(A) Intent. The intent of this section is to provide an efficient, predictable, and context-based review process for development applications in Historic Dublin and designated outlying (Appendix G) resources, as outlined in § 153.170.
(B) Required approvals.
(1) This section outlines the requirements and procedures for the development review specifically within Historic Dublin and designated outlying resources. The review procedures of this section shall be used for all development applications in Historic District and designated outlying resources, as outlined in this section.
(2) The Architectural Review Board shall review and make a determination regarding the following application requests:
(a) Requests for alterations or changes to architectural features of existing sites and structures.
(b) Requests for additions or new construction to existing sites and structures.
(c) Signs.
(d) Demolition.
(3) Applications for review by the Architectural Review Board are not required for the following:
(a) 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.
(b) Interior building improvements that do not involve any exterior changes, alterations, or modifications, including minor mechanical items such as residential roof vents and plumbing pipes.
(c) Landscaping for single-family dwellings.
(4) No building permit or certificate of zoning plan approval shall be issued by the Chief Building Official or the Director and/or their designees for any proposal which is subject to the Architectural Review Board’s review unless approval has been granted in accordance with the requirements of this chapter.
(C) Abbreviations. The following abbreviations and terms are used in this section:
(1) BZA: Board of Zoning Appeals;
(2) CC or Council: City Council;
(3) ARB: Architectural Review Board;
(4) PD or Director: Planning Director; and
(5) PZC or Commission: Planning and Zoning Commission.
TABLE 153.176A: SUMMARY PROCEDURE TABLE | ||||||
R=Recommendation D=Decision A=Administrative Appeal RF=Review & Feedback | ||||||
Type of Application | PD | ARB | BZA | PZC | Counc il | Zoning Code Reference |
TABLE 153.176A: SUMMARY PROCEDURE TABLE | ||||||
R=Recommendation D=Decision A=Administrative Appeal RF=Review & Feedback | ||||||
Type of Application | PD | ARB | BZA | PZC | Counc il | Zoning 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)(3 ) | ||
Non-Use (Area) Variance | R | D | § 153.231(H)(2 ) | |||
Other Approvals | ||||||
Building Code Appeal | D | § 153.231(I) | ||||
Historic District Applications | ||||||
Pre-Application | RF | § 153.176(D) | ||||
Informal Review | RF | RF | § 153.176(E) | |||
Concept Plan | R | D | § 153.176(F) | |||
Concept Plan with a Development Agreement | R | R | D | § 153.176(D) | ||
Preliminary Development Plan | R | D | § 153.176(G) | |||
Final Development Plan | R | D | A | § 153.176(H) | ||
Minor Project | R | D | A | § 153.176(I) | ||
Demolition | R | D | A | § 153.176(J) | ||
Administrative Departure | R | D | § 153.176(K) | |||
Waivers | R | D | § 153.176(L) | |||
Master Sign Plan | R | D | § 153.173(L)/ § 153.176(M) | |||
Administrative Approval | D | A | § 153.176(N) | |||
Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval | D | § 153.233/ § 153.176(P)(3 ) | ||||
(D) Pre-application.
(1) Purpose and applicability.
(a) The purpose of the pre-application submittal 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 application review procedures.
(b) 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 procedures.
(a) A request for a pre-application review shall be made in accordance with the provisions of division (P)(1) of this section.
(b) Requests shall be submitted to the Director, who shall be responsible for circulating any submittal material to the applicable departments for input.
(c) The Director and staff shall use reasonable efforts to conduct an expeditious review of the submitted materials and provide non-binding input and recommendations.
(d) The Director may schedule a meeting with the potential applicant to discuss the request or may provide a written summary of the staff review.
(e) Additional staff reviews of the pre-application submittal may be requested by the applicant prior to filing a formal application.
(f) Any and all written summaries of the pre-application review shall be forwarded to the required reviewing body.
(E) Informal review. Prior to submittal of an application for a Concept Plan (CP), an applicant may submit an Informal application for review of a development concept with the ARB. Such submittal shall include a completed application form and supporting material sufficient to describe the development concept. The review of the informal submittal shall be non-binding upon the ARB and the applicant, however, it is intended to provide feedback by the ARB that should inform the preparation and subsequent review of the CP. The Planning Director shall prepare a brief analysis and comments that will be submitted to the ARB with the application.
(F) Concept plan.
(1) Purpose and applicability.
(a) The purpose of the Concept Plan (CP) is to provide a general outline of the scope, character, and nature of the proposed development that is consistent with the policy direction of the Community Plan, the Historic Design Guidelines, the requirements of the Historic Zoning Districts and those applicable to designated outlying resources, other related policy and regulatory documents, and the review criteria, and to consider the proposal within the context of existing and planned development within the vicinity of the project.
(b) The CP allows the required reviewing body the means to ensure that the proposed concept is consistent with the following:
1. That the proposed land uses are consistent with Community Plan, Historic Design Guidelines, and applicable Zoning Code requirements;
2. That the proposed development and layout are generally compatible with the existing development pattern and scale of development within Historic Dublin; or surrounding development for the designated outlying resources;
3. That the proposed development concept generally preserves and maintains the historic nature of a given site; and
4. That the proposed development concept has the potential to create a walkable, pedestrian scale place.
(c) The CP review provides an opportunity for public input at an early stage of the development process.
