Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-25-1995 Com Dev ComCommunity Development Committee of Dublin City Council Minutes of Meeting October 25,1995 Attending: Denise King, Chairperson Judi Stillwell Bobbie Clarke Mrs. King called the meeting to order at 7:30 a.m. The clerk reported that Mr. Zawaly is unable to attend due to a court hearing he must attend. Mrs. King noted a correction to page 1 of the minutes of September 27. It should read, "She further stated that she has heard that the City of Delaware supports taking the turnpike to the west of Delaware near the airport." Strike the rest of the sentence which follows. Mrs. Stillwell moved approval with this correction. Mrs. King seconded the motion. Motion carried. Township Zoning Classifications for Area South of Post, North of 33, East of Averv, West of 270 Ms. Clarke distributed a zoning map of the area to the Committee, noting that the Council minutes had specified to include "other township zonings that are outdated in the same classification." Mr. Cline contends that the LI zoning south of Post is a carryover township zoning that was never adopted by Dublin; this is not the position of Dublin's Law Director, however. She has delineated old township areas that came into Dublin with annexations, citing the Code section 1121.03 which states that the City will reinforce the township zoning until such time as the City establishes its own zoning. Dublin does not have a classification R-lA or R-113 but a lot of annexed land is in those classifications. The map has been colored to show the similarly situated parcels. Yellow is single family, orange is multi -family. The Non -conforming orange parcel is the Ponderosa trailer park. She explained that the EU is "exceptional use" in the township and permits a variety of commercial uses for the Dublin Party House. The industrial areas are shown in gray - two along Avery Road are RI and PIP. The PIP has no standards and thus is difficult to enforce. The RI standards in the township are different from those in the City. The R-lA piece along 270 is the Thomas piece and is in for rezoning as part of the Kohler application. On the east side of 270 along Rings Road there is a section of R- lA down where Dublin built the water tower. Mrs. King stated she has concerns about rezoning an area where there is an owner residing on the property. Some of the homeowners have told her that they cannot afford to stay in their homes once they are rezoned to commercial due to the increased taxes. Ms. Clarke commented that according to the auditor's office, the zoning does not impact the taxes. Taxes are based on recent transactions in the area whether or not the surrounding properties are Com Dev. Committee 10-25-95 rezoned. Page 2 Mrs. King stated that in terms of prioritizing, doing them all at once would require a tremendous amount of staff time for meeting with owners. The goal of the city -sponsored rezoning was to have appropriate land use categories for parcels that are likely to develop in a non-residential way, especially those across from a residential area as on Post Road. So in terms of prioritization, a rezoning for non-residential uses in a generally residential area would be a first priority. That would include the LI and the PIP and the RI. Mrs. Stillwell asked which areas would need the most protection against the risk of this development. Ms. Clarke responded that she believes the doubling in size of the trailer park would alarm many people. The NC along the south side of Rings Road, and the Dublin Party Bam as a long-established commercial property fall in a different class from the area along Post Road. 'Ihhhere is one property along Post Road, the cross -hatched area, which is a separate rezoning. This piece has the Justice Center and office flex space that Jensen & Cline developed later and separately. It is zoned LI, but does not fall in the same classification as the rest. Mrs. Stillwell suggested phasing this effort, sticking with Post Road area first and picking up the other areas subsequently. Ms. Clarke pointed out that there is LI zoning at the Post and Avery corner and another single-family home still has LI zoning further down Post. Mrs. King stated that her motion did not include SuperAmerica site. She asked how the owners of the RIII, PIP and LI south of 33 would react to a potential city -sponsored rezoning. Ms. Clarke responded that one parcel is owned by the Sutphens. The one between 33 and Shier Rings is from a late annexationnn - she does not know who the owners are. Mrs. King has concerns that while the initial effort should focus on the Post Road area, she does not want the other areas to get lost. The Dublin Code states that "as soon as practicable after annexation, proceedings shall be instituted by P & Z to include the annexed territory in one or more of the zoning districts defined in the Zoning Ordinance." There is thus every reason to pursue moving all of these parcels into a Dublin zoning district. Ms. Clarke stated that following the major annexations, there were city -sponsored rezonings - Dan Sheri, Woods of Old Dublin and the area including Cara Court. In spite of the straight forward zoning change to Dublin for these areas, they turned out to be surprisingly controversial. So staff did not proceed with some of the other zoning changes. Mrs. Stillwell suggested pursuing the ones north of 33 and phasing the others. Com Dev. Committee Page 3 10-25-95 Mrs. King asked about the logical Dublin zoning classification for the LI and the Justice Center/office area south of Post. Ms. Clarke responded that the office flex space would not fit within the SO; other than that, the SO would be appropriate. The positive uses would be office or hotel. Hotel would be tricky because it is a commercial zone. Suburban office would include medical offices, clinics, libraries, art