Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/27/1997 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of CnPrial MPPt1Y10 of Tlnhlin ~ it pa~P ~ M@@tlrig DAYT N E AL BLANK CO. CORM NO. 10148 ~'i Hela October 27, 1997 19 I Mayor Kranstuber called the Special Meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 7:00 p.m. He stated that the purpose of this special meeting is for the public hearing on the Community Plan. Mr. Reiner led the Pledge of Allegiance. Roll 11 Council members present were: Mayor Kranstuber, Mrs. Stillwell, Mr. Reiner, Mrs. Boring, Mr. Campbell, and Mr. McCash. Ms. Hide Pittaluga was absent (excused). ~ Staff members present included: Ms. Fierce, Mr. Littleton, Ms. Wingenfield and Ms. i Newcomb. Ms. Fierce presented slides which gave an overview of each of the ten chapters of the Community Plan. Ms. Fierce noted this plan is a guide to future growth of the city, and will serve as the primary policy document. She noted there was extensive community input into the process of this plan over the last three years. The process involved a speaker series, working groups of the Steering Committee, and a community survey. Preliminary land use scenarios were generated and tested for their fiscal, utility, and transportation impacts. Chapter One of the plan is the policy chapter which highlights the principles and goal statements. Chapter Two covers demographics and housing trends and highlights the "build out" of Dublin. Chapter Three is the land use section. It predicts Dublin will reach "build out" by the year 2040, and residential land build out by the year 2010. Chapter Four is the transportation chapter. It outlines traffic volumes and capacity issues, and includes a list of needed network improvements. The bikeway plan is included in this chapter. Chapter Five involves the fiscal element of the Plan. The City is in excellent fiscal health and the Plan examines ways the City can maintain the current level of services while reducing traffic. Chapter Six deals with infrastructure. It analyzes the existing sanitary sewer and water needs. The future capacity for sewer need is limited to the Hyland-Croy Road boundary. Map 6.5 indicates future water tower sites. Chapter Seven deals with community facilities. It shows future locations of new parklands, city hall, schools, and information on libraries, postal services, cemeteries and houses of worship. Chapter Eight deals with the environment and community character. It recognizes the natural resources such as the Scioto River, which will need protection. It also deals with the character of the community, including a map on development suitability, potential flooding areas, steep slopes, and shallow bedrock areas. Items listed under community character include: rural landscapes, Old Dublin, gateway areas, scenic roads, stone walls, parks, and public art. Chapter Nine deals with historic preservation. It provides information about Dublin's archeological resources and historic structures. A heritage resource map is included. The final chapter is the implementation section. It outlines the short and long range implementation steps of the Plan. Included are over 60 policies with multiple related strategies and action statements. Ms. Fierce noted that once the Plan is adopted, the goal will be to carry out the Plan. A community celebration will be held to celebrate the completion of the process. The document will change to more of a "desktop" look in its final form. Mayor Kranstuber asked for public comments at this time. Chris Cline, 6060 Post Road, stated that although he is not a champion ofmulti-family housing, his question is whether the Community Plan made any effort to address this future need for Dublin. As the population ages, and as Dublin grows into a large urban center, there will be a great need for this type of housing. Multi-family should be looked at as a land use tool, and should not be overlooked. Another point is that the land uses in the Plan for Tuttle Crossing are unrealistic. That area will not have low density land uses. In regard to the annexation policy, decisions need to be made based on criteria and what is best for Dublin. In particular, with the stadium issue, there will be a big need for road improvements in that area. He noted that a more flexible annexation policy is needed. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Cnariol Mac>•tinn nf71»hl~.