Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-11-01 CDC MinutesDublin City Council Community Development Committee ZONING CODE REVIEW Friday, May 11, 2441, 6:44 p.m. Council Planning Room Attending: John Reiner, Chau- Robert Adamek Greg Peterson Cathy Boring Brad Johnson, consultant, Ratio Architects Allen Weinstein, attorney, Consultant to Ratio Architects Jennifer Readler, Assistant Law Director Barbara Clarke, Director of Planning Robert Price, Chief Building Official Dave Marshall Paul Hammersmith Flora Rodgers Mr. Reiner called the Community Development Committee meeting to order at 7:05. He asked Mr. Johnson to review the progress to date. Mr. Johnson stated that the purpose of tonight's meeting is to obtain feedback on the content of each section of the new Zoning Code. He and Mr. Weinstein will do the wordsmithing at this point. He stated that at the last workshop, the Committee had asked that a Neighborhood Commercial District and an Agricultural District be added. He distributed copies of mock-ups ofthose districts to be included in tonight's discussion. ARTICLE 2: ZONING DISTRICTS Mr. Johnson asked for comments on this section. Mr. Adamek inquired if the reference to low density in the Multi-family Residential (M-1) would be eliminated. Mr. Johnson stated it would. They will also add "detached homes" in the Single Family 1 (SF1) category. Mr. Adamek inquired about the change that was to be made to Limited Industrial (LI). Ms. Clarke stated that the decision had been made to place research and development facilities in Office Conunercial as opposed to Limited Industrial. She pointed out that OCLC, for instance, could be moved from LI to OC. Discussion followed regarding the need for a LI district. Ms. Clarke stated that there is still the need for that classification. Metatec, Applied Innovation, Safety Solutions, True to Form Body Shop, Stanley Steemer, Top of the Table, and a few others, require that type of zoning. All ofthose uses in a zone result in a zone that few other uses want to locate near. It would be best to leave them in a Limited Industrial Zone, as they are currently. Ms. Clarke added that direction from last meeting was to differentiate which Single Family districts were for existing and which were for new. Zoning Code Review Team May 11, 2001 Page 2 Mr. Johnson pointed out that page 2-3, Item 2.5 -Unlisted or Questionable Land Uses, provides that if a proposal is made for something that is not listed as a permitted or conditional use, the Planning staff would make the determination of whether it is a close or similar use. If it is determined not to be such, the developer may appeal that to the Board of Zoning Appeals. If the use cannot be permitted, they would need to obtain a use variance or a rezoning for their project. Mrs. Boring inquired how this is currently handled. Ms. Clarke responded that if an application is made for an unpermitted use, stafftries to find a district with uses with similar characteristics, such as hours, impact, and traffic, and advise the applicant that they would need to be zoned accordingly. She anticipates that the new code will eliminate some current uses. For instance, (General Industrial), which is heavier industrial -- foundries, ammo plants, etc., will be eliminated. One ofthe criticisms of the current zoning code is that the land in Dublin is far too expensive for anyone to do anything as land intensive as dirty manufacturing, as is found in typically industrial areas. At $60,000 per acre, no uses will be attracted that require a large amount of acreage. The City's desire is to reinforce its commercial base with uses that are clean manufacturing. ARTICLE 3: RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS Single Family~SF1) District. Ms. Clarke stated that at the last zoning code revie~~- meeting, the Committee had requested that staff study the results of a potential increase in sideyard width from the current eight feet to 20 feet. She stated that approximately 450 of the residential lots are zoned R-1, and about 14% of those do not comply with the eight foot standard. If the sideyard width was increased to 20 feet, 35 percent of Dublin's lots would be nonconforming. She added that the 8-foot sideyard commitment has been in existence many years. She noted that some of those in the 14% noncompliance category might be garages or sheds. Those were permitted within the required sideyards until the Accessory Uses ordinance was passed last year, at which time they became nonconforming. Mr. Adamek stated that he preferred not to put current residences in a nonconforming status. He would like the requirement to remain at 8 feet; perhaps wording could be added that new construction be made with a 20-ft. sideyard. Mrs. Boring