(d) The CP review is intended to provide clear direction to the applicant by the required reviewing body resulting from its review and approval of the application.
(e) If the CP is approved by the required reviewing body it shall serve as a basis for preparation by the applicant of the Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) for the proposed development.
(f) For projects that will propose a development agreement due to the need for development timeframe, public infrastructure, public and private contributions, development restrictions, or other related items, City Council shall serve as the required reviewing body for the CP. In those cases, the Director and the Architectural Review Board shall each review the CP and provide a recommendation to Council to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the CP.
(2) Review procedure.
(a) The CP is a mandatory step in the development review and approval process.
(b) An application for a CP shall be made in accordance with the provisions of divisions (P)(1) of this chapter.
(c) The ARB shall be the required reviewing body for the CP in Historic Dublin and any designated outlying property, unless a development agreement is proposed in conjunction with a proposed project, then City Council shall be the required reviewing body for the CP.
(d) The Director shall make a recommendation to the ARB for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the CP application under the criteria of division (F)(4) of this section.
(e) The ARB shall review the CP application, the minutes of the ARB meeting if an informal review was requested by the applicant, the Director’s recommendation, and render its decision based on the criteria of division (F)(4). In the instance the ARB is the required reviewing body, the Board will render a decision for approval, approval with conditions, or denial and written record of the Board’s decision shall be provided.
(f) In the instance of a CP associated with a proposed development agreement, the Board will make a recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or denial to City Council.
(g) City Council shall review the CP application and the recommendations of ARB and the Director, and render its decision based on the criteria of division (F)(4) of approval, approval with conditions, or denial.
(3) Submittal requirements. It is the intent of these regulations that the CP shall indicate overall design of the proposed project. Information submitted should be comprehensive enough to enable the required reviewing body to understand the existing site and concept for the proposed development, and to evaluate consistency with the review criteria in division (F)(4). The applicant shall submit an application and supplemental materials as outlined in division (P)(1) and determined by the Director.
(4) Review criteria. The required reviewing body shall make its decision on an application for a CP based on each of the following criteria and may consider the recommendation of the Director and, if City Council is the required reviewing body, the recommendation of the ARB. For applications associated with a development agreement, the ARB shall apply these criteria in the formulation of its recommendation to City Council.
(a) The CP is consistent with the applicable policy guidance of the Community Plan, applicable Zoning Code requirements, and other applicable city plans, and citywide administrative and financial policies;
(b) The CP is consistent with the Historic Design Guidelines;
(c) The CP conforms to the applicable requirements of the Code;
(d) The CP is consistent with surrounding historic context, character, and scale of the immediately surrounding area and the district as a whole;
(e) The applicant or applicant’s representative has demonstrated that it has technical expertise and experience with appropriate construction methods consistent with sound historic preservation practices;
(f) The illustrative lots, supporting street and pedestrian network, and internal circulation provide a coherent development pattern and the conceptual locations of access points to surrounding streets will avoid adverse impacts on surrounding neighborhoods and traffic infrastructure;
(g) The proposed land uses allow for appropriate integration into the community, consistent with adopted plans, and align with the requirements of § 153.172 Uses;
(h) The conceptual improvements are appropriately sited and scaled to create a cohesive development character that complements the surrounding environment, and conforms to the architectural requirements of § 153.174 Design Standards and the Historic Design Guidelines;
(i) The conceptual design of open spaces, including location and relationship to surrounding resources, provides for meaningful public gathering spaces that benefit the community both within and outside the proposed development; and
(j) The CP allows for the connection and or expansion of public or private infrastructure and the continued provision of services required by the city or other public agency.
(G) Preliminary development plan.
(1) Purpose and applicability.
(a) The purpose of the Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) is to establish a framework for the proposed development that is consistent with the requirements of the Community Plan, Historic Design Guidelines, applicable Zoning Code requirements, other adopted plans, policies, and regulations, and the review criteria.
(b) The PDP allows the ARB to ensure that the proposed development is consistent with the following:
1. That the street network provides a coherent and rational development pattern, and provide for walkable urbanism;
2. That the proposed building and site layout is appropriate to the location and surrounding neighborhood;
3. That planned open spaces and building types within the development are integrated in order to complement each other;
4. That the building design considers the general massing, scale and arrangement of other structures in the immediate vicinity;
5. That the architectural design be compatible the surrounding character and reflect key resources and landmarks within Historic Dublin.
6. 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;
7. That the proposed development will contribute to the creation of signature places in the city.
(c) The PDP is intended to establish the direction of the proposed development based on all applicable code requirements and shall refine the approved CP.
(d) If a PDP is approved by the ARB, such action shall be binding and shall serve as the basis for submittal of the Final Development Plan (FDP) for the proposed development or phases thereof.
(2) Review procedure.
(a) An application for a PDP may not be submitted prior to the review and approval of a CP.
(b) The PDP is a mandatory submittal requirement prior to filing a FDP. However, the PDP may be combined with the FDP at the request of the applicant, by motion of the ARB following its approval of the CP, or if recommended by the Director and agreed by the applicant.
(c) An application for PDP shall be submitted in accordance with the provisions of divisions (P)(1) of this section.
(d) The ARB shall be the required reviewing body for the PDP within Historic Dublin and for designated outlying resources.
(e) The Director shall make a recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the PDP application under the criteria of division (G)(4) of this section.
