The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-15-2023 Work Session MinutesDUBLIN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MAY 15, 2023 Minutes Mayor Fox called the Monday, May 15, 2023 work session to order at 6:18 p.m. Council members present: Ms. Alutto, Ms. Amorose Groomes, Vice Mayor De Rosa, Mayor Fox, Mr. Keeler, and Ms. Kramb and Mr. Reiner. Staff present: Ms. O’Callaghan, Ms. Readler, Mr. Ranc, Ms. Rauch, Ms. Noble, Ms. Holt, Ms. Willis, Mr. Hammersmith. Pledge of Allegiance Mayor Fox led the Pledge of Allegiance. Envision Dublin — Land Use Principles and Planning Area Ms. Rauch introduced the topic of interim Land Use Principles and Planning Area Boundaries for initial discussion. The goal of the Land Use Principles is to develop and adopt some principles to provide clear policy that will help support adopted plans and practices until revisions to the Community Plan Update have been formally adopted. This will help staff in reviewing development proposals and projects that come forward. The proposed land use principles are based on State of the City comments, Council retreat conversations, and public meetings including the initial steering committee meeting. With the Planning Area Boundaries, which will help guide modeling for the Community Plan, the goal is to define the areas. The desire is to ensure land uses within the planning area are compatible to provide guidance when proposals come forward; that helps staff provide comments when proposals happen. The City has its agreements for where utilities can be provided. This will set the stage for a future land use map. She shared draft interim land use principles as follows: . Plan for the Bigger Picture Start with the Public Realm Balance of the Mix of Uses Provide a Variety of Housing and Neighborhood Choices Focus Growth Reserve Strategic Economic Assets Protect Natural Resources and Ecological Systems Preserve and Celebrate Our Historic and Cultural Resources Integrate Sustainable Design 10. Create a Connected Transportation Network 11. Encourage Walkability 12. Be Distinctly Dublin The intent would be to have the short principle statement and a more supplemental explanation. OONANKRWNE Council Work Session May 15, 2023 Page 2 of 10 Ms. Rauch continued with the second part of the conversation on planning boundaries. Ms. Rauch shared three maps. The current boundaries, which were in place with the previous community plan: | ‘ ' j 7. bo 7 o : — joy a j | j | / / foe ete: al VNION / Ravenhill Phwy \ i (33) \ \ (| L\, - rk at e \ \ Welle | ree | OL it \ \ | 4 mat a | | | ~» b 2 4 eb) - 3 RT eo ie "a, ns mabison TON Ly er J A> | Oa | f / b “ue c i a | Hilliard (> i dt The larger, dark purple area is within City of Dublin boundaries. The lighter purple areas are outside of boundaries but included as part of this larger planning area. This provides information about service of utilities, information about growth corridors, and compatible land uses. Staff provided two scenarios for consideration this evening. Council Work Session May 15, 2023 Page 3 of 10 Option A. 1 \ ‘ } fa \ \ ff -_ sie 7 A . UNION, 4 | - v j Z Ravenhill Pkwy bh \ : | . / \ ‘G@) ote \ \ (33) \ y (gk ob vt pet > - . fi Walley Vo ost oj 0) >) STS ~ eI a mabison—— : ie Ms. Rauch stated that with any scenario, we would partner with neighboring jurisdictions. We have started engaging those stakeholders as part of the Community Plan Update. Ms. Rauch provided the following questions for discussion by Council: Council Work Session May 15, 2023 Page 4 of 10 1. Does the proposed list of Land Use Principles encompass Council's previous discussions on the topic? What additional modifications should be made to ensure the interim policy direction /s clear? 2. Based on the maps shared at the Work Session, does Council have a preference regarding the Planning Area for the Community Plan Update? 3. Other considerations of City Council. Ms. Rauch noted that the goal for the Land Use Principles is to bring those back to Council as a resolution for approval so that the development community, staff, and Council is clear about what was agreed upon. The planning maps would be something shared with consultants and staff. It would not require formal approval, but as a key component to future planning, staff wanted Council’s input. Mayor Fox asked how deep of a planning effort is done when looking outside City boundaries. Ms. Rauch stated that we work closely with other entities to consider the compatibility of a use, traffic modeling, utilities. Ms. O'Callaghan stated that it would not have to be at the same level of detail. Mayor Fox asked if it has been beneficial in the past. Ms. Rauch answered affirmatively. It has helped us provide informed feedback. We do get asked by other jurisdictions. Ms. O'Callaghan provided the example of Hyland Croy conversations, which is located in Union County. Dublin had planning documents while others did not. Those involved in the conversation relied on our planning