HomeMy WebLinkAboutCom. Dev. Com. 1996 allCommunity Development Committee
of Dublin City Council
Minutes of Meeting
February 2, 1996
Attending:
Tom McCash, Chairperson
Joel Campbell
Cindy Hide Pittaluga
Terry Foegler
Bobbie Clarke
Mr. McCash called the meeting to order at 8 a.m. He suggested that the Committee first review
his memo which outlines issues already on the Committee's "plate ".
Old Business
Township zoned parcels within the City of Dublin
Ms. Clarke provided a brief summary of the township -zoned areas discussed previously by the
Committee. She noted that Mr. Thomas controls most of the land across from the rec center,
and the City is in negotiations with him to buy more land. For this reason, staff did not
recommend any effective down - zoning of the property to be initiated by the City at this time.
Another piece is the proposed SuperAmerica site, and there are a couple of properties on Avery
Road with township zoning. Her recollection is that the Committee's recommendation is not to
move forward at this time with a City sponsored rezoning of these parcels.
City wide fence standards
Mr. McCash reported that the previous minutes of the Committee indicate that the Law Director
was to review this matter.
Ms. Clarke reported that the revisions are on her "to do" list. The new codification has delayed
some of the projects due to the need to revise any pending legislation which was submitted under
the old code numbers. She will complete the draft legislation and forward it to the Law
Department for review, and then to the Planning Commission for a courtesy review.
Mr. Campbell noted that new fence standards will not solve the existing problems with the
fences in Brighton Park which triggered the whole discussion.
Discussion followed about how deed restrictions are enforced (generally by the homeowners
association) and how zoning restrictions are enforced (by the City).
Mr. Foegler noted that Mr. Ruma is in the process of activating a homeowners association for
the Brighton Park area at this time.
Appearance Code
Ms. Clarke reported that some Planning Commission members had undertaken an effort to
Community Development Committee
February 2, 1996 - Page 2
provide for better aesthetics in multi - family or commercial developments. A subcommittee of
P &Z was formed with the endorsement of Council, and their conclusion was that a Design
Review group should be set up, separate from the Planning Commission with the charge of
reviewing all multi - family and commercial buildings. With the new P &Z group, there are now
four volunteers who want to continue to explore the issues.
Mr. Foegler added that the group first believed they could legislate an appearance code and
concluded that a separate design review process with a board of design professionals reviewing
the architectural design issues would make more sense.
Following discussion, Mr. Foegler suggested that as part of this Committee