(f) The ARB shall review the PDP application and the recommendation of the Director and render its decision based on the criteria of division (G)(4) of this section for approval, approval with conditions, or denial. A written record of the Board’s decision shall be provided to the applicant.
(3) Submittal requirements. It is the intent of these regulations that a PDP shall provide information that is sufficient to ensure general conformity with the regulations and that can serve as a basis for the future consideration of a FDP. Information submitted should be sufficiently detailed to enable the ARB to understand the existing site and the PDP for the proposed development, and to evaluate consistency with the review criteria in division (G)(4). The applicant shall submit an application and supplemental materials as outlined in division (P)(1) and determined by the Director.
(4) Review criteria. The ARB shall make its decision on an application for a PDP based on each of the following criteria:
(a) The PDP shall be consistent with the approved CP, the record established by the required reviewing body, the associated staff report, and the Director’s recommendation;
(b) The development is consistent with the Community Plan, the Historic Zoning Districts requirements, applicable Zoning Code requirements, other adopted city plans, and related policies;
(c) The PDP is consistent with the Historic Design Guidelines;
(d) The proposed land uses align with all applicable requirements and use specific standards of § 153.172 Uses;
(e) The proposed PDP is consistent with surrounding historic context, character, and scale of the immediately surrounding area and the district as a whole;
(g) The proposed lots conform to the requirements of § 153.173;
(h) The proposed street types conform to the requirements and standards;
(i) The proposed design of the internal circulation system, driveways, and any connections to the public realm provide for safe and efficient access for pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles, and emergency services;
(j) The proposed design of improvements conforms to the Zoning Code and is consistent with the Historic Design Guidelines, while integrating with nearby development;
(k) The proposed open spaces are appropriately sited and designed to conserve or enhance natural features as appropriate, enhance the community both within and outside the proposed development;
(l) The scale and design of the proposed development allows for 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;
(m) The proposed development provides adequate stormwater management systems and facilities that comply with the applicable regulations of this code and any other applicable design criteria or regulations as adopted by the city or required by other government entities;
(n) The proposed development can be adequately serviced by existing and/or planned public or private infrastructure consistent with the city's most recently adopted capital improvements program;
(o) If the development is to be implemented in phases, each phase has adequate infrastructure to serve the development independently without the need for further phased improvements;
(p) The proposed development demonstrates consistency with the recommendations, principles, and intent of all applicable design standards and guidelines, including but not limited to resources, open spaces, and streetscapes; and
(q) The applicant or applicant’s representative has demonstrated that it has technical expertise and experience with appropriate construction methods consistent with sound historic preservation practices.
(H) Final development plan.
(1) Purpose and applicability.
(a) The purpose of the final development plan (FDP) is to confirm compliance with the PDP, all applicable requirements of the Code, Community Plan, Historic Design Guidelines, and other adopted plans, policies, and regulations, and the review criteria.
(b) The FDP allows the ARB to ensure that the proposed development is compliant with the following:
1. That the street network provides a coherent and rational development pattern, and provide for walkable urbanism;
2. That the proposed building are appropriate to the location and neighborhood, including assuring that the dimensions of a parcel meet the lot size requirements for the applicable zoning district;
3. That the architecture, building materials and colors, landscaping and buffering, and site layout create a functional, aesthetically appealing urban place;
4. That planned open spaces and building are integrated in order to complement each other;
5. 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; and
6. That the proposed development will contribute to the creation of signature places in the city.
(c) The FDP is intended to verify the proposed development, or phases of development, is in compliance with all applicable code requirements, and is consistent with the PDP.
(d) All development within Historic Dublin and designated outlying resources shall require an approved FDP prior to applying for site disturbance approval, CZPA, and/or building permits. In addition, the following development activities shall also require an approved FDP:
1. When a project involves the design or construction of new streets, or a proposed realignment or relocation of any street that is required or permitted by the city;
2. When a project requires land subdivision in accordance with Chapter 152; or
3. When a project does not meet the criteria for a Minor Project (MP).
(e) Applications for a FDP shall be reviewed by the ARB, whose approval shall be binding and shall serve as the regulatory and administrative document for zoning compliance.
(2) Review procedures.
(a) An application for a FDP shall be submitted in accordance with the provisions of divisions (H)(4) and (P)(1) of this section.
(b) The PDP may be combined with the FDP at the request of the applicant, by motion of the ARB at the time of CP review and approval, or recommended by the Director.
(c) The ARB shall be the required reviewing body for the FDP within the Historic Zoning Districts, and other designated outlying resources.
(d) The Director shall make a recommendation to the ARB for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the final development plan application under the criteria of division (H)(4) of this section.
(e) The ARB shall review the FDP application and the recommendation of the Director and render its decision based on the criteria of division (H)(4) of this section for approval, approval with conditions, or denial. A written record of the Board’s decision shall be provided.
(3) Submittal requirements. It is the intent of these regulations that a FDP shall provide final project information that is sufficient to ensure general conformity to an approved PDP. In cases where the applicant has been authorized to submit a combined PDP and FDP, then the submittal shall incorporate the required information for the PDP and as required below. Information should be sufficiently detailed to enable the ARB to understand the existing site and the FDP for the proposed project or a portion thereof, and to evaluate consistency with the review criteria in division (H)(4). The applicant shall submit an application and supplemental materials as outlined in division (P)(1) and determined by the Director.