documents. Mayor Fox sought Council feedback on staff’s questions. Mr. Keeler referenced #6 in the 2006 version, “Preserving Rural Character of Certain Areas of the City”; that is an important aspect. He addressed the Planning Area Maps. It is very delicate having conversations with neighboring municipalities. Of course we should collaborate and work with neighbors. That is abundantly clear with certain parts of the school district. Parkland, athletic fields/complexes and walking paths can benefit all. What is good for Dublin is good for the region and what is good for the region is good for Dublin. Ms. Kramb thinks the principles are fine. They are so broad and generic that they cover everything. We could modify #10 and add “while maintaining the character of the environment.” For the planning area map, she is more supportive of Option A instead of Option B. The northern area is so developed, we may not have much say there. Mr. Reiner shared a philosophical comment regarding multi-family housing. There are times we want to increase diversity of housing but it has to be part of a tradeoff. For example, when the 161 shopping center is redeveloped, they will expect a trade-off. That is where apartments could be permitted. When something is a big benefit to the City, that is where we allow the trade-off. We do not just take big blocks of apartments unless it is partnered with something that has a great benefit to the City. Regarding the Planning Area Map, he agrees with Ms. Kramb. Vice Mayor De Rosa stated that the point of principles is to provide clear direction to developers. She is concerned that the principles are so broad. The 60/40 split is very important but is not specifically stated. The list is very comprehensive. She is not confident that a developer reading these could understand Council’s intent. The mix of land is really important. Dublin is very unique in that. Council had conversations about development along the freeways. She suggested that be specifically Council Work Session May 15, 2023 Page 5 of 10 addressed. She suggested #12 specifically address public art. We should have a conversation about What Distinctly Dublin and public art means. If there are specific desired outcomes, examples could be added. She would pick Area B with regard to the Planning Area Maps. We do not know how all of the land will develop. If we, during this decade-long planning process, do take the opportunity to think through it, then when the opportunity arises to have conversations with partners, they are informed conversations. This would provide a reference. She would suggest going as broad as reasonable. Ms. O'Callaghan stated that neighbors are also going through comprehensive planning efforts and we will have opportunities to be engaged in conversations around those efforts. Ms. Rauch stated that staff discussed internally about how specific to go with the Principles. They want to be specific without prohibiting particular uses. Referencing the 60/40 split could be a good solution. Ms. Alutto preferred Area B for the Planning Areas. Having a broader sense of what we are looking at makes sense. Areas that are already developed can be denoted on the map. She is going to be interested in how some of those conversations shake out with neighboring communities. Regarding the land use principles, she is struggling how specific to be. The 60/40 land use split is a long-standing principle and is part of what makes Dublin distinctly Dublin. The Principles as written captured what we were getting at; she suggested adding some specificity. Ms. Amorose Groomes referenced Land Use Principle #1. She agrees and is supportive of the ideology but feels the nomenclature needs work. We need to plan for outstanding spaces. She questions whose bigger picture is being planned for. She suggested language that sets the bar high with language like Plan for Outstanding Spaces, Development, etc. #6 is perfect. She agrees with Councilmember Reiner in that the document should indicate multi-family housing could be appropriate if it is part of redevelopment. She would be supportive of a hybrid model of Planning Area Maps A and B. She prefers the southern portion of Area B. She also agrees that how we have these conversations with neighbors is important. She would suggest that we have those conversations first before we release these maps. Mayor Fox stated that the Land Use Principles hit all the major points Council was considering. She sees Planning and Zoning looking at this as a guideline until the Community Plan is done. She agreed with Ms. Amorose Groomes regarding #1. It should be more than the “Big Picture.” It would be great to come up with something that meets some of Council’s goals. She loves that this starts with the public realm. She referenced #6 and stated that it is important to get somewhat specific in order to be proactive rather than reactive. This does not address thoroughfares. She would prefer more direction on thoroughfares like Emerald Parkway and