Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-08-09 CDC MinutesCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OF DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL Monday, June 8, 2009 Minutes of Meeting Ms. Salay, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in Council Chambers. Committee members present were Ms. Salay and Mr. Lecklider. Mr. Reiner was excused. Other Council members present were Mr. Gerber and Mr. Keenan. Staff members present were: Mr. Foegler, Mr. Smith, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Gunderman and Code Inspector Brian Martin. Ms. Salay stated that the purpose of this meeting is the discussion of the issue referred to the Committee regarding seasonal outdoor display and storage. Mr. Langworthy stated that a memo was recently provided to Council, which outlined the particular issues with this subject. He added that no Code amendment is simple, as one change can impact several other sections of the Code, resulting in additional required revisions. The memo outlined as many of those other areas as staff could identify. This subject should be addressed from two aspects: the actual Code requirement, and the enforcement of that requirement. The enforcement will be much easier with a well written Code section. For that reason, they have attempted to achieve consistency in treatment and regulation of the proposed Code amendment. There are also accompanying issues that require policy direction from Council, including the most basic question: Does Council want to permit outdoor displays and/or storage? If so, what approval process and regulations should be in place? Should the regulations be specific, or should each case be judged on its own merits? Mr. Smith stated that the City's enforcement for these outdoor display and storage issues is generally complaint driven. There are four property owners, involving a total of six sites in this category — Kroger, Giant Eagle, Lowe's and Oakland Nurseries. Legal staff checked with Code Enforcement staff about whether they had received any complaints regarding outdoor displays or storage during the last two years. There was one line of sight issue, which was quickly addressed, but no complaints. The current enforcement process is for Code Enforcement staff to send a notice of Code violation to the individual and/or visit the site and talk to the violator. If compliance is not achieved, the next step has been to draft a complaint for filing in the Mayor's Court and forward it to the Law Director's office. Mr. Foegler's direction has been not to file a case at that level, but to continue efforts to achieve compliance through communication with the property owner. All this is subject to whatever policy Council develops. One of the difficulties is with the many different texts; one entity, Kroger, has three locations in Dublin with different texts for each. Council has indicated that living plant material should be treated differently than hard goods; hard goods can be stored inside. Consequently, living material is what they have addressed in drafting a Code amendment. Mr. Keenan inquired if any of the texts permit hard good storage outside, because he has observed such hard goods in outdoor displays. Mr. Smith responded that none of the texts permit them, but, nevertheless, that is occurring. Community Development Committee Minutes June 8, 2009 Page 2 of 6 Mr. Gerber stated that the existing City Code provides for a seasonal permitting process. Upon review of the materials, it occurred to him that there may be a need to review some of the definitions -- for instance, the longevity of the display. In addition, the texts of the different development districts should be fairly consistent regarding this topic. Ms. Salay stated that with the Kroger stores there are two separate PUDs and a straight zoning involved. Lowe's is a PUD; Giant Eagle is part of a PUD, and she understands that Oakland Nurseries reverts back to the original text for that site -- Franks. Can a single Code amendment address all of these, or will it be necessary to amend the various development texts? Mr. Smith responded that, ultimately, it will be necessary to change the zoning texts. It may be possible to do them all at once through a City -sponsored application. That will take a period of time to do. Another Code amendment could be written to address seasonal sales and issuance of permits. Language can be written that would "trump" the zoning text. Mr. Foegler noted that if there is any conflict, this amendment would take precedence. Mr. Gerber stated that the Kroger on Bridge Street is not a PUD; it is a straight zoning. Mr. Smith confirmed that is correct. Mr. Gerber asked on what basis can they do outdoor sales? Mr. Langworthy stated that they would apply for a conditional use. Mr. Keenan asked if outdoor displays are not permitted within a straight zoning district. Mr. Langworthy confirmed that is correct. Mr. Langworthy stated that the problem with outdoor displays is that they can be easily moved. Also, managers change, and anew manager often is not aware of the different regulations. This year, letters were sent to all the establishments with outdoor displays informing them, individually, of the requirements and permissions. This provided the City with a record of early notification to the businesses. Mr. Lecklider asked if the businesses are complying. Mr. Martin stated that he met with the manager of Kroger Sawmill, as they were in violation. They are now in compliance. The