Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/21/1986 Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin Village Council Meeting ~ Meeting National Graphics Corp., Cols., O. Form No. 1097 ~ Held 19. May 21, 1986 r ~ ,..... '-- ,.... ! .. I I At 7:00 P.M. there was a special meeting of the Dublin Village Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission to discuss the proposed Planned Industrial District (P.I.D.) ordinance and rezoning the Post Road area to P.I-D. Members of Council present were: Mr. Amorose, Mr. Jankowski, Ms. Maurer, Mr. Rozanski, Mr. Sutphen, and Mr. Thornton. Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission Dresent were: Mr. Berlin, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Geese, Mr. Grace, and Mr. Jezerinac. In the absence of Mayor Close, Vice Mayor Maurer chaired the meeting. Ms. Maurer gave the following background information: 1. The Land Use Planning Committee of Council has met with staff and with Mr. Grace, Mr. Jezerinac, and Mr. Reiner of the Planning and Zoning Commission. At the last meeting the committee reviewed a revised version of the new zoning ordinance that was suggested in the presentation made by Trott and Bean in their study of the LI District in the Post Road area. What they suggested was that the Village have a Planned Industrial District for the purpose of combining office and light industrial uses. Ms. Maurer also suggested a discussion regarding design review; if so, what kind; should there be standards set as there are in Worthington and other places, etc. She suggested that members of the Planning and Zoning Commission let their members know if this issue is of enough importance to them for Council to pursue it in the Land Use Planning Committee meetings. The same request, she said, would be made in discussion of natural resource and stream protection, specifically referring to the North Fork of Indian Run. 2. 3. 4. Mr. Bowman had the following comments: 1. The ordinance was an outgrowth of a study done by Frank Elmer of Trott and Bean, specifically as it relates to the Post Road Study. Would like to take the Planned Industrial District and "push it forward". Mr. Elmer looked at the type Village was getting; that it compatible with a lot of the OCLC, Adria, etc.). Traditionally, codes have tried to separate office uses from light industrial uses or general industrial uses. The Planned Industrial District offers a chance to combine both; a range of office uses as well as a range of light industrial uses. A procedure has been devised whereby 1) a comprehensive plan would be reviewed; and 2) each of the individual site plans would be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Typical case. A developer comes in with a piece of raw land. It could go office; it could go industrial; the developer is not sure what the market is. The land use capability would be is made independent of the plan. not even submit a plan. If the land is zoned in the P.I.D. the developer would then come back at some point and submit a comprehensive development plan that would be reviewed both by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Council - typical preliminary plan requirements of a P.U.D. (streets, perimeter design, space easements, preliminary utilities, etc.). In Phase 2 the Village would actually get to the site development plan. Each individual site would be brought in to the Planning and Zoning Commission"against the intent as well as some of the site develop- ment standards listed in the ordinance and well as some building 2. 3. of industrial office growth that the is of a lighter variety and is very office development in Dublin (Ashland, 4. 5. 6. 7. examined. The land use decision The developer at that point need 8. 9. ----~' Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin Village Council Meeting ~ Meeting National Graphics Corp., Cols., O. Form No. 1097 ~ Held .19 May 21, 1986 r I ~ 10. 11. 12. ".".. , \... Page Two design. The Comprehensive Development Plan portion of it really was essentially the old Planned Industrial Park District standards. In the Site Development Plan phase. essentially followed is the Corridor Development District Review procedure. Mr. Bowman said that included is the regulation that the lot can only be developed up to 75% (both building and pavement). Mr. Bowman said that something would have to be put in about the pre- vailing codes for building setbacks. A very high opacity will be required. Ms. Maurer pointed out the following areas in which there was discussion during the committee meeting: 1. 2. A one acre minimum lot requirement in the P.I.D. Maximum lot coverage. There was some question raised about whether 75% was right, or should it be 60%, 80%, etc. Mr. Bowman will present some examples at a later date. Building Design Requirements. It had originally read that the design of new structures must take into account the design of structures already there. The strong objection to that was that the very first building would set the design for the rest of the area. At this time, the design review issue came up as to whether the Village needed to have very specific things to indicate what people should have in their designs, or something else. Mr. Bowman said that he had rewritten that section, and gave to those present a copy of the written changes. 3. 