Frantz Road. Ms. Rauch suggest that language could be added to #10. Mayor Fox suggested “Protect and Enhance” be used for #8. The Principle regarding Distinctly Dublin should be more specific. As for the Planning Areas, she thinks that it is helpful to have large boundaries. Some neighbors do not necessarily have the resources to do some of this planning. As we work together, it is nice to bring our ideas to the table mixed with their ideas. She asked about areas to the south and the area around Tuttle. Ms. O’Callaghan stated that we are getting informed on the site and what Columbus’ plans are. Mayor Fox is interested in adding the Plain City area and maybe a little farther south than US42. Ms. Rauch expressed appreciation for the comments on the Land Use Principles. Staff can make some tweaks to get more precise. Regarding the Planning Areas, she suggested using the previous boundary and adding some area to southwest. Vice Mayor De Rosa stated that she thinks US42 makes some sense because there are transportation infrastructure conversations happening there. That will be integral to planning efforts. Ms. Willis Council Work Session May 15, 2023 Page 6 of 10 stated that when we look at transportation modeling, we will look at the land within our boundaries and create an area around boundaries and take external trips in, bring them into our travel demand model, and approximate what is happening in the Dublin area. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that it is important that we go to the railroad tracks there. Mr. Reiner stated the main consideration of any project is the positive aspect of project to the overall community. That is how every project should be viewed and evaluated. There are some relatively affordable parcels in B so he is in favor of a combination of Maps A and B. Historic District Code Update Ms. Rauch stated that the Historic Code Update has been before Council on a couple of occasions. This started as a goal of Council for 2022. At a work session in August of 2022, Council asked for more information on the historic properties to help understand the review process and how the Code and Guidelines are being applied. There was conversation at the work session about retaining the Guidelines and whether or not they are meeting Council’s goals. She gave an overview of existing Code and Guidelines. Code applicability is for all properties in the district as well as properties identified in Appendix G. Those standards are objective in nature and deal with things like uses, lot coverage, building standards, signs, etc. There is a review process that applies to those properties as well. As it currently stands, the Code and Guidelines refer to contributing and non-contributing structures. When the Code was revised, if a property was labeled as contributing, there was a higher threshold applied with regard to demolition. Proof must be provided that an owner would suffer economic hardship if demolition is not granted. If a building was considered non-contributing, then only one of three criteria needed to be met for demolition. It was intended to keep the most historic properties intact. The Guidelines apply to the same properties but are much more subjective in nature. The overall goal of the Guidelines is to protect the character of the district. There is a lot of conversation at staff and Architectural Review Board level about how something contextually fits. The Guidelines have two differentiating focuses; existing historic features and new features. The Guidelines focus on rehabilitation and preservation for historic features and compatibility and appropriateness for new features. Council Work Session May 15, 2023 Page 7 of 10 7 Ms. Rauch shared a map identifying structures. -e ae me heey ae oA : - j i a toe Se e ie . L: ts i 7 & dha enyrrNs hook eae a } ee: % 1 ; 74 , 24 = ( 2 * = the “ =) ‘ _ 4 Ms. Rauch stated that staff was asked to look at each of the buildings first focusing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) District. That is outlined in red. Largely all properties in that NRHP District are structures we would want to retain. The orange buildings are outside the NRHP District but are individually listed on the NHRP. Staff then looked at the time period of those properties and came to 1830s — 1920s. What is left in the District falls within that time period, those are included in dark blue. There are a couple other properties outside that time period but have some contextual significance to the District that would be worth considering. The grey properties are not recommended to fall under additional scrutiny for demolition. If Council is in agreement, these could be identified in the Code and Guidelines those for higher burden of consideration for demolition. The contributing/non- contributing language would be removed. How the demolition criteria would be applied would be changed. There was also discussion about expanding administrative review. Staff's recommendation would be that the higher burden would be placed on properties that are green, orange, or blue. Ms. Rauch shared questions for consideration by Council. 