Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-15-01 CDC MinutesMINUTES Dublin City Council COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Thursday, March 15, 2001, 7:00 p.m. Council Planning Room Attending: Mr. Reiner, Chair Mr. Adamek Mr. Peterson Ms. Clarke, Director of Planning Ms. Susong, Planner Ms. Readler, Assistant Law Director Brad Johnson, Consultant, Ratio Architects Allen Weinstein, attorney, Consultant to Ratio Architects Mr. Campbell, Planner P & Z Members joining meeting at 8:30 p.m.: Mr. Lecklider, Chair Mr. Fishman Mr. Eastep Mr. Sprague Ms. Salay Mrs. Boring Mr. Reiner called the meeting to order. He stated that preceding the Zoning Code discussion, Mr. Frimerman will present a brief report on behalf of the Old Dublin Association (ODA). Report from Old Dublin Association Mr. Frimerman stated that, as of January 1, he has been serving as the new president of ODA. He introduced Tim Picciano, the new secretary of the Association. He noted that the ODA has changed its name to the "Historic Dublin Association" (HDA) to more closely reflect the recent sentiment of the association regarding the historic district. Its membership has also been revitalized, and more than half of the Board is new. HDA will be the primary group to represent all vested interests in the Historic District -- the businesses, residents, and property owners of the Historic District area. They would like to work closely with the Council and staff on the pertinent recommendations of the Community Plan and the tasks recently identified by the Historic Dublin Task Force. They urge that those projects be moved forward, particularly the stormwater improvements. Mr. Picciano stated that the changes in the Association reflect an intent to unify the voices in Historic Dublin, to build consensus on their issues, and perhaps bring some proposals to Council. Mr. Frimerman inquired about the status of the stormwater improvements proposed for Historic Dublin. Community Development Committee March 15, 2001 Page 2 Mr. Reiner responded that Council expects to receive an estimate for the project within the next week or so. That project will then be prioritized into the current list of projects included in the $500,000 budget for the Historic District for 2001. Any items the budget cannot accommodate will be deferred. Zoning Code Update Mr. Reiner explained that the City has contracted with Ratio Architects to review and update the City's zoning code. The first draft is ready to review. Ms. Susong stated that the proposed Zoning Code revision is in an entirely new and much more interesting format. Mr. Johnson will lead the Committee through a document orientation, hands - on exercises, and discussion items. They would also like to develop a schedule for future review of the document. Mr. Adamek asked Mr. Johnson what percent of the process has been completed thus far in developing the revised Code. Mr. Johnson responded that approximately 40% of the process has been completed. At this point, a couple of sections require further development by the consultants and staff; however, to do that, they need to confirm that they are developing the document in the desired direction. Following the input at tonight's meeting, it should take five weeks to complete this draft. At that point, it will be forwarded for a section by section review with the Community Development Committee and Planning and Zoning Commission. He estimated four to six months to complete the revision process. Mr. Weinstein stated that tonight's meeting will provide a conceptual review of the document. Without Council's view on these concepts, it is impossible to go forward. Mr. Johnson presented an overview of the Zoning Code revision. They first completed an interview process with key interest groups. This involved a workshop and a survey on the web. At that point, Draft A, the basic structure of the document, was developed. A strong input from all groups, especially developers, was that they do not object to meeting high standards, but it is desirable to have the expectations clearly stated up front. Other priorities stated are: buffering, landscaping, development standards, open space, and traffic. The consultants have attempted to provide clear rules and to build in efficiencies. Draft B, which is in process, reflects staff and legal input, and will be the document the committee will review. The consultants took specific direction from the Community Plan to: 1. Develop state -of -the art Zoning Code and subdivision regulations to facilitate implementation of the Community Plan. 2. Revise the City's zoning ordinances to provide for high quality development with a more predictable process. 3. Amend the Zoning Code to permit ancillary, locally serving retail and service uses, including day care facilities, in employment zones. Community Development Committee March 15, 2001 Page 3 They also reviewed 18 months of Planning Commission records of actions. That review revealed conditions that were consistently requested, such as, left -turn lanes, no -build zones, and replacement of dead trees within five years, which will be included in the Code. Amendments to the Code include: 1. Creation of standard residential zones to replace the PLR/PUD uses. 2. Expansion of the Corridor Develoment District to extend along all major thoroughfares in the community. Created strict development standards that require Planning and Zoning approval. 3. Update of development standards to reflect consistent language and a higher degree of defensibility. 4. Elimination of inconsistencies. Over a long period of time, many individual ordinances regarding zoning have been adopted. Inevitably, the language has changed during that period of time, resulting in some inconsistencies. Mr. Reiner stated that the Community Plan is a document with a good outline for the community, but no "teeth." He is encouraged that the revision to the Zoning Code will facilitate implementation of some of that planning. Mr. Johnson responded that some items have been codified; others require direction from Council and P &Z . Those will be covered in the review process. Discussion moved to scheduling. Mr. Johnson suggested that rather than having Community Development Committee and Planning and Zoning Commission review the document separately, that two members of P &Z join the Committee in a combined review process. A group of five would be more efficient. Mr. Johnson stated that the Committee would lead the process and could invite a couple of P &Z members to work with them. Mr. Johnson asked that the first review of the draft be made without a pen. Red, yellow, and green post -its will be provided for the Committee to indicate 3 levels of approval /disapproval. Those color -coded sections will be used to facilitate discussion at the first review meeting. He suggested five meetings in the review process to cover: conceptual review, districts, development standards, subdivisions /planned developments, and enforcement/penalties. He noted that "development standards" may take two meetings. Mr. Johnson stated that the draft will be provided to the Committee on April 23` . The first meeting could be scheduled to follow the first read of the document. Following discussion, the review meetings were scheduled as follows: • Conceptual review — April 30, 7:00 p.m. • Districts - May 11, 6:00 — 9:00 p.m. • Development Standards — May 12, 8:00 - Noon • Subdivisions /Planned developments — May 24, 7:00 p.m. • Enforcement /penalties /fines /administration — June 4, 7:00 pm [Planning and Zoning Commission members joined the meeting at 8:45 p.m.] Community Development Committee March 15, 2001 Page 4 Mr. Johnson asked the Committee to respond to the following questions with a rated response from #1 — Avoid at all costs, to #10 — Don't care how many times it occurs. Questions: 1. To what degree should the City avoid creating non - conforming structures? 