}}~i~~g~}}6}~ ~anP 7 Meeting o ~ AK AL B NK O. CORM NO. 10148 ' Hel-' October 27, 1997 _ _19 ~I ~ Discussion followed. Mayor Kranstuber thanked Mr. King, Chair of the Community Plan Steering Committee for all of the efforts on this Plan. The Committee has done a great job of creating a good document for future city planning purposes. Mr. King stated that the Steering Committee understood that Council and Planning Commission would likely make modifications to the Plan in their workshop sessions. Mayor Kranstuber asked for any additional comments regarding multi-family housing. Mr. King responded that three years ago, this was the very issue that the Steering Committee understood would be the most complicated and controversial. He noted that the Committee was comprised of 22 members. It was a very diverse group of people with a variety of viewpoints, and what the Steering Committee came up with in the Community Plan reflected the majority of the group. The land use diagrams clearly articulate the potential for future development. In looking at the future of Dublin, the employee base will grow to 90,000 and Dublin cannot house all of those employees. Dublin can provide some opportunities. What the Plan tried not to do was to create a problem for someone else to address. The Plan tried to solve some of the traffic problems within the community. The Plan does the best job possible when looking at all the issues comprehensively. Everything works together in this document in trying to create that nexus, so Council members or Planning Commissioners can have a document on which to base decisions. He added that the multi-family issue was well covered in the discussions by the Steering Committee. Ms. Fierce stated that this issue was also discussed by Council members during their x Community Plan retreat. She noted that traffic continues to be the number one issue in town and this is a focus throughout the Plan. Mayor Kranstuber invited Council members to comment. Mr. Reiner asked for feedback from the two Council candidates in the audience tonight, Ms. Salay and Ms. Witte regarding the two Avery Road multi-family projects and whether the density is too high. Ms. Salay commented that the area just north of Tuttle Crossing will become a major thoroughfare and the entire corridor of Tuttle Crossing could become another Sawmill Road in view of the fact that Columbus is so close and because of the big box retail in the area. Mrs. Boring stated that this concerns her as well. She is frustrated with the argument that Columbus has that type of development on the other side of the street. At some point, there has to be a line of demarcation. Does this Community Plan help Dublin to defend their land use policies? Ms. Fierce commented that the Law Department is researching this matter. Mrs. Stillwell commented she would like a legal opinion regarding the defensibility of the entire Community Plan before Council votes. She requested that it be included in the Council packet prior to the vote. Ms. Kahle stated that it would be provided to Council prior to voting. Mr. Campbell noted: 1) In the last Council work session, the densities were reduced by Council. 2) Regarding the annexation policy, he doesn't believe the Plan should state that Dublin will never annex outside its service boundaries. The Plan provides for a very solid financial base for RSE CaTlViee'~ng o~DublRn City~CouE D I N G SPage 3 Minutes of Meeting DAN N LE AL BLANK 00. CORM NO. X0148 October 27, 1997 Hela 19 I ~ the City, even without a need for annexation, but the door should be kept open for discussions on annexation. The Plan calls for considering annexation to the northwest and west if ~ necessary. 3) The workshop summary Council received did not include the footnote about the stadium which is to be added in the Plan in the same manner as the storm water management was added as a footnote. 4) He strongly suggests that the Plan include specific examples of what Dublin does that makes it unique, not just in principle, but definitions that include: the stone walls on its bridges; the stone walls on the roadways; the mast arm signals, including the paint color; the street light style; and the desirability for parkways and medians. Ms. Fierce stated that staff has created a "to do" list of what is still to be completed on this Plan, and these items are on the list. There was consensus among Council members to include those examples in the Plan. Mr. Campbell further noted: 5) The need to define what an actual "gateway" into Dublin looks like. He believes this was defined already by ordinance at some point. 6) Another item which has not shown up on any of the revisions to the Plan is including Brand Road as an example of a scenic road. He would like that added to the Community Plan. Mr. Reiner commented: 1) In the last Council workshop, there was consensus to delete the office and optional multi- family along Bright Road. Small scale office was to be substituted. 2) The recommendations of the Plan should be brought to Council in ordinance form as soon as possible. 