stated that she does not want to add any language. An owner of a heavily wooded lot must comply with the City's requirement for tree preservation. So, to avoid the trees, the house must be constructed close to the sideyard. IVIr. Reiner suggested the property owner could apply for a variance from B.Z.A. Mrs. Boring responded that she does not favor making the homebuilding process more difficult, expensive, and time consuming than it already is. The fact is, with a large lot, the City will get what it wants in green space. Even if two homes are built immediately adjacent to each other, the rest of the lot is green space. Zoning Code Review Team May 11, 2001 Page 3 IVIr. Reiner inquired how many lots are greater than an acre. Mrs. Clarke responded approximately 500 lots. Mr. Reiner stated that he wants to preserve the look along Riverside, Brand Road, etc. It adds to the whole ambience ofthe community. How can that be done? Mr. Johnson inquired if it would be difficult to accumulate the follow-ing information regarding the homes along Riverside Drive: size of lot, setbacks, and sideyards. Ms. Clarke stated that she has 425 of those now. Mr. Reiner inquired what other areas, other than along the river, have this type of density. Ms. Clarke stated the R-1 development is along the old roads, Riverside, Dublin, Bright, Summitview, and Post roads. There are a couple of subdivisions, such as like River Forest or the Woodlands, that were plotted with acre+ lots. Mr. Reiner inquired how to preserve those areas from lot splits. Mr. Marshall responded that minimum lot width and minimum acreage prevent that. Ms. Clarke stated that it becomes more likely that the lots will be split if the minimum lot size is decreased from 40,000 square feet to 30,000 square feet, which is what this Code proposes. Mr. Reiner inquired why that was done. Ms. Clarke responded that it worked with the Community Plan, and the density buffer system that ~~~as put together. Mr. Reiner noted that an acre is 43,000 square feet. He stated that he believes this will invite lot subdivision. Mr. Weinstein inquired if the Community Plan acknowledged the unique characteristics of these old roads and the area along the river. Ms. Clarke responded that the Community Plan recognized that the river corridor, including both sides of it, as special, and it establishes the lowest density in the plan, ranging from .5 unit/acre to 1.0 unit/acre. There is also recognition of the scenic value of the other roads in the community, but it does not project densities for those roads. Mr. Weinstein stated that the Community Plan recognition ofthe uniqueness of the river corridor and the visual, scenic uniqueness ofthose other roads supports implementing an overlay district for those limited areas. The SF1 category will be maintained as the general district. Minimum lot width and higher minimum acreage is the only way to achieve the goal. Zoning Code Review Team May 11, 2001 Page 4 Mr. Peterson inquired if increasing the minimum lot size would allow flexibility in the sideyards and front yards. Ms. Clarke stated that changing the minimum lot area would still result in the same degree of nonconformity. Mrs. Boring asked ~-hy that land wouldn't move into the SF2 category. Mr. Weinstein stated that the determining factor is not what SF category the lot falls within; it is where the district is mapped that the lot is in. He suggests an overlay for that district that would onclude whatever figures are necessary to achieve the City's goal. He added that it is not productive at this point to discuss how the overlay should look. It would be better to let staff study the existing zoning map and the lots in those districts and develop a proposal based on the data. IVIr. Reiner inquired about the lot size reduction. Ms. Clarke stated that the current R1 designation has a 30,000 square foot lot, all of the regular Rls have a 40,000 square foot lot. As a result of the discussions on how to create and reinforce the scenic quality of the City's transportation corridors, staff used the Road to Wow guidelines and created density bonuses that were specifically tied to the densities in the Community Plan and gave a trade-off to a developer of more lots for including enhancements, bigger setbacks, etc. along the scenic road. At a 40,000 square foot lot minimum, considering the parkland set aside and the dedication of public road, the maximum density ends up less than one. There is no enhancement program, because there isn't a way to put an incentive in. Mrs. Boring asked if the intent isto cover and preserve the existing lots. Discussion continued regarding R1 lots and maximum lot size. Mr. Johnson stated there are two options: (1) provide a overlay district to protect the integrity of the lots in the scenic areas and discourage lot conversion, and (2) add another single family district that is a larger lot district, perhaps 45,000 square feet. He agrees with Ms. Clarke that the SF1 should not be increased to 40,000; that would begin to skew from the Community Plan's goals. The densities in the Plan are specific. 