galleries, colleges, hospitals. She does not see anything objectionable in the SO category. The land may be suitable for higher uses with appropriate development standards. Mrs. Stillwell asked about the risk of initiating a city -sponsored rezoning. Ms. Clarke stated that the Thomas family would be the major impacted property owners. Since the City needs cooperation with the Thomas family on a number of parcels throughout the City, it would probably be interpreted as a downzoning of their property. Mrs. King stated that this issue arose from the Post Road residents' concern about the continuing danger of commercial development south of Post Road. The only areas at risk seem to be the single-family LI piece along Post Road, the Thomas property, and the triangle near 270 and Post. She believes the City should discuss this matter with the property owners prior to taking any action. What is the risk of the single-family LI parcel? Ms. Clarke responded that a gas station would not be a permitted use. This piece has been zoned LI for 20 years and nothing has happened. The City will soon undertake the Perimeter Drive extension through this site and does not own the right-of-way. Downzoning the properties at this time could be perceived suspiciously by property owners. Mrs. Stillwell moved to put this matter on hold for 6 months to a year. Mrs. King stated that the other factor is that the Committee has reviewed the materials provided by the Planning Director, and the scope of the problem is less than originally thought, and the appropriateness of immediate action is not clear, and therefore the Committee feels that no action should be taken at this time. Ms. Clarke suggested that staff update the Committee within 6 months to a year to re-evaluate and see where the City is with right-of-way acquisition. Mrs. Stillwell stated that in reviewing the Post Road area, the Committee became aware that there are some areas in the southwest which should be addressed. Ms. Clarke suggested that the Planning Commission review this and iniiitiate appropriate rezonings. Mrs. King summarized that the Planning Commission be requested to review the areas with township zoning and initiate appropriate city action to change them to city zonings, giving highest priority to industrial use classifications, non -conforming uses, and exceptional uses, and the mobile home park. Com Dev. Committee Page 4 10-25-95 Citv-Wide Fence Standards Mrs. King reported that the Brighton Park developer is now moving to create a homeowners association for the development. This is a start to resolving the problems. The existing fence code was distributed with the minutes. Mrs. King suggested deleting from 1309.04 chain link and privacy fences and inserting them under 1309.04(e) which are the prohibited fences, with additional language, except that privacy fences may be permitted to enclose a pool as required under section 1309.05." Chain link fences would also need to be deleted from 1309.05 if that is what the Committee wnts to recommend. Mrs. Stillwell stated that the motion to the Committee was to study the feasibility of a city-wide fence standard. Mrs. King stated that a redrafted fence Code should then be circulated to all of the interested parties. Ms. Clarke commented that some other issues arise with fences other than staking the perimeter of properties - dog runs, landscaped trellis work, "big dog" fences, tennis courts made out of fencing, and pools have certain fencing needs. These must be worked into the ordinance. Mrs. King asked how the tennis court matter could be handled - a separate section or as an exception to the Code basis. Ms. Clarke stated that the fence code is officially part of the Building Code and is not under the jurisdiction of the BZA. Fence code issues have been taken to the BZA because there is not an existing board to address this issue. Exceptions by the Board are variances which require a hardship. In a conventional sense, it would be hard to establish a hardship for a tennis court. Thhere are not that many situations where there is adequate land for a tennis court in Dublin. She would prefer to deal with tennis courts in a straightforward manner in the Code. She would suggest that a permiiitted type of fence would be for a tennis court, it would have to be within the buildable area of the lot, restrict the height, and maybe permit chain link for this use only. Black is the most invisible chain link in the central Ohio area She asked if the desire is to create a standard more closely aligned with Indian Run Meadow and substantially restricts privacy fences on the rear and sides of lots. They agreed, Judi added that design standards should be included, and the goal should be to maintain the open space feeling of neighborhoods. Mrs. King agreed. The situation of large dogs would require different measures - perhaps the type of electronic fence which contains the dog. Mrs. Stillwell doesn't know if this can be legislated. It is a personal freedom issue. Mrs. King has concerns that Indian Run standard everywhere still requires flexibility for large dogs. Com Dev. Committee Page 5 10-25-95 Mrs. Stillwell - is Indian Run standard the best? Ms. Clarke offered that the desire is for consistency. The Indian Run split rail is an open fence as are the Muirfield fences. The split rail offers more visibility. Both of these have been established in broad areas of Dublin along with the stone walls. The goal is consistency to convey a sense of place as New Albany does with their white picket fences. Split rail fence restrictions are the standard for Heather Glen, Indian Run Meadow, Brighton Park, Lowell Trace, Sheffield Place, Wellington, Wexford Woods. black wire mesh on back. The only other est5ablished fence is the Muirfield fence. They plan to change the color thereto a lighter shade of brown. Mrs. King noted that in view of