(4) Review criteria. The ARB shall make its decision on an application for a FDP based on each of the following criteria:
(a) The FDP shall be substantially similar to the approved PDP, and consistent with the record established by the required reviewing body, the associated Staff Report, and the Director’s recommendation;
(b) The proposed development is consistent with the Community Plan, other adopted city plans, and citywide administrative and financial policies;
(c) The proposed development is consistent with the Historic Design Guidelines;
(d) The proposed FDP is consistent with surrounding historic context, character, and scale of the immediately surrounding area and the district as a whole;
(e) The proposed land uses conform to all applicable requirements and use specific standards of § 153.172 Uses;
(f) The proposed improvements are appropriately sited and conform to the requirements of § 153.173 Site Development Standards and the Historic Design Guidelines;
(g) The proposed street layout and lots conform to the requirements;
(h) The proposed design of the internal circulation system, driveways, and any connections to the public realm provide for safe and efficient access for pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles, and emergency services;
(i) The proposed design, architecture, and materials of buildings is consistent with the Historic Design Guidelines, while integrating with nearby development, and avoids overshadowing of existing historic resources and landmarks;
(k) The proposed open spaces are appropriately sited and designed to conserve or enhance natural features as appropriate, enhance the community, benefit the community both within and outside the proposed development;
(l) The scale and design of the proposed development allows for 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;
(m) The proposed development provides adequate stormwater management systems and facilities that comply with the applicable regulations of this code and any other applicable design criteria or regulations as adopted by the city or required by other government entities;
(n) The proposed development can be adequately serviced by existing and/or planned public or private infrastructure consistent with the city's most recently adopted capital improvements program;
(o) If the development is proposed to be implemented in phases, each phase has adequate infrastructure to serve the development independently without the need for further phased improvements;
(p) The proposed development demonstrates consistency with the recommendations, principles, and intent of all applicable design standards and guidelines, including but not limited to resources, open spaces, and streetscapes; and
(q) The applicant or applicant’s representative has demonstrated that it has technical expertise and experience with appropriate construction methods consistent with sound historic preservation practices.
(I) Minor project.
(1) Purpose and applicability. The purpose of the minor project (MP) is to provide an efficient review process for smaller projects that do not have significant community effects.
(2) Minor projects defined. The following projects shall be considered eligible for review and approval as an MP:
(a) Individual single-family detached dwelling units, including new construction, additions, alterations, and exterior modifications.
(b) Development of mixed use and nonresidential principal structures of 3,000 square feet or less gross floor area and associated site development requirements.
(c) Additions to principal structures that increase the gross floor area by not more than 25%, or not more than 1,500 square feet gross floor area, whichever is less, existing as of the effective date of this amendment, or when first constructed, and associated site development requirements.
(d) Exterior modifications to principal structures, except as outlined in the Administrative Approval § 153.176(N).
(e) Signs, landscaping, parking, and other site related improvements that do not involve construction of a new principal building.
(f) Accessory structures and uses.
(g) Parking plans when not associated with a PDP or a FDP.
(3) Review procedure.
(a) An application for a minor project MP shall be made in accordance with the provisions of divisions (I)(5) and (P)(1) of this section.
(b) The ARB shall be the required reviewing body for the MP.
(c) The Director shall make a recommendation to the ARB for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the MP under the criteria of division (I)(5).
(d) The ARB shall review the MP application and the Director’s recommendation, and render its decision based on the criteria of (I)(5) of this section for approval, approval with conditions, or denial. A written record of the ARB’s decision shall be provided.
(e) If the application is not approved by the ARB, the applicant shall be given the opportunity to revise the application in response to the ARB comments and resubmit for reconsideration.
(f) Decisions of the ARB are appealable to the BZA.
(4) Submittal requirements. It is the intent of these regulations that an application for a MP provides sufficient information to ensure general conformity to the applicable provisions of this code. The information should be sufficiently detailed to enable the required reviewing body to understand the existing site and the MP request for the proposed project or a portion thereof. An archeological assessment should be included. The applicant shall submit an application and supplemental materials as outlined in division (P)(1) and determined by the Director.
(5) Review criteria. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) shall make its decision on an application for a MP based on each of the following criteria and the recommendation of the Director:
(a) The MP shall be consistent with the Community Plan, applicable Zoning Code requirements, Historic Design Guidelines, and adopted plans, policies, and regulations;
(b) In cases where a MP is proposed within or as part of an approved PDP or FDP, the MP shall be consistent with such approved PDP or FDP;
(c) The MP shall be consistent with the record established by the required reviewing body, the associated staff report, and the Director’s recommendation;
(d) The proposed land uses meet all applicable requirements and use specific standards of § 153.172 Uses;
(e) The proposed development is consistent with the Historic Design Guidelines;
(f) The proposed MP is consistent with surrounding historic context, character, and scale of the immediately surrounding area and the district as a whole;
(g) The proposed buildings are appropriately sited and conform to the requirements of § 153.173 Site Development Standards and the Historic Design Guidelines; and
(h) The proposed site improvements, landscaping, screening, signs, and buffering shall meet all applicable requirements of the code and respond to the standards of the Historic Design Guidelines.
(J) Demolition.
(1) Purpose and applicability.