3) Regarding 200 foot setbacks on all roads, he wonders if this is adequate. Some of the more scenic roads have more than 200 feet, and he does not want to cap the setbacks at 200 feet. 4) The area between Sawmill Road and Riverside Drive should remain as low density. Mayor Kranstuber asked if Muirfield Drive would be classified as scenic road, as that is always given as an example of a scenic road. Ms. Fierce noted that Ms. Clarke had suggested in a previous meeting that any street currently called a "road" could be classified as a "scenic" road. Following discussion, staff agreed to provide Council with a list of possible scenic roads in town for their review. Mr. McCash commented there is a need to look at setbacks for all roads, instead of limiting this to just one particular type of road. Mayor Kranstuber agreed with Mr. Reiner about the need to prepare the ordinances for implementation as quickly as possible. Ms. Fierce asked about Council's expectations in terms of revisions in the document prior to the vote. Mayor Kranstuber stated that the length of the "to do" list concerns him. He believes that Council should not approve the Plan until the revisions are completed. Mrs. Stillwell suggested that since Council has concerns about adopting a Plan with a "to do" she supports tabling the vote until the November 17, 1997 Council meeting. Mr. McCash stated that he is hesitant to adopt a Plan with a "to do" list -they should have a completed Plan prior to the adoption. He would prefer that staff work on implementation RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of QnP~ial MPPtInQ nfTlnhlin rit3/~''~l~t}ril p~r,a dMeeting 0 DAYT N AL 8 NK CO. CORM NO. 10148 it Held October 27, 1997 19 - ~ legislation following the Plan adoption rather than revisions to the Plan itself. I Mr. Campbell commented that if they wait for a perfect document, it will never be voted upon. There will always be new developments. To draft all of the implementation legislation at the same time as the Plan is adopted is unrealistic. Mrs. Stillwell asked what the major items on the "to do" list are. She agrees that the Plan will never be perfect, and it is important to have a vote. Mayor Kranstuber noted that the list includes the setback issue and the density issue. Ms. Fierce stated that none of the changes discussed at the Council workshop has been incorporated into the document at this time. Revising the maps also will take some time. Mrs. Stillwell stated that these are technical problems. She is concerned more with the policy issues that are yet to be resolved. Mr. Reiner would like to keep the area around the river road as low density in order to keep that as a scenic corridor and reduce the number of stop lights. He asked about the policy of burial of utility lines. Mayor Kranstuber responded that this item was already discussed and placed on the list. Mr. Reiner asked about the status of a policy regarding detention basins being used in the green space calculation. Ms. Fierce noted that is not currently addressed anywhere in the Plan. It was the consensus of Council not to allow any watershed basins to be considered as part of the credit for greenspace. Mr. Reiner brought up the issue of including setbacks in the calculation of green space. Ms. Fierce noted that many developments have been given green space credit for the setback areas. Discussion continued. The consensus of Council was that setbacks should not be considered as part of the greenspace requirements except under extraordinary circumstances. Mr. Reiner would like to see some future policy set regarding steep slopes and ravines, about methods to retain foliage, and methods to prevent erosion. However, these are not critical for this Plan. Mr. McCash commented: 1) Regarding the annexation policy and the timing for annexations, there is a lot of development pressure in the southwest area. Council has discussed developing a park in the southwest area, but there is no real designation in the Plan for that. The Plan calls for a metro park in the northwest area. If that doesn't come about, he would like efforts for farmland preservation in order to preserve the rural character of the area. The whole area of Tuttle Crossing has expansion and retail development pressures much greater than the northwest area. He believes that the prioritizations are reversed in the annexation policy contained in the Plan. 2) Section 8.2 doesn't define a proposed gateway at the 33 corridor, coming down Post Road to the 161 interchange. As a western gateway into the community, this should be defined. 3) The map for 8.1 appears to be inaccurate. One area of the map is labeled as a flood area, however he has seen no flooding in this location. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO.. FORM NO. 10148 ~ Held October 27, 1997 19 Ms. Fierce noted she will check on this matter and will add another gateway symbol along that western boundary. - Mayor Kranstuber asked whether Mr. McCash is suggesting a more aggressive approach in Dublin's annexation policy. Mr. McCash responded that if the City is going to be aggressive in protecting the northwest area boundaries, they need to be equally aggressive in the southwest. The development ~ pressure in the southwest is greater than that around the Hyland-Croy area. I Mrs. Boring commented that the southwest area is currently in the Hilliard Schools, and annexing this would put more strain on Dublin Schools. If this is being considered, input should be solicited from the school systems involved. Mr. McCash stated that the area currently designated to be annexed by the year 2010 along the western boundary maybe commercial development, especially due to the potential stadium location. Ms. Fierce stated that the Plan actually shows all that area as being residential. The stadium is not currently included on the Plan. Mayor Kranstuber agreed with Mr. McCash that if Dublin annexes that area, Dublin will have some control over it. There will, however, be a burden on City services and schools. Mayor Kranstuber asked if there are four members of Council who agree on this annexation policy change for the southwest area. Mr. Campbell stated that he would prefer to leave this to the discretion of a future Council when they are considering annexations. If the issue is that the areas of the northwest and the southwest should have equal consideration, that is the fair thing to do. When considering annexation issues, the landowners themselves have to request annexation. Mrs. Stillwell agreed with Mr. Campbell. The issue is one of control. Mrs. Boring stated that in view of the financial impact on the schools, she doesn't support annexing this area in three years. She does not want to make this a policy. Mayor Kranstuber agreed with Mrs. Boring on the school impact issue. Mrs. Stillwell stated that changing the annexation policy to make it more aggressive would have financial impacts on other portions of the Plan. Mr. Littleton pointed out that when the City has been involved in annexing property, there has been a long standing agreement that the City provide utilities to the area. This is a large area of land, and providing City services would be a big hurdle. Mr. McCash commented that with the stadium in that area, the development pressures will be even greater. Dublin needs to provide a logical growth boundary not only in the northwest, but in the southwest. Mr. McCash moved that everything east of Cosgray Road between the current Dublin borders, on Map 3.6 and Cosgray Road be revised for annexation by 2000, and everything west of Cosgray Road by 2010, and that some additional analysis be done in terms of farmland preservation or other methods to preserve rural character in the southwest area. Mayor Kranstuber stated that they should check with the school district on this, as it has been Dublin's policy not to annex areas that aren't in the Dublin School District. Mr. Cline stated that there is nearly 4,000 acres in this area. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Cnari~~ AifaP4incT nf71„hl+„ ~}~~91~~6}~ ~~eMeeting 0 AYf E A BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 Hel-' October 27, 1997 lg Mrs. Stillwell stated she doesn't want to make the decision tonight although Mr. McCash has raised some good points. There is not enough information available to revise the whole annexation policy. The motion died for lack of a second. Mrs. Boring asked about the stadium issue. Mr. Campbell noted that the stadium issue is to be a footnote to the Plan. Mrs. Stillwell suggested they add this annexation discussion as a footnote also. There was consensus on Council to add a footnote that the southwest annexation by the year 2010 would be looked at with these issues in mind, and that the opportunity to control that land is of primary importance. Mayor Kranstuber added that Mr. Campbell has pointed out that under Chapter 10.27, all land within the City of Dublin in the future is to be listed under the Dublin School district. This is a strategy listed under schools. Mr. McCash asked if the issue of office densities has been resolved. He understood that the entire City was not tested at the 17.5 density, and he would like this included before the vote on November 17. A statement that indicates that only the office area along I-270 was tested at 17.5 should be included in the Plan. Mrs. Boring stated that staffwas also to make a different notation on the map to distinguish residential use by color. Mr. McCash noted that the generalizations on the soil maps have been discussed. He would like to see something regarding Item 32. Item 10 is also still outstanding. Mrs. Boring commented that regarding green space requirements for office development, she