2. To what degree is it desirable that the Code be legally defensible? 3. What changes would you suggest to the existing code to help streamline the review process? 4. What do you consider to be usable open space for parkland dedication? 5. Is the sign code meeting expectations as it is written today? 6. What single code provision would you like to change? 7. Is the public review process of design, architecture, and site plan issues being conducted on all the projects desired? Mr. Johnson provided document orientation. He noted that this draft provides for 8 residential districts and 9 non - residential, with a total of 4 types of districts: new construction, old construction, spot zoning, and conversion districts. Many of the planned development areas will be converted into standard zones, which will save significant staff time devoted to research and administration tasks. Ms. Susong described the simplicity of research with the Zoning map and charts in the document. Mr. Johnson noted that this will be published on the web at a future date, which will allow homeowners to research some of their own questions. Mr. Fishman inquired if conversion to a standard district would negate many of the special conditions that were negotiated for PUD's. Ms. Susong stated that those items are not addressed in this. This is strictly for setback standards. The conversion districts are for Planning to use with existing subdivisions. New subdivisions would be SF3 and not PLR, and will go through the platting process. The process is the same, but with the criteria set out, the developer will not need to write an individual development text for a submittal. Ms. Clarke stated that there are areas where the zoning for the land does not match the actual development on that site. For instance, in Muirfield there are pocket areas that are zoned for high density, but much of it is developed well below the density for which it is zoned. There needs to be a meeting point for the two. Mr. Fishman expressed concern regarding certain subdivisions where the lots are 2 -3 acres, and special conditions were given because of those larger lots. He is concerned that if such a subdivision goes to straight zoning, those landowners would be able to redevelop their property. Mr. Reiner inquired if developers could bypass the P &Z process. Community Development Committee March 15, 2001 Page 5 Ms. Clarke responded that they still would be required to go through the P &Z process. Mr. Reiner inquired if it is acceptable to eventually indicate that the City has an adequate supply of a certain type of development. Mr. Johnson responded that it is unwise to ban the development; the City does not want to be charged with being exclusionary. It is better to have a Zoning Code that acknowledges that type of district, and to then write special conditions. Mr. Johnson pointed out two new districts: Parks and Recreation and Historic Preservation — Overlay District. Mr. Reiner inquired if homeowners associations are addressed in the new Code. There should be standards set for the associations. He added that the Code should state that developers are responsible for maintenance of the rights -of -way until the subdivision achieves 50% build -out. At that time, the homeowners associations should assume the responsibility. Mr. Johnson responded that it would be necessary to address the potential situation in which the association would default. What action would that trigger? Or does it remain a discretionary issue with the Parks Division? Mr. Weinstein stated that he advocates that standards be set forth for homeowners associations, that the bylaws be reviewed by legal counsel, and that a mechanism be in place in case of failure of the association . While it is possible to guarantee the structure of homeowners associations, it is impossible to guarantee the success. Presently, this is not addressed in the Code. Discussion continued regarding the structure and content of the Zoning Code revision. Mr. Sprague stated the need to be very clear about the standards for sexually oriented businesses, such as the 750 ft. setback from public use facilities. Mr. Weinstein stated that they are aware of that concern, and the Code sets forth clear standards. Mr. Johnson then facilitated several hands -on exercises to familiarize the group with use of the document. Mr. Reiner inquired if the consultants could propose any additional changes for a "cutting edge" City in the area of zoning and development. Mr. Weinstein suggested the use of impact fees. The argument is that the developer who has built the demand for the infrastructure should pay for the infrastructure. He referred to the Beavercreek decision in which the Supreme Court upheld the authority of a City to invoke this Community Development Committee March 15, 2001 Page 6 type of fee. This is one option for financing infrastructure. He added that, presently, there appears to be minimal land dedication, the developer opting to pay the fee in lieu of. Mr. Reiner noted that the Community Development Committee reviewed this possibility a few months ago. It was the opinion of the City's Legal Counsel that this option was not advisable to the City at this time. Mr. Fishman stated that it was the consensus of the framers of the Community Plan that the City would rather have land dedication in lieu of fees. Discussion of sign code. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the City's legislation regarding political signs could be challenged, as it violates the First Amendment. Discussion of Final Plats and Final Development Plans. The consultants stated that the final plat could be completed by staff review only and bypass Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff noted that it is necessary to determine when and at what level of detail the City of Dublin wants to sign off. For rezoning applications, it is necessary to review the final development plan. Mr. Johnson summarized that Draft B of the Code will be provided to the committee on April 23` This will give them a week to review the document prior to the April 30 meeting. Serving on the Zoning Code Review Team will be: Community Development Committee Members: Mr. Reiner, Mr. Peterson and Mr. Adamek P &Z Members Ms. Salay /Ms.Eastep (2 or 3 meetings) Mrs. Boring /Mr. Fishman (2 or 3 meetings) Mr. Reiner adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m. Submitted by: Assistant Clerk of Council