(a) The intent of a demolition is to provide an efficient process to demolish a resource within Historic Dublin or Appendix G.
(2) Demolition defined. The following projects shall be considered eligible for review and approval as a demolition:
(a) If the resource that is to be demolished is categorized as a landmark resource per a determination of the ARB using the Dublin Historic District Map as shown in the Historic District Guidelines and all Appendix G properties, the property owner or applicant shall demonstrate by credible evidence that the property owner will suffer economic hardship if the request to demolish is not granted. In determining whether the property owner has demonstrated economic hardship the Board shall consider the factors established in § 153.176(J)(5)(a).
(b) If the property that is to be demolished is categorized as a background resource per a determination of the ARB using the Dublin Historic District Map as shown in the Historic District Guidelines, the property owner or applicant shall demonstrate one of the criteria outlined in § 153.173(J)(5)(b) is met.
(c) If a property owner believes that a property designated as a landmark resource by the ARB is in fact background, they may present evidence to the ARB to that effect. Such a determination will be considered a waiver under § 153.176(L) and shall be subject to the waiver procedures. The ARB will be guided in its determination by the National Register of Historic Places criteria, including the National Register Bulletin 15 “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation”.
(3) Review procedures.
(a) An application for a demolition shall be made in accordance with the provisions of the divisions (J)(5) and (P)(1) of this section.
(b) The ARB shall be the required reviewing body for applications for a demolition within Historic Dublin and for any Appendix G resources.
(c) The ARB shall review the request after receiving a complete application and make a decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny, a demolition application under the criteria of division (J)(5) of this section. A written record of the Board’s decision shall be provided.
(d) The ARB may impose a waiting period not to exceed one year. During this period the ARB and the applicant shall make every reasonable effort to find an alternative to demolition. During this period, the owner of the structure shall maintain and preserve the structure to prevent further deterioration. If the Board and the applicant do not agree on a means of preserving the structure within the specified waiting period, the application for demolition may be approved or denied.
(e) A request for demolition may be transferred with the sale of the property. A new owner shall not be required to re-apply. However, the requirements of this section shall continue to apply to any new owner(s).
(f) A landmark resource shall not be demolished until a replacement structure has been approved by the ARB and until all necessary building permits for the replacement structure are granted.
(g) A background resource shall not be demolished until a site restoration plan has been approved by staff and an anticipated timeline for construction has been presented to staff. Site restoration shall include erosion control measures, site stabilization, and safety and security measures at a minimum, as determined by staff. Site vacancy in excess of one year may require additional site improvements, to be determined by staff.
(h) The applicant or owner shall provide documentation of identified cultural resources as part of the assessment outlined in § 153.174J(4) prior to demolition. Documentation shall be provided to Dublin Planning staff and may include photo or video evidence.
(4) Submittal requirements. It is the intent of these regulations that a demolition shall provide adequate information to justify the request to remove a structure. The information should be sufficiently detailed to enable the required reviewing body to understand the existing site and the MP request for the proposed project or a portion thereof. An assessment of cultural resources is required to be submitted with the application and supplemental materials as outlined in division (P)(1) and determined by the Director.
(5) Review criteria. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) shall make its decision on an application for a demolition based on each of the following criteria and the recommendation of the Director:
(a) If the resource that is to be demolished is categorized as a landmark resource, the applicant shall demonstrate by credible evidence that the property owner will suffer economic hardship if the request to demolish is not granted. In determining whether the property owner has demonstrated economic hardship the Board shall consider the following factors:
1. Will all economically viable use of the property be deprived without approval of the demolition.
2. Will the reasonable investment-backed expectations of the property owner be maintained without approval of the demolition.
3. Was the economic hardship created or exacerbated by the property owner.
4. In evaluating the factors established in divisions (J)(5)(a)1. through (J)(5)(a)3. above, the ARB may consider any or all of the following:
a. A property’s current level of economic return.
b. Any listing of the subject property for sale or rent, price asked, and offers received, if any, within the previous two years, including testimony and relevant documents.
c. The feasibility of alternative uses for the property that could earn a reasonable economic return.
d. Any evidence of self-created hardship through deliberate neglect or inadequate maintenance of the resource.
e. Knowledge of landmark designation or potential designation at time of acquisition.
f. Economic incentives and/or funding available to the applicant through federal, state, city, or private programs.
(b) If the resource that is to be demolished is categorized as a background resource the property owner shall demonstrate one of the following criteria are met.
1. By credible evidence the property owner will suffer economic hardship if the request to demolish is not granted. In determining whether the property owner has demonstrated economic hardship the Board shall consider the factors established in § 153.176(J)(5)(a).
2. The resource contains no features or architectural, historic, or archeological significance to the character of the area in which it is located.
3. The location of the resource impedes the orderly development of the District, substantially interferes with the purposes of the District, or detracts from the historical character of its immediate vicinity; or, the proposed construction to replace the demolished resource significantly improves the overall quality of the Architectural Review District without diminishing the historic value of the vicinity or the District.
(K) Administrative departures.
(1) Purpose and applicability.
(a) The intent of the administrative departure (AD) is to provide an efficient process to allow minor deviations from the strict application of the code 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.
(b) The AD shall not convey special rights or other approvals that would not otherwise result from a decision under this code.