30,000 square feet may seem small, but once the public improvements and open space are counted, it would make a difference on a 100-acre property 80 houses as opposed to 120 houses. Mrs. Boring stated that the individual who wants to develop 100 acres can ask for whatever rezoning he wants. The objective here is to make it impossible for the owner of property along the river to ontain a lot split without also requesting a rezoning. Mr. Johnson stated that they would come up with a formula to preserve the look and the density of the river corridor. Zoning Code Review Team May 11, 2001 Page 5 IVIr. Reiner inquired if an overlay of those properties could bring a major public response. Mr. Weinstein responded that is why they need to look at the parcels and size of those parcels that would be affected. They study should include an assessment of how much the City would be restricting development options. Mr. Adamek inquired about reference to Permitted Uses. Under church, temple, mosques, if located on five or more acres or schools on ten or more acres -where did those numbers come from? Mr. Johnson stated that there is not a strong basis for those numbers. He would rather address it from the aspect of a maximum lot coverage. Mr. Adamek asked him to make that change. Ms. Clarke stated that staff made that change. There isn't a church or school in Dublin about which staff has not received complaints from neighbors and had code enforcement problems. She isn't comfortable with the fact that there is no zone in Dublin in which a church cannot come in and build a church by right. In a residential district, perhaps it is fair that a church be made a conditional use and must ask permission to build. Her rule of thumb is not to restrict churches, and requiring a church to go through conditional use procedures snakes her uncomfortable. Mr. Weinstein stated that this view does not focus on the church as a place of worship in this case, but as an assembly use, with many cars and noise from different events -all ofwhich are incompatible with a residential neighborhood. The same view should be taken for schools. His primary concern for making these a conditional use is the new Federal law protecting religious use. Conventional religions would not be a problem, but an "unusual" religion undergoing a conditional use process could create litigation and liability problems for the community. Since the new law was passed last fall, a new group, the Beckett Fund has been sponsoring litigation against communities citing discriminations against churches. That could be an argument for permitted use. Mrs. Boring stated that a school tends to be a more intense use, and it is very unlikely that a school would not be approved. Since a church is much less intensive, it does not seem appropriate to suggest that they be put through an approval process. If the goal is to reduce traffic and encourage positive growth within the communities, it is better to make it as easy as possible for them to come in. Mr. Cline stated that he did not see any problem with requiring five acres as the minimum lot size. Mr. Weinstein added that the maximum lot coverage would address a really large church that could want to come in on only five acres -- it would have too much impervious surface. Mrs. Boring clarified that the Code will include lot size and lot coverage. Mr. Marshall inquired which threshold for acreage would apply in the case of a church/school. Zoning Code Review Team May 11, 2001 Page 6 IVIr. Johnson stated that they should be required to meet the requirements for the most intense use. Mr. Weinstein stated that some of the cases pending involve school use being added to an existing church property. Discussion continued. Mr. Johnson stated that staff would attempt to clarify the section. Ms. Clarke asked what the direction was regarding sideyards. Is staffto review increasing lot size and abandon the sideyard study? Mr. Johnson stated that the consultants will look at creating another single family district with a larger lot size and possibly a larger sideyard setback. Single Family~SF2~ Mr. Adamek inquired if base density and adjusted maximum density will be added. Ms. Clarke stated that a density of 1.1 and 1.5 will be used. Ms. Clarke noted that Engineering had made a request regarding the graphics, that the tree line and sidewalk be clarified, so that the widths do not look