4. Ms. Maurer said that there was discussion regarding the size of the setback from the highway, the size of trees in the area, what should be the opacity of the trees in the area. etc. Mayor Close arrived at the meeting. With regard to the rewritten section, Mr. Bowman said that he had written a new set of guidelines that talked about materials, that talked a little bit more about totality, a little bit more about compatibility, quality of design, specifying a little bit more about what the members want out of materials but not going specifically into anyone. Mr. Jezerinac suggested that reconsideration be given to the entire perimeter of what is defined as P.I.D.; especially what happens along u.S. 33 and what happens along Post Road. Consideration being given to making that "green belt" on those areas greater than 35'. Mr. Callahan asked what the procedure was to convert LI to P.I.D. In areas which have the LI classification it would have to be done by resolution of Council. Ms. Maurer suggested that by Council resolution that the entire Post Road area be zoned P.I.D. Mr. Bowman said that there are incentives to go for the P.I.D.; 1) the combination of uses; 2) better development standards. Mr. Amorose asked what happens to the remaining LI zoning classification areas. Mr. Bowman said that the Village needs to come up with a LI zoning clas- sification, other than the P.I.D., minimizing the objectionable uses within the current LI zoning classification. Mr. Callahan mentioned the recent request in the Frantz Road area for office and office/warehouse. He indicated that he thought that office and warehouse are not necessarily compatible. r ! ... I --~., RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin Village Council Meeting ~ Meeting National Graphics Corp., Cols., O. Form No. 1097.... Held May 21, 1 986 19. Page Three r ~ Mr. Callahan said that if an area were to be changed from LI, then the Village should come as close as possible to SLR. Warehouse space, in his opinion, does not benefit the Village. Mr. Callahan also said that if the zoning were to be changed, he felt that the Village should "go higher than the P.I.D.". He also suggested that the percentage of office versus warehouse should be limited. Mr. Bowman said that the more specific definition given the better off the Village will be. He also said that what was being done with the proposed ordinance was including all suburban office and limiting light industrial uses: getting rid of the old Planned Industrial Park District. Mr. Callahan suggested that the classification of General Industrial be eliminated. Ms. Maurer adjourned the joint meeting. "... The regular meeting of the Dublin Village Council was called to order by Mayor Michael L. Close at 7:39 P.M. Mr. Thornton led the Pledge of Allegiance. Members of Council present were: Mr. Amorose, Mayor Close, Mr. Jankowski, Ms. Maurer, Mr. Rozanski, Mr. Sutphen, and Mr. Thornton. Mr. Sheldon, Village Manager, and Mr. Banchefsky of the Law Director's office were present. Members of staff present were: Mr. Bowman. Ms. Clarke, Ms. Jordan, Ms. Prushing, and Mr. Warner. Mr. Amorose moved to approve the minutes of the April 21st meeting of Council. Mr. Jankowski seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor. '-. Mr. Amorose moved to approve the minutes of the May 5th meeting of Counc i l. Mr. Thornton seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor. Mr. Sutphen moved to approve paying the bills. Mr. Rozanski seconded the motion. The vote was 7-0 in favor of paying the bills. There was no correspondence. r t if ..... Public Hearing Ordinance No. 35-86 - Proposed Cemetery Fee Structures for Grave Sites, etc. There were no registered proponents or opponents. Mayor Close said that the ordinance will be heard for a third reading at the Council meeting of June 2, 1986, at 7:30 P.M. Mr. Sutphen suggested that an area be set aside for long term Dublin residents who may not be able to pay the required fees for same. Public Hearing Ordinance No. 36-86 - Amending Codified Ordinances Section 1109.2 Regarding Park Fees. There were no registered proponents or opponents. Mayor Close announced that the third and final reading will be on June 2, 1986. I -'.. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1\J inutes of Dublin Villaee Council Mp,f'tin9 ~ Meeting National Graphics Corp., Cols., O. Form No. 1097 ~ Held t-iay 21, 1986 .19. Page Four ,.... \... ,,- Resolution No. 07-86 - Locating a School Site in Earlington Subdivision. Third Reading. Mr. Thornton said that he would like to amend Resolution No. 07-86 to add the reverter clause as an amendment to the resolution. The Clerk read the "Memorandum of Understanding Between the Village Counci and the Board of Education of the Dublin Local Schools". Further discussion followed as recorded here. Ms. Maurer made the following comments: 1. The Memorandum of Understanding does not reflect what she was asking for. 2. The discussion previously revolved around specifics - size of site, type of facilities, kinds of park areas, etc. 3. Referred to the last sentence which spoke with regard to cooperative use. She said that it was not her understanding that the last sentence was being agreed to, and that was that the buildings, etc. would be open to the public when not being used by the school. She said that it was her understanding that there would be a cooperative use of the facilities. Ms. Maurer indicated that she felt that this would permit the use of the facilities to be completely negated if the school were using them all the time. 4. The discussion regarding the amount of acreage is not reflected. 