(2) Administrative departure defined. An AD shall be limited to any modification of no greater than 10% to a numeric zoning standard related to building dimensions, lot dimensions or coverage, open space, landscaping, parking, fencing, walls, screening, or exterior lighting.
(3) Review procedure.
(a) An application for an AD shall be made in accordance with the provisions of divisions (K)(5) and (P)(1) of this section.
(b) The ARB shall be the required reviewing body for administrative departures.
(c) A request for an AD may be submitted with an application for a PDP, FD, MP, or at any other time as may be necessary.
(d) A request for an AD may be processed simultaneously with a PDP, FDP, or MP to which it relates.
(e) The Director shall make a recommendation to the ARB for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the AD under the criteria of division (K)(5).
(f) The ARB shall determine whether each requested AD is approved, approved with conditions, or denied. A written record of the ARB’s decision will be provided.
(g) Should the ARB find that the request does not meet the criteria for an AD, the applicant may request a waiver under the provisions of division (I) of this section or submit a new application for a FDP or MP, as applicable.
(4) Submittal requirements. It is the intent of these regulations that an application for an AD provides sufficient information to evaluate whether the request should be granted under divisions (K)(2) and (K)(5). The information should be sufficiently detailed to enable the required reviewing body to understand the existing site, proposed AD, and the related PDP, FDP or MP for the proposed project or a portion thereof. The applicant shall submit an application and supplemental materials as outlined in division (P)(1) and determined by the Director.
(5) Review criteria. The ARB shall make its decision on the requested AD based on the following criteria:
(a) The need for the AD is caused by unique site conditions, conditions on surrounding resources, and/or otherwise complies with the spirit and intent of the Community Plan, Historic Design Guidelines, other adopted city plans and policies, and all applicable requirements within §§ 153.170 through 153.178;
(b) The AD is not being requested simply to reduce cost or as a matter of general convenience;
(c) The AD does not have the effect of authorizing any use, sign, building type, or open space type that is not otherwise permitted in the applicable zoning district;
(d) The AD, if approved, does not adversely impact the pedestrian experience; and
(e) The AD, 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 AD.
(L) Waivers.
(1) Purpose and applicability. Under the provisions of this section, waivers are a process to allow deviations from specific code requirements that may only be granted by the ARB.
(2) Waivers defined. The following shall be considered eligible for review and approval as an waiver:
(b) A request for determination of a landmark versus background resource.
(3) Review procedure.
(a) An application for a waiver shall be made in accordance with the provisions of divisions (L)(4) and (P)(1) of this section.
(b) The ARB shall be the required reviewing body for waivers. In cases where a waiver
is submitted with a Minor Project (MP), the ARB shall be the required reviewing body for both the waiver and the MP.
(c) The waiver may be submitted with any application for a PDP or FDP.
(d) The Director shall make a recommendation to the ARB for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the waiver under the criteria of division (L)(5). Additional waivers determined by the Director during his/her review, may be included for review by the ARB.
(e) The ARB shall review the requested waiver using the criteria of division (L)(5) of this section. Should other waivers be necessary to resolve conflicts with other requirements of this chapter resulting from the requested waiver, those waivers shall also be reviewed by ARB.
(f) The ARB shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the waiver request. A written record of the ARB decision will be provided.
(4) Submittal requirements. It is the intent of these regulations that an application for a waiver provides sufficient information to evaluate whether the waiver should be granted under divisions (L)(3) and (L)(5). The information should be sufficiently detailed to enable the ARB to understand the existing site, proposed PDP, FDP, or MP, and the related waiver request for the proposed project or a portion thereof. The applicant shall submit an application and supplemental materials as outlined (P)(1) and determined by the Director.
(5) Review criteria. The ARB shall make its decision on an application for a proposed waiver based on all of the following criteria:
(a) The need for the waiver is caused by unique site conditions, the use of or conditions on the property or surrounding resources, or other circumstance outside the control of the owner/lessee, including easements and rights-of-way;
(b) The waiver, if approved, will not negatively impact the historic context of the immediately surrounding area or the district as a whole;
(d) The waiver is not being requested solely to reduce cost or as a matter of general convenience;
(e) The 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;
(f) The requested waiver is better addressed through the waiver rather than an amendment to the requirements of this chapter; and
(g) The waiver does not have the effect of authorizing any use that is not otherwise permitted in the applicable zoning district.
(h) In the event of waivers from numeric or dimensional standards, the waiver does not exceed 20%.
(i) In the event of waivers from determinations of contributing or noncontributing status, the provisions in § 153.175(J)(c) shall also apply.
(M) Master sign plan.
(1) Purpose and applicability.
(a) The purpose of the master sign plan (MSP) is to define the scope, character, and aesthetic quality of signs and sign regulations for an individual tenant, multi-tenant building, or multi-building development; while allowing an additional degree of flexibility and creativity in sign design and display.
(b) The MSP review is intended to confirm the proposed sign design or comprehensive sign plan is consistent with the development context, architectural character, and the Historic Design Guidelines. MSPs are not intended to permit larger or more visible signs, and are not intended to permit a greater number of signs without consideration of the Historic Design Guidelines.
(c) The MSP allows the ARB the means to evaluate the proposal for its consistency with §§ 153.170 through 153.178, the Community Plan, Historic Design Guidelines, and other adopted city plans, and the review criteria, and to consider the proposal within the context of existing and planned development within the vicinity of the project boundary.