similar. Mr. Reiner asked why the lot size was decreased. Ms. Clarke stated that it was based on the fact that there are already many 20,000 sq. lots exist right now. This district was not pulled from the Community Plan, as the other districts were. After the other districts were created, it was apparent that there were several neighborhoods that did not fit into those districts; consequently, SF2 was created. Mr. Marshall inquired if low intensity daycare should be included in the permitted uses. Ms. Clarke stated that since State law allows this use, it was deleted from this document. Mr. Weinstein suggested including the use, perhaps under Additional Development Standards, to meet the goal to have auser-friendly document. This will also cut down on staff time that would be gij~en to inquiries. Citizens can look it up, and answer the question for themselves. Mr. Johnson responded that childcare daycare homes [small] can be included in the definitions. Mr. Peterson stated that if it is included in the definitions, the use should be included in the appropriate place in the document, and Single Family Residence is the only place it would be used. Single Family 3 (SF3, /Single Family~SF4Z Mr. Reiner inquired if the density is lower in SF4. Zoning Code Review Team May 11, 2001 Page 7 Mr. Johnson stated that SF4 is for existing housing only, not to be applied to new development. Its purpose is to avoid creating nonconforming uses. Mrs. Boring asked where cluster homes would be placed. Mr. Adamek answered in multi-family. Historic Residential. Mr. Johnson stated that this is for existing development in Old Dublin. Ms. Clarke stated that there are a couple of blocks established as unbuildable. IVIr. Reiner inquired about lack of sideyards between the houses. Ms. Clarke stated that the only area in which there are no sideyards is on High Street, and those are primarily commercial properties. Most ofthe remaining buildings meet the four feet minimum sideyards. Multi-Family. Mr. Adamek referred to the adjusted maximum density. He stated that the Community Plan set it as 5.0. Is it set at 5.5 because of WOW? Ms. Clarke stated that the "adjusted" does refer to an adjustment per the Wow program. She noted that the WOW work team set ten percent above the residential density in the Code as the highest number Planning and Zoning could accept. IVIrs. Boring stated that her primary concern is with the ones that are approved but not built. Ms. Clarke inquired if, in the attempt to adopt a new code and move away from planned unit development, it would be best to leave these PUDs in place and carry over some ofthose regulations, or would it be better to place them in a new district? Mr. Reiner asked if there should be a larger mandatory setback in the multi-family; for instance, a 150-ft setback and 60 - 100-ft. sideyards. If the goal is to assure higher quality multi-family, similar to Asherton, isn't this necessary? Discussion continued regarding specific multi-family developments in process. Ms. Clarke stated that they are PUDs with a density of 5.0 and 8.1. The suggested setback requirement would indicate something substantially different than thew concepts. Discussion continued regarding standards to make multi-family look residential. Mr. Johnson stated that the height restrictions for all residential is the same. Multi-family is meant to be the same as it is for single family, 35 feet, to make them look similar in scale to residential. Mr. Reiner pointed out the multi-family on Martin Road as an example ofthe type ofmulti-family to avoid. Zoning Code Review Team May 11, 2001 Page 8 Ms. Clarke agreed that it is often listed as the least favorite multi-family; however, it does meet City Code, albeit barely. She stated that height is not the problem. Architectural design guidelines, offsets based on the size of the structure, and broken rooflines may address the need. Mr. Johnson suggested a setback of half the proposed right of way or two times the height of the building, whichever is greater. So, if the developer's plan were fora 35-ft. building, it would be set back 70 feet from the edge of the right-of--way. Using a "half the right-of--way" standard, it would be 30 feet. Ms. Clarke stated that the units in question are set back 30 feet, and it seems insufficient. She suggested that they consider one-third of the lot depth. Mr. Johnson stated that they will work on this revision for multi-family setbacks. Mobile Home Parks. Mr. Reiner stated that the City does have one mobile home park. It is high quality with asphalt streets. How, then can the City set the highest standards for this type of housing to assure a quality of life for these neighborhoods? Mr. Johnson stated that this district was established