Report Josh Reinicke, CDM, explained the Bridge Street Corridor offers an opportunity in which storm water can be reviewed in a manner unlike the way storm water is typically viewed, and can be integrated into every aspect of development. He said CDM looked at storm water management in the Bridge Street Corridor with a broad scope, looking at the east and west sides of the Scioto River as a whole to allow storm water to be viewed at a watershed scale. He said currently, every developer has to manage their own storm water on their individual site, whereas the results of the model presented today are based on a watershed - style, district -wide approach. Mr. Reinicke explained on the west side of the Bridge Street Corridor, there are two streams which provide different opportunities and challenges for storm water management because they are high quality streams that need to be maintained. On the east side, storm water is directly discharged into the Scioto River. Mr. Reinicke explained that CDM worked from the Vision Plan and build -out capacities to calculate the approximate percentages of impervious surfaces that could be expected based on different land uses. He noted the development on the east and west sides of the Scioto River differed in impervious coverage. Mr. Reinicke stated typical development in Dublin typically results in less than 50% impervious surfaces. Knowing this percentage allowed the model to look at Dublin's current Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board May 24, 2011 Page 4 of 8 storm water management needs and calculate preliminary detention volumes. He said most storm water management criteria requires retention ponds to be a maximum of four feet deep to meet quantity and quality requirements. Based on this depth assumption, on the west side of the Bridge Street Corridor, approximately 6.4 acres of water retention would be needed, and on the east side, 9 acres would be needed. Mr. Reinicke noted the draft zoning regulations can include block -by -block storm water management requirements since the approximate storm water retention needs are known. Knowing block size and depth of storage, the square foot requirement for each block can be determined. Mr. Reinicke stated due to the proximity of the North and South Forks of the Indian Run and the Scioto River, there is potential to modify the current quantity control requirements to let the water flow faster, which can be very beneficial. On the west side of the Bridge Street Corridor, if there is no detention in place, there would be a slight increase of 14 cubic feet per second to the North Fork, which is not a big increase in flow. The City of Dublin's storm water management regulations currently provide an exemption for storm water quantity control within an area bounded by Riverside Drive and Dublin Road. Mr. Reinicke described modern, sustainable design techniques for storm water management could be used in the Bridge Street Corridor. He said green roofs reduce the volume of runoff from a site, and permeable pavement also helps soak up the water and is starting to be used more frequently. Permeable pavement can be used not only for parking lots but for streets as well. He said rather than having a raised curb around a parking lot island, there could be a concrete edge that allows the water to flow into planters and soak into the ground. Using curbside planters could allow up to 20% of the storm water management needs to be met per block. Planters can also be placed in parking lots. He added on a smaller scale rain barrels and cisterns can be used to store and reuse storm water. He concluded the use of detention ponds in the Bridge Street Corridor is not a preferred method of storm water management because it is not typical in urban environments; however, some ponds could be integrated into public parks to supplement storm water management on a district basis. Overall, the city has more opportunities to think of storm water as an amenity as opposed to an afterthought in development of the Bridge Street Corridor. Transportation Model Report Rick Chellman, Nelson \Ny4aard, said that becoming more walkable and bikeable contributes to better transportation options in the future. He said tonight he would present a refined street network derived from his team's work with staff, stakeholders, and Goody Clancy. Mr. Chellman said there is power in an interconnected street network. For example, an eight -block by eight -block grid provides 10,000 ways to get from one end of the area to the other. In Nelson Nygaard's analysis of the street network on the west and east sides of the Scioto River, streets should not be too straight and continuous, but the objective is to provide interconnected streets with no dead ends. He said in addition to refining the street Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board May 24, 2011 Page 5 of 8 network, Nelson Nygaard is evaluating how it performs and trying to model travel behavior on a 'macro' level, meaning the number of trips on each street during morning or evening peak hours and on a daily basis. This analysis allows us to project vehicle trips, but is not intended to be a number to focus too much attention on, since it will just be a raw model number. Following this analysis, Nelson Nygaard will look at what happens with or without the addition bridges and additional model variations. Mr. Chellman stated currently, the Corridor has land uses that are not well- connected. They will be using a trip generation manual to project how many car trips new development will put on the roadway. He said the model will also study "trip capture" in the Corridor, which is a trip that is made by walking, biking or a trip made by car that does not leave the Corridor. He reported the preliminary results are promising, showing a capture rate of up to 40 %. Mr. Chellman reported speeding is an issue, especially when trying to promote pedestrian safety. A cycle track is a space dedicated to bikes on the same level as the sidewalk, unlike a bike lane, and is a space where all bicycle riders can feel comfortable because it feels safer than a bike lane. He explained bike lanes can be problematic because they visually increase the space available for vehicles, create conflicts between bikes and cars for turning movements, and because the space is open most of the time, which has the effect of increasing the optical width of the street for drivers, which in turn increases speeds. For these reasons, bike lanes may not be appropriate for the Bridge Street Corridor. Mr. Chellman said backward diagonal parking should be considered as an option for Bridge Street, since it is the easiest way to get in and out of an on- street parking space. When a child opens a car door, the door creates a buffer between the child and the street, directing the child toward the sidewalk instead. The trunk is also located at the sidewalk so loading and unloading is safer. Mr. Chellman presented several example street sections that could be used in the Bridge Street Corridor. One is a "queuing" street, which is a 21 -foot curb -to -curb two -way street with parking on one side. With a street this narrow, if there are two cars coming from opposing directions, one car will have to pull over to let the other one pass. He said there will not be many, if any, one -way streets in the Bridge Street. In general, the street should be as narrow as possible. Mr. Chellman stated when considering bridges, the numbers must be carefully calculated. Nelson Nygaard's model has assumed some vehicular bridges. While the model has provided preliminary calculations, we still need to apply different variables to adjust the numbers according to travel behavior in a mixed use environment. The "micro" analysis for the Corridor will look at intersections on Bridge Street and turning movements, but at this level, the macroanalysis projecting the trips throughout the corridor shows that the network will work and can serve the development capacity. Conclusion /Discussion Dana McDaniel stated several potential options for an adoption schedule for the Bridge Street Code and area reasoning had been provided for City Council. The options have all been reviewed by Legal, who indicated that the Code and the area rezoning could both be adopted at the next Joint Work Session on June 20. Another option, "Option 2," involves Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board May 24, 2011 Page 6 of 8 adopting the code at the third work session with adoption of the area rezoning proceeding through the "traditional process," including Planning and Zoning Commission review and recommendation to City Council. He said a third option, "Option 3," uses the traditional process by going through Planning and Zoning Commission then City Council, which results in a November estimated time frame for adoption. Mr. McDaniel suggested "Option 3a," which would involve the traditional process, but would result in more frequent meetings of the Planning and Zoning Commission to expedite the review and recommendation to City Council. "Option 4," shows the adoption following a traditional process with an additional joint work session, and "Option 5" includes a potential field trip. Mr. McDaniel suggested because the public noticing for the potential adoption on June 20 would need to occur quickly, the notice could advertise the adoption of both the Code and the area rezoning, but City Council may decide at their regular meeting on June 13� to modify the adoption schedule. Richard Taylor, Vice Chair, Planning and Zoning Commission asked if there are other similarly -sized cities that have applied a form -based code. He said before we adopt this type of code, it would be helpful to learn from their experiences, for better or for worse, since we are taking a big chance on a code that we do not have much experience with. Steve Langworthy. Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning stated comparisons to communities who have applied a form based code have been provided in the packet. The City of Miami, Florida adopted a form -based code that applies to the entire city; however, most codes don't apply to an entire city, but to a particular area, like we are recommending for the Bridge Street Corridor. He said staff has provided examples from different communities who have adopted form -based code, such as the Columbia Pike District in Arlington County, Virginia, in the packet provided for tonight's meeting. Don Elliott, FAICP, Clarion Associates said there are a growing number of places that have adopted form -based codes for a discrete area where they have the same types of goals that Dublin is seeking. Denver adopted a form -based code along major corridors, and they have had a few buildings go through the process. Due to the economy, it is hard to find an entire neighborhood that has been built with a form -based code, since most area -wide form -based codes are relatively new. Mr. Taylor stated he would be interested in learning about what the city leaders in these places that have adopted form -based codes say about the codes and their experiences, for example, if there are things they would like to change now that it is in place. Mr. Elliott stated he is writing a book on form -based zoning on this very topic. He said he would provide Planning with some examples to share. Mr. Elliott explained codes are "living" documents that are going to need to be changed - even those cities who have adopted form -based codes will change them at some point. Updating the code does not indicate failure, but shows the City is looking at ways to make the codes better and to evolve with the changing times. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board May 24, 2011 Page 7 of 8 Marilee Chinnici - Zuercher asked how developers and those who will use this code learn what each sections means and how it is intended to be used. She asked how this code is different from the current Zoning Code. Mr. McDaniel stated there has been a lot of input and involvement through property owners, consultants, and individual land owners. He said the goal is to treat existing uses so that we are not stifling a business owner's ability to access money to make improvements on their existing businesses through creating a lot of nonconforming uses and structures. He said a lot of what we are doing helps set positive expectations. Developers will have a better understanding of what they need to provide to achieve the City's objectives for development in the Bridge Street Corridor. As a result, the timeline for development approvals can be reduced. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked if all comments the City has received on the draft code are being kept so they can be reviewed, regardless of whether they are being incorporated into the code. Mr. Langworthy stated many comments had been submitted in writing, and staff has discussed with those individuals why some changes cannot be made, and how there may be compromise on other changes. John Reiner asked if the tax base had been studied to understand what kind of revenues will be generated from this type of development. Mr. McDaniel stated Tischler Bise will complete the fiscal impact analysis and will review the revenue projections as well as the cost projections. Mayor Lecklider asked what staff needed from Council at this time. Mr. McDaniel stated staff would appreciate continuous feedback from Council members as well as stakeholders and property owners to keep everyone highly engaged. Staff has invited all land owners to engage in the code writing process. Mr. Langworthy added if any Council or Board and Commission members would like to submit a marked -up version of the draft code, staff will make a copy and return their copy in case they would like to keep it. Bill Souders, Chair, Architectural Review Board, asked for clarification regarding the build - out conditions, and whether the existing road system is capable of handling so much additional development. Mr. Chellman clarified the model looks at build -out conditions, with the full mix of land uses. If only a single land use, such as office, was built at one time, it would create a traffic problem because it is a big traffic generator with no opportunities to combine or reduce trips as there would be in a mixed use environment. Managing phasing is an issue, but at full build -out, traffic in the Bridge Street Corridor will function. The micro simulation analysis will help us understand how specific intersections perform. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board May 24, 2011 Page 8 of 8 Mr. Souders pointed out right now, there are times where peak traffic in the evenings is really bad, and new development will likely compound this problem by making access to the interstate more difficult. Mr. Chellman said new intersections cannot be added between Post Road, Bridge Street and the interchange because it is limited access right -of -way. He said Nelson Nygaard is recommending Post Road be relocated farther north on the OCLC campus away from Bridge Street to provide more of a separation from that problematic intersection. John Hardt, Planning and Zoning Commission stated he would like to have a better understanding of how the code will be used by the development community and the city. He asked what the process would be to evaluate and approve or disapprove redevelopment plans, and how that would compare to what other cities are doing that have similar codes. He asked how the City can gain assurances the process will get us the same results and the same quality that we have with the current process. Rick Gerber asked if Council were to adopt the code on June 20, what are the options for the area rezoning. Mr. Langworthy stated the code would be in place, but the land will not be zoned yet. For the area rezoning, we could go back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for the public hearing, like the process used to adopt the Technology Flex District. Mr. McDaniel asked Ben Carlson to make a few concluding remarks. Ben Carlson, Goody Clancy stated the investment Dublin has made in the sophisticated infrastructure analysis and code development is impressive. When Goody Clancy put together the vision for the Bridge Street Corridor a year ago, they used the best practices for mixed use development, and it has been interesting to see the way the numbers have come out and to confirm the initial assumptions. Mixed uses help the City make efficient use of infrastructure. Mr. Carlson stated Goody Clancy developed the Vision Plan based on the market opportunities it offered, which includes equal benefit for making the most of streets, utilities, and green spaces, and those impacts can be understood at a district scale rather than at a site -by -site level. He said the new code has the right flexibility to accommodate different levels of development at different times to respond to the market and different property owners. Mr. Carlson thanked Council members for a great team of consultants to continue working with on implementing the Bridge Street Corridor plan. Mr. McDaniel concluded the meeting by thanking Council members and the Board and Commission members and stakeholders for their comments and feedback. Clerk of Council Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission May 5, 2011 -Minutes Page 1 of 5 Bridge Street Code Review Ms. Amorose Groomes said May 6th is the date the Commission has been asked to have their comments to staff for the Bridge street Corridor Code. She said that the Commission would like to take a few minutes to review their comments so that they may stick to the schedule and provide their comments to staff as a group prior to the next joint meeting. Richard Taylor said he agrees with the General Purpose 153.057, and asked that additional language be included regarding the Corridor as the center of community, and as a place that serves all residents, existing and future. Mr. Taylor asked how the Historic Core boundaries align with the existing Historic District. Mr. Langworthy said the Historic Core is within the Historic District but there are other areas, such as Historic Residential and parts of the Historic Transition that are also included. Mr. Taylor said the Code mentions that there is Architectural Review Board (ARB) oversight on building and site development, and provides architectural guidelines. He asked how this related to the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines. Mr. Langworthy said the ARB has asked staff to review the Guidelines as one of their annual items of interest and ensure there are no conflicts between the Guidelines and the proposed Bridge Street regulations. Mr. Taylor asked if it will be completed before the Code is adopted. Mr. Langworthy said yes Mr. Taylor said he was concerned about two different groups providing oversight in the same area. He asked if the ARB is going to take the Bridge Street Code into account when making decisions. Mr. Langworthy said yes, the Board must. He said the Architectural Review Team (ART) will make recommendations to the ARB, but the ARB will have the final decision. Mr. Taylor asked if the ARB had the option of not applying the Bridge Street Code to a proposal. Mr. Langworthy said the only deviations from the Bridge Street Code were through the administrative departure process. He said if an applicant asked for a departure, the Board could approve it, but otherwise ARB would have to follow the Bridge street Code. Mr. Taylor said he is concerned because the existing Historic District design intent is very simple and lightly detailed, but that does not seem to be addressed by the Bridge Street Code. Mr. Langworthy said the proposed Code outlines the permitted building types and a description of the design details for building types. Mr. Taylor said he would prefer that the ARB have the final decision on what is appropriate in the Historic District, because the Code introduces new building types into the District and the City is will need to evolve to accommodate them. Mr. Taylor asked on page 4, 153.059(A) (9), whether use determination should be a Planning and Zoning Commission decision, instead of the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). Jennifer Readler said the use determination would be made by the Director, with a procedure for appeals to the BZA for standard administrative decisions. Mr. Taylor confirmed that an appeal to the Director's decision would go to the BZA. Mr. Taylor asked if the language at the end of page 7, 153.059(3) (C) (1) Eating and Drinking was the same language the Commission required regarding the patio furniture storage approved for the Dublin Village Tavern. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission May 5, 2011 -Minutes Page 2 of 5 Rachel Ray said the intent is the same, to ensure it is not visible from the right -of -way, but the language is different. She said she would look at the language to see if the requirements could be made consistent. Mr. Hardt said he wondered what would prevent someone from subdividing land and submitting multiple applications under 153.059 (C) (1) (a) (1), which limits the number of single - family detached homes within a certain area. He said he also did not understand the purpose of 153.059(C) (1) (a) (2), which places distance requirements between single - family detached developments in the Bridge Street Corridor. Mr. Taylor asked how the last sentence in 153.059(C) (1) (c), which limits the amount of customer visits to live /work units per day, would be enforced. Ms. Ray said the difference between home occupations and live /work is an area where additional clarifications are needed, and the next draft of the Code will include modifications to those regulations. Mr. Hardt asked if 153.059(C) (2) (e), Hospital, was referring to hospitals or medical facilities. Mr. Langworthy said it referred to a large clinic or specialty hospital, as opposed to a general hospital. He said that, for example, the Nationwide Children's Orthopedic Hospital would be a specialty hospital; the size limitation on hospitals in the Bridge Street Corridor would limit hospitals to those categories. Mr. Fishman asked where the number 35 came from units for 153.059(C) (1) (a) (1), as we would allow an attached condo development with more units. He asked about the consideration of patio homes with zero lot line development, as this detached unit type might be desire in the future. Mr. Langworthy said he would look at clarifying the language. Mr. Hardt asked if the intent was to build traditional single family homes in the Bridge Street Corridor. Mr. Langworthy said it is not preferred in this area, which depends on denser, walkable, mixed -use development. Mr. Taylor said he was not sure what an accessory dwelling unit is, as listed under Section 153.059(C) (4) (k). Mr. Langworthy said it could be a mother -in -law suite. Mr. Taylor asked how one dwelling unit with an accessory dwelling unit differed from a two - family unit. Ms. Ray said some of the reasons for the distinction include the building type requirements and the requirements for the building placement on the lot. Mr. Hardt noted page 8 has a paragraph that touches on wind power structures, which the Commission had just discussed for the EAZ Districts. Ms. Ray stated Planning would look at taking a similar approach by making ground- mounted wind power equipment conditional uses as well. Mr. Hardt said the provision requiring only two stacking spaces for drive- thru's seemed like it wouldn't be enough, as outlined in 153.059(C) (3) (c) on page 8. Ms. Ray said that drive- thru's require conditional use approval from the Commission, which would allow the Commission the opportunity to review the proposed circulation plan. Mr. Hardt asked how the Commission could require more stacking spaces, if the Code stated a drive -thru only needed two stacking spaces. Ms. Ray said the conditional use standards state that the Commission has the ability to modify code requirements based on the use and the location, which means they could require more stacking spaces if they felt that the site plan and the use warranted more. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she could not picture a location within the Corridor where a drive through would be appropriate, since the Corridor is intended to be more pedestrian- oriented. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission May 5, 2011 -Minutes Page 3 of 5 Ms. Kramb said she had trouble understanding how the lots, blocks and street sections would be regulated. She confirmed the Code would define a street pattern and that the Corridor would fill in the pattern as it develops over time. Mr. Langworthy said the lots and blocks are one large piece of the Code, while the street network is another. He said the street network is still being finalized by Nelson /Nygaard, and once it is complete the results will be integrated into the Code. He said the intent is to be prescriptive in the Corridor. He said the network, lots and blocks are currently being reviewed against the plans for the OCLC and Dublin Village Center areas for compatibility. Ms. Kramb said she has a general concern with requiring all the turning radii to be designed to a typical design vehicle rather than design speed. Mr. Langworthy said the street network is meant to be developed as an urban city block. He said that staff had been working with the Washington Township Fire Marshal on this point, and they have a minimum radius that is very small. Ms. Kramb said that loading zones are not addressed in the lots, blocks, and street types. Mr. Langworthy said loading areas would typically be located in parking lots or rear lanes. Mr. Taylor said he would like to see an example of a community with a form -based code with on- the - ground examples of what had been built to the code. Mr. Langworthy said potential site visits are being investigated. Mr. Taylor said that the draft Zoning Map shows a large green area on either side of Bridge Street in the Historic District area, which includes the existing cemetery, school and library. He said the street network in the Code shows the same area with a grid and the green space showing a number of street connections. Mr. Langworthy said the street network map is meant to demonstrate how primary streets are intended to generally be located in the corridor for the purposes of the street network. Mr. Taylor stated that the City should identify the critical open spaces envisioned in the Bridge Street Corridor, particularly a large civic space in the Historic District, before development begins and the opportunity is lost. Mr. Taylor said on page 28, 153.062(G), shutters should be required to be operational to ensure a high quality appearance. Mr. Taylor said on page 29, 153.062(J), he would like to allow other options for artificial building separation. He preferred that some buildings should be allowed to look like one larger building, rather than a lot of smaller buildings put together. He said he was not sure what the Code meant by the statement, "building design should vary between vertical facade divisions." Mr. Zimmerman said on page 28, 153.062(G), other window types, in addition to double -hung windows, are appropriate and should be used in the Corridor. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that the Code does not account for urban street tree care standards, which is critical to the survival of landscaping in the Corridor. She referred to the list of approved street trees currently in the Zoning Code and said that the variety of options should be much smaller for this area; it should not be open to all of the street tree plantings used throughout the city. She said trees that will grow into large trees with grand statures should be planted in this portion of the city. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission May 5, 2011 -Minutes Page 4 of 5 Ms. Amorose Groomes noted that the proposed Code includes interior parking lot islands similar to the existing Zoning Code requirements. She said that islands located every 75 feet are not necessary or even appropriate in this area. She said that she would like to see larger landscape areas that would support multiple trees and plantings. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the Code needs modifications to the perimeter buffer requirements, because if parking areas are heavily buffered, then wayfinding signs will be needed. She said the landscaping requirements generally needed to be more thought out for appropriateness to an urban environment. Mr. Hart said that parking areas should include landscape buffering from public streets and not necessarily between adjacent lots to the point that connectivity needs to occur from the public street and not between adjacent sites. Ms. Amorose Groomes commented that overall, the landscape portion of the Code should be revised to be more specific to an urban environment, and that it include requirements that will result in successful and sustainable landscaping. She said she would like to see a more comprehensive approach to landscaping. Mr. Hardt suggested that the modifications should necessarily reduce the amount of landscaping, but instead should make better use of the areas used for landscaping. Mr. Hardt stated that he is not sure that the review process described in the proposed Code will achieve the desired results. He referred to page 101, 153.065(C) (5) Appeals Process and stated that he is dismayed with seeing the provision allowing appeals to be made to City Council which has not been approved elsewhere in the Zoning Code. Mr. Langworthy stated that depending on the outcome of the proposed Code amendment for the Appeals process the same would be applied to the proposed Bridge Street Code. He noted that if the Code amendment is not approved, it would likely be eliminated from the next draft of the Bridge Street Code. Mr. Hardt referred to page 102, 153.065(E), Requirements of Development Plan as opposed to the requirements for Site Plan Review. He said that it seemed that the site plan review process has lower review standards than there are for the development plan review. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that all of the Commissioners are generally concerned about the proposed administrative review process. Ms. Amorose Groomes referred to the Summary Procedure Table on page 100. She asked why projects involving two or more buildings would be required to receive Development Plan approval in addition to Site Plan approval, whereas single buildings would only require Site Plan approval. She questioned why the approach was different based on the number of buildings . Ms. Kramb said she understood the purpose of this type of approval process . She asked if Dublin would not be competitive if we used the current review process with the Bridge Street Code. Mr. McDaniel said that an expedited review process would help make Dublin more competitive for development, which is one of the reasons the Code requirements are somewhat more prescriptive. He said there are businesses approaching the City about locating their projects in the Bridge Street Corridor. some with significant master plans covering larger areas that would be developed on a larger scale. He said smaller, individually -owned lots could be developed one building, one lot at a time. He reported that there is a general sense of urgency felt in the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission May 5, 2011 -Minutes Page 5 of 5 community about completing the Bridge Corridor plan and vision, and people are excited about locating in this area. Mr. Taylor asked if the larger master planning projects have also been showing street connections consistent with the Bridge Street Corridor plan. Mr. McDaniel said yes. Mr. Hardt referred to page 103, 153.065(F). He reiterated his concern that the criteria for the development plan approval is not stringent enough to achieve the type of quality development they would all like to see. Mr. Langworthy clarified that the draft Code outlines two levels of review. He said all developments are required to go through the site plan review process, which focuses on the details of the plan. Mr. Hardt said that he was concerned that the review criteria for site plan approval are even lower than the criteria for development plan approval. Mr. Langworthy explained that the Code requirements have been drafted to prescribe the desired quality and design elements for elements including architecture, landscaping, signs, and lighting. He said that the process is not intended to be the point at which the desired level of quality is achieved. He said that that was the intended purpose of the Code requirements. Mr. Hardt said he believed that the site plan and development plan requirements need to be switched in the Code. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that the Commissioners had no other comments regarding the Bridge Street Code at this time. She said that since there are no other issues, the meeting is adjourned at 9:28 p.m. As approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CITY OF DUBLIN, RECORD OF DISCUSSION Land Use and Long Range Planning APRIL 27, 2011 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone/ TDD: 614-410-4600 Fax: 614-410-4747 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us The Architectural Review Board took the following action at this meeting; Bridge Street Corridor Sign Code for the Historic Core and Historic Transition Districts Discussion; Review and discussion of preliminary Bridge Street Corridor sign code for the Historic Core and Historic Transition Districts regarding sign types, sizes, locations, and quantities. Planning Contact; Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planner II Eugenia M. Martin, ASLA, Landscape Architect Contact Information; (614) 410 -4600, jrauch @dublin,oh,us / emartin @dublin,oh.us RESULT: The Board reviewed the Sign Code with the draft Bridge Street Code and provided feedback about how the signs should be treated in the Historic Core and Historic Transition, The Board discussed sign provisions for single users and multi user buildings, including appropriate types, height, locations and design details, The Board also discussed provisions for window signs, sandwich board signs, and window display, STAFF CERTIFICATION 4 J ifer Rauch, AICP P ner 11 Dublin Architectural Review Board April 27, 2011 - Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 4 1. Bridge Street Corridor Sign Code for the Historic Core and Historic Transition Districts Jennifer Rauch introduced the discussion regarding signs in the proposed Bridge Street Code (BSC). She stated the presentation was meant to be informal and asked for feedback throughout. She reminded the Board members that the draft Code was provided at the first joint work session for all the Board and Commission members to review and provide comment. Ms. Rauch said the Board discussed preliminary ideas regarding the sign section of the BSC at the March meeting and staff did not have time to incorporate the comments and ideas into the draft before them tonight. She said the intent of the discussion was for the Board to review the draft at a high level. She said the comments provided by the Board will be considered as we move forward with future drafts of the Code. Ms. Rauch stated sign review was on the Board's approved annual items of interest and Planning wanted to ensure signs were reviewed specifically. Ms. Rauch summarized the common themes identified by the Board at the March meeting. She stated the Board wanted to ensure uniformity in terms of the number and types of signs and design details between planned districts and standard districts. She said the Board also expressed an interest in making sure the sign design and details were appropriate to the size and scale of the building, as well as in the instance of a ground sign ensuring it is proportionate to the site. She said the Board discussed the use and intent of sandwich board signs, whether they should be temporary or not, where they should be located, and how many sandwich board signs businesses should have. She said the Board also discussed how to address window signs and how to distinguish them from window display. She said maintenance and enforcement were also discussed as an on -going issue. Ms. Rauch stated the Bridge Street Code regulates the types of signs permitted, the number, size, location, materials and height. She also highlighted the topic of sign color, not focusing on the number of colors, but the type of colors used. She asked whether sign colors should come from a historic color palette, or complementary to the building or structure. She said fonts were another discussion topic, as the existing guidelines specify approved fonts. Ms. Rauch asked the Board members to envision the various sign types and numbers from a single tenant building or multiple tenant building, and from a vehicular or pedestrian oriented standpoint and provide feedback on what they find appropriate in a given situation. William Souders suggested a total maximum be permitted for a multiple tenant building with a square footage limitation for individual tenants. He stated that the proposed 25 square foot maximum was too large. Tom Currie cited other examples from other communities that based the area of the sign on the scale and proportionality of the building. Ms. Rauch asked for the Board members to discuss whether the goal of the sign is for pedestrians or vehicles and whether the area of the sign is dependent on the type of sign. Mr. Souders expressed his concern of how to define proportionality to the building and determine an area that is appropriate for the District. He stated the area of projecting signs should be consistent with the Guidelines with 6 square feet. Mr. Souders stated that the draft Code does not distinguish between if the 25 square foot area is for four tenants in a building to share or one tenant with one large sign. Ms. Rauch stated the draft Code could incorporate sign regulations that regulate signs for single tenant versus multiple tenant buildings. Dublin Architectural Review Board April 27, 2011 - Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 4 Mr. Souders said the Code needs be fair to multiple tenants in a big building and a larger single user occupying the whole building. He said Town Center I has a sign plan that specifies locations, size and types, which were approved as a whole package. He said if a tenant wanted to deviate from the approved plan the Board would have to approve it. Ms. Rauch stated the current Guidelines recommend approval of a sign plan for buildings with two or more tenants. She said we could investigate the parameters for approval of a sign plan for multi tenant buildings and how that should be incorporated in the draft Code. Carl Karrer asked how the Code accounts for signs for mixed use buildings and live -work units. Ms. Rauch said she would look into the topic as the Code moves forward. Ms. Rauch asked the Board to discuss the permission and appropriateness of a combination of sign types within the Historic District. She stated the existing planned districts with the Historic District permit this, but standard district regulations do not. She also asked for feedback about the appropriateness of a ground sign for every business. Mr. Currie stated the Code should permit all sign types and a combination of sign types for a particular lot. He said the setbacks and the right -of -way limit the location of ground signs along some portions of High Street and Bridge Street. Mr. Souders stated the buildings on North High Street are setback farther and the ground signs look nice. Ms. Rauch asked the Board to use the BriHi development as an example of a multiple tenant building, where a single tenant is permitted a wall sign and a projecting sign. She asked the Board to discuss whether an additional sign would be appropriate to the rear of the building adjacent to a parking lot. Robert Schisler pointed out that Town Center I provides for a combination of signs provided they are located in the approved locations. He stated the building along South High Street that contains the Nationwide Insurance tenant has a ground signs, which lists the individual tenants and allows each tenant a small placard on the door to identify the individual business and overall was well done. He said we should allow wall signs or placards when you have multiple tenants. Mr. Schisler said the Code should allow signs on the back of buildings. Mr. Souders stated he would like to ensure uniformity within the District regarding the sign types, numbers and combination regardless of zoning districts. He said if the requirements approved for the planned districts within the Historic District are appropriate then they should be permitted for all businesses within the District. Mr. Souders asked how awning signs and window signs should be treated throughout the District. Ms. Rauch stated there was a difference between window signs and window displays. She said the current Code permits either a permanent wall sign, ground sign, or window sign, in addition temporary window display signs would be permitted. Mr. Souders stated the draft Code allows a ground mounted sign and a wall or projection sign, but window signs not addressed. He said the draft Code permits three permanent signs at one time, plus a temporary sale sign, and a sandwich board sign. Dublin Architectural Review Board April 27, 2011 - Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 4 Mr. Souders suggested permitting two permanent signs. He asked for discussion on awning signs, as he saw them as the same type as a projecting sign. Mr. Schisler said awnings should permit only name of the business, the street number, and perhaps a logo. Ms. Rauch confirmed the discussion stating the Board determined ground signs are appropriate in certain locations and window signs need to be addressed within the revised draft. Mr. Schisler agreed with two permanent signs, but suggested any combination of sign types be permitted and the list be expanded to include awning, projecting, wall, ground or window. Mr. Souders stated the need to permit a sign to the rear of the building separate from the two permanent signs allowed along the front. He said this sign should have very limited square footage and act as a directory sign. Mr. Souders said the draft Code permits up to four signs for a corner lot. He suggested permitting a maximum of two sign types in this instance. Mr. Currie cited other community examples for window signs permitting six square feet of window sign and one - fourth of the total glass area and ensuring it is readable from the sidewalk. Ms. Rauch suggested a requirement that focuses on transparency to achieve Mr. Currie's goal. Ms. Rauch asked the Board to discuss the appropriate sign heights and asked whether the heights outlined in the Guidelines should be utilized. The Board agreed to utilize the heights specified in the Guidelines as a baseline. Mr. Currie suggested the signs could be regulated by the street type to determine the appropriate scale. Ms. Rauch agreed to look into the idea. Mr. Souders asked if there was a method for measuring the area of a sign without penalizing businesses for the white space left. Steve Langworthy reviewed several examples, but stated it was very difficult to administer the method Mr. Souders suggested. Mr. Karrer presented a series of historic photos of the District over several decades, which demonstrated the variety of signs provided and the character they provided to the District. Ms. Rauch asked for feedback about sandwich board signs. She said at the March meeting the Board discussed the location, use and design. Mr. Currie said the sandwich board signs should be used to advertise sales and not be used as another permanent sign. Mr. Schisler stated the sandwich board sign should be displayed only during business hours and not be visible from the street when they are stored. Mr. Currie said the size should be decreased to a standard size around 6 square feet in area. Tasha Bailey asked to incorporate language regarding the location of sandwich board signs to not impede pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk. Mr. Currie asked if a permit should be required. Ms. Rauch said Planning and Code Enforcement were already looking into this topic. Dublin Architectural Review Board April 27, 2011 - Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 4 Ms. Rauch confirmed there were no additional comments regarding sandwich board signs Mr. Souders suggested a maximum square footage be allotted to address incidental signs, such as menu boards, credit cards, hours, etc and that this information is contained in one area of the window. He expressed concern for the bits and pieces located in various windows and said he would like to see a consolidated area where this information is permitted. He said this should be treated differently from permanent window signs and display signs. Mr. Souders said the biggest concern with the current requirements is there is no consistency among the businesses and he wanted to ensure the sign provisions are more uniform. Ms. Rauch thanked the Board for their comments and agreed to go back and review them in conjunction with the draft Code. Mr. Souders asked to discuss the requirements and use of logos on signs. He stated the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines provide specific fonts for the text. He asked what options the Board had to limit the logo colors. Mr. Langworthy stated the law says the City can regulate color of a logo, but not the trademarked design features of the logo. Mr. Souders clarified that even if Nationwide had a specific color of blue, the Board could require them to change the color to meet an approved color palette. Mr. Langworthy confirmed the Board could. He said the only thing the Board would be tied to is the blank box which is their trademark logo and the Board could not make them fill in the box or make it a rectangle instead of a square. Mr. Langworthy said as part of Bridge Street Code, Planning is proposing to not count the logo in the color palette. Mr. Souders agreed that would be business friendly. He suggested if the logo was considered one color, then the colors for the text should be limited to one of the colors used within the logo. Mr. Karrer stated that historically businesses have used any variety of colors. Mr. Langworthy cited multi- tenant buildings that restrict the number of background colors and a number of text colors. He said there is any number of ways to address sign colors and emphasized the Board may not want to limit it too much to provide variety. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR PLAN JOINT WORK SESSION Thursday, April 14, 2011 MEETING RECORD The following were present: Council members Mayor Lecklider, Vice Mayor Salay, Mrs. Boring, and Mr. Reiner. Planning & Zoning Commission members Ms. Groomes, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Fishman, Ms. Kramb, Mr. Hardt, and Mr. Budde. Board of Zoning Appeals members Ms. Newell, Mr. Gunnoe, Mr. Todoran. Architectural Review Board members Mr. Karrer, Mr. Currie, and Ms. Bailey. Staff: Ms. Grigsby, Mr. McDaniel, Ms. Readler, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Hahn, Ms. Ray, Mr. Goodwin, Mr. Phillabaum, Ms. Husak, Ms. Rauch, Ms. Adkins, Ms. Martin, Ms. Cox, Ms. Willis, Ms. Coen, Ms. Burness, Ms. Clarke. Consultants David Dixon, Goody Clancy; Don Elliot, Clarion Associates: Leslie Oberholtzer, Farr Associates; Greg Dale, McBride /Dale /Clarion; Rick Chellman and Jason Schrieber, Nelson \Nygaard; Shane Spencer, EMH &T, and Josh Reinicke, CDM. Mayor Lecklider thanked Council and Board and Commission members for attending and continuing the Joint Work Session meetings for the Bridge Street Corridor. He swore in new ARB Member Tasha Bailey and new BZA Member Brian Gunnoe. Deputy City Manager Dana McDaniel thanked the Board and Commission members in attendance and recognized the Bridge Street Corridor stakeholders also present. He introduced the consultants who would be presenting this evening. Mr. McDaniel stated the purpose of this meeting was to provide Council members and Board and Commission members updates regarding the progress made with the Bridge Street Corridor implementation studies. He stated the first draft of the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code would be distributed later in the evening, and the consultants who worked with staff to draft the code would provide a brief overview of form -based codes before providing an overview of the structure of the draft code for Bridge Street. Mr. McDaniel said following the presentation on form -based codes, Rick Chellman of Nelson \Nygaard would provide an introduction to transportation planning issues specific to walkable urban environments like the Bridge Street Corridor. He said Mr. Chellman would discuss the transportation planning concepts that would be going into the analysis for the Bridge Street Corridor, which will be finalized in July. Mr. McDaniel announced the schedule for the upcoming Joint Work Sessions on May 24 and June 20, and the two public open houses that would be held in the DCRC Tallas on Monday, May 2nd and Wednesday, June 8th. He stated Council members and Commission members are not asked to take any action on the draft Bridge Street Corridor Development Code or the area rezoning this evening, and that Council will have the option of adopting these at later Joint Work Sessions. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board April 14, 2011 Page 2 of 8 Mr. McDaniel announced Don Elliott is a Senior Consultant in Clarion's Denver office and is managing the Bridge Street Corridor Code development. Don is a land use lawyer and city planner with over 25 years of related experience. Don has served as project director for major zoning and development code revisions in Detroit, Philadelphia, Winnipeg, Duluth, Kalamazoo, Cedar Rapids, and numerous smaller cities and counties throughout the country. Don has also completed land use reform consultancies in India, Russia, and Indonesia. Don has drafted award- winning land use regulations for Denver and Pima County, Arizona, and has spoken and written extensively on a wide variety of land use and legal topics. Don holds a master's degree in city and regional planning from Harvard University, a law degree from Harvard Law School, and a degree in urban and regional planning from Yale University. Mr. McDaniel stated Leslie Oberholtzer is a Principal and Director of Planning at Farr Associates, an architecture, planning, and preservation firm in Chicago. Leslie has an extensive background as a landscape architect and planner, and concentrates professionally on promoting sustainable urbanism through such practices as well designed, walkable neighborhoods; supporting local businesses; and preservation of community history and tradition. Leslie authored the first form -based code adopted in the State of Illinois and continues to focus on coding as a key implementation tool for sustainable communities. Mr. McDaniel said Rick Chellman is a principal consultant with Nelson Nygaard and is managing the transportation analysis for the Bridge Street Corridor. Rick has more than thirty years experience in civil engineering, traffic engineering, surveying, and development planning throughout the United States and to lesser extents in Canada, the United Kingdom, Romania, Central America, the Middle East, and India. In recent years, Rick has worked extensively on the traffic engineering aspects of Traditional Neighborhood Development , particularly in connection with the matters of street design and external transportation connections. Rick has authored numerous works on topics related to the transportation implications of traditional neighborhood design. Mr. McDaniel introduced the first speaker, Don Elliott. He said Council, Board and Commission members, and members of the public would have the opportunity to ask questions of the consultant teams following the presentations. Don Elliott, Clarion Associates, stated he wanted to first talk about form -based codes in general before talking about the code drafted for the Bridge Street Corridor. He said he works on both form -based and non - form -based codes in his practice, and in his opinion, the trick is to find the right combination form -based and non - form -based elements to achieve the vision for a community and get a plan done based on its particular context. He said when he and Leslie Oberholtzer and Greg Dale of McBride /Dale /Clarion came to Dublin, they did not come with a foregone conclusion that this code should be form - based. However, the more they studied the Vision Plan and talked with staff and Goody Clancy, they concluded form -based elements should certainly be incorporated, but some conventional zoning elements, such as uses and districts, should also be used. Mr. Elliott stated form -based codes are based on the premise that you can analyze land use patterns depending on how rural or urban the location, and there are a set of parameters Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board April 14, 2011 Page 3 of 8 that should be addressed to create a great urban location. He explained form -based codes require more detail than standard, Euclidean zoning, but they do not require negotiation every time as is typical of many planned unit development district processes. Instead, form - based codes attempt to codify the basic detail elements that are necessary for creating great places. Mr. Elliott explained form -based control focuses on the fabric of an area, such as block sizes, street types and furnishings, walkability, street enclosure, building height, and overall character, rather than specific uses. He said the concept that streets are important along with the relationship of buildings to streets is also a critical point of form -based codes. In general, the form of the place is relatively more important than the regulation of the use of a building. Mr. Elliott stated form -based codes are designed to create urban places. To create urbanism, development is coded for building and frontage types, articulating the types of elements the building needs to have to relate to the street and other buildings. Additionally, there needs to be broader and more general use controls because a lot of uses will come and go from a building. Mr. Elliott stated form -based codes are very effective in signaling to developers the types of buildings and their relationships to the street that we want to see when creating the types of places that are envisioned for the Bridge Street Corridor. Leslie Oberholtzer, Farr Associates, explained form -based codes specify building types depending on their context, and for that reason, are very different from conventional zoning codes. Form -based codes also look different than other codes. For example, everything you need to know about the requirements for a building type is located on a single page spread to provide information in a user - friendly manner. Ms. Oberholtzer explained instead of a setback line, form -based codes often require a 'build -to zone,' which requires buildings to be built up to a certain line rather than anywhere behind a setback line, bringing buildings up to the street. Parking is subsequently located behind the building, which results in a walkable sidewalk and street. She said form -based codes also look at the transition from the street to the interior of the building, and as an example, buildings may need to be more transparent so people can see in or out of buildings, which creates a livelier pedestrian experience. Ms. Oberholtzer stated form -based codes are built from the ground up for each community because they are tailored to the specific context. In terms of walkability, we look at the number of intersections per square mile and the scale of block sizes, and make sure that we incorporate those factors into the code. Open space types are always included to make sure there is a variety public space within the area. Mr. Elliott concluded Dublin is known for high quality, and the bar has to be set high, and the code for the Bridge Street Corridor is no exception. He stated we need to work towards densification and permitting more uses for walkability. He said we also want to achieve greater predictability through the review process, and this is something that cities all over the country are increasingly looking to incorporate into their codes. The less predictability, the longer it takes for development to occur, and developers are increasingly looking for Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board April 14, 2011 Page 4 of 8 places that are conducive to development. Everyone strives to optimize quality and minimize time and ambiguity. Mr. Elliott stated in addition to building form, transportation and storm water need to be treated differently in an urban environment as well. Mr. Elliott summarized his team's tasks in drafting the code for the Bridge Street Corridor was to stay true to the Vision, optimize the strengths of form -based codes, and coordinate with the other consultant teams to ensure that the Bridge Street Corridor plan can be implemented, and he is confident they have achieved these objectives. Rick Chellman, Nelson \Ny4aard, stated many of the best places in the world were developed before the car. Through the 1940s and 1950s, subdivisions were historically planned to be spread out and allow for quick escapes to accommodate a fear of air attacks. Many subdivision regulations still have these ideas embedded in their subdivision standards. He noted the minimum radii for streets were created in the 1940s. Mr. Chellman stated although vehicles have drastically changed, the street standards have not, which makes it easier for cars to speed down streets, resulting in unsafe pedestrian environments. Reducing speeds is critical, particularly in areas with high pedestrian activity. Mr. Chellman noted if a car or truck strikes a pedestrian at 20 mph or less, the person is typically not fatally injured, but if a pedestrian is hit by a vehicle going 30 mph or faster, fatality rates increase greatly. Mr. Chellman stated once interconnected streets are built, there are multiple ways of getting from one point to another, which is important when trying to provide pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. Streets should not be built wider than they need to be; often, 20 feet is adequate. "Queuing streets" allow two -way traffic on local neighborhood streets, with on- street parking on one side. Since opposing traffic is infrequent, vehicles yield to one another where there are parked cars without adding unnecessary pavement. Mr. Chellman explained "park once" districts allow people to park their cars one time and have access to multiple locations. When a development is not friendly to pedestrians, such as large parking lots, people tend to drive from one location to another rather than walk, even over short distances. Mr. Chellman stated many cities are looking for ways to revitalize their downtowns, and street design is receiving an increasing amount of interest, particularly with providing "complete streets" for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles. Great streets are great places, and that is what we hope to see in the Bridge Street Corridor. Mr. Chellman said in many countries, key design principals involve pedestrian, transit, bicycle, and motor vehicle facilities in that order; in the US, the design is typically focused on vehicles first. "Sharrows" are markings on the pavement to inform cars that bikes may be present and give bicyclists a safe area in which to ride. "Cycle tracks" are bike spaces located at the level of the sidewalk away from the parked cars and moving cars. These lanes allow for bicycle safety for riders at every age and skill level. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board April 14, 2011 Page 5 of 8 Mr. Chellman concluded by summarizing the preliminary analysis the Nelson Nygaard team has begun to look at in the Bridge Street Corridor and noted further results would be presented at the next Joint Work Session. Mr. Elliott stated he would like to provide a brief overview of the draft Bridge Street Corridor Development Code. He stated before his team started drafting the Code, they first conducted a series of interviews with stakeholders, property owners, and City Council and Board and Commission members to understand how the Code should be drafted. He summarized there is excitement about the Bridge Street Corridor plan, and a desire to see it implemented, although there is some caution regarding the potential magnitude of change. Despite the concerns, there is a general recognition the Bridge Street Corridor plan is a long -term, complex project that will be implemented through thousands of individual decisions over many years, and even decades. Mr. Elliott added there is also a recognition that Dublin needs a development review process that is more predictable and efficient, like many other communities, but there is some reluctance to move away from the discretionary review process because the community feels higher quality development has historically been a product of this process. Mr. Elliott said some of the common themes they heard was there is a clear desire to see more, higher quality green space throughout the Corridor than what appears to be shown in the Vision Plan, and Historic Dublin should be preserved and enhanced, along with the Scioto River and the Indian Run. Mr. Elliott presented a graphic showing the proposed zoning districts for the Bridge Street Corridor and explained the districts were derived from the general use categories shown in the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Plan. Mr. Elliott stated the draft Bridge Street Corridor Development Code encompasses Sections 153.057 through 153.066 of the Dublin Zoning Code after the Planned District provisions, so it would not be a separate stand -alone document — it would be directly integrated into the existing Zoning Code. He noted there would be 11 different zoning districts that were designed to be unique to the Corridor and not to be used elsewhere in the city. He said the first four zoning districts (BSC Residential, BSC Office Residential, BSC Office, and BSC Commercial) were intended to be the most general and the most like regular zoning districts, with heavier reliance on the use table and site development standards. He continued the next three zoning districts (BSC Historic Core, BSC Historic Residential, and BSC Historic Transition) were intended to protect the existing scale and character of the Historic District, with the exception that the BSC Historic Transition District would be intended to start transitioning toward higher impact development around the edges of the Historic District. The BSC Historic Transition District, along with the BSC Indian Run and BSC Sawmill Center Districts are really intended to be the districts focusing the most on form -based elements, with a high level of placemaking standards. He said these areas are prime for form -based coding since they are largely consolidated areas controlled by limited property owners, which can also make larger scale, coordinated development easier to achieve. Mr. Elliott noted the BSC Vertical Mixed Use and BSC Public Districts are special districts. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board April 14, 2011 Page 6 of 8 Mr. Elliott explained the first section, 153.059, Uses, includes a table showing all of the uses permitted in each district, followed by specific standards and limitations for certain uses. Section 153.060, Lots and Blocks, includes requirements for interconnected streets, maximum block sizes, access configuration, typical lot dimensions, street frontage requirements, and pedestrian access. Section 153.061, Street Types, is still largely in draft form since much of the information will be contained in this section is still being coordinated with Nelson \Nygaard. This section will include requirements for typical street elements, bicycle facilities, fire access, on- street parking, curb radii, and crosswalks. Mr. Elliott continued Section 153.062, Building Types, is divided into two parts. The first part includes general architectural requirements, including controls for roof types, building materials, building entrances, windows, balconies, and other design details. The rest of the section includes requirements for specific building types, from Single Family Detached to Mixed Use Buildings and Parking Structures. Mr. Elliott explained Section 153.063, Neighborhood Standards, includes specific placemaking standards for properties in large, contiguous ownerships. Each "neighborhood" includes a conceptual map and text laying out key features to create the most urban, most mixed -use, and most walkable "anchors" for the Bridge Street Corridor. Mr. Elliott stated 153.064, Open Space Types, included requirements for a variety of open spaces appropriate for an urban environment, including pocket parks, greens, squares, plazas, parks, and greenways. Mr. Elliott said Section 153.065, Site Development Standards, includes requirements that are most typical of conventional zoning codes, including parking and loading, landscaping, fencing, walls, and screening requirements, exterior lighting, signs, and stormwater regulations (cross- referenced with Chapter 53 of the City's Code of Ordinances). Mr. Elliott concluded Section 153.065, Development Review and Approval Procedures, outlines the review and approval process. Development Plan approval is the first step, required for larger, more complex projects, with specific approval criteria. Site Plan approval includes criteria for administrative approval and is required for all projects. He said standards for administrative departures and minor modifications are also included in this section. Section 153.066, Definitions, is the last section of the Bridge Street Code. Steve Langworthy asked if there were any questions regarding any of the presentations given that evening, or regarding the draft Bridge Street Code. Council, Board, and Commission members in attendance had the following questions: • What is the legal basis and history of form -based codes? Don Elliott explained form -based codes have the same legal foundation in land use law as any other land development code or zoning code. Although form -based codes are generally a newer type of regulatory instrument, as long as they continue to uphold property owners' rights through due process and specific review standards, they are a valid regulatory tool. Form -based codes are used most often to either preserve an existing form and character of Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board April 14, 2011 Page 7 of 8 district or a defined area, such as the Historic District, or to require future development occur in a way that creates inviting streets and places for pedestrians. • How can State Route 161 become walkable, and how is traffic calming addressed through the transportation analysis? Rick Chellman explained a variety of techniques can be used to make State Route 161, or Bridge Street, feel more walkable. Providing alternative vehicular routes or connections across the Scioto River will allow vehicular traffic to be more dispersed and less reliant on Bridge Street. Where appropriate, on- street parking can help create a buffer zone between cars and pedestrians, so it does not feel like cars are rushing by so close to the sidewalk. Where on- street parking cannot occur, street trees, benches, planters, and other design elements can also help create those visual barriers between cars and pedestrians. Mr. Chellman continued that building form also helps reduce traffic speeds, because as drivers' viewsheds are narrowed by buildings enclosing the street, they naturally tend to drive slower and are more likely to take note of things and activities occurring along the periphery. • How does the form -based code process actually work? Are there other communities in which this type of code has been used successfully? Mr. Elliott explained there are other communities that have adopted form -based codes in recent years. At one level, cities like Miami and Denver have adopted city -wide form -based codes, while others such as Duluth, Minnesota and West Evanston, Illinois have adopted form -based codes for specific areas. In many cases, however, there has not been much development that has actually gone through the process since many communities adopted form -based codes right around the time that the economic downturn occurred. However, Mr. Elliott indicated he would work with staff in identifying communities who have gone through the process, adopted form -based codes, and actually applied them to development projects. • What other infrastructural improvements will be necessary in the Bridge Street Corridor? Steve Langworthy answered that staff has also retained consultants to study the water distribution system, the sanitary sewer system, and stormwater management for the Bridge Street Corridor, in addition to the transportation network. He stated that Mr. Chellman and the other consultant teams would be prepared to present their preliminary findings on potential infrastructure improvements at the next Joint Work Session on May 24, 2011. Mr. Langworthy encouraged Council, Board and Commission members, and stakeholders to contact staff with any questions about the draft Bridge Street Corridor Development Code once they start reviewing the draft, and that written comments can be submitted to Planning. He noted staff would continue to work on the draft Code as progress is made on Nelson \Nygaard's work on the transportation study, since much of the form -based code is based on the development's relationship to the street network. Mr. Langworthy introduced David Dixon, Goody Clancy and Associates, who made a few concluding statements. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board April 14, 2011 Page 8 of 8 David Dixon, Goody Clancy and Associates commended Council, Board and Commission members, and stakeholders on their dedication to continuing the Joint Work Session meeting format, which allows everyone to stay well informed on the planning work being completed for the Bridge Street Corridor. He noted Dublin continues to receive a lot of interest and attention at the national level, including at the recent national conference of the American Planning Association in Boston this year, because of how smart and progressive this plan is. Mr. Dixon said Dublin continues to position itself well to capture market opportunity and implement the Bridge Street Corridor Vision with the studies that have been commissioned and the caliber of consultants that have been retained. He commented form -based codes like the draft Bridge Street Corridor Development Code are key elements in establishing exciting, walkable, urban development, and this type of code is being used increasingly by many other communities to produce these types of places for people. Flexibility in particular will create opportunities and set the stage for exciting, walkable, urban development. He added the street network and street designs Nelson \Nygaard will be working to produce are also critical to establishing a highly connected street network geared toward bicycles and pedestrians. Mr. Dixon recommended as Council, Board, and Commission members and stakeholders should read through the Bridge Street Code and consider how all of the pieces fit together with the Vision Plan, and how all of this correlates to the market findings that Sarah Woodworth and Laurie Volk presented early on for the Bridge Street Corridor. Mayor Lecklider thanked the Council Board and Commission members and stakeholders in attendance and concluded the meeting. Clerk of Council BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR PLAN JOINT WORK SESSION Monday, January 31, 2011 MINUTES OF MEETING Vice Mayor Salay called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers The following were present Council members Vice Mayor Salay, Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, Mr. Gerber, Mr. Keenan, Mrs. Boring, and Mr. Reiner. Mayor Lecklider arrived at 6:05 p.m. Planning & Zoning Commission members Ms. Groomes, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Walter, Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Fishman, Ms. Kramb, and Mr. Hardt. Board of Zoning Appeals members Ms. Newell, Mr. Paige, Mr. Todoran, Ms. Ferguson, and Mr. Shankar. Architectural Review Board members Mr. Souders, Ms. Franz King, Mr. Karrer, Mr. Currie, and Mr. Schisler. Staff: Ms. Grigsby, Mr. McDaniel, Ms. Readler, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Hahn, Ms. Puskarcik, Mr. Thurman, Ms. Ray, Mr. Papp, Mr. Phillabaum, Ms. Ott, Ms. Adkins, Ms. Cox, Ms. Willis. Consultants David Dixon and Ben Carlson, Goody Clancy; Don Elliot, Clarion Associates: Leslie Oberholtzer, Farr Associates; Greg Dale, McBride /Dale /Clarion; Rick Chellman and Jason Schrieber, Nelson \Nygaard; Shane Spencer, EMH &T, and Josh Reneki, CDM. Vice Mayor Salay stated that one of Council's goals for 2010 -2011 is to complete the Bridge Street Corridor Plan, which will reinforce the City's continuing competitiveness, create a vibrant and walkable environment with a dynamic mix of land uses and housing types, and enhance the City's long -term sustainability. As part of its near -term action strategies for achieving that goal, Council adopted Resolution 50 -10, the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report, which contains the illustrative vision plan, major principles, implementation strategy and vision statement. The other two near -term action strategies were to hold a work session with the consultants and a joint session with the Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC), Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) and Architectural Review Board (ARB), which is the purpose of tonight's meeting. This meeting is intended to discuss the shared interests and ensure common understanding of Council's policy intent and key planning and implementation principles for the long -term redevelopment of the Bridge Street Corridor. This is the first joint session, but others are anticipated as the implementation plan progresses. Ms. Grigsby stated that Council passed Resolution 50 -10 in October 2010, which adopted the vision report and the implementation strategy for the Bridge Street Corridor. Since that time, staff has completed a process to select various consultants for the implementation studies, and establish their scope of work for the initiation of the project. This is the initial meeting with the consultants, City Council and their boards and commission for the purpose of discussing the consultants' work and for them to receive feedback and further direction from City Council. It is anticipated that additional meetings will be scheduled as the consultants move through the various implementation studies they are each working on. Tonight, each consultant will discuss their work and how it will connect with the Vision Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 2 of 16 Report, and the observations they have made to date. The intent is to provide the consultants with sufficient information to obtain a good understanding of what the City desires to achieve for this planning area so that they do not get too far along without confirming with Council that they are heading in the right direction. City Council will have the opportunity to provide direct feedback, ask questions, and obtain information from the consultants. This is an exciting and important project for the City. It is anticipated that it will develop or be implemented over many years. Last week, the Urban Land Institute held a meeting in Columbus entitled, "The City and 2050, Creating Blueprints for Change." Many of the issues and comments made were in line with the Vision Report that has been prepared for the Bridge Street Corridor. The changing demographics are creating the need for everyone to re -think how development will need to occur in our communities in order to remain a desired place to work and to live. Mr. McDaniel stated that staff has assembled a team of consultants with expertise and national and global experience in planning and implementing the kind of development the Bridge Street Corridor vision implies. This is a complicated project with many moving parts. Several disciplines are involved, and they are fully integrated and collaborating. They are also working proactively with the OCLC team, who has engaged a master developer. The City's consultants met for the first time today with OCLC's consulting team. The Stavroff team, which is working on the potential redevelopment of the Dublin Village Center, is involved in a complex effort to pull together properties. They are focusing their planning efforts with MSI consultants. Although this project is deadline- focused, it must be flexible and adaptable based on both Council direction and the dynamics that result as the teams interact. Although this is the first joint meeting with the consultants, it is not intended to be the last. Council will likely want to hold additional joint sessions as the project moves toward implementation and adoption. Mr. McDaniel stated that the first speaker is David Dixon of Goody Clancy. They are working on a pattern book or illustrative guide. They were also engaged with the City the past year in working on the Vision and a Concept Plan. The Clarion, Farr, and McBride /Dale teams have been working on the regulatory framework the past 30 days. Other consultants have recently come on board and are rapidly becoming familiar with the project. Each of the consultant groups will provide a brief background and summarize their purpose and principles. David Dixon, Goody Clancy stated that he has had an opportunity to speak with Council, PZC, ARB and BZA, which has been very helpful to him. He will be attending three conferences during the next couple of months. Each of them has requested a presentation on their firm's work in Dublin. They are less interested in the plan than the way in which this community has participated in shaping the plan. Dublin's tradition of staying ahead of markets, being innovative, and anticipating the next wave of interest regarding how to live and work, has struck a national chord. They have become aware that people love Dublin and do not want to replace it or change it, just add or improve it. The community is proud of the quality of design that it has required and encouraged, and wants to continue to see the same commitment to quality even though a District, not the traditional Dublin development, is being built. To draw the best to the community, the intent is for a high density, walkable, mixed use, lively downtown, with something for everyone — great public spaces, cafes and entertainment. Embraced in this plan would be Dublin's natural setting. People want Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 3 of 16 Dublin's natural features to be celebrated, such as the Indian Run. [Mr. Dixon continued a review of the features desired in the plan, as outlined in the materials.] Don Elliot, Clarion Associates, Denver, Colorado stated that he is the project manager for the assembled zoning team. Their firm works with cities and counties to draft development codes. Two of their subcontractors are also present: Leslie Oberholtzer, Farr Associates, Chicago; Greg Dale, McBride Dale Clarion. They are charged to prepare draft zoning regulations based on the Vision that has been developed. They are tasked with how to turn the vision into reality in a realistic way that could actually be implemented and achieved over time. They are to create confidence that the framework, fabric and sustainability of that plan will be realized by allowing property owners the flexibility to pursue market opportunities in an innovative development. When they look at the plan, they see a good illustration of how it might turn out, but life never turns out according to a picture. This will be a long build out, and flexibility is essential; all the details are not intended to be taken literally. They have a very quick timeframe for their work. They have conducted research during January, and by the end of February, they are to present a draft of their proposed regulations for review. They always do a staff draft first to identify potential mistakes or misunderstandings. That staff draft will be revised, and a draft for discussion and full review will be prepared by March 31. [Mr. Elliot covered the principles they would follow in developing the zoning code.] Rick Chellman, Nelson \Nygaard, Boston stated that they do national and international work. Their firm is tasked with developing the Transportation Plan for this project. In many cases, the best transportation plan is a good land use plan. Dublin already has a good foundation on that. In creating an intermodal, walkable neighborhood, Dublin will be enhancing not only that neighborhood, but the Dublin community. The most complicated part of their task will be the streets. Streets in a suburban development are very different than streets in an urban development. In a suburban area, every piece of land is stand- alone and must be able to provide all its functions — parking, lighting, drainage, etc. In an urban setting, there is more sharing, such as with parking. In designing an urban street, how the buildings front the street, width of the sidewalks, on- street parking, bicycle transportation, volume of pedestrians, type of vehicles using the street, etc. must all be considered. Their process will involve modeling. Dublin has sophisticated traffic modeling systems in place. They work very well for the existing suburban environment. In more urban settings with particular areas with interconnected street networks, it is much more complicated. The need is to move more people around while more people are walking around. They will begin with the models Dublin already has, and then evolve into a more urban model. Shane Spencer, EMH &T , stated that they are included with the team for the purpose of utility modeling, specifically City -owned water and sanitary sewer systems. They have worked with the City of Dublin and the City of Columbus in the past. This is important because Dublin is a contract community, receiving water and sewer discharge services from the City of Columbus. Their charge in connection with the Bridge Street Corridor project is to identify existing infrastructure of the water and sewer and identify what upgrades would be required to ensure the implementation of the plan. To accomplish this, they will be utilizing very specific technical modeling software, which the City already has in place for its system. Specifically, they will be looking at changes in density, land use and their impact Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 4 of 16 on the need for water and sewer, and, ultimately, changes in physical networking that directly impact utility networking and the ability for those to serve the users. They have identified four key challenges: 1. They cannot look at this area in a vacuum. With the sewer, there are four trunk sewers that pass through the Corridor, which receive sewage from upstream areas. 2. They must look at the utilities in the context of the Community Plan, and projection and growth. 3. The manner in which the City of Columbus operates their water and sanitary sewer systems. Those have to be considered in the context of whatever is considered. 4. The topographical challenges and features. Josh Reneki, CDM, stated that Dublin has recognized for some time that there is a coexistence of Economic Development and natural resource protection that is critical to an attractive and livable community. In 1995, CDM and the City worked together to begin development of a Stormwater Master Plan, and in 1998, City Council accepted that plan and adopted a stormwater ordinance, which included water quality requirements. Interestingly, 2003 was the first time the Ohio EPA passed stormwater requirements for all developments. Dublin is ahead of the Ohio EPA and has been for some time. In 2008, the City updated its Stormwater Master Plan. This project is an opportunity for forward thinking with stormwater management, because the Bridge Street Corridor is very much an urban core. CDM will be exploring which sustainable stormwater best management practices can be integrated into the Corridor Plan. Mr. McDaniel stated that staff wanted Council to be aware of all the team members and disciplines involved. They are prepared to respond questions and concerns and receive input. Mayor Lecklider stated that he had noticed that most of the projects Mr. Chellman has been involved with are in the Northeast or in California. Mr. Chellman responded that they have offices on both coasts, but did a project in St. Louis last year. He has worked in Ohio before. Nelson Nygaard began as a transit focused firm, so its earlier projects were in areas with more significant transit facilities. There isn't much transit in this area of the Midwest, but that is changing. The changed land use patterns that are occurring nationally and internationally reflect the ideas that the Goody Clancy plan has embodied for having more mixed -use, higher density, walkable transit support for neighborhoods. Real estate values appear to be holding or growing more in those areas. Mayor Lecklider stated that the Central Ohio Transit system isn't able to provide more service to Dublin due to financial reasons, and there is a continuing preference for cars in this portion of the county. Given those challenges, how could a form of transit be implemented as part of the Corridor Plan? Mr. Chellman responded that will not be included in the early stages, but it will be part of the phasing /modeling discussion. At such time as transit becomes viable, then it will create a mode shift and traffic patterns will vary because of that, as well. The build -out plan shows very little surface parking area, and that is good. At build -out, Dublin will probably have significant structured parking and on- street parking. In early phases, there will likely be Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 5 of 16 surface parking lots that will transition over time into structured parking. Transit is similar. Density will come first, which transit will then support. Mayor Lecklider stated that he would expect in the early stages that Dublin would be dependent upon the existing Central Ohio Transit system. He would be concerned how a community this size could take on this type of service. Mr. Chellman responded that the whole Bridge Street Corridor is not transit dependent, but transit supportive. If a mixed -use, walkable place can be achieved without transit, that still would be an improvement. These communities have significantly less traffic than suburban land use areas, not because of transit use, but due to an increase in walking and biking. Mr. Gerber stated that this area will be developed with 14,000- 15,000 people living there and more people coming into this area for dining, etc. People living in this area will leave in the morning to go to work outside the area, then re -enter in the evening. Will the existing roadways experience more pressure that will create a need for additional roadways? Mr. Chellman responded that they are still defining the exact limits of the scope of their portion of the model. However, they will certainly be looking at trips to /from the outside areas in the model. The City's model will then address how those are distributed throughout the City. In the early stages, this will be an attraction and people will drive there However, the idea is that it will eventually be a "park once" environment. Mr. Keenan stated that a parking survey was completed. Is the consultant involved with that study present this evening? Mr. McDaniel responded that the consultant is not present; however, that study was limited to the Historic District. Mr. Keenan inquired when the results of the parking survey would be available. Mr. McDaniel responded that the intent is to present it at the next Council meeting. Mr. Keenan inquired if those results would be coordinated with the other consultants. Mr. McDaniel responded that it would, a number of other things would be incorporated as well, including an economic cluster analysis by Battelle and a square footage occupancy analysis. The various pieces will be integrated. Mr. Keenan stated that there is an immediate need to address the parking issue. Today, there are significant parking difficulties in Historic Dublin. It has been his opinion for some time that a structure, 1 -1/2 stories underground, perhaps two stories above, could be provided behind the new BriHi area without being onerous. There are numerous examples of those garages within the Ohio community. It is important not to lose sight of the near - term needs when talking about this Vision. Mr. Reiner referred to the comment that the City has unique stormwater and sewer requirements along the Corridor. In what way are Dublin's requirements unique — is it the overall density of the space? There are four sewer trunk lines involved. Will this be a construction impediment? Mr. Reneki responded that the sanitary studies will be conducted by EMH &T. There is a chance that there will be a construction impediment. From a stormwater management Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 6 of 16 perspective, what is unique for this area is that the density of the Bridge Street Corridor will be no denser than downtown Columbus. Development is occurring in downtown Columbus now, but they are managing the stormwater issue on a site by site basis. Dublin has the opportunity to put an imprint on the entire district. This is not a single -acre site, but a site of hundreds of acres. So it is unique in the scale of the area. Mr. Reiner inquired if that will be addressed by the regulations that will be designed. Mr. Reneki replied that would be the overarching goal -- that text will be built into the zoning and into the potential stormwater regulations specific for this area that will allow for the innovation required from the design engineers for this area. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that Council accepted the concept Goody Clancy presented to Council without addressing the details. How will the development code ordinance be written /address /achieve the real development desired? Mr. Elliot responded that there are certain things that must be addressed for the development to proceed as desired —the fabric, the scale, the street network, open space distribution and types. The general approach is to address it in the general regulations for these districts. With a development with a 20 -30 year buildout, multiple property owners and hundreds of acres, the whole picture will not come into focus until it is ready to be built. For instance, in regard to open space -- as it occurs, each development will contribute to the open space distribution. It is not possible to predict when it will occur. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher inquired if a different tactic could be taken. Could the City direct that it wants the greenspace to take up a certain amount of area, and immediately put on the map where that greenspace will be located? Then, everything else would occur as a result of Council making that decision. Mr. Elliot responded that he has seen that occur more often in raw land contacts — a big acreage where nothing is built. While there is some raw land in this corridor. there is much redevelopment land, as well. This suggestioi than with multiple owners. The problem with the City is taking all of one property owner's I is ready to buy it, as the property owner woul located on his property. With redevelopment multiple agendas, it is more common to have vision. i is much easier to do with one property owner designating the greenspace is that may mean roperty. It can be presumed then that the City J have been made aware that a park will be involving multiple property owners and each property owner contribute to the overall Mr. Dixon stated that when the consultants have finished their work, his firm has been tasked with creating a pattern book that will illustrate in a literal way the translation of the Vision into much more specific planning concepts that will be embedded in the Code. If something will not work, it can be corrected at that point. The central park component can be evaluated more closely at that time to determine if what is desired can be achieved. Vice Mayor Salay stated that approach makes sense to her. Mr. Dixon suggested that a workshop be scheduled at some point in this process to discuss the open space area and how best to define it. The different kinds of suburban and urban open spaces can be discussed. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 7 of 16 Mr. Gerber noted that preserving greenspace is one of Dublin's core values. Mr. Dixon responded that in the next stage, Dublin could be looked at in its totality, and determined what would complement it. Mr. Gerber stated that a similar value is placed on the Historic District; there is a desire to preserve it. It is important that the Code be written to prevent the District becoming diluted or too blended with what is around it. Mr. Elliot responded that it is possible to create a zoned district or more than one that will preserve the character of the Historic District, not change it or expand it beyond its historic boundaries. It should be possible to write something clearer and simpler than the multiple districts that the City has in place now to control development. The kind of building type, form -based zoning that is desired works best in that fine fabric historic area. It was made for that purpose. It should be possible, not only to preserve it, but with something easier to understand and build. Mr. Walter stated that one of the questions he has is relative to this area and its context to the rest of the area. There are boundaries — 1 -270, SR 161 and Sawmill Road -- that cause constriction. Is there consideration regarding bringing ODOT and MORPC into the conversation at some point? What about Dublin City Schools, since they are such a large land holder in the District? Those are two things he believes should be considered. Mr. McDaniel responded that there is ongoing dialogue with the schools. He and Ms. Grigsby interact with Dr. Axner and his team on a continuing basis. MORPC is aware of and watching the process. ODOT will become involved later, when the transportation piece is addressed. As a result of the analysis, there will be more clarity on the transportation impacts at that time. More vision about the impact is necessary before bringing ODOT in. Mr. Keenan inquired how the 1 -270 interchange interaction is being addressed. At one time, Council was given many potential configurations. Ms. Grigsby responded that there is a lot of interaction with ODOT on that project, as well as the Federal Highway Administration. They are familiar with much of what the City is doing in the area and will be doing in the future. It will be necessary to coordinate the project with them because these are State highways. Mr. Keenan stated that there has been discussion about the "bow tie" area across the street. There may be some uses there. How soon will it be known what land acquisition will be needed? Is that horizon ten years out or longer? Ms. Grigsby stated that they have already begun looking at some of the impacts on the bow tie piece. Based upon the preliminary design and environmental work, it appears that very little additional right -of -way will be needed from that area. Ms. Willis stated that Engineering has been working extensively with ODOT on the interchanges. The interchange footprint that has the most promise does have some impact on the bow tie piece, but it is more minimal than that of the others. ODOT is well aware of the need to minimize the impacts to Dublin's developing land in this area. The footprint of the current interchange is fortunate, as it is a cloverleaf, which is rather large and will be an advantage to Dublin in the future. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 8 of 16 Mr. Keenan inquired the timeframe. Mr. Willis responded that it would probably 10 -15 years before construction would be completed. Mr. Taylor stated that he recognizes that what Goody Clancy has put together is a concept, but there is a lot of room for change. Using Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher's example, if the City were to decide that instead of a small park with a library next to it, a very large park is preferred in that area, how would the plan be updated to make that happen? Mr. Dixon responded that one thing that sets Dublin apart from many suburban communities is the fact that it has many review boards and a capable Planning staff. He would assume if that scenario came about, it would be because the City completed a planning study that looked in more detail at the amount of public space needed. That decision would then be made within the context of the realities of property ownership, how it would link into OCLC plans and the plans with the Historic District. When the planning study is completed and its recommendations adopted, the Plan would be amended to reflect those changes. As the project moves forward, the City make may a number of such changes, in a thoughtful and intentional manner. This should be considered a base upon which Dublin, as a thoughtful community, will continue to build upon. Ms. Grigsby responded that this relates to the previous process with the Community Plan. Prior to the 1997 Community Plan, there was no concept of an expanded Coffman Park. It was not identified in any master plan. It was conceived between the Community Plan processes. The Bridge Street Corridor Plan will set a baseline, which will change as the process moves forward and as Council's goals and objectives are modified at some future time. Between the City's planning process and Council's goal setting, this will continue to be a fluid document for a fluid development. Mr. Gerber stated that, previously, Dublin has created plans which everyone then followed. Revisions to those plans have not occurred easily or quickly, typically taking a minimum of five years. How can flexibility be built into a plan? Mr. Dixon responded that there are certain types of flexibility that need to be woven throughout the plan from the outset. For example, with land use and development, clearly the intent is a mixed use, lively and varied place. On the other hand, it is desirable to have people develop housing when a housing market is strong, so they can build the best quality housing; the same with hotels and with offices. Therefore, it is important to have the flexibility to encourage people to be developing toward strong markets, so that investment will be attracted to Dublin. Regarding the question about a decision to create a large park along the river -- it is not about creating urban or suburban; it is about creating a great community. When it comes to a dense or more walkable, lively and more urban space, then certain kinds of decisions, such as open space, should be very flexible — they need to be more carefully considered. From his perspective, Council has adopted a vision that goes as far as it should at this point, knowing that there will be more decisions of a refinement nature to make. When it comes to creating a great central park, it would not have been wise to have designated a certain area and amount of that area at this time. It could not Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 9 of 16 possibly have been thoughtful enough, nor had enough people involved. However, this vision allows for that to be a next -stage decision. Mr. McDaniel stated that Mr. Earman and Mr. Hahn are involved in this process to cover the dimension of facilities. An increase in population will create a need for increased facilities, which would need to be included in the costs stage. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that when discussing greenspace, it would be desirable to have a work session, as suggested by Mr. Dixon. Dublin is known for its greenspace, but they are pockets of parks used primarily by the neighborhoods. Visitors from outside the community typically use Coffman Park or Glacier Ridge Park, which is not owned by Dublin. For the Bridge Street Corridor area, there appears to be a more interactive relationship between that whole community — that being those who live, work and play there. Goodale Park, Columbus, or Schiller Park are large parks with which people have a different relationship than is typical with Dublin's current parks. A workshop would help broaden the thinking about the possibilities. Mr. Dixon stated that just as Dublin takes pride in periodically planning and writing a next chapter on how to stay ahead of markets, Dublin could also think the same regarding its public realm. Values change, types of recreation desired change, so it makes sense every 20 -30 years to think about how to build on the legacy created and adapt it to the world today. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that in these economic times, it may seem more realistic to think that would not be for another 30 -40 years. However, Dublin has a solid reputation, and if this Plan is completed in the way anticipated, people will want to come here to build and live. This will happen more quickly than it might in some other communities. Dublin also has resources that other communities do not have, which will encourage that. Mr. Dixon noted that one of those resources is significant capacity of its government to take a leadership position that many other communities cannot undertake. Mrs. Boring stated that she concurs with that statement from a cautionary perspective. With a previous economic development study, the consultants said it would take 30 years. However, Dublin had them return in 10 years for a review. Mr. Fishman inquired how much interaction is occurring with the cities that surround Dublin, primarily the City of Columbus. He serves on the Bicycle Advisory Task Force, also, and it has been pointed out that Dublin ends rather quickly at Martin Road. If the bikepaths end at Martin Road, vehicles will be bottlenecked. So, is conversation occurring with Columbus, Plain City and Marysville? Mr. McDaniel stated that he and Mr. Hammersmith have been meeting regularly with Mark Kelsey, Service Director with the City of Columbus, on a number of issues. He has spoken to Mr. Kelsey about the need for an evaluation of all the shared boundary "touch points," in regard to current issues and anticipated future issues. Mr. Kelsey has indicated an interest in having that discussion. A similar conversation also needs to occur with the other contiguous communities. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 10 of 16 Ms. Grigsby stated that an issue that is being discussed more frequently today is that of shared services, recognizing that all are interconnected, and working together enables more to be accomplished. Reaching out and working with other entities will be more important going forward. Mr. Zimmerman stated that as the plan is developed, how the residential and commercial aspects will come together to use the greenspaces will be looked at. He lives in the Brighton Park, Rings Road area. The residential and offices are interconnected with the parks, and employees from the businesses as well as the residents use those parks. The parks are active throughout the day and never appear "stale." He is hopeful that type of park interaction, but on a greater scale, will be included in this concept. Ms. King stated that the vision is exciting. The density concerns her, but it is better to be pulled forward than left behind in terms of where the market is going. She applauds the emphasis on the preservation of the Scioto River corridor. Item #3 — "Embrace Dublin's natural setting," enters into specifics and raises some good questions. She would like to emphasis the importance of stormwater management, realizing that the consultants are considering that. It should be made clear upfront that there should be no stormwater waivers, no direct access into the north fork, the south fork, or the Scioto River because of the impact that would have on water quality, quantity, turbidity, erosion, etc. She also encourages identification of a large park boundary as long as it is made very clear that this is permissive; that when landowners are ready, the City might be willing to talk with them. In some markets, at least, some landowners may find it comforting to know that they are in a potential park purchase area. Mr. Schisler stated that some of the speakers spoke about LEED new development or sustainability design, yet he does not see that as a principle in the document. If portions of the development will be expected to meet LEED regulations, such as in regard to stormwater management, it would be desirable to incorporate some of that into the zoning. Mr. Souders stated that he recently put some information together, which was provided for this meeting. There are three pages of questions regarding issues he believes it is important to understand from both the ARB perspective and from an urban design perspective. Perhaps those can be addressed outside of this meeting. His greatest concern is how this will develop overtime. Mixed use is a great goal, but he is concerned how that would be accomplished — there is the Sawmill Road area that needs to be reinvented, a downtown Historic area that is trying to expand across SR 161/ Bridge Street. His concern is if the multi -use district is created, it will dilute the current development. He is not sure how much retail can be absorbed. The information he provided graphically indicates something that extends beyond the District's borders. There is Coffman High School, the parks, July 4 th festivities, parades, festivals — how can a pleasant connection be achieved between those and the Historic District? Perhaps the anchors should be considered Sawmill Road, Dublin Methodist Hospital /Muirfield Drive and the Mall with the Historic District being the centerpiece. The Historic District already has a high volume of vehicle traffic, and SR 161 presents a natural barrier to people desiring to cross from one side of the Historic District to the other. However, in 20 years, if this area develops with the proposed density, the volume of cars will double or triple. SR 161 cannot be widened, so Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 11 of 16 how can cars be moved through the Bridge & High corridor? Would it be possible to make SR 161 /Bridge Street one -way through this part of town? Across from the library's location, a second bridge at Dale Drive would provide an opposite direction for one -way traffic. A parking garage partially underground has been proposed. The grade of land drops near the school and the library, creating a large hill. If a parking garage were to be constructed there, an entire level could be underground. In time, when the school is no longer there, the second road could connect with SR 161. A high volume of traffic moves north through the Historic District. He personally loves travelling down Riverside Drive, not having to stop at the light but go under the bridge. If the timing of the light at that intersection is changed or a roundabout is constructed, he does not see how traffic could be moved as effectively. He has enjoyed some places in the east with a bypass road similar to Dublin's. He understands that the Master Plan provides for that road to become part of the bikepath, but that is one of the joys in traveling Riverside Drive — the beauty of coming into a single lane. Dublin already has so many wide streets and intersections. He does not want to lose that one -way bypass lane on Riverside Drive, if at all possible. Perhaps 50 years from now the current bridge will be replaced with a high bridge, and Dale Drive could be used as a loop back within a one -way system. Perhaps a trolley system could connect Dublin Methodist Hospital and the medical retail there with the Sawmill Road retail. Mayor Lecklider thanked Mr. Souder for his comments. His document has been received by Council and other board /commission members. He has posed many interesting questions, and he is certain the traffic consultant will note those and is aware of the challenges. He inquired if Mr. Dixon was able at this time to make a brief response to the question Mr. Souder raised about Sawmill Road and a conflict between increasing retail and mixed use. Mr. Dixon stated that in regard to the question as to whether the retail will complement or compete -- the danger of too much supply and not enough demand -- this will be managed over a period of time. The reason they are reasonably optimistic that the retail development in this quarter will tend to be complementary rather than out - compete itself is because of the very different settings. Sawmill Road is a particular kind of market. The visibility and access along Sawmill provide the ability to create much larger floorplate retail, which suggests one type of retail, including opportunities for entertainment. Much smaller floorplate businesses, fine dining, etc. characterize and thrive in Historic Dublin. The center of the corridor will be the development that OCLC will undertake. So far, their emphasis involves more residential than retail, which would be complementary and of yet a different character. It will be important to watch what is going forward. There may need to be some adjustments if, over the next 10 -15 years, one area begins to drain another. The area they are the most optimistic about in terms of impact of this Plan on local businesses is the Historic District, because near the District but not in the District, should be much more housing. Housing, more than anything else, supports local restaurants and local small businesses; so, in the future, there will be a larger captive audience in the District. Ms. Newell, BZA thanked Council for taking this task on. It will present an exciting opportunity for Dublin. She works and lives in Dublin and frequents Historic Dublin. She hopes that serious consideration is given to the logistics of walkability. That issue is best shown by an example. To get from her office on Frantz Road to Historic Dublin, a short drive, takes 30 minutes to walk at lunch time. The logistics of walkability relate to how far a Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 12 of 16 person can actually walk within a period of time. The City has used step -down zoning to protect the residential neighborhood from the business district, and they are very polarized from each other right now. There is a large portion of Dublin's residential