Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/09/1988 . i RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS M illutcs of Dublin City Council Special Meeting ~I Meetillg National Graphics Corp., Cols., O. Form No. 1097 ~ Held May 9, 1988 19 The Special Meeting of the Dublin City Council was called to order by Mayor Michael L. Close at 7:40 P.M. on Monday, May 9, 1988. Members of Council present were: Mayor Close, Mr. Jankowski, Ms. Maurer, and Mr. Strip. Mr. Rozanski arrived at 8:05 P.M. Mr. Amorose and Mr. Sutphen were absent. Mr. Hansley, Mr. Bowman and Ms. Clarke of the City Staff were also present. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Goals, Policies, and Objectives of the Community Master Plan. Mr. Bowman reported that he had condensed the book, taking out the technical portions. He also had a new Land Use section prepared for members of Council. As for procedure, Mr. Bowman suggested going through Mr. Maurer's memo ran dum of April 18, 1988 regarding recent Land Use Committee meetings on the review of the Goals, Policies and Objectives section of the Master Plan. Non-Residential Development Mr. Bowman said that there was a great deal of discussion, some of it controversial, on the density issue; that a statement would be put in the plan that multi-family housing need not be everywhere; that Council can request, that the Planning and Zoning Commission can request a plan which shows where those types of businesses or multi-family units can be placed. Persons present at the meeting were referred to the map, the Schematic Plan, attached to the new Land Use section. Mr. Bowman said that rather than going into a detailed property by property Land Use plan that a Schematic-type Plan would be more appro- priate. He had the following comments: 1. The Plan shows how one area differs from another area. 2. Five zones have been identified. 3. Specific recommendations can be made. 4. The Plan can be used for growth purposes. S. Multi-family units would be planned for the Activity Centers. 6. Each Activity Center is located within each one of the quadrants. 7. There is a Suburban Residential-type zoning district in different areas. One can zone there as long as it is a P.U.D. It provides the open space as well as other amenities such as schools and parks. 8. The Rural Residential around the "fringe" is to hold down impacts. 9. A great deal of specificity is to be avoided in the Plan. Ms. Maurer had a concern with the Schematic-type Plan in that she felt that it should be more specific - that persons would want to know specifically where one area ends and another begins (Avery Road, for example). Mayor Close said that as regards the non-residential development, that the fact that it would be addressed in the Land Use section rather than the policy portion of the Master Plan; that he had no problems with that approach. There was additional discussion regarding whe.ther or not the issue of high density would be specifically addressed in the policy section. It was agreed, after discussion, that it would be deleted from the policy statement and that it would be addressed in the Land Use section. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS M illutcs of Dublin City Council Meeting ~ICS Meet illg National Graphics Corp., Cols., O. Form No. 1097 "'),:',':}" lJ cld May 9, 1988 I 19 Page Two Impact Analysis Requirement Mr. Bowman reported that the intention was to show that the whole plan is geared toward impacts; that the City is going to continue to grow; that staff will continue to try and maintain the same quality that the City has, but how will the City react should it be inundated by growth and development; that a mechanism is required. He noted that at the previous meetings that there was a tendency to get too technical; that discussion was held regarding who specifically would be doing the study, etc. Mr. Bowman said that he was simply trying to make a general statement that Council is in favor of doing an impact analysis. Mayor Close pointed out that Mr. Bowman had avoided the specifics by using language that Council will adopt the ordinances that will require what needs to be done. Mr. Strip said that specifics were discussed because there can be large costs involved in doing an impact statement. Mayor Close felt that those issues could be worked out at the implemen- tation stage, and not in the policy statement. There was some discussion on the advisability or non-advisability of using the term "impact". Mr. Bowman said that for purposes of the plan that he would prefer to use the word "impact". He further stated that when it would come down to the actual ordinance that he would suggest not using the word "impact" but using another term. Limited Industrial Mr. Bowman reported that the discussion had centered around the whole issue of review and appearance-type issues. Should there be an architectural review, project by project; should there be a separate board to do said review; should the Planning Commission continue doing the review? How should the whole issue be approached? Mayor Close said that he thought that some type of architectural review would be appropriate but also said that he did not know whether this particular document would be the place to establish what that review is specifically. He suggested using architectural compatibility as a criteria. Ms. Maurer said that the Planning and Zoning Commission members wanted that language to pervade the document, being able to feel comfortable requiring that compatibility such as they required in the Dublin Village Center. Mayor Close and Ms. Maurer had a concern that if architectural standards were to be added, to what extent would it allow people who do not have any real architectural background to dictate. Ms. Maurer said that she felt that the Planning and Zoning Commission wants to be able to say that there will be architectural compatibility. She went on further to say that a different group should be making those decisions and not the same group that is making the land use decisions. Mr. Jankowski said that he felt that architectural compatibility was a good policy. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS M illutes of Dublin City Council Special Meeting . I K:S Meeting National Graphics Corp., Cols., O. Form No. 1097 "Il> Hcld May 9, 1988 19 Page Three Mayor Close commented that the persons present felt that there should some kind of architectural compatibility implemented; that would be compatibility infra-development, within the development. be f h d d f 'b'l' I Several specific areas 0 t e City were iscusse as ar as compat~ ~ ~t~ of architecture as well as how to determine who sets the tone; as for I example, within a shopping center - the largest developer or the first one to build. It was agreed that under Limited Industrial OBJECTIVES: the folloinwg would be added "to include architectural compatibility". Trafficways Mr. Bowman pointed out that he had added under A. OBJECTIVES _ "The thoroughfare system of Dublin shall be planned, located, designed and constructed and upgraded where deemed necessary to provide for the:" He also added a number S. under B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES: II "5. Develop streetscapes as attractive and integral parts of public open spaces." I Discussion followed regarding whether the words "constructed and upgraded where deemed necessary" as pertaining to the thoroughfare systel would be an impact or exaction and whether or not it should be included in the policy statement. Ms. Maurer noted that persons at BIA would probably rather have a set I I impact fee rather than be "exacted to death". She noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission members, in this I instance as with architectural compatibility, were looking for I direction from Council. Mr. Strip pointed out that the issue reflects something that the City has been doing for years and years anyway. He also pointed out that it would be a negotiated resolution with the developer in almost each and every case by the City, part of it depending upon the number of people involved. It was noted that the City will, on a case by case basis, address how the impacts will be resolved. Mr. Bowman commented that sometimes there will be projects where the City will not be concerned with the impacts; the project in that instance would be something that the City wants. Recreational Facilities The issue was raised at the Land Use meetings about providing for the entire school district; whether the City should be providing recreational facilities for more than would be required to meet the needs of Dublin residents. It was pointed out that 60% of the Dublin school district residents live outside of the Dublin city limits. Mayor Close said that he thought that parents want their children to be able to play and socialize with children with whom they go to school. He also noted that Columbus and other districts have always provided their facilities for use by others. Mr. Hansley pointed out that the Dublin schools do provide their gym facilities for the Parks and Recreation Department activities. I, II II RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS M illutcs of Dublin City Council Sp~cial Meeting natio I '9ri~K:S ~\l eel i /If.!, National Graphics Corp., Cols., O. Form No. 1097 '"'Li> I II del May 9, 1988 19 Page Four Mr. Rozanski suggested approaching other methods of financing, possibly a contribution from a developer of $100.00 per household to be con- tributed to the Parks and Recreation Department as they do in Hilliard. Mr. Bowman said that the A. OBJECTIVE statement had been changed to read,l. "Recreational opportunity for the Dublin community." Open Space for Detention Ponds Ms. Maurer said that a Planning and Zoning Commission member said that the City should not take a part of the open space to use for detention ponds. She also noted that Mr. Bowman has said several times that one can use detention ponds (such as MetroCenter) as a type of amenity in the open space. The Commission member had said that open space is to be used for parks and activities and not detention ponds. Mr. Bowman said that over the next few months staff will be working on an open space/storm plan; what staff will try to do will be to come up with some standards that make it a resource. They will be trying to get the retention basins on public property because in that way they will be better maintained; that they would be a long term City responsibility. Mr. Hansley pointed out the cost to the City of maintaining these retention ponds. He also noted that requirement regarding the planting of street trees and the potential difficulty of maintaining them in 10 to 15 years; specifically mentioning that the City will probably have the world's largest leaf collection operation ever conceived. Mr. Hansley noted that by not piping storm water and taking it to the river directly, the developers are being allowed to save it on site which is a less expensive alternative now; however, the maintenance cost in the future will be high. He suggested considering piping the water underground in a large pipe that cannot be seen to take it to the river, eliminating the mowing and the future maintenance. Mr. Rozanski mentioned a retention system in a subdivision where the retention pond is an underground pipe system; the water is stored in that system and drained off slowly. Instead of having an open pond there is a 60" pipe several hundred yards long which serves as a pond. That pipe fills up and then slowly drains out. Mr. Hansley said that another way to do it is to have a combination _ perhaps have a 30" pipe that goes directly to the river; the water can be held in the pipe and then the pipe can be opened up and the water drained to the river as you wnat to. It was agreed that the situation with regard to the detention ponds/ park space would remain as it is - requests to be reviewed on a case by case basis by staff with an appropriate recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Municipal Administration Building Mayor Close said that he felt that all the administrative services should be located in one municipal service area, but not necessarily in one building. He also suggested that safety services (police and fire) both work out of one safety department headquarters, which mayor may not be co-located with the administration building. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS M illutcs of Dublin City CQuncil Sp~CiRl M~~tinE natio I 'grcr~K:S Mcetillg National Graphics Corp., Cols., O. Form No. 1097 "',2:::> T II cld Ma y 9, 1988 19 Page Five It was agreed that number 3. under B. PRINCIPLES would be changed from police service to safety service. Group Homes It was noted that there had been inquiries about sites for possible group homes in the Dublin area. It was agreed that Mr. Bowman and Mr. Smith would research the matter and be prepared shortly to present some recommendations to Council regarding the matter of group homes in Dublin. Schedule for Adoption of Master Plan Mr. Bowman said that he thought that the document would "take" the City into the year 2000, and Mr. Strip suggested that that information be a part of the finished document. Mr. Bowman said that in the next month or two he would have the document prepared without the technical information, sending out approximately 150 to 200 draft copies to those persons that attended the initial workshop as well as other community leaders for their reaction. It was decided that Mr. Bowman would get the draft copies distributed; that Council would meet in June to discuss the three sections not previously discussed of the plan (Circulation, Public Facilities, and Land Use); that there would be a Public Hearing in August on the entire Master Plan and subsequent vote for adoption by Council. /ft(1!M Mayor - Presiding Officer ~/.?~.~~ lerk of Cunei