to accommodate the one existing mobile home park, but it also allows for the possibility of an application for another one. The first step would be an application for a rezoning. At that point, Council has the discretion to determine if they really want to rezone it for that purpose. IVIrs. Boring inquu•ed about the potential for litigation. Mr. Johnson stated that would depend upon the basis for Council's decision. There shouldn't be a suggestion that Council does not want a mobile home park in their community. Rather, the decision should be based on traffic, sun•ounding uses, community character, preservation of property values, etc. Mr. Reiner stated that some features to assure quality are landscaping, setbacks, paved streets, buried utilities, green space, spaces between unit, tot lot for children, site amenities, foundation, drainage. Mr. Johnson stated that they have most ofthose and will add the missing categories. Mrs. Boring inquired if it is possible to have a color code, for instance, natural colors. Mr. Johnson stated that it is difficult for a City to arbitrarily enforce color requirements, unless it is in a historic district. Agricultural District. Mr. Johnson stated that this is a new district created per direction given at the last workshop. They started with a template for 40 acres, for a buildable site with a primary structure. Zoning Code Review Team May 11, 2001 Page 9 Discussion continued regarding amount of acreage. Mr. Johnson stated that a smaller size, 10 acres, could be farmed, but a primary structure could not be placed on that. Ms. Clarke inquired why anything less than 40 acres would be permitted in the district. Mr. Johnson stated that in practice, the agricultural district can be used for agricultural purposes, regardless of the lot size. However, 40 acres is typically the trigger for allowing a home to be added to that property. Following discussion, Mr. Johnson agreed to amend the minimum lot area to a minimum often acres for either a house or a horse, with a minimum frontage of 200 feet, sideyards of 40 sq. feet, minimum front yard setback of &0 feet, with a well and septic system. Discussion continued about right-of--way. Mr. Johnson noted that the Community Plan proposes aright-of--way of 50 feet. Setback from the road was set at 50 feet minimum. ARTICLE 4: INSTITUTIONAL AND COMMERCIAL Neighborhood Parks. Mr. Adamek referred to Permitted Uses and inquired about landscaped paths. Ms. Clarke asked to have the reference to landscaping removed. Mr. Adamek asked why there is a minimum front yard setback for a park. Mr. Johnson stated that it is necessary to get the parking lot off the curb. Also, anything that would attract children must be set back from the road a certain distance. I~•1s. Clarke recommended a minimum of 30 feet. Discussion continued re. classifications of parks and parking lots for those parks. Mr. Marshall noted that water fountains are not listed as a permitted use in Neighborhood Parks (NP), although they are in Community Parks (CP). Mr. Johnson will add that use to NP. Community Parks. Mr. Reiner inquired if the setbacks would be the same. Zoning Code Review Team May 11, 2001 Page 10 Mr. Johnson responded that they would need to be the same or more. In the Community Park, it is more likely that a parking lot would be needed. Ms. Clarke stated that sports fields were to have been listed under Permitted LJses, and outdoor lighting as a Conditional Use. Mr. Johnson stated that he will list sports fields without lighting as a permitted use; sports fields with lighting as a conditional use. Discussion continued regarding lighting for tennis courts and skateboard parks, in addition to ball fields. Mrs. Boring recommended that night lighting not be linked to sports fields, as there are other places night lighting can be used. IVIr. Johnson agreed to word accordingly. Mr. Weinstein pointed out that assembly use is listed as a Conditional Use for this district. It is possible that a church could also be interested in this use. Ms. Clarke asked if a church should be included in the Conditional Use. It is possible that a church could buy 20 acres of land zoned for commercial park or neighborhood park. Mr. Johnson will add church as a Conditional Use. Mr. Price uiquired about sound systems in parks. Mr. Johnson noted that PA systems are not a use of land. In Development Standards, there are performance standards that address the maximum decibels that are generated at the property line. Anything that creates noise is addressed there. ARTICLE FOUR: INSTITUTIONAL AND COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS Mr. Reiner inquired about the 30-ft. setback. Mr. Johnson stated that in most places the right-of--way determines the