neighborhoods that will never be within walkable distance to Historic Dublin. With this project, there is an opportunity for Dublin to really consider how they are developing that area in terms of the entire community and residential neighborhoods. Mr. Paige, BZA stated that he lives on the east side of Dublin. The proposed density of the Bridge Street Corridor concerns him. It may have a major impact on how the City analyzes its land use principles in the future, such as maintaining the rural character and a balance between that and connectivity. The concept of planning and park space is vital. People moving into a neighborhood want to rely on what is around them. The City already has a vibrant community, and how best to maintain that and move forward is important. It is important to maintain a balance with growing while sustaining, having schools that are not over - crowded, and having communities that are connected and involved. He is concerned about what the multi - family homes could turn into. Although the intent is for it to be multi - generational housing, how will that evolve? On the east side, that is currently an issue, which is impacting that side of Dublin. Therefore, he is concerned about multi- housing in the heart of Dublin. Already, there are disagreements about the zoning. Although overall, the plan appears exciting, underneath are hidden issues that need to be seriously considered. He hopes that very defined discussions occur regarding the multi -use zoning. Otherwise, due to economic circumstances, there may be a tendency toward leniency for less - enhancing aspects of development for an area. There should be tight restrictions on the land use principles, what the core is, and the things that may be developed — not to interject rigidity, but definition. What everyone is concerned about is the integrity. That is the important standpoint from which to view the Plan as it moves forward. The City has strong land -use principles right now. He has been informed that this is a major discussion point. Mrs. Boring stated that she appreciates his thoughts, and how seriously he has taken his role on the Board of Zoning Appeals. She is the Council representative for that area, and would be interested in meeting with him to discuss these issues in more detail. Vice Mayor Salay stated that some calculations were made regarding what percentage the Bridge Street Corridor area would be of the total City. Mr. Dixon responded that he would locate that information and provide it to her. This Plan is not about changing the development pattern of Dublin. The suggestion is not for a pattern that should be spread across the City for new investment opportunities. It is about creating a place in Dublin that is circumscribed; that has real edges to it and does not spread. In fact, it will not work if it spreads. It is about creating an intensity that brings vitality and life within it and not expand into nearby neighborhoods. However, there is a desire to be able to walk to it, just not have it arrive at their front door. It is very much about a place that people travel to -- they know where it is and where it isn't. He agrees with the use of the term "integrity," and he believes this Vision has been addressed with a great deal of integrity. The goal is not for the plan that will make the City the most money, but for a plan of real quality that builds on Dublin's principles and, for this specific place, adds a new dimension. It is a place that will create appropriate value. So far, the integrity has been there. In regard to the multi - family housing, they very much believe in being market - driven in their work. A hard look has been taken at Dublin's housing. The whole thing is not Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 13 of 16 changing, but there is a larger demand than in the past for multi - family housing that is high quality and market rate. Some of it would be rental, because many people moving to Dublin are not yet interested in home ownership. In this region, and many other regions throughout the nation, one -half to two - thirds of the residents are singles and couples. Those people want to come to Dublin and make a long -term investment that is relevant to them. These concerns are valid. The plan will not happen tomorrow. It will be monitored, and thoughtful people will keep track from different perspectives. Mr. Paige stated that he knew that the integrity of the vision was present. The people involved now are "invested" in the vision for the community. It is important that this Plan maintain a level of people who are invested but also want to make it sustainable and as livable as it is now. Vice Mayor Salay stated that in 2006, City Council and Planning Commission took a trip to Franklin, Tennessee and toured some developments. They saw many interesting communities. Everyone was able to "get on the same page" as they toured the same communities. A couple of years ago, a trip was also made to Greenville, South Carolina, and that, again, was very helpful because everyone was able to get on the same page. She would like to suggest something similar for this Vision. Would there be a community that would be helpful for this group to visit as this Vision is being considered? A tour of another community might help this group to come to a better understanding of and have a firmer grasp on the Vision. Mr. Dixon responded that they just completed a downtown plan for Wichita, Kansas. A large group of the City representatives there pay their own way for annual trips to other cities to observe what is being done. It really helps them to all get on the same page. Considering the type of questions that have been raised tonight, he would suggest Arlington, Virginia. That community has had a great deal of concern about preserving the character and quality of single - family neighborhoods immediately next to a more lively, walkable and high- density space. Evanston, Illinois is a suburban community next to a larger city, which was very successful in many regards. However, they believed what they needed was a vital, suburban downtown. They wanted a great center that did not change the nature of any of their residential neighborhoods. While considering the choices and concerns, it would be helpful to look at the communities that have succeeded in bridging those same concerns. Mr. Keenan stated that during the South Carolina trip mentioned, the group observed a large river, although not quite as large the Scioto River in Dublin, which had a pedestrian walkway. Although he did not participate in that trip, he viewed photos from the tour. He was impressed with the idea of using a pedestrian bridge to connect Historic Dublin with the area across the river. Not only would it provide a connection, but also a wonderful walking facility to view the river corridor. There are ideas gained from these tours that he is hopeful can be captured as this project proceeds. Mr. Dixon responded that they learned of that idea after they arrived and realized it would be a good idea to carry forward. He believes it is vital that everyone who can participate in one of these trips goes at the same time. The discussion among the group is invaluable. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 14 of 16 Ms. Groomes stated that the charge was to discuss the implementation of the planning principles. She suggested that the areas that Council wants to claim as public space be designated on the diagram. Much work is being done upfront for the development community within this area. Those areas that Council believes critical to having the right public space should be identified. The community developed in those areas would be charged with funding that. Mr. Walter stated that he has a question about Council intent. Already, with some cases that have come before PZC, this document has been referenced as a guide. The Commission has had discussion regarding whether this is an appropriate guide to use at this time. What is Council's intent as to how PZC should interpret the process today as new development comes before the Commission? Vice Mayor Salay responded that she believes the Bridge Street Corridor Vision is a valid guide. Although there are many details that will be fine - tuned, Council has embraced the ideas and principles of this Plan. This project will evolve over 10 — 30 years. Mr. Walter responded that PZC understands the place the Community Plan holds and that is established as part of PZC's decision criteria. Is it Council's intent that the Bridge Street Corridor plan should supersede, complement, or serve as an adjunct document to the Community Plan? Vice Mayor Salay responded that she believes it would be a complement or addendum to the Community Plan. Mr. Gerber inquired what particular location he was referencing. Mr. Walter responded that he was referring to the case at Shamrock Court and S.R. 161, near Wendy's, and also Piadda 2 on Sawmill Road. Both parcels are on the fringe of the designated area. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she would agree that this Vision has not moved to the stage of the formally adopted Community Plan. The Bridge Street Corridor Plan is in the process of formation. Council's affirmative vote on this Vision was an agreement to the concepts and principles of what is planned in this designated area of the community. Although it is a designated area of the community, that does not mean a street next to it would be considered not part of the Corridor. The two areas must relate to one another, so there is a blending that must occur. At this point, it would be important for PZC to understand the principles and vision of the Plan, rather than a level of detail. Mr. Reiner stated that with any large tract developments that come before the Commission now, this Plan should be recognized. If the Commission doesn't implement this Plan now, they will waste the developers' time and money. Mrs. Boring stated that she believes that in addition to the concepts and principles, it is also important to understand the reasoning behind them — the final product that Council is attempting to create in this corridor; the liveliness it will create for the community. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 15 of 16 Mr. Gerber stated that it should be integrated. It is no more a bible than any other document, but it articulates the spirit and intent. Mr. Dixon stated that it was certainly their understanding that the Bridge Street Corridor Vision was meant as a complement, a refinement to build on the Community Plan. The Community Plan broke much of the ground; this will "till" and "plant" it. Hopefully, there won't be conflicts, certainly not in spirit. Mayor Lecklider invited public comment. All the stakeholders can expect to be involved as this plan moves through the process. Vice Mayor Salay noted that Mr. Dixon had provided the answer to her question about the percentage of Dublin involved — 6 percent of the land in Dublin is contained in the Bridge Street Corridor area. It is a small, defined section of the community. Mayor Lecklider stated in regard to Mr. McDaniel's question regarding Council's expectations regarding staff and the consultants checking back in with Council, what is Council's direction? Does Council want to be apprised on a regular basis or at certain decision points? Mrs. Boring inquired if it would be possible for the consultants to determine when they need to touch base with Council, rather than Council specifying times at this point. Mr. McDaniel stated that he believes Council has indicated a desire for more information on the open space issues. The timeframe for this project also anticipates a staff draft to be prepared by February 28. Therefore, there would be at least two additional sessions — one on the open space discussion and another to review the staff draft of the Code. This could be either a joint session or a charrette. Mr. Reiner stated that unless staff perceives a need to seek out Council's guidance earlier, he believes it would be best to let the consultants proceed according to their schedules. Mr. McDaniel noted that staff would be providing ongoing reports in Council packets, and those reports can also be provided to the boards and commissions, as well. If there are questions, staff will check with Council without necessarily needing to bring everyone together for a meeting. Mr. Gerber inquired the anticipated timeframe for the discussion draft of the Code. Mr. McDaniel responded that he believes it will be ready by early April. Mr. Gerber noted that he would prefer to have that discussion sooner rather than later. Mr. McDaniel responded that staff is trying to set a realistic timeframe, but if it is possible to tighten the timeframe, staff will do so. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher suggested that the next joint session be held at the Rec Center or a space large enough to facilitate dialogue between Council and the boards and commission. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 16 of 16 Mr. McDaniel responded that staff had deliberated that issue for this meeting. Suggestions for the meeting space will be forwarded to Council before the next session. Vice Mayor Salay stated that it was not Council's desire to be at the dais, but tonight it was important to have everyone in the same room and attempt to have everyone "on the same page" to the greatest extent possible. Mr. McDaniel inquired if the joint session approach is Council's preference. Council consensus was that a joint session approach would continue. Mr. McDaniel stated that in anticipation of the adoption phase, he has asked the Law Director if, in the interest of efficiency, the adoption could occur in a joint session as well. Vice Mayor Salay stated that she believes the joint process is not only a streamlined but a better process. Mr. Gerber stated that this process is on a fast track, and everyone is motivated, whether it is collectively or in separate groups, to move it along. Mayor Lecklider stated that the Council direction needed at this point has been provided. He thanked the board and commission members in attendance. The meeting was adjourned at 8:11 p.m. Clerk of Council RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Millutc oaf Dubn City Council Nice into is October 25, 2010 Page l 1 ld _ . s _ f ._Ztt Committee review is necessary is year. He recalls t at last year, Mrs. Bori had question bout Recreation C nter senior member ip fees. He asked if rs. Boring 1 nsiders these fees o be consistent with a previous direction Mrs. oring stated that no ncreases have bee proposed for those fe s this year. Ms ennedy has outlin d the changes clear , and she has no furt r questions. s. Chinnici -Zuerc r asked if the City d previously charged. ees for a wireless facility administra a review. . Ms. Kennedy r ponded that no fee ad previously been established for that review. Ms. Chinnia- Zuercher stated th the proposed fee is substantial, in view of e fact that here was none prev i usly. She recognizes tAat the fee is recom ended based the actual cost of i•ocessing the application. Are there a lar number of re gists for new tower . Ms rigsby responded at the activity is not�onsistent year to ye r. This year, t re were several, w ich related to the Avery Road water tower roject. The ireless facilities w e displaced while the tower was being re inted. This situation did high ht the amount of adiWnistrative work inv ed in this review. Ms. Chinnici -Z rcher asked if char i g a fee for the appl' anon review of wire ss towers is co istent with the practi a in other cities. Mr. Langw by responded that cities typically charge or the review, as it i included ' their zoning process. Dublin utilizes an dministrative revie process, as the generally do not involve building a new wer. Dublin does t receive ma requests for new to ,ers; they are typical for co- location wit water towers n for atta chments t ther struct r i o structure Ho ever, the rev iew do s ainvolve staff e. Meetings are he d w'th the applican or each case. , Ms. Chinnici- Zuerc�er stated that the s merino indicates if ffie wireless facilit is located on City pfoperty, no fee is in v ed. Ms. Kennedy r sp ©nded that is bas d on the fact that th City wo payments fo fsuch a wireless fac' y. Mayor f cklider summarize at i# is the consen s of Council t Comn$ttee review of the I i nance is unnecess The ordinan be sheduled for secon ading /public heari on November 1. INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING -- RESOLUTIONS Resolution 50 -10 Adopting the Bridge Street Corridor Study Vision Statement, Vision Principles, Vision Report, and Implementation Strategy. 3m r Gerber introduced the resolution. Mr. Langworthy stated this resolut on adopts the Interim Vision Report and Strategy prepared by Goody Clancy & Associates. The presentation of the document occurred at a Council Study Session on October 4. This is the first step in a rapid, but complex and involved process going forward:. The purpose of the Vision Report is to identify the "30,000 foot view" of what is desired for the Bridge Street Corridor. The next steps will begin to define the terns, terminology and illustrative nature of what is shown in the Interim Vision Report by assembling a pattern book. The pattern book will be the description of what is meant by elements of the Vision. From the pattern book, almost simultaneously, a set of development regulations will be created. Staff's intent is that Goody Clancy will work on the pattern book as part of the last phase of their project. The intent is to engage a consultant who will work on development regulations, hand -in -hand with Goody Clancy as they are developing the pattern book. The goal is to ensure those documents coordinate well with one another. At the same time, the land use parameters will be further defined and transportation utility modeling will be RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin Citysbuncil Meeting October 25, 2010 _ _ Page 8 initiated as well as the fiscal modeling that will be necessary for the City to understand fully what all of this will mean for the future. This is a 20 to 40 -year plan, so the expectation is there will be some transitional elements. In the interim, there will probably be some development that will not always meet the exact requirements of the Plan, but it is acceptable, as redevelopment will occur over time. He emphasized that this is a long -term process. Council is to be congratulated for laying the foundation for this vision to occur. He offered to respond to questions. Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher stated that Council has received a letter from Matt Stavroff, and perhaps Council could engage Mr. Stavroff in a discussion about this letter. She did have an opportunity today to discuss with Mr. Stavroff his concerns, and she indicated she would ask Legal staff how the adoption of this vision would impact the City and future decision makers. Mr. Smith responded that as the Vision Plan indicates, it is meant to be a guide. He read Mr. Stavroff's letter as well. He noted that when the City created the Community Plan, they specifically included a paragraph that states that the Community Plan is not a Code or a law, but rather a guide. In the Vision Plan, it is stated that "development should take the Vision framework as a guide." He does not believe a Court ruling would be based upon the opinion that the document constituted a law. However, if Council has concerns about the Vision Plan's "authority," the document could be appropriately clarified. Ms. Grigsby stated that the Vision Plan is similar to the Community Plans, which Council has adopted over the years. It is a guide and establishes a framework or foundation for what will be developed in an area. It identifies the principles that will be followed in reviewing development applications. This study also identifies various districts and the unique features of those districts that the City wants to preserve and protect. An example is the greenspace to be preserved in the Scioto River corridor and the Indian Run corridor. David Dixon of Goody Clancy & Associates stated that this Vision Plan is for an area that constitutes four percent of the land mass of the City. It does not change how development is processed in Dublin, but how the City views development in this particular Vision Plan area. It focuses on the next decades and century of development that will occur in Dublin and the anticipated demands on the City related to the development. Mr. Gerber stated that he has similar concerns as those of Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher. He has no objections to the concept, although he is concerned that the Vision Plan would be interpreted to mean this is exactly the way development is expected to appear. For example, development is not shown along Riverside Drive in this Vision. Further, the Vision may call for condominium development in a particular area, but a developer may want to build something entirely different. He wants to ensure that Council will have the flexibility to address those concerns in the future. Mr. Langworthy stated that the City has deliberately included language in the Vision Plan that the City recognizes that it is unlikely that development will occur as depicted. As Mr. Stavroff has indicated, the market will be key in what happens in this area. The Vision attempts to illustrate some of the principles for the development, not the actual development that will occur. Mr. Gerber stated that the Traffic Study will suggest some ways in which the area should be developed as well. Mr. Langworthy agreed, noting there may be some adjustments to be made as a result of the Traffic Study, in terms of densities and intensities of land use and the ability to accommodate the traffic and utilities. The pattern book and the development regulations will serve as a guide for the City to follow. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Diihlin City Council Meeting October 25, 2010 _ _ Page 9 Mr. Keenan stated that this is fine, assuming the market forces are permitted to operate in terms of how this area will be developed. The importance of the market conditions has been observed with respect to the COIC. Mr. Langworthy agreed. The City will not be developing this area; it will be the marketplace that drives development. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher recalled that a city visited on a field trip by City Council and Planning Commission had such a pattern book. The developers indicated that having the pattern book helped them to sell their projects and obtain funding. One of the challenges that is frequently brought to Council is the inconsistency and confusion regarding the City's expectations. A pattern book would provide better understanding of the expectations. For her, the purpose of this initiative was to seek out a new opportunity for the City in a unique area of the City, and to incorporate the river into the heart of the community in a way that would draw a new population into the future community. The vision is very exciting. It is also very interesting that the vision area is anchored by OCLC and the Stavroff property. Stavroff is prepared to move forward with development as soon as the market permits. When there is activity on these large parcels, it will draw the attention of others who might not otherwise notice the area. It could result in reducing the 40 years anticipated for future development of the area. Mr. Langworthy noted that he believes the same is also true for the OCLC development area. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that if this Vision Plan is approved, she would hope that it is with the intent of doing business differently in this area of the City than has occurred traditionally. Mrs. Boring stated that she has significant concerns. She does not believe any of this will negatively impact OCLC, because that activity center already exists. She does not like some of the concepts reflected in the Vision Plan. As with the Community Plan, the vision becomes the "bible" for the City, and there are many things she does not care for in this Vision. There has been previous discussion about the possibility of curving Riverside Drive and creating more greenspace in that location. Housing is proposed where shopping centers now exist. There is not adequate greenspace in one of the areas. When the pattern book is being developed by staff and the consultant, she wants to be sure that feedback is obtained regarding each of the activity centers. The plan also moves from four activity areas to eight in another portion. Some of this is not clear to her. She cannot support this with the draft Vision Plan included, because the draft Vision Plan is binding. Mr. Langworthy offered a suggestion, similar to what was done with the Community Plan. Similar concerns existed regarding the area plans at that time. In a corner of an area plan, a text box was inserted with the caveat that the area was not expected to develop exactly as shown, but that the plan was intended to serve as an illustrative guide. Similar language could be attached to the Vision Plan, so users would understand it is not to be used as a "bible." Mrs. Boring responded that each of the area plans in the Community Plan were handled separately and very well. The area plans were considered separately, and an attempt was made to ensure each area plan was consistent with the principles. This Vision Plan does not seem to do that. Mr. Langworthy responded the Vision Plan is intended to be only illustrative of the principles. Initially, he also had concerns when he looked at the area activity centers, because what exists there currently is different. However, in 40 -50 years, the existing development may no longer be in place. Regardless, the statement should be included to ensure the Vision Plan is viewed only as an illustrative guide. More important is the pattern book and development regulations, which will define RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Duhlin City Council Meeting October 25, 2010 Page 10 what is meant. Over time, this illustrative plan will probably fade into the background, because it will no longer be needed. Mrs. Boring asked why it is then necessary to include a Vision Plan along with the principles and regulations. Mr. Langworthy responded that he is not certain that an illustrative plan is necessary. The individual districts identified probably do an adequate job in describing what needs to be looked at uniquely within the individual areas. However, without Goody Clancy's input, he would not want to eliminate it from the Plan. The clarifying caveat could be inserted, however, as suggested. Mayor Lecklider stated that he just received Mr. Stavroff's letter this evening, and has not had an opportunity to review it. However, he believes the language included in both the Vision Report and in the adopting resolution now before Council clarifies the intent and addresses possible concerns regarding specificity. For example, Section 1 of the resolution states: "The findings and concepts of the Vision Report, which is intended to describe the market opportunities, districts, and design elements of the Bridge Street Corridor and illustrate a potential development scenario, are hereby endorsed to guide planning efforts in the Bridge Street Corridor." In the Vision Report, on page 16 is the language "illustrative vision scenario." For him, that describes its purpose clearly. If Council is not establishing the vision and illustrative examples, then who will do so? It is Council's role as leaders to provide this. This is not Council's first experience with community plans, community plan updates, etc., and no Council Members would expect a plan to develop detail by detail, pursuant to the illustrations provided with the plan. Mr. Reiner expressed concurrence. Further, the illustrative Vision Plan provides ideas about where biking trails, light rail, and different kinds of housing might occur in the future. He does not view the Vision Plan as something rigid or fixed. It has been designed by its architects solely to provide a potential "vision." Mr. Gerber asked if Council will review the pattern book. Mr. Langworthy responded affirmatively. Mr. Gerber stated that he anticipates there will also be an opportunity for public comment at that time. Mr. Langworthy responded that there would likely be work sessions with Council scheduled for this review. Tonight is only the first step in the process. Vice Mayor Salay concurred with Mayor Lecklider's comments. She is very comfortable with this Vision Report and the implementation strategy as outlined. What excites her most about the Plan is that something completely different will be done with this part of Dublin. Council wants the development community to participate in something other than "business as usual." Perhaps a conventional shopping center will have to be re -made into something quite different. A new era is beginning for this corridor. There are high expectations, but also very different expectations than the other 90 -95% of the City. Mr. Langworthy noted that he hopes Council has had an opportunity to view some of the recent positive media coverage regarding this Vision Report and Plan. Mr. Reiner stated that the projections are aligned with the City's demographic survey. The next vision for this community should be "a step up." The Easton development includes housing separated from commercial. For the Bridge Street Corridor, it would be desirable for commercial or retail activity to occur on a lower floor and housing to be provided on the upper stories. That may or may not work, depending on the developer's interest in being progressive. There is a need for a portion of the community that will appeal to and attract the younger generation — RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of ni ihimn City Council Meeting October 25, 2010 _ Page 11 those now living in the Short North area of Columbus. As leaders, it is Council's role to establish a Vision to accomplish that. Mrs. Boring stated that there is no disagreement about that aspect. Her objection is that in the past, people have become tied to the illustrations provided. If the Plan contains the principles that Council wants and agrees upon, and if Council supports how the Vision is written, then she does not see the necessity for the accompanying illustrations. Mr. Gerber pointed out that in the process, there will be an opportunity to review the pattern book and discuss the various illustrations. Mrs. Boring stated that she is not certain that Council is providing the needed direction about their concerns, including her concern that the illustrations do not seem to match the principles in certain areas. Mr. Gerber stated that the work sessions should provide the opportunity to do just that. Mr. Langworthy stated that the work sessions could occur early in the process. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that this would be an opportunity to attract developers who are interested in doing something creative and bold and who have new ideas -- something to help the City move forward from great to something even better. She asked if Council would provide Mr. Stavroff the opportunity to speak, if he would like to do so. Mr. Gerber concurred. He is also pleased that the City will be involved in traffic studies upfront, versus later, as has often occurred. Mayor Lecklider noted that he is hopeful that this initiative will attract a national interest/inquiry as well as local. Mr. Langworthy responded that staff has already had some attention from various entities who are awaiting the results of tonight's Council review. Mayor Lecklider invited Mr. Stavroff to address Council, if he would like to do so. Matt Stavroff, Stavroff Interests, 565 Metro Place South, Dublin indicated that he clearly articulated his concerns in the letter sent to Council, and he has heard some good responses tonight about what the expectations are in adopting this Vision. He is somewhat concerned with terms such as "walkable" and "density." No one objects to walkable, but the issue is in defining what this means to everyone. "Density" relative to what? There are comments in the Vision about transit, and he wonders if Council is serious about that. Do they believe transit will be in place in Dublin in the next 30 -40 years? Has Council considered the alternative perspective? The federal government currently subsidizes transit at $20 million plus per year, and given the current budget, is it likely that more will be subsidized in the future? He wants to ensure that this Vision Plan being adopted is not viewed as the "bible" — but as something with many good qualities, as a target to aim for, and perhaps what tomorrow's market wants. There will be a different Council and staff in place years from now, and how will they interpret what is in this document? Dublin is a very special community. He is excited about the redevelopment of the Dublin Village Center and it is not that far off. However, he is concerned that when he brings back something with users who are excited and which captures much of this vision, but not everything, what response will it have from the City? He wants Council to think about this. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road stated that it occurs to him that this Vision Plan is a massive stimulus package. It is something that will keep Dublin out of recession. Dublin is now one of the "Smart Cities" of the world, an "Intelligent RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Millutes of Dublin City Council Mc cling October 25, 2010 � 12 Held Community" of the world, and has the ear of some of the greatest thinkers in the world. This is a "sky is the limit" stimulus package. Dublin is a magnet market with this plan. A monthly meeting is needed to bring in people who have thought hard about what this City should be. It is important to take risks and have an ear open to everyone. Few cities on the planet are so situated to 'Hove and "exfoliate." He added that he will not move out of Dublin for a while. Vote on the Resolution: Mayor Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Resolutio 51 -10 Authori ' g the City Mana r to Eater into an greement with th hio Depa ent of Transport ion (ODOT) for In allation of Median able Barrier on U . 33 from S.R. 16 Post Road in Uni County to 1 -270 i Franklin {Co nty. r. Gerber if the resolution. Mr. Harnmersmit stated that, as indi ted in the staff rep rt, ODOT has requ ted Dublin's conse to allow them to orograrn a median be barrier installa 'on for this area. T re is existing med' n cable barrier ins Iled in 2002 on 1 -2 0 within Dublin's jur diction. The pu a of the barrier h been and remains o prevent crossover crashes. Crossov accidents typicall result in head -on Ilisions and fatalitie ODOT is proposi g this barrier be fu ed 100 percent by em; if Dublin reque s additions to th project, Dublin w Id be asked to fu them. Dublin doe not anticipate re uesting any addit' ns. Staff recom nds approval by C ncil so that this in allation can be pro rammed by ODOT. Mr. Reiner asked ho maintains the grass around these p sts. Mr. Hammers h responded that, as Dublin currently oes along 1 -270, t City will 'now the edian A herbicid is used around the osts to keep the v etation down. The 1ity will not maintai the cable barrier its f, but only the veg ation. /20. recalled discussion when the medi cable barrier was installed back ere any modifications requested fro ODOT at that tim rsmith responded that there werernot. ici - Zuercher stated that OD T is very consis nt in repairing a gmedian cable barrier along 270. These barrier do improve safety as staff has indicated. Her concern, a she expressed to s. Grigsby, relates the S.R 161 ramp over 1 -270, which ' not Dublin's responsibility to maintai . This area accumulates much litter on regular basis, andrshe has contacted r. Burns about thi.�. Now there will be another area here ODOT indidates their responsibility is only for rep it of the cable. D lin will continue to lake care of mowing of the grass_ Mr. ammersmith confir ed that Dublin wou take care of mowing, litter removal, a d snow removal of t s area, as is done t ay. Mayor Lecklider as ed for clarification out what distinguis es this median barrier area from the S 61 bridge over 27 in terms of litter, et Ms. Chinnici -Z ercher responded t t the debris and r d trash on the bridge are routinely Cie ed up by the City, ODOT does not s m to have the resirces to maintain t to Dublin's standa s. Mr. Ham ersmith stated tha staff will raise this sue with ODOT in : conjunction with thi consent le islation 9 , Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, October 4, 2010 Minutes of Meeting Mayor Lecklider called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers. Present Council Members: Mayor Lecklider, Vice Mayor Salay, Mrs. Boring, Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, Mr. Gerber, Mr. Keenan and Mr. Reiner. Staff: Ms. Grigsby, Mr. McDaniel, Ms. Readler, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Gunderman, Mr. Combs, Ms. Adkins, Ms. Ray, Mr. Hammersmith, Ms. Cox, Ms. Puskarcik, Mr. Tyler, and Ms. Gilger. Guests: David Dixon and Ben Carlson, Goody Clancy representatives. Mayor Lecklider called the meeting to order. He stated that the purpose of the meeting is to review the Bridge Street Corridor Study. Ms. Grigsby stated the Bridge Street Corridor Study has been in process for over a year. It is an exciting project for the City. At the last Council meeting, Council adopted its 2010 -2011 Goals. One of those goals was to "Complete the Bridge Street Corridor plan to provide a vision for the corridor, which will reinforce the City's long -term competitiveness, create a vibrant and walkable environment with a dynamic mix of land uses and houses types, and that enhances the City's long -term sustainability." Along with the goal, some near -term action strategies were identified. The first was to focus on the vision plan and have that plan "completed by the end of 2010." The second was to have "a work session with the consultants... "to follow up on "on the major principles, which form the important foundations..." for the development of the Corridor." That is the purpose of this work session -- to allow Goody Clancy to provide the overview of the information that was included in the vision report distributed in Council's packet. Specifically, for review of the vision statement and the five principles that were identified and have been reviewed at the public meeting held at the Wendy's facility in June. The vision concept plan included in the packet is a draft of the current concept, and there may be changes as it goes through the process. In addition, the seven Corridor Districts will be reviewed, including a Scioto River overlay, also included in the vision report. A key component to moving forward is to determine the next action steps for implementation, based upon Council's goal to have it completed in 12 months. The intent tonight is to present the report to Council. At Council's direction, staff will then bring back legislation to have the Vision Report accepted by City Council. Mr. McDaniel will also review the proposed next steps, the implementation, and the next processes or consultants that staff believes are needed to review and identify items as the infrastructure impacts, both transportation and utilities. Discussion is also planned regarding the time frame for completion of the reviews and some funding requirements, based on staffs current estimates. Dublin City Council Study Session October 14, 2010 Page 2 of 11 David Dixon, Goody Clancy stated that providing the report formally to Council is very important. He will remind Council of the foundations, market, community and other foundations for the vision and the principles. Then he will address the principles in specific, operative terms, which will be used in shaping the important next chapter of Dublin. Vision The charge for this study area is to enhance economic competitiveness, quality of life and create public spaces — all on seven percent of the land in the City of Dublin; the other 93% will remain untouched. The principles directing this effort are that Dublin has a real commitment to market leadership -- thinking ahead of the market and being positioned to take advantage of changes. This is a period of changing market dynamics and therefore an important time to be thinking ahead. Above all, Dublin has a commitment to the quality of the community, and Dublin is not a community willing to make trade -offs for fiscal, economic development or other benefits, if the City believes that may diminish the quality of life for its residents. They have been conscious of that principle, and they are hopeful that Council believes that was addressed. The tradition of market leadership has clearly been important to Dublin -- an important part of the foundation for the very high quality of life that has been established in Dublin. The continued effort to balance housing and jobs is what drives people in their choices of both, and has influenced employers in their choice of location. That formula is changing in some ways, and is therefore an opportunity for Dublin to adapt. The City invited a series of speakers, who spoke about these changes. He considers certain statements they made as very important. 1. Chris Leinberger talked about the fact that as opposed to a decade ago, mixed use, walkable environments are increasingly commanding a premium in the marketplace, whether it is housing - office, retail or other uses. 2. Carol Coletta pointed out that this country has a chronic and growing labor shortage of skilled and educated workers that employers follow as opposed to those people following employers, at this point in time. They are making choices between the ages of 25 and 34 about where they want to spend their lives and make their economic contribution. Increasingly, that is driven by the ability to live and possibly work in a walkable, attractive environment with a strong sense of community. Focus groups indicated that 50% to two thirds of those participating really value downtowns and great neighborhoods near them as decisive indicators in where they want to live, but they do not want to live in big cities. Dublin would be a desirable place for many of them. 3. Laurie Volk and Sarah Woodworth both conducted in -depth market studies for over 5 -7 years for housing and 10 years for market for the City. The results indicated a need for probably 1,500 units of housing and more than a million square feet of office and mixed use development as a basis for beginning to construct this great new district that can become the new downtown "heart' of Dublin. Dublin City Council Study Session October 14, 2010 Page 3 of 11 4. Ms. Volk's message was that this housing market exists because of the significant changes in households. In 2010, in most regions, 60% of households are singles and couples, and the percentage is likely increasing. This means that there are more people potentially interested in walkable, lively environments with a sense of community. Then she broke down the market by unit types, so that the City has potential "building blocks" as it starts this initiative. 5. Sarah Woodworth looked at Office, Hotel and Retail, and had a couple of significant messages. First, the nature of market demand is changing, so, in addition to the large building employers, there is a growing demand for smaller businesses. Dublin has a significant entrepreneurial spirit — a great many companies are born in Dublin, and Dublin wants to be able to hold on to them as they grow. Secondly, there is a leakage in retail. This reflects the desire for a different shopping experience — for walkable, mixed -use developments that more recently typify the market. Dublin has tremendous opportunities to build something that leaps ahead of that and is even more competitive. People love Dublin for what it is, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't like the option for a walkable, mixed use environment. High quality in terms of design and every aspect of planning has been very important to people. Preserving natural features and access to those features is important. Many people have talked about introducing a next generation of public transportation options, not to replace the car, but to provide other choices. Historic Dublin is beloved and the community has made very clear that it should be preserved and not replaced by development. This type of initiative is occurring in other places, but what Dublin is doing is much more "cutting edge." It is a model that is already attracting interest. When they attended the APA Conference in New Orleans and presented a program on Dublin, it was probably the best - attended session in the entire conference. This is an indication that many suburban communities are interested in learning how to add the same type of dimension that Dublin is planning. This, then, is the foundation for the Vision Statement. Mr. Dixon discussed the vision's five principles in depth. Principles 1. Enhance Economic Vitality. Create vibrant and walkable mixed -use districts that build on the community's quality and character to make Dublin a highly completive place to live, work and invest. 