would like staffto prepare a policy recommendation on office development greenspace requirements or encouraging some kind of artwork or contributions towards an Art Fund. There is a green space policy currently for residential developments, but she would like to see more greenspace around the office developments. Ms. Fierce responded that this statement can be added. There was consensus on Council to incorporate this suggestion. Mrs. Stillwell asked whether her suggestion includes public art or some public art contribution as an offset for office density. She would like to consider that as an incentive. Ms. Fierce asked if Council would also want to consider a developer's setting aside space for a school, church, or larger park as an offset for higher density of residential development. Mrs. Stillwell responded that Council had not discussed this specifically. Mr. Campbell stated that his interpretation of the workshop discussion was that there wasn't enough incentive to waive those limits for residential, but for office, there was some incentive to waive those limits for a particularly special art work. Mrs. Stillwell commented: 1) This Plan addresses policies that have been established and it reflects the community's and Council's thoughts and principles. 2) This Plan will never be perfect, but is an ongoing process of fine tuning 3) The vision that the Steering Committee had at the outset of this process has been established in the different elements of each of the chapters, which makes her feel comfortable with the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Meeting DAVT N E AL BLANK CO. CORM NO. 10148 III ~ October 27 1997 Held ~ 19 I I I'. Plan. ~ ~ 4) Her concern is with the enforceability of the Plan. She would prefer stronger language than "encourage" and would advocate using words such as "require" or "do". 5) This is a policy document and has taken over two years of hard work. She agrees with Mr. Campbell and Mr. Reiner that ordinances should be adopted as soon as possible. 6) There will be a lot of issues and a lot more work which will need continuing community input. 7) Asa "Community Plan", this is the community's plan and should reflect the communitv's ~ wishes for the future. I Mayor Kranstuber had no further comments. He asked about the status of the appearance code issue. Mr. King noted that this needs to be addressed community wide as an aesthetics review. Mayor Kranstuber suggested that a portion of the goal setting session be set aside to discuss implementation of the Plan. Mrs. Stillwell moved to table the vote on the Community Plan until the November 17, 1997 City Council Meeting. Mayor Kranstuber seconded the motion. Vote on the motion - Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Stillwell, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Kranstuber, yes. Mayor Kranstuber asked if there were any further comments from those in attendance. M ala stated that she and Ms. Witte had further discussion about the issue raised earlier by Mr. Reiner. While Columbus has "big box" retail use on its portion of Tuttle Crossing, Dublin's vision should be something different. That intersection should have green space and serve as a gateway into Dublin. Ms. Witte added that the City should require developers to include green space in order to provide separation from Columbus at the borders. Ms. Salay stated that she would like to see a more clear vision established for that area of Dublin. She doesn't want to see additional multi-family development in that location. Mrs. Stillwell stated that gateway definition should be added to the "to do" list. Mr. McCash asked if Council would consider eliminating the retail on Map 3.13 for the area on the north side of Tuttle Crossing, while leaving in the multi-family. Ms. Fierce asked for clarification -would that refer to the existing Avery Road farm market? Mr. McCash responded that he does not want to create another Morse Road situation along Tuttle Crossing. The farm market is but a small portion - he is referring to the larger area. Ms. Newcomb noted that in the implementation portion, there are several policies related to gateway areas and to creating positive images of Dublin. Ms. Salay asked if Council would specifically direct staff to remove all of the retail from the Tuttle Crossing area. Mr. McCash commented that what he was proposing is to eliminate it from Map 3.13. Mrs. Stillwell commented that gateways need to be defined as a first step prior to taking any additional action. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of cPP~;at ~rPPt;,,e ~frn,t,r~e~~~cil pogo QMeeting D E AL B NK CO. FORM NO. 10148 October 27, 1997 lg Hel j The meeting was adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m. I =V G ayor -Presiding Officer i Actin Cl of Co cil e d