setback. Mr. Adamek asked if the sideyards and rear yards mirrored current Code. IVIs. Clarke responded that they do not. This reflects what staff believes is a good standard. Mr. Adamek inquired about the maximum density; he believed that a density of 9.0 was being used on the smaller lots. Zoning Code Review Team May 11, 2001 Page 11 Ms. Clarke stated that since this was next to Single Family Districts, the idea was that it would more likely be used for office buildings, such as Llewellyn Farms, which tops out at 8.0. Mrs. Boring inquired about retail use in this district, as well as drive-through uses. She inquired about a bank, printshop, grocery, barbershop, restaurant and auto-oriented uses listed as conditional uses in an Institutional Office district. Ms. Clarke stated that restaurants should be removed as a conditional use, as they could result in problems with rodents. The other uses should be logical uses for a small office integration. Mr. Johnson noted that as it is written now, they can be single lots, conditional use; they do not need to be part of a larger development. Mr. Adamek asked if a Fed Ex shipping site (Mail Boxes, Etc.) would be appropriate in this area. Ms. Clarke stated that if it has adrive-through component, auto-oriented uses are mentioned under Conditional Uses. It cannot be an accessory use, as there is no listed primary use. She added that perhaps this use should be specifically listed. 11~Ir. Marshall suggested that it could be listed as postal service. If it is a walk-in service, such as Mailboxes, etc., it would be a permitted use. As adrive-through service, it would be a conditional use. Mr. Johnson will make the revision accordingly. Historic Business District. Mr. Johnson noted that this is designed for the Old Dublin area, primarily existing uses, but it also alludes to new development contiguous to that district. Mr. Marshall stated that Ms. Newcomb suggested adding bed and breakfast, caterer, and ice cream uses as permitted uses. Ms. Clarke noted that a different graphic is needed for this section. IVIr. Johnson responded that they will be making revisions in all the graphics for the business districts. Mrs. Boring inquired if the intent is to list all possible uses; if so, where are the greeting card shop and the art studio? Mr. Adamek stated that it is listed as low intensity retail. Mr. Johnson stated that a Dublin Retail Business Master List was included with their draft ordinance. They will be writing definitions for the categories of low intensity, medium and high intensity retail. They list these categories in the various business districts; and in the definition Zoning Code Review Team May 11, 2001 Page 12 section, they explain what those are, versus creating an exhaustive list of potential businesses. While it may not be as user friendly, it is fairly easy to find out what is low or medium intensity retails. Mr. Marshall inquired if it is a list of examples or an exclusive list of permitted uses. Mr. Johnson stated that the actual permitted uses are listed in that district. Ms. Clarke responded that if a particular use is not listed in the Permitted Use column, the permit is denied. Mr. Johnson stated that only the specific ones listed are permitted. Ms. Clarke stated that they should make it clear that those are the only permitted uses within that category. Mr. Johnson agreed to makes the following revisions: • remove the headings in the list of uses, as they may be misinterpreted. • include church in Permitted Uses • amend maximum lot size to 1/z acre. Mrs. Boring pointed out that all structure changes, such as in the facade, must be pre-approved by the Architectural Review Board. Discussion re. setbacks, which are low to none, and maximum structure height, which is 35 feet for primary an accessory structures. C1 Small to Medium Scale General Commercial. Mr. Johnson will amend retail and office cap to 8,000 sq. feet. Discussion followed regarding the 50 and 60 ft. setbacks. Gffice Commercial. Mr. Marshall suggested that it might be desirable to have a freeway commercial district. Discussion followed regarding structure height. Mr. Johnson stated that they will revisit the height subject. Limited Industrial. Mr. Reiner inquired if this fits the current Code well. He referred specifically to setbacks. Mr. Marshall stated that the 40-ft. sideyard setback for primary and accessory uses is adequate. Zoning Code Review Team May 11, 2001 Page 13 IVIr. Reiner stated that the review will resume tomorrow morning at 8:00 am, beginning with discussion of the Neighborhood Commercial district. Mr. Reiner moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Adamek seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Submitted by: Assistant Clerk of Council