managers of the Kroger stores at Bridge Street and Avery Road have met with staff regarding the submission of conditional use applications. They will follow the prescribed process and legitimize their outdoor displays. Mr. Keenan inquired if the conditional use would include hard goods. Mr. Martin responded that it would not. It would cover live goods only. The correct terminology is actually "outdoor services." Mr. Langworthy stated that part of the complication results from the current definition for the uses. The amendment would also address the definitions. Mr. Keenan noted that there appear to be no objections from Council to having live plant materials on display on a seasonal basis. Community Development Committee Minutes June 8, 2009 Page 3 of 6 Ms. Salay asked how Code enforcement would be impacted, should staff draft an amendment that would override all the different development texts to specify that only live plant materials and seasonal produce are permitted as outdoor displays. Mr. Martin responded that if all of the businesses have the same rules, it would be much easier to achieve compliance. Enforcement could be difficult, however, if timeframes for such display are not clear. Ms. Salay asked if the language should address the need to have the produce rotated/removed after it is out of season. Mr. Langworthy responded that there is actually another ordinance that relates only to pumpkins and Christmas trees. That could be eliminated and addressed in the new amendment. Mr. Lecklider asked if the regulations applying to pumpkins and Christmas trees are the same in terms of space limitations for the displays, as are suggested in the proposed amendment. Mr. Langworthy responded that they are not. The regulations are limited; the display is subject to the approval of the City. Mr. Gerber stated that it is the seasonal permit process. Mr. Keenan stated that when the business applies for that permit, the City has the opportunity to communicate with the applicant regarding what is permitted. Mr. Langworthy responded that if a Code amendment provided consistency -- the same regulations for everyone -- compliance by all would be easier to achieve. Ms. Salay asked if one permit for seasonal sales would address everything for the year. Mr. Langworthy responded that if the business is aware of what they plan to do for the entire year, it could be done under one permit. Often, that is not the case for a business. Ms. Salay asked if one permit could cover the regulations for everything. Mr. Langworthy responded that the permit would give the City the needed record. The regulation would state what the business needs to provide to obtain the permit —the site plan, location and size. Ms. Salay wondered if this would make the process overly complex for businesses. Mr. Foegler responded that it can be simplified. Because there is an extensive review of the entire Zoning Code underway, there should not be an attempt to solve other issues with this amendment regarding seasonal outdoor displays. If Council's direction is that this should be handled in the simplest way possible to provide reasonable regulations and a simple permitting process, staff could draft legislation to accomplish that and which would "trump" any conflicting regulations of the various PUD texts. Mr. Lecklider stated that, in general, he is in agreement. He acknowledges that things change. However, he served on the Planning and Zoning Commission when the Lowe's zoning was approved with certain restrictions. If that particular Commission had reviewed all the other cases reflected here at the same time, they probably would have imposed the same restrictions with those zonings as they imposed for Lowe's. In comparing the Lowe's in Dublin with other Lowe's in the Columbus area, the positive appearance of the Lowe's in Dublin is obvious. For instance, the brick enclosure of the outdoor materials would likely not exist if not required by the Community Development Committee Minutes June 8, 2009 Page 4 of 6 Commission and ultimately approved by Council. He concurs with the need to limit the display to live materials, but there must be other limitations regarding the particular area and percentage of the frontage. It has been pointed out to him that the Kroger on Bridge Street uses bales of straw in their fall displays. Are those flammable? Mr. Gerber stated that the letter that is sent out by staff early in the year could address the related restrictions. Ms. Salay noted that bags of mulch are also placed in outdoor displays, and the mulch could be categorized as live, similar to a cut pumpkin or cut tree. Mr. Langworthy responded the language can restrict the items to "now living" materials. Pumpkins and Christmas trees are addressed elsewhere in the Code. Mr. Lecklider inquired if mulch and top soil would be permitted. Mr. Langworthy responded that the difficulty with those is often with the amount of space taken up. He believes it would be easier to limit the displays to "now living" plants. Mr. Lecklider noted that the large pallets of trees sometimes take up quite a bit of space. Mr. Langworthy responded that the text can contain space restrictions. Mr. Foegler stated that in urban streetscapes, the goal is to bring some vitality to the outside of the building and add some interest, especially on a seasonal basis. Flowers, trees, plants -- and to some extent, displays with bales of straw -- can be argued to add visual interest to plain building fronts. If that is the goal, the language