(2) Review procedure.
(a) An application for a MSP shall be submitted in accordance with the provisions of divisions (M)(3) and (P)(1) of this chapter.
(b) The ARB shall be the required reviewing body for MSPs in Historic Dublin.
(c) The Director shall make a recommendation to the ARB for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the MSP application under the criteria of division (M)(4) of this section. The Director’s recommendation shall be provided prior to the respective public hearing.
(d) The ARB shall review the MSP application and the recommendation of the Director, and render its decision based on the criteria of division (M)(4) for approval, approval with conditions, or denial. A written record of the Board’s decision shall be provided.
(e) The applicant may request additional review meetings with the ARB.
(3) Submittal requirements. It is the intent of these regulations that the MSP shall indicate general information, sign design standards, and the area of applicability. Information submitted should be comprehensive enough to enable the ARB to understand the existing site and design concept for the proposed MSP. The applicant shall submit an application and supplemental materials as outlined in division (N)(1) and determined by the Director.
(4) Review criteria. The ARB shall render its feedback on an application for a MSP based on each of the following criteria and the recommendation of the Director.
(a) The MSP is consistent with the Community Plan, Historic Design Guidelines, and other adopted city plans and policies;
(b) The proposed signs are appropriately sited and scaled to create a cohesive character that complements the surrounding environment and meets the intent of the architectural requirements of § 153.174 Design Standards and the Historic Design Guidelines; and
(c) The proposed signs are not in conflict with public streets, open spaces, utilities, or rights-of-way, and do not impede the continued provision of services required by the city or other public agency.
(N) Administrative approval.
(1) Purpose and applicability.
(a) The Director may authorize an Administrative Approval (AA) to an approved FDP or MP that is required to correct any undetected errors or omissions, address conditions discovered during the permitting process or construction, or that is necessary to ensure orderly and efficient development.
(b) Any approved AA must be consistent with the intent of the related approved FDP or MP.
(c) The Director may also authorize an AA to existing structures and associated site improvements that are necessary to complete ordinary maintenance, refurbishment or Zoning Code compliance.
(2) Administrative approval defined. The following are considered AA’s:
(a) Adjustments to lot lines;
(b) Adjustments to the location and layout of parking lots;
(c) Adjustments of up to 10% in total building floor area or floor plan;
(d) Adjustments to building height up to 10% for no more than 10% of the floorplate of the highest occupied floor when necessary to accommodate building equipment or features required to comply with building code;
(e) Substitution of landscaping materials specified in the landscape plan;
(f) Redesigning and/or relocating stormwater management facilities;
(g) Relocating fencing, walls or screening (not including screening walls);
(h) Modifications to sign location, sign face, landscaping and lighting;
(i) Changes in building material;
(j) Changes in building color, in compliance with the approved Historic Paint Color palette;
(k) Changes required by outside agencies such as the county, state, or federal departments; and/or
(l) 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.
(3) Review procedure.
(a) An application for an AA shall be made in accordance with the provisions of divisions (N)(4) and (P)(1) of this section.
(b) The Director shall be the required reviewing body for applications for an AA.
(c) The Director shall review the request after receiving a complete application and make a decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny an AA application under the criteria of division (N)(5) of this section. The Director’s decision shall be provided to the applicant in writing.
(d) The Director may forward any AA application to the ARB for consideration. In making such a determination, the Director shall conclude that the application raises complex issues, including that the proposal is of such magnitude that it has a detrimental effect on the approved development or there are neighborhood or community wide effects that may result if the proposal is approved, that would benefit from a public review and decision by the ARB.
(e) If denied, or approved with conditions, the applicant shall be given the opportunity to revise the request in response to the Director's comments and resubmit for further consideration.
(f) Requests not meeting the requirements for an AA shall require the filing and approval of a new application for a FDP, MP or other application as applicable, in accordance with this section.
(g) Decisions may be appealed to ARB.
(4) Submittal requirements. It is the intent of these regulations that an application for an AA provides sufficient information to ensure general conformity to the applicable provisions of this code and the approved FDP or MP, and to evaluate whether the AA should be granted under division (N)(2) and (N)(5). The information should be sufficiently detailed to enable the Director to understand the existing site and the AA request for the proposed project or a portion thereof. The applicant shall submit an application and supplemental materials as outlined (P)(1) and determined by the Director.
(5) Review criteria. The Director shall make his or her decision on an application for a proposed AA based on all of the following criteria:
(a) Adjustments to lot lines do not create additional lots, required setbacks and/or RBZs are maintained, and the boundaries to any approved PDP, FDP, or MP are not altered;
(b) Adjustments to the location and layout of parking lots maintain the perimeter setbacks, yards, buffers, and required parking;
(c) Adjustments for buildings do not alter the character or the use of the originally approved building, building height(s), or floor plans except as provided for in division (K)(2);
(d) Substitution of landscaping materials shall be of an equal or greater size and quality as the approved materials;
(e) Redesigned and/or relocated stormwater management facilities shall maintain the approved general character of said facilities and the approved stormwater capacities;
(f) Relocating fencing, walls, or screening (not including screening walls) shall maintain the same level and quality of materials and screening;
(g) Modifications to sign location, sign face, and related landscaping and lighting, shall maintain the approved general sign design, number of signs, and dimensional requirements;
(h) Changes in building material shall be similar to and have the same general appearance comparable to previously approved material; such changes shall be of equal or higher quality than the previously approved material;
(i) Changes in color shall be complementary to the architectural design and character of the building;
(j) The modification is not being requested solely to reduce cost or as a matter of general convenience; and
(k) The requested modification would be better addressed through the modification rather than an amendment to the requirements of this chapter or to the approved FDP or MP.