1. Does City Council support Staff recommended approach to identifying the properties that require a higher burden of consideration for demolition? 2. Are there any additional properties to consider adding or removing from the proposed recommended list? 3. Does Council support staffs approach to modify the Code and Guideline regarding how the demolition criteria is applied? 4. Does Council support the additional Code modifications outlined by staff? Council Work Session May 15, 2023 Page 8 of 10 5. Other considerations. Mayor Fox referenced the existing code/guidelines, and asked how one would determine the character of a house on Franklin Street if all the character of the 1950s is no longer considered contributing. Ms. Rauch stated Code requirements would still apply so a property owner would not be able to build a bigger house than is permitted by Code. The scale and details would be considered but it would be different. The Code and Guidelines would allow something to be built within character but it could look completely different. Ms. Kramb stated that this captures what she intended. This does not eliminate the requirement that any new infill still has to meet the context around it. This is only changing the burden for demolition. Mayor Fox stated that it still seems vague. Ms. Kramb stated that the Guidelines are not changing. They would still apply today. She stated that this captures what she was intending. Ms. Kramb recommended edits to the listing. - Building #62 should be gray and not green. - The Chamber building (#65) is dated 1988. 1988 is when the addition was added. The front was constructed in 1842 and is the date that should be used. - The front of building #38 was built in 1948. - The cemetery should be added with the vault noted from 1892. - The quarry gate, stone walls and privy from the same eras as the barn from the 1900s should be listed. Ms. Kramb suggested the use of a common term within the Code and Guidelines; for example: local landmarks or City historic sites, locally significant, etc. She confirmed items on Appendix G will still be included. For clarification, it might be good to choose the timeframe 1830s to 1930s. Mayor Fox stated that she has an opposite view. She has been very concerned about contributing/non- contributing because it has made it difficult to provide gradient to what is truly historic. Her fear is designating so many of these properties as being open for a lower review standard for demolition. Knowing how these properties are desired, some of the character will begin to disappear. On Riverview Street, there is an eclectic mix. Most of the really bad properties are gone. If you open this up, people with lots of money will come in demolish the homes. She believes the character of the district is not limited to 100 years, but is the eclectic story of development. This is going to open Pandora’s Box of people selling off their properties. New houses change the character of a street. She cannot support this approach. There might be additional properties to consider. Many of these properties and other landscapes have history connected to them, of which we may not be aware. This requires a conversation with the neighborhood before we come to a decision of this magnitude. More consideration can be given to renovating and preserving what is existing as well as being more lenient on newer properties in allowing them to improve on properties without losing the character of the district. She thinks that if we do not think hard about this, there will be nothing left on Riverview Street. Mr. Keeler agreed with Ms. Kramb. He does share Mayor Fox’s concerns. Part of the charm of the historic district is what we see today. What is there has been built between the early 1800s to today. Some of those properties may not fit the criteria and if they are allowed to be demolished, they will be replaced with something the same size but new and not the same. He posed the question, “Do we want to be Upper Arlington where people are buying lots and putting mansions on those lots.” We Council Work Session May 15, 2023 Page 9 of 10 have to decide how hard we want to fight to keep the character and what rights we want to take away from homeowners. A lot of the buildings in gray are along the riverfront. You will gradually see those properties disappear and be replaced with structures that meet Code but are new. Ms. Amorose Groomes largely agreed with Ms. Kramb and Mr. Keeler, ARB has done a good job of enforcing architectural requirements. New-builds are designed to meet current needs versus those of the 1830s-1930s. The character is captured well because it is about materials like cedar, full-depth brick, etc. She is supportive of this approach and agrees with the changes Ms. Kramb suggested. ARB will continue to do their job and vet these things and have productive and