5. A basic concern about the Village providing for this use on that 26 acres. That basic concern going back to the fact that the Village has not had a study for the need for parks in the Village since 1978. That study indicating the need for nine neightborhood parks and several large facilities for active use. Mayor Close pointed out that Council was not discussing the underlying resolution but discussing the motion to amend. He suggested voting on Mr. Thornton's amendment and then proceeding on to the underlying issues. \.- ,.., 1 ...... Ms. Maurer said that she was uncomfort~ble and would not agree to vote for the amendment because she was anticipating a much more specific statement from the Village Attorney. Mr. Thornton said that the reason for offering the amendment was that it did make him feel more comfortable in the whole picture. It is an attempt to get a cooperative effort started between the school system and the Village. Mr. Rozanski said that he was uncomfortable because a piece of information as important as this Memorandum of Understanding was given to members of Council at such short notice (just prior to the meeting). He said that he felt that such information should be provided at such a time that members of Council would have an opportunity to study same. Mayor Close said that the resolution, as amended, indicates the Council's intent - that the fact of the matter is that without subsequent legislatio which includes a specific lease, that the Village has obligated them- selves to do nothing except obligate the Village to cooperate with the School Board. The purpose of the resolution being to agree to an intention to go forward to negotiate with the school for a lease for the site. Mayor Close said for that reason that he supported the amendment. Responding to a question from Ms. Maurer Mr. Thornton said that the amendment "puts in writing what Council's basic philosophy will be". The vote on the amendment was as follows: Mr. Jankowski, yes; Mr. Sutphen, yes; Ms. Maurer, no; Mr. Rozanski, yes; Mr. Amorose, no; Mr. Thornton, yes; Mayor Close yes. I -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS iH inutes of Dublin Village Council Meeting ~ Meeting National Graphics Corp., Cols., O. Form No. 1097 ~ Held nm.Ma)'_21.,..1986 ..19.. Page Five ,..... ...... Mr. Banchefsky said that in discussions with Mr. Rich, legal counsel for the School Board, this would be contingent upon a finalization of the deal between Muirfield and the School Board for leasing the school site at One Muirfield. The contingency being that the School Board and Muirfield agree to release the school site in One Muirfield. The One Muirfield site in Muirfield apparently had a school site in it in the original Muirfield submission. There have been various changes over the years. No one is quite positive as to whether or not that the site was officially released by the School Board, and approved by the Village or not. To clear up any controversy, the Law Director's office has asked the School Board and Muirfield ot "iron that out as a prerequisite to going ahead with this". Mayor Close commented that the affect on the Village is nothing. He said that he did not feel that there was a need for contingency. He noted that when Muirfield was first developed there were approximately 55 acres within the subdivision that was dedicated to school sites, and under the terms of the original agreement could be bought by the school paying land costs, carrying costs and development costs. Over a period of time, many acres were waived by the School Board when they decided not to place school sites within the actual Muirfield area. At this point, apparently, the only land that came out of that original Muirfield platting is a 10 acre site near the intersection of Ashbaugh Road and Brand Road. There is a dispute between the School Board and the developer as to whether or not at some time the School Board might have waived their right to take that land. The School Board has been negotiating with the developer for an alternate site and they are near the finalization of a plan to purchase a site at another location outside of the subdivision proper. The AShbaugh site is only germane to this in that it is close to the Earlington site. The AShbaugh site must be purchased by the School Board. Ms. Maurer said that she had a concern regarding the fact that an up-to- date review has not been done regarding the land needs for parks in Dublin. Ms. Maurer also said that she felt that additional study and review should be given to the 1978 Park Study. Ms. Maurer moved to table the resolution until a determination could be made to see if the Village has enough park space. The vote was as follows: Mr. Jankowski, no; Mr. Sutphen, no; Ms. Maurer, yes; Mr. Rozanski, yes; Mr. Amorose, yes; Mr. Thornton, no; Mayor Close, no. ".... f- \- ""..., Mr. Amorose said that he agreed with the need for a park study and assessment, suggesting that it would be ideal for an indoor/outdoor recreation center. He also cited Ordinance No. 25-86 and the pending debate regarding same. Mr. Amorose indicated that he thought it would be a double taxation situation to the residents of Dublin. He indicated that the schools were not asking other areas of the district to do the same. Mayor Close said that he felt that with regard to the double taxation issue that there could be more cooperation between the Village and the schools. .... Mr. Amorose suggested that perhaps the site acreage could be sold by the Village and the monies used for other improvements. He also said that he thought that the intent of the green space ordinance was that it would help to make Dublin unique. I _.....' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1',f inutes of Dublin Village Council Meeting ~ Meeting National Graphics Corp" Cols., O. Form No. 1097 ~ Held . May2J.~J91,36. 19. Page Six ",... -- Ms. Maurer mentioned the "process of discussion and development of ideas" and the opportunity for persons to discuss and present their views and persuade other persons, perhaps, to their views. Mayor Close commented that one of the reasons for Robert's Rules of Order is that it attempts to prevent people from monopolizing discussions. For that reason Dublin Council Rules of Order says "that everyone gets heard once before anyone gets heard twice". He also said that a motion to table is not a motion to cut off discussion. It merely says that enough persons want to cut o~f discussion and that they may doing so by moving to table. Mr. Rozanski moved to table the resolution for further discussion at a later date. Ms. Maurer seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Mayor Close, no; Mr. Thornton, no; Mr. Amorose, yes; Mr. Rozanski, yes; Ms. Maurer, yes; Mr. Sutphen, no; Mr. Jankowski, no. The vote on Resolution No. 07-86 as amended by Mr. Thornton was as fo llows : Mr. Jankowski. yes: Mr. Sutphen. yes; Mayor Close, yes; Mr. Rozanski, no; Mr. Amorose, no; Mr. Thornton, yes; Ms Maurer,no~~ ,... ~' Ordinance No. 25-86 - Proposed Ordinance Regarding Land for Schools. Mayor Close entertained a motion to add Ordinance No. 25-86 to the agenda. Mr. Amorose so moved. Mr. Sutphen seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor. '~ Mr. Jankowski moved to table the ordinance until the Council meeting of July 7, 1986. Mr. Sutphen seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor. Ordinance No. 32-86 - Relative to Soecifications for Brick Sidewalks. First Reading. Mr. Thornton introduced the Ordinance. It was determined that the Ordinance would specifically refer to brick sidewalks in The Moors Project in Muirfield. Ordinance No. 37-86 - Rezoning 130 Acres on Northwest Corner of Post and Avery Roads. First Reading. Mr. Amorose introduced the Ordinance and moved to refer the Ordinance to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Jankowski seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor. f'" Ordinance No. 38-86 - Rezoning 95 Acres on Southwest Corner of Brand Road and S.R. 745. First Reading. Mr. Thornton introduced the ordinance and moved to refer same to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Sutphen seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor. .... Ordinance No. 39-86 - Industrial Development Revenue Bonds - River's Edge One. First Reading. Mr. Rozanski introduced the ordinance. Mayor Close that this project was approved by the C.I.C. in April of 1986. He noted that the applicant has requested that it be held over for a second reading on June 2, 1986 meeting of Council. I ~-- Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin Village Council Meeting ~ AJ eeting National Graphics Corp., Cols., O. Form No. 1097 ~ Held May 21, 1986 19 ""... \.... "..... , '"- - ,... ..... Page Seven Ordinance No. 40-86 - Amending Zoning Code to Include Planned Industrial District (P.I.D.). First Reading. Mr. Sutphen introduced the ordinance and moved to refer the ordinance to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Thornton seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor. Apprroval of Preliminary Plat - The Woodlands - Riverside Drive and Tonti Drive. Mr. Amorose moved to approve the preliminary plat with the conditions approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission - 1. With a 12' bikeway easement on the west side of lot #33. 2. That the sanitary and storm drainage pattern be resolved before the final plat. Mayor Close seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor. Council Roundtable Discussion 1. Mr. Thornton Mr. Thornton suggested reviewing all sidewalk requirements within the Village of Dublin. 2. Mr. Jankowski Mr. Jankowski said that he was in the process of preparing a news- letter and said that those interested in receiving same should contact him. 3. Mr. Sutphen Mr. Sutphen mentioned to Mr. Warner the "bump" on Coffman Road. 4. Ms. Maurer Ms. Maurer affirmed the need for a sidewalk ordinance and suggested that the need for same be passed on to the appropriate committee of Council. Ms. Maurer said that Mr. Jenkins was desirous of arranging a followup meeting with members of Council following the retreat held at Deer Creek State Lodge. 5. Mayor Close Mayor Close commented that as a result of the recently held retreat that it became obvious that most of the items discussed came back to funding - whether it was an establishment or an enforcement of standards - whether it dealt with capital improvements, etc. He mentioned the need for the West Branch Sewer, the widening of Coffman Road, expanding the bridge over Glick Road, Tuller Road widening, etc. Mayor Close said that he felt that the time had come to consider placing on the ballot an income tax increase for approval by citizens in November of this year - 1/2% increase solely for capital improvements. The meeting was adjourned ~ Mayor - Presiding Officer by Mayor Close at 8:57 P.M. /7 -~~'~/ C erk of Council . -.-......