(O) Other applicable approvals.
(1) Conditional uses. The conditional use approval procedures in § 153.236 shall apply in the Historic Zoning Districts. The PZC is the required reviewing body for Conditional Use applications.
(2) Zoning map or text amendment. The amendment procedures of § 153.234 shall apply in the Historic Zoning Districts. In addition, a recommendation from the Director shall be submitted for consideration by the PZC and City Council.
(3) Preliminary and final plats. Reviews of preliminary and final plats shall be governed by Chapter 152 of the Dublin Code of Ordinances.
(4) Special permit. The special permit procedures in § 153.231(G) shall apply in the Historic Zoning Districts.
(5) Zoning variance. The zoning variance procedures in § 153.231(H) shall apply in the Historic Zoning Districts. In addition, a recommendation from the Director shall be submitted for consideration by the Board of Zoning Appeals, and for City Council in the instance of a use variance.
(6) Public tree permit. The tree permit requirements of § 153.134(G) shall apply in the Historic Zoning Districts.
(P) General provisions.
(1) Applications.
(a) Each application required by this section 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 shall include all information required by the city, unless deemed unnecessary by the Director based on the nature and scale of the proposed development. No application shall be accepted and processed by the city until it is deemed complete by the Director. If found to be incomplete, the Director shall inform the applicant of any additional materials required to certify that the application is complete.
(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) No application for a FDP that has been denied by the ARB 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) The Director may approve the simultaneous review of applications required by this subchapter and/or a subdivision plat required by the code, if the Director determines that simultaneous review will not adversely impact the achievement of the purpose and intent of this subchapter. The provisions of § 153.176(G) and (H) govern relative to the filing of a combined PDP and FDP.
(f) Where public reviews are required by this subchapter, a written notice of the public meeting shall be sent, not less than ten days prior to the meeting, 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. 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 this section shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the required reviewing body based on the applicable review criteria as provided in this section and other applicable provisions of this chapter. 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.
(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 this section and other applicable provisions of this chapter, but determines that the application could meet those criteria with modifications that could not be reasonably conditioned, the applicant may request that the decision on the application be postponed to provide the opportunity to make those modifications.
(c) The ARB shall apply the standards and guidelines within the context of a site to either grant waivers or place conditions of approval that impose additional restrictions. In considering waivers or conditions that impose additional restrictions, the ARB shall consider the historic context of the immediately surrounding area and the district as a whole.
(d) Following the approval of a FDP or MP, the applicant may proceed with the process for obtaining a certificate of zoning plan approval (CZPA) and building permit (BP), consistent with the approval as granted. All construction and development under any BP shall comply with the approved FDP and MP, and any other approval, as applicable.
(3) Certificate of zoning plan approval. A CZPA 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 the Historic Zoning Districts.
(4) Code administration. The ARB may evaluate and monitor the application of the requirements and standards of §§ 153.170 through 153.178 by the Director. The ARB may advise the Director as to whether it finds that the requirements or standards (including requests for an AA) are being applied correctly, and recommend to City Council any changes needed to better implement the Community Plan, Historic Design Guidelines, and other related policy and regulatory documents adopted by the city.
(5) Duration of approvals.
(a) Because the review of an informal application is non-binding on the city and does not result in a decision by the ARB, the comments made during the informal application review do not expire. However, if the applicant makes any material change in the informal application following the review, the applicant should not assume that the previous informal review comments remain applicable to the revised application.
(b) An approved CP shall be valid for a period of no more than one year. If an application has not been filed for a PDP for at least a portion of the site within that one-year period, then the CP shall no longer be valid. A new CP application shall be required in accordance with the requirements of this chapter.
(c) An approved PDP shall be valid for a period of no more than two years. If a FDP application for at least a portion of the site has not been filed within that two-year period, then the PDP shall no longer be valid. A new PDP application shall be required in accordance with this chapter.
(d) An approved FDP shall be valid for a period of no more than two years. If a building permit and/or CZPA has not been filed for at least a portion of the project within the two-year period, the FDP shall no longer be valid. A new FDP application shall be required in accordance with this chapter.
(e) An approved MP shall be valid for a period of no more than two years. If a building permit and/or CZPA for at least one portion of the site has not been filed within that two-year period, then the MP shall no longer be valid. A new MP application shall be required in accordance with this chapter.
(f) Abandonment.
1. Once a final approval is granted by the required reviewing body, if 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 make the determination 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 resource, 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. Once the Director of Building Standards makes a determination of abandonment, if a new application is not submitted within 90 days from the date of the determination, 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 the determination of abandonment. If the owner fails to restore the site to its previous condition within 180 days, the city may take any and all actions necessary to restore the site to its previous condition, including removing any structures or other evidence of work, and the costs of removal shall be assessed against the property.
(Ord. 03-21, passed 2-22-21; Am. Ord. 65-23, passed 12-11-23)