Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-16-16 Joint Work Session MinutesDublin City Council & Planning & Zoning Commission Joint Work Session Monday, May 16, 2016 Minutes of Meeting Mayor Peterson called the Monday, May 16, 2016 Joint Work Session to order at 6:04 p.m. at the Dublin Municipal Building. Council Members present: Mayor Peterson, Vice Mayor Reiner, Ms. Alutto, Ms. Amorose Groomes, Mr. Keenan, Mr. Lecklider and Ms. Salay. Planning and Zoning Commission Members present: Ms. Newell, Mr. Brown, Mr. Stidhem, Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Miller. Ms. De Rosa was absent due to flight delays in returning from out of the country. Staff members present: Mr. McDaniel, Ms. Goss, Mr. Papsidero, Ms. Husak, Ms. Rauch, Ms. Richison, Mr. Tyler, Mr. Earman, and Ms. Readler. Mayor Peterson welcomed the members of Planning and Zoning Commission and thanked them for attending this joint session. Mayor Peterson asked that the Planning and Zoning members briefly introduce themselves. • Steve Stidhem has lived in Dublin since 1994. He is active in his neighborhood association and has been on P & Z for a little over a year. He described himself as a technical person and that serving on this commission has been a great learning experience. • Deborah Mitchell joined P & Z at the same time as Mr. Stidhem. She is also active in her neighborhood association and is focused on growth and strong neighborhoods. Her background is about brand and meaning. She has enjoyed her experience on P & Z so far and looks forward to continuing to learn. • Chris Brown has served on P & Z for a little over a year. He has a construction and architectural background. He is a detail oriented person. He encouraged those present to think of walking through a city while being mindful that it is not just about the buildings that make the impression, it is about the art, the signage, sidewalks, etc. • Vickie Newell is currently serving her second term on P & Z. Prior to her time on this commission, she served on the Board of Zoning Appeals. She is an architect and has experience sitting on the other side of the table as an applicant. She has raised her family in Dublin and is very proud of this City. She is grateful for the opportunity to serve. • Bob Miller has enjoyed his experience serving on P & Z and expressed appreciation to other members of P & Z, staff and Council Member Salay for their coaching and guidance. Mayor Peterson stated that communication is essential between City Council and P & Z. Mayor Peterson expressed appreciation to Council Member Salay for serving on both P & Z and City Council. Minutes of Joint Work Session May 16, 2016 Page 2 Ms. Salay began Council introductions by stating that through her years on more than one board, she is aware that it is important to have a shared vision. While everyone won't always agree, communication is essential between the boards. Mr. Lecklider noted his history includes serving on Council and Boards and Commissions. He really enjoyed serving on P & Z and thanked the P & Z members for their time and commitment to serving. He looks forward to being a sounding board and welcomes open dialogue. Ms. Amorose Groomes is in her first year of serving on City Council. She served on P & Z for eight years, six of them as Chair. She appreciates the high standards of the P & Z Commission and would like to support them as they continue to "carry the torch." Ms. Alutto is also in her first year of serving on City Council. She appreciates everyone's time and commitment and is looking forward to learning more about the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Keenan was a zoning inspector in Washington Township and a township trustee before his election to City Council. He is in his fourth term as a Council Member. He stated he is looking forward to the discussion and would like to hear P & Z comments on Bridge Street and impacts to Historic Dublin. Mr. Reiner is an Urban Planner and Landscape Architect. He is currently in his 19' year on Council. Prior to his service on City Council, he served on P & Z from 1980 -1988. Mr. Reiner gave a brief history of the state of the City in the 1980's with the creation and implementation of legislation to safeguard high standards while faced with increased development. Mayor Peterson stated that he is in his second term on City Council. He sees the City going through a transitional phase of redevelopment. He looks to P & Z minutes to obtain the details of their expertise and recommendations. Mr. McDaniel expressed his appreciation to the P & Z members for their hard work, expertise and dedication. He stated that the City employs a great team of professionals on staff to research, support and advise the Commission and Council in their decision process. The new staff leadership brings a fresh perspective while maintaining the Dublin tradition. Signs Mr. Papsidero stated that a request was made by the Commission for staff to explore the Bridge Street sign code versus the current sign code that covers the balance of the City and to discuss whether or not the code should be modified. Ms. Salay stated that she has always been observant of signage and has appreciated the signage standards in Dublin. Bridge Park has a master sign plan. Dublin Village Center area signs appear out of place with other signage in the City. She concluded that it was the Bridge Street sign code that was allowing some of the signage to take place and that this may be the wrong direction to take. She felt a discussion on the topic was in order to determine if it is the Minutes of Joint Work Session May 16, 2016 Page 3 goal to have a deviation from what has been done in the past; and if so, is a precedent being set? Mr. Reiner asked if everyone was familiar with the walking area of the Bridge Street district. The intention was not to set precedent but rather to give a three dimensional artful flare to the signage of the businesses in that area. It serves to create a