can be constructed to achieve that. Items that are bagged in plastic, and other items that do not achieve the goal, would be restricted. Mr. Smith pointed out that a Farmer's Market will soon be coming to Dublin. This amendment should contemplate that as well. Mr. Lecklider asked about appropriate space limitations. Would they be stated in terms of percent of the building frontage, or the total site? He prefers the former. Mr. Langworthy responded that it could be a percentage with a maximum amount specified. Mr. Foegler stated that it would be preferable not to artificially limit the area as much as control the character of the site. It could be argued that, from an interest perspective, the more high quality vegetation and high color provided, the better. Mr. Lecklider referred to the recommendations on page 3 of staffs memo, where it states that "outdoor displays in service areas could be administratively approved," and then in the next sentence states that "the Code could require a conditional use in certain districts, such as the SO District." Most of the examples reflected in the discussion are Community Commercial or PCDs. Perhaps a conditional use should be required in SO and neighborhood commercial. For instance, the Athenry and UDF — what would prevent them from displaying racks of plants? Mr. Foegler stated that neighborhood commercial businesses are much smaller scale with tighter parking. If something general is written, it is important not to permit it in areas where it is not intended. Community Development Committee Minutes June 8, 2009 Page 5 of 6 Ms. Salay inquired about a floral business, located in a neighborhood commercial district, which desires a small outdoor display. If it were prohibited in the district, they would not be able to do this unless they pursued a cumbersome conditional use process. In that case, the business would either set up the display in violation of Code, or not do it, when it would actually be desirable for them to do so from an aesthetics standpoint. Mr. Langworthy stated that the text could be written to ensure the display does not block the sidewalk; takes up only a certain percentage of the frontage; and that it has to be associated with their frontage and property. Some of these will be self limiting. For a small floral business, the sidewalk restriction would be a problem because that is all the outdoor space they have. Mr. Lecklider stated that is his concern. Unless there was a very deep sidewalk, it would create a problem for pedestrians. Mr. Langworthy stated that the less intensive, more neighborhood -oriented districts should have a higher degree of examination than a community commercial district. It is Council's discretion whether that would also be addressed with this amendment or later in the overall Code update. Mr. Lecklider stated that uniformity for these 5 or 6 large businesses should be addressed with the immediate amendment. Mr. Foegler stated that if all these businesses are big box retail, they have a certain minimum size floor plate. Perhaps they could be addressed separately from businesses that have a very modest amount of store frontage. Mr. Lecklider stated that he would defer to staff to determine to what extent this subject can be addressed with this amendment. Mr. Langworthy responded that his concern is that by the time the approval process for this amendment is completed, it will be the end of the growing season. Mr. Lecklider inquired if in that case, a proposed amendment would be provided later in the winter. Mr. Foegler responded that regardless of the time frame, he would recommend that big box retail be addressed separately, not solely because Council desires to address these larger businesses quickly, but also because there could be many issues related to this subject specifically for larger businesses. Mr. Lecklider inquired what would be the necessary timing for this amendment to have it in effect for next spring. Mr. Langworthy responded that it would not be necessary for Council to pass the amendment before their summer break. It could be prepared for later in the fall. Ms. Salay that the language would permit live plant material; organic material not enclosed in a bag, box or package -- so that firewood, soil, mulch and compost would be avoided; pine wreaths, pumpkins, cut Christmas trees and straw bales (if not a fire hazard) would be permitted. Mr. Langworthy responded that it would be necessary to craft language that could not be interpreted as being acceptable to place a "mound" of mulch out there instead. Ms. Salay responded that the wording also should not permit other seasonal displays, such as outdoor grills or lawn furniture. Mr. Keenan noted that bales of straw in a display could present the need for fire inspection. Community Development Committee Minutes June 8, 2009 Page 6 of 6 Mr. Langworthy responded there is a restriction that they cannot be within a certain distance of a fire source. They are typically used for displays and are not for sale. Mr. Foegler stated that it would be limited to a seasonal display. Ms. Salay inquired the Committee's direction for staff. Mr. Lecklider moved to recommend that Council direct staff to expedite a Code amendment to provide the initial requirement that seasonal outdoor displays be limited to live plant materials only. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Mr. Gerber and Mr. Keenan expressed support for the recommendation. The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Clerk of Council