the neotraditional designs in vogue, she would not want to prohibit a picket fence in that type of area Leaving section 1309.03(c)(2) intact would allow picket fences. It would also be advisable to add that rail fences are permitted to be faced with black mesh to contain children and small dogs. Mrs. Stillwell stated that she would be interested in fence restrictions from other areas such as New Albany. Mrs. King suggests that c-1 be revised to make reference to the black wire mesh; that a section be added for tennis courts permitting black chain link fence; that chain link and privacy fences be deleted entirely under permitted fences, paragraphs 1309.04(b) and (c). The other question under open ornamental fences, should decorative iron be allowed. The trouble is if we have split, picket and iron rail there is then no city-wide standard which defeats the purpose. She would like to see these changes put into a draft ordinance, circulated to designers and developers of neighborhoods, steering committee of Com. Plan, then get Council's reaction. if ready, introduce it as an ordinance. Ms. Clarke stated that more work is needed. The fence Code is out of date and inview of the many revisions, it should be rewritten. In terms of privacy fences, basket weave fences are no longer sold. Mrs. Stillwell suggested that the Committee could indicate that these are their concerns with the existing fence code and refer it to the Planning Department to rewrite it. Mrs. King suggested hiring a consultant and develop a recommendation. Mrs. Stillwell supported this. Ms. Clarke asked about the timeframe. It is not a major task, but it will require meetings with devopers, civic associations, etc. She believes that it could be done within 6 months. Mrs. King expressed concern with the interim period and how fence permits would be handled. Mrs. Stillwell suggested a moratorium on any new fence permits for the duration. Mrs. King stated she would advocate removing chain link and privacy fences from the list of permitted fences as well as basket weave during the time the code is being rewritten. A moratorium on fence permits will not work for those who need them to contain children or a large dog. Mrs. Stillwell stated that she could support this. Com Dev. Committee Page 6 10-25-95 Ms. Clarke suggested that an interim fence code be proposed with the understanding that within a period of one year, the entire chapter will be rewritten. Mrs. King stated that the interim changes would include include deleting chain link and privacy fences from the list of permitted fences; adding the option of facing the fence with black wire mesh to the definition of rail or split rail; deleting basket weave from 1309.03(b)(1). Mrs. Stillwell stated that deleting basket weave would be unnecessary since you are deleting the opportunity to have privacy fences as a permitted fence. Mrs. King responded except under swimming pools which is 1309.05 "Also delete chain link from 1309.05. (or metal chain link or" is deleted) Mrs. King also proposed changing the (b) privacy fence section by eliminating 1 and 2. eliminate permitted privacy fences are: Include after air The design of which must be approved by the City Planning Director. Mrs. King asked that the recommendation to Council be that the Law Director be asked to draft this legislation to be brought to Council as an interim recommendation with the understanding that a more thorough review with a lot of input will be done over the next 6 months to a year. Ms. Clarke noted that she believes that all of the penalty sections have been revised. This will be checked out with the Code update. Other Mrs. King noted that a letter has been sent on October 19 from Bill Shuck, Priscilla Mead and Amy Salerno seeking input by October 31 regarding Council's preferences regarding I-73. Options are: 1) I support rerouting I-73 along 270 west; 2 I oppose 3 i need more information and would attend a meeting 4 i prefer to participate in the existing working group 5 this is not a high priority for my community and no action is needed. Since Council or the Committee will not meet by October 31, she is hoping that a recommendation could be drafted and made to Council so that a response can be made to this letter. If not, she will fill it out as an individual responding. Ms. Crandall stated that Mr. Hansley is seeking guidance from this Committee as to whether they desire that someone from staff participate in the working group. Mrs. King and Mrs. Stillwell responded that they do support staff participation in this effort and thought that Mr. Kindra was doing so. Mrs. Stillwell indicated that she does not want this routed along 270 west - she could support it along 270 east. Mrs. King agreed, adding that she believes a letter should be drafted stating that the Committee Com Dev. Committee 10-25-95 Page 7 recommends to Council that they oppose routing I73 along 270 west, noting that the Committee does not feel that I-73/74 should be a high priority for funding except to the extent that it improves the flow of traffic on I-270 north by creating alternatives to 23 north of 270. Mrs. Stillwell suggested not returning the survey, but composing a letter instead. Ms. Clarke suggested that the survey be sent back because all of the responses will eventually be compiled and printed. If Dublin has a view about the direction to be taken and wants to register their vote, it should be returned. Mrs. King proposed checking no. 2, 4 and 5 and that "no action is needed" be crossed out and state that "this isn't a higih priority compared to other projects except to the extent that traffic that would have comedown 23 and clogged up 270 is diverted." She will include a cover letter as well. Mrs. Stillwell moved that this response be sent back and that this matter be reported back to Council at the next meeting. Mrs. King seconded the motion.