wonderful pedestrian experience. Ms. Newell stated that some of the signage that has been discussed -- for example, KFC -- did not come before P & Z. It was approved because it complied with the sign code. The sign code provided that everyone was treated equally and it was consistent. However, the development of the Bridge Street District brought the need for creativity and different signage code. The problem comes when the properties that surround the Bridge Street District want to use the same standards in locations where it may not be appropriate. Ms. Salay stated that it is in the auto - oriented areas where there are a proliferation of signs. With Bridge Park being more pedestrian oriented, the signage will be appropriate to pedestrian traffic. Mr. Reiner commented that any business can be found now with Google and other search engines. Awareness is not as much about the signage as it used to be. The Dublin community is pro- business and will remain that way. Mayor Peterson sought clarification that the main issue for discussion is that the Bridge Street District sign package works for that walkable area that was to be created, but applying that outside that district does not work. Ms. Newell stated that as long as it is being reviewed in sign packages, it should work. Currently, staff is being put in the position of regulating the architectural creativity of a sign, which is difficult due to the subjectivity. Mr. Keenan inquired about the language in the code and stated if it says, "one size fits all," it shouldn't because there are exceptions. Ms. Newell stated that Historic Dublin is always an exception. Mr. Brown stated that sign legislation can be codified, but issues such as this cannot be put in a box. Applicants should be encouraged to spend the money on creative art and not take the path of least resistance. The goal is to have unique signage in Bridge Street; therefore, ratcheting down the standards is not going to encourage the creativity that is desired. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that there was initial discussion with Bridge Street that a Graphics Commission should be established to focus on these types of issues. Mr. Reiner stated that the strongest tool in the toolbox is polite rejection. He is of the belief that every time a project is rejected, when the project is brought back it is better. Minutes of Joint Work Session May 16, 2016 Page 4 Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that Mr. Reiner brings up the important topic of development standards. The decisions that P & Z make for the community are make or break decisions. If the Commission and Council demand greatness it will stand the test of time. Mayor Peterson inquired whether or not Ms. Amorose Groomes believes there are changes needed in the Development Standards. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that in the past, the push was forform based code. But form based code is not serving the purpose that was hoped. She explained that there are unintended consequences, so the form based code is not serving the City well. Ms. Salay requested staffs input on the subject of form based codes. Mr. Papsidero stated that the Bridge Street District is a form based code. The waivers are very important because they allow projects to be unique. The form based code was the right approach at the time, and to discard it now may create an impact that is uncertain. The code needs to be tweaked as developers and staff have learned lessons that will help the process. The goal is quality investment. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that the error occurred when the City was undertaking mass re- zonings. Tweaks and working with what is in place moving forward is best. Ms. Newell stated that it would not matter which form would be used (when using form based codes). She explained that as the development is coming forward, noticing the details of the project and being able to regulate them somehow is what matters. Currently, there is no way to regulate the construction with the architecture. There is nothing in the development standards or code that addresses that issue or recycling a building for the future. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated the only statement in the code that addresses recycling use is that the building should serve the community over the course of time. She believes there is some latitude in place. Ms. Newell commented that another issue that has come up on the Planning and Zoning Commission is the quality of materials. Performance specifications with quality materials need to be included in development standards. From a developer perspective, it would be advantageous to know what to expect and what will be required in materials at the outset of a project. Mr. Reiner agreed with Ms. Newell's comments and believes that it is attainable. Mr. Reiner asked for input from staff and P & Z members regarding the residential code and what can be done to reinvigorate the quality architecture of homes and attract elite custom home builders. Mr. Papsidero responded that some building permits require specific reviews on residential standards. Whether or not they are applied to all residential developments is more of an issue. Dublin has a residential appearance code that is applied to all single family subdivisions. Market demand may be another factor that guides the building of million dollar homes. Market demand is not something that is controlled by the code. Minutes of Joint Work Session May 16, 2016 Page 5 Mr. Brown stated that part of the issue is economic development and what do people want to live around. What are we providing that attracts the CEO's to want to live in Dublin? In speaking of high standards, the niche may be empty- nesters that want to stay in Dublin. Mr. Brown circled the discussion back to signs by stating that he does believe that businesses are more likely to succeed with proper signage. He believes the way that signs are drawn and measured to be incorrect. He admittedly "straddles the fence" in that he does believe signs to be necessary and noticeable, but does not want big ugly signs either. Ms. Newell stated that the way signs are measured creates consistency in planning and zoning code and provides proportion to the sign. Mayor Peterson summarized that there is agreement that the code needs to be tweaked. He inquired about the best way to go about doing that. Mr. Papsidero responded that staff currently has a consulting firm under contract to begin the process. Staff needs to hear from the stakeholders to ascertain specifically what changes should be explored. Then a public review process would be in order, bringing proposed code amendments before the Commission and ultimately to Council. Administrative challenges will also be explored as to what non - conformities will surface and how to manage those. He estimated that the process would take about a year. Ms. Salay inquired as to whether or not the signage issue could be broke out as a separate issue that could be addressed more quickly. She is concerned that with all the development taking place it would be necessary to move this forward more quickly. Mr. Papsidero agreed that the signage portion could be broken out separately. Mr. Lecklider suggested that a commitment by Council to the outcome is necessary. Ms. Amorose Groomes recommended initiating a Graphics Commission instead of code changes. This solution would allow for one body to hear and address any issues. Ms. Salay asked how a Graphics Commission would work. Mr. Papsidero stated that a Graphics Commission could only reviews variances to the graphics code and the master sign plan, or it could be a body that reviews all signage applications for approval before obtaining a permit. The only concern would be the number of applications that come forward. In terms of how it may affect ART, if ART was abolished, it may add work to the graphics commission, ARB, P & Z, etc. All the implications would need to be vetted. Mr. McDaniel asked how it would fit in the process. Would it be another step in the process? Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that the sign packages already must be reviewed, so she does not believe it would be a negative addition to the process. Ms. Newell stated her opinion is that it may be harder on the developer. Minutes of Joint Work Session May 16, 2016 Page 6 Ms. Newell asked why a Graphics Commission would be better than simply P & Z review. She believes having a united element with one body reviewing would be better. Mr. Reiner stated that context, height, width, etc. is important and it should be read as one. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that P & Z is only seeing the first sign, not subsequent signs. Most are being approved through ART and not by P & Z. Ms. Newell agreed and stated that she felt the process works well when the signs come in as a package to be reviewed. Ms. Salay commented that ART is following the code in place. Mr. Reiner stated that the scale of the sign in relation to the architecture is very important and fits into the approval of the sign. Mayor Peterson summarized that consensus is that the code should be tweaked. It is the recommendation of staff to have the consulting firm that they have contracted with bring forward some revisions and then to vet those revisions through stakeholders before beginning the legislative process. Mr. Papsidero stated that a report should be available within 30 -60 days of what recommendations are identified by the consulting firm. Ms. Alutto inquired as to whether or not the consulting firm could look at the overall process and whether or not a Graphics Commission would make sense in the process. Mr. Papsidero responded that the consultant could indeed look at the process. To clarify, he noted that there is already a master sign plan. No other review is taking place by staff regarding signs other than to ensure that the permits match the master sign plan. He explained that if the intent is to have all the signage be reviewed by a commission, that would be a significant amount of work. Ms. Salay stated that she believes the master sign plan worked well for the Bridge Park signage Existing businesses that apply under the Bridge Street Code do not have to come under the master sign plan. The Dublin Village Center will hopefully redevelop and have a master sign plan in the future. ART (Administrative Review Team) Mayor Peterson invited Mr. McDaniel to give a brief overview of the ART. Mr. McDaniel stated that ART is a cross - functional review process team comprised of staff. The process is that a developer comes in to the office, meets with staff and then they work together to gain efficiency on the road to a successful project. Whether ART exists or not, the cross - functional process will still exist because it is necessary for developers to work with staff. Minutes of Joint Work Session May 16, 2016 Page 7 Mr. Keenan asked Mr. McDaniel to comment on recent ART minutes that reflected the Planning and Economic Development divisions were going in different directions. Mr. McDaniel stated that those discussions will always occur at the staff level, but the minutes are shared with Council so they can review the discussions that take place. Mr. Papsidero stated that ART is now a more formal process. ART tends to approve very small projects and minor applications. If Council's direction is to eliminate ART, there would be some implications; such as, all cases would go to P & Z, creating more handholding for the developer to foster them through the process. Mayor Peterson asked for feedback in flushing out the specific concerns about the ART Ms. Salay commented that ART is misunderstood. Their charge has been a formalization of the information review with the applicant. They handle smaller, minor applications. Minutes are generated to inform of any recommendations. An example was discussed to illustrate an instance when ART and P & Z disagreed on an issue. Mr. Papsidero stated that the ART deliberately acts conservatively when interpreting the code. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she appreciated the more formal process. In speaking to the difference prior to the existence of ART, Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that in the past, staff would still be working with the applicant and helping them with preparation to go to the decision making body, but not making any decisions themselves. ART now makes decisions. When P & Z reviews a project, and comes to a conclusion about a way a building should look, then the applicant goes back to the ART to make changes. If the project begins with P & Z and changes are made, then the project needs to come back to P & Z. In addition, the City website lists ART as a reviewing body on the Board and Commissions page. She would like a distinction made to separate it from the other appointed bodies listed on that page. Mr. Brown agreed with Ms. Amorose Groomes. Ms. Salay stated that Council doesn't know what application do not go past ART. Ms. Salay suggested that Council could receive a report quarterly about what is not approved by ART. Ms. Alutto inquired about modification to the ART. Specifically, she wants to know what is appealed to P & Z. Mr. Papsidero stated that the code is narrow in terms of what constitutes an appealable issue. If ART won't approve a waiver, then it is appealable to P & Z. His recommendation would be to broaden the language in the code regarding appealable issues. Ms. Alutto requested that Mr. Papsidero expand his recommendation regarding whether or not ART should have bylaws. Mr. Papsidero responded that ART could have bylaws that would serve to govern how ART is to function. Minutes of Joint Work Session May 16, 2016 Page 8 Ms. Alutto asked if any other City uses an ART, and if so, perhaps their bylaws could be shared with Council. Mr. Papsidero responded that there is no formal staff review body among other cities. Dublin is unique in having this type of body -- there is more commonly a hearing officer. Ms. Alutto asked that Mr. Papsidero explain his recommendation to eliminate the Police representation on the ART. Mr. Papsidero stated it was his recommendation because the Police need to weigh in on so few issues. Ms. Alutto suggested that additional reporting would help clarify roles and communicate what applications have come before ART. Ms. Salay inquired as to whether or not Economic Development thinks ART is valuable in the process. Mr. McDaniel commented that his experience has been very positive from a customer service standpoint. Developers don't usually have the benefit of all the key people in the room to discuss the project at the same time. Mr. Brown commented his personal experience as a customer on the St. Brigid expansion project. They had a great customer service experience. Ms. Amorose Groomes agreed that the customer service is excellent. Her concern centers more around the decision making. She believes there should be more clear definitions of minor modifications. She also would like to see clarity in communication to the community regarding what ART is — particularly in digital media. Ms. Newell stated that she always reads what the ART reviews. In most cases, they are minor. In most cases, it is desirable for them to be the reviewing body. She pointed out the example of the Dublin Village Center and the Big Sandy's development. She understands the Bridge Street Code said they could do this, but in the context of the entire development, it did not improve it. There are only a few cases like this. Mr. McDaniel suggested that it would be helpful for staff to provide information about what was proposed for some projects that was not approved by ART. He agreed that clarification is needed regarding what is a minor modification. Mayor Peterson suggested that the bylaws could clarify and better address the noted concerns Mr. McDaniel clarified that, given Council's support of the issues raised, staff will provide follow - up reports regarding: • If P & Z reviews an item, any change to that item needs to come back before P & Z; • Better definition of "minor modification" (to include that if a determination needs to be made on whether something is minor or not, P & Z will review and state whether or not that issue is minor); • Clarification of what ART is to the community — better defined on the website; Minutes of Joint Work Session May 16, 2016 Page 9 He clarified that the ART would remain on the website, but there would be a better definition of what it is and that it is not a board or commission of Council. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that the ART should not be listed under Boards and Commissions. Mr. McDaniel stated that his only concern with that is if people are looking to find information about the development review process, that is where they look. It is not intended to be misconstrued as an appointed body by Council. Ms. Mitchell stated that the framing of it should not just be that it is review. One of the key things about ART is it is a crossfunctional team that co- creates with customers — it is collaborative and it is co- creation. It is not a one -way process of evaluating a project. Whatever is on the web should identify the ART is staff led and staffed, but the framing should be that it is a value -added service and creative thing that is happening — it is not just review. Ms. Salay stated that is a good suggestion — highlight it as an asset. Mr. McDaniel continued, noting the last item to report back about is: Bylaws Mr. Peterson stated that perhaps these items can be addressed in the bylaws, but he will defer to staffs recommendations. Mr. McDaniel responded that staff may propose some concepts for the bylaws versus drafting them. Ms. Salay thanked everyone for attending, listening and participating in the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 8:33 p.m. Clerk of Council