2. Integrate the New Center into Community Life Connect the new center into community life. Connect the Bridge Street Corridor to the surrounding community through enhanced bike, pedestrian, auto and transit connections, lively public spaces and a mix of retail and other uses that invite the larger community, and with civic, educational, and other uses to engage the full spectrum of community life. 3. Embrace Dublin's Natural Setting and Celebrate a Commitment to Environmental Sustainability Celebrate the Scioto River, North /South Indian Dublin City Council Study Session October 14, 2010 Page 4 of 11 Run, and other natural features as symbols of Dublin's commitment to environmental preservation and sustainability. 4. Expand the Range of Choices Available to Dublin and the Region Offer housing, jobs, shopping, recreation, transportation and other choices increasingly supported by changing demographics and lifestyles to complement and support Dublin's existing community fabric. 5. Create Places that Embody Dublin's Commitment to Community Design a 21 sc century center for community, inspired by Historic Dublin and marked by walkability, variety and vitality. Ben Carlson, Goody- Clancy shared a draft illustrative concept of the Vision Plan. It is a scenario of what the study area could look like if it were developed in accordance with the principles. People tend to walk within a quarter mile radius, so they envisioned four primary walkable neighborhoods -- Historic Dublin, the OCLC area, the riverfront area near the intersection of Riverside Drive and W. Dublin- Granville Road, and the Sawmill Road area near Dublin Village Center. There are many other opportunities to introduce walkable networks, streets, and development, as well, but these four areas will be emphasized. The many greenways that meander throughout - -with the Scioto River and Indian Run, recreational greenways, and a series of public parks — all will serve as the organizing framework. The overall area is broken into a series of seven (7) districts. There are many physical distinctions, which delineate the boundaries between the districts — the river corridor, the creek and major roads. Market studies show that people appreciate unique places in which to live and to do business. He reviewed the anticipated characteristics and potentials of the seven districts: 1. Bridge Street gateway into Historic Dublin 2. OCLC and Cardinal Health land to the north 3. Existing Historic Dublin neighborhood 4. The entire corridor that follows the east edge of the Scioto River 5. The stretch of West Dublin- Granville Road moving to the east, past the Wendy's headquarters 6. The Tuller - Greenway neighborhood, the least visible and accessible district 7. The Sawmill District, largely occupied by Dublin Village Center Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher inquired the location of Riverside Drive in relation to the current road. Mr. Carlson responded that they are suggesting that it be moved modestly a couple hundred feet to the east, less than what some of the earlier concepts suggested. This is a better balance — it would create a substantial amount of park space and access there, but also retain the opportunity for a mixed -use neighborhood to develop next to it. Mr. Gerber inquired how many people they believe would live /work in this area. Mr. Carlson responded that this is a 20 -year plan. Ms. Volk has estimated 1,500 units in the next 5 -7 years. As the market becomes established, the pace should increase. Dublin City Council Study Session October 14, 2010 Page 5 of 11 Conservatively, the estimate is for 4,000 units on one side and 6,000 -7,500 on the other. That would be 6 -10 million square feet of housing and 2 million square feet of office /retail. Mr. Gerber inquired the anticipated number of occupants per housing unit. Mr. Carlson responded that they would be smaller households — 1 to 1.25 occupants per unit — approximately 5,000 -8,000 people, and 5,000 -7,000 employees. Mrs. Boring inquired if this concept builds around what currently exists in this area. Mr. Dixon responded that the plan has been built upon a couple of principles. In most cases, they have had conversations with the property owners regarding the vision for this area. Also, they have proposed ideas that would increase -- not hold neutral or decrease -- the value of their land. The vision is illustrative and conceptual, not a plan that dictates what must happen. The spirit of the plan is that it will be in the interest of the property owners involved. Mr. Carlson noted that there are many large property ownerships involved — areas of at least 10 acres, and in some cases, 40 -80 acres. It is possible to do something significant in those areas via the private sector that does not require land takings. A redevelopment initiative can fit within a bigger picture. There are benefits to starting this in distinct areas, providing a network of different uses. Mr. Dixon stated that there are two very substantial holdings in Dublin. This development will not replace current development in Dublin, but it will be concentrated, which means it will take less infrastructure investment to accommodate it. The infrastructure built will also support many smaller projects in the future. Mayor Lecklider inquired how the new projection for residents in this area would compare with the numbers estimated by the 2007 Community Plan. What impact would this project have on those estimates? Mr. Langworthy responded that it would not be significantly different, probably less than 10 percent. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher noted that the primary difference would be in the mix of uses within the project area. Mr. Gerber inquired what the forecast for central Ohio is over the next 25 years in regard to the number of people who will come here to either live or to work. Mr. Dixon stated that the aging nature of the housing market across the nation is increasing. It is the demographic changes within that population that are creating new housing markets. The number of households headed by people over 35 and under 55 without children are the two fastest growing segments of the housing market, and they Dublin City Council Study Session October 14, 2010 Page 6 of 11 are the under -built markets. Many in that target group are interested in urban environments. Mr. Langworthy noted that MORPC has estimated a regional growth of 500,000 over 20 -30 years. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher noted that study was generated 18 -24 months ago, so it did not necessarily take into account the current development environment. Mr. Dixon noted that lower housing cost regions, such as Central Ohio have been benefitting from the economic slowdown. When it comes to attracting the young workforce, that group is now less interested in specific destinations, such as San Francisco. They are more interested in finding vitality in less expensive regions. On the other hand, although the population may increase, the number of homebuyers may not be in sync with the number of home sellers. The trend is moving into more of a net seller model than previously. Mr. Gerber stated that regardless of the concept's walkability, vehicle transportation in the area will increase. People from other areas, such as Muirfield, will be attracted to these areas. Are in -depth traffic studies contemplated? Mr. Dixon responded that doing so would make sense. It will be easier to study and to address the transportation needs of a district such as this, as they will be concentrated. They have had some discussions with Kittelson & Associates about what it takes to create a low threshold transit. They indicated that the types of densities and build out contemplated here for the first ten years tend to make an area ready for transit to support new services. They have considered a Bridge Street Corridor transit from downtown Dublin to the COIC, because he would suspect many of the young people who work there would love to live here. A transit service would be a plus. However, this district is planned around the assumption that the automobile is here for a long time. That is one of the reasons for the grid of streets through the corridor — so people are not forced to concentrate on the same roadway, bringing congestion. Mr. Gerber stated that SR 161 is a very busy roadway. Council has looked at adding on- street parking as a way to change its character. Mr. Dixon responded that he would expect that Dublin will do a transportation study that will focus on adding curbside parking to a pedestrian street and provide alternatives over time. By doing so, Dublin will achieve a great, real "Main Street," with offices, hotels, housing, etc. Clearly, that would be done in conjunction with a larger transportation strategy. Next Steps Mr. McDaniel stated that this is a consolidated plan for future studies -- essential tools. The first step is to prepare a resolution for the October 25 Council meeting to adopt the concepts and final vision report. The second step is to adopt a District pattern book with the design guidelines for each district. This will provide a bridge from the vision to Dublin City Council Study Session October 14, 2010 Page 7 of 11 implementation. It would set forth expectations, yet provide flexibility. Next, a regulatory framework code would be proposed. There will be an over - arching transportation modeling or plan for the district. This is critical due to the densities. The plan will be inclusive, involving all the property and business owners. Utility remodeling will be necessary. Some base modeling has already been done for transportation and utilities through the Community Plan process, and that work would be tweaked. Mr. Keenan stated that there are issues related to the need for electric redundancy. Also, there are other communities that have required fiber optic wiring to be part of the infrastructure as it is developed, even in the residential area. Mr. McDaniel responded those other utilities would definitely be included in this process. He noted that the redundancy issue is high on the list of every project. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that the Community Plan transportation modeling for this area was based upon an entirely different vision. Therefore, will this modeling require a significant redesign of the area that encompasses 1 -270, OCLC, Cardinal Health and Emerald Parkway? Mr. McDaniel stated that they would be building off the physical platform model compiled for the Community Plan, but a more urban model will be needed. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that because this modeling is to be completed by July 1, 2011, she wanted to ensure the modeling of that area was included. Mr. McDaniel responded that it would be included. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the Community Plan existing travel demand model would be used, and trip generation coming off the new land uses would be input into the model. This would provide a predictor of the needs for the future network. A second component will be added to this process — a micro simulation, to look closely at intersection levels and street capacities. With that input, design will be determined for this urban model. Mr. McDaniel noted that once the urban model is built, it will not be necessary to re- study it each time someone comes forward with a project. The intent is to develop computer modeling that will enable this to occur without conducting additional traffic studies. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher inquired if they are indicating the modeling would drive the design needed. Mr. Hammersmith clarified that it indicates the demand and predicted users. Accommodating that demand against the preferred level of service and tolerable congestion is then evaluated and determined. Mr. McDaniel responded it does not lay out the network, but it enables modeling against an understanding of the future needs and impacts. Dublin City Council Study Session October 14, 2010 Page 8 of 11 Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher inquired approximately when it will be possible, with everyone's input, to state what the road design will be. The building and configuration of the area, particularly the south area, is very dependent upon the road design. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the intent is for this to be an iterative process during the transportation analysis. As output is received, it will be possible to determine the road network that is needed and to make alterations in land use to change trip generations. The acceptable level of service at the intersections must be determined. Vice Mayor Salay stated that the SR 161 corridor is the sole focus. In the Historic District, it is just four lanes wide. There was discussion concerning the potential addition of on- street parking, but the decision was made that would not be tolerable, as it would decrease the level of service. What works best between balancing moving traffic and the expectations that all the intersection should function at higher level? Is it better to accept a lower level of service? Mr. Dixon responded that the expectations of level of service differ based on where you are and where you are going. On an arterial highway connecting point A to point B, a D or F level is frustrating. A short trip from a couple of destinations in the midst of a pedestrian level would find a level D or F acceptable, as there is a counter balancing benefit — the surrounding environment. With the Bridge Street Corridor, it would be best to experiment. If Bridge Street is to be a route to travel from east to west, on- street parking would not make sense. However, if a portion of Bridge Street will become very important to the "life" of Dublin and adds to the quality of the community, it would be good to experiment with curbside parking for off -peak traffic times. Mr. Gerber stated that there are two traffic patterns involved — the internal roadways and the external roadways — 1 -270 and SR 161, which are used by people from the surrounding areas. Mr. Dixon stated that he certainly would not experiment with curbside parking during peak hours. As Historic Dublin becomes more important to the life of the entire community, as people seek to invest there and extend its walkability, then the value of a pedestrian- oriented Bridge Street may become more important, a counter - balancing value, to the value of moving traffic through. To date, there has been no counter balance. However, that counter balance is on the table now. He suspects the reason it will be a counter balance is that there are more property owners in Dublin who believe that the more amenities that can be found in that district, the more their property is worth. He respects Council's desire to carefully evaluate this to find the right balance. The advantage of curbside parking is not that it adds parking. It is that it makes it much more comfortable to walk up, down and across the street -- it sends a different message. Mr. Keenan stated that the issue is balancing that benefit against 20 -30 minute traffic backups in the District, east and west. Dublin City Council Study Session October 14, 2010 Page 9 of 11 Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher inquired if there will be a plan integrated and ready for discussion with OCLC and the other anchors in the area. Mr. McDaniel clarified that, in addition to the modeling, impact, counts and trips, scenario grids will also be laid out to be modeled against. There is the planning aspect that parallels the transportation /traffic modeling aspect. Mr. Langworthy stated that the connections between points on the grid would be tested, such as a connection between OCLC and Dublin Road. Mr. Keenan stated that what he has seen work best around the country is when the public streets in a downtown square are closed off with a pedestrian walkway. Then development occurs around that square, such as in Aspen. Previously, Council has discussed the potential for a different configuration for the roadway in the Historic District. It would parallel 1 -270. Vice Mayor Salay stated that it might be more of an alternative road than a bypass. Mr. Keenan responded that an alternative would remove some of the pressure. Mr. Langworthy stated that alternative could be instituted into the model to see what might occur. Mayor Lecklider stated that the vision concept appears to provide for two alternate routes north of Bridge Street with access to Dublin Road, leading to Tuller Parkway. Mr. Carlson stated that it makes it easier to access the Emerald Parkway Bridge, which has more capacity than currently is being utilized. Having more choices, more redundancy in the network is beneficial. Choices are better than investing in one roadway. Vice Mayor Salay inquired whether it is better to enhance Bridge Street, even at peak times, by slowing traffic. It is helpful to drivers looking for a place to stop to eat or shop. Mr. Carlson responded that slower traffic does really benefit the businesses. Pedestrian areas do really work in some areas, such as college towns. A mix is quite viable. Mr. Gerber inquired if the computer modeling will assess the level of service various roadway configurations would provide. Ms. Grigsby responded that the computer modeling will identify the number of cars traveling through an intersection, and identify which level of service is desired and how many lanes of roadway are needed to accommodate that level of service. Or, it could indicate if there is an alternative to SR 161, such as a potential roadway from OCLC to Cardinal Health. A couple of projects in the 5 -year CIP are: the extension of Emerald Parkway Phase 8, which will help alleviate some traffic in the downtown district, and the Dublin City Council Study Session October 14, 2010 Page 10 of 11 flyover at 1 -270 and US 33 interchange. The process involves analysis, then recommendations, and then perhaps modifications to the recommendations. There are also ongoing discussions to determine what is financially feasible, both from the City's and the developer's standpoints. She is not certain that all the information on all the needed improvements will be available on July 1. One thing that will be helpful is that OCLC has hired Kittelson, who has a report that identifies potential options, which they'd like the City to consider. The next step is to meet with OCLC and Kittelson to understand those options, the estimated costs, and how that would tie in with the City's plan. Mr. McDaniel noted that property owners will be included in this modeling process. Mr. Gerber stated that, ideally, the City would provide the identified road network and development code to a developer from which to work. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher responded that it was her understanding that was the intent with the pattern book and the regulatory framework -- to provide a developer a timeframe and substantially reduced steps to secure project approval. Mayor Lecklider noted that the 1- 270 /US 33 flyover and Emerald Parkway Phase 8 extension provide him optimism. Has Engineering ever attempted to track the traffic that travels along SR 161 from east to west or vice versa, and how much of that is local traffic? While it is desirable to capture business from commuters, who are we focusing on? People traveling though our District to destinations? Mr. McDaniel responded that they have never accurately identified the through volume versus local volume. Often, that includes an origin and destination study. However, how important is it to have really definitive numbers? Regardless, the volume remains the issue to address. Sometimes the solution to traffic problems is distribution and alternate paths. Mr. Keenan stated that there is concern from the corporate residents. Much of the traffic flow is in the morning and evening — people coming in to work in Dublin and leaving Dublin. Would that be considered local traffic? Vice Mayor Salay responded that it would, as their destination is within the City. Mr. Hammersmith responded that is his point — is it really that critical to know where the traffic is coming from? The only information needed is land use and traffic counts. We know what the volume is today and how it will grow in the future. Mr. Keenan stated that it is important to consider the corporate community as well. Mayor Lecklider stated that he was referring to traffic east of Sawmill Road traveling through Dublin, which does not originate or end in Dublin. They would have other options for reaching their destinations with a flyover and Emerald Phase 8. Dublin City Council Study Session October 14, 2010 Page 11 of 11 Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher moved to direct staff to provide a resolution accepting the interim vision report for Council consideration and adoption at the October 25 Council meeting. In addition, staff should also provide a proposed timeline and cost estimates. Mr. Gerber seconded the motion. Vote on the motion Mr. Gerber, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher noted that another joint work session with PZC, ARB and BZA needs to be scheduled after the October 25 Council meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Clerk of Council