fruitful conversations. The bar will be at an appropriate place. The Code is good. Outcomes have been good, which leads her to believe the Code is sufficient. For additional code modifications, she would refer to ARB for what they are having difficulty navigating. She agrees that houses along the river are going to change. She tends to like the things that are being built. They feel smaller from the primary street. There is not something there that is really representative of an event or practice or industry like a grist mill. Ms. Kramb stated that the properties are high real estate on the east side of east Riverview Street. Council had this discussion a year ago and decided that we did not want to save things from 1970s. The houses on Riverview Street were built in 1978, 1995, 1988, 1953, 1966, 1978, 1960. Mayor Fox stated that people that live in the historic district have been under strong regulations for a long time and have spent a lot of time renovating these homes. If we only want to maintain South High Street, then take the homes on Riverview all out of the Architectural Review district. You are asking them to comply to preservation standards but neighboring properties can be torn down devaluing their property. Ms. Kramb stated that people still have to follow the rules when they rebuild. Mayor Fox stated that it does not end up that way. We have to think about historic districts as a whole. If people are to be expected to follow strong guidelines, and then allowing demolition, this is a conversation that the community needs to be involved in. This will destroy Franklin Street and Riverview Street. She knows how many people are being offered money to purchase those homes. The Historic Dublin Task Force stated that demolition is the last resort. Vice Mayor De Rosa stated that she appreciates the work and feels that this reflects the direction that Council gave staff. She lives in a 1980s house and it will be torn down sometime. The output from previous discussion was that there are some historic things that are real treasures. We suggested the City pick a date. We debated it and this is what we asked for. She is not as worried that all the character will disappear. We have this wonderful safeguard that has done its job. She is supportive of this and Ms. Kramb’s research and suggestions. Ms. Kramb stated that she cross-checked this inventory with historical society notes and all are captured here. Ms. Alutto stated that Council did have this conversation a year ago and Mayor Fox’s concerns were the same. Disagreeing is okay. She appreciates the different perspectives. She does not feel that we are going to lose all the character because these properties are gray. It is incumbent upon us as a policy body and the body that appoints people who have purview over protecting that area to make sure we are appointing people with good skill sets that are going to be tough on people. We have been doing that. She does not want to dimish the work that ARB has been doing by being overly prescriptive. Balance is necessary between handpicking every structure that contributes and those Council Work Session May 15, 2023 Page 10 of 10 that are not because it will feel arbitrary. She is comfortable with staff’s approach and appreciates Ms. Kramb’s additions. Every piece of clear information cannot be put in Code. That is why there are people here. Mr. Reiner stated that he supports staff. We have a good process in place. Mayor Fox referenced the non-contributing demolition criteria, non-contributing was something that was not historic whatsoever. Now we are taking a large group of gray/non-contributing properties and saying that they only have to meet one of three criteria. This opens up a very easy way to demolish rather than preserve, maintain or enhance. She would ask Council and staff to take a look at demolition criteria to make sure it is not so easy that demolition is the first thing people consider. She would also request a community conversation with people that live and work in the district before this comes to Council. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that the majority of Council would like to take this across the finish line. Ms. Kramb stated that it will go before ARB with public notice and comment. Everyone in the district will get notice. It will then come before Council so residents will get a chance for public comment there as well. Ms. Alutto advised staff that when they are communicating, they need to communicate well and loud. We want to minimize folks saying that they were not aware. Ms. Rauch stated that Ms. Holt will raise this at next week’s ARB meeting so they are aware this has been discussed. Planning staff will work with Communication and Public Information to make sure that gets out. We will make the modifications suggested and a resolution will come before Council for consideration at a future meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 7:44 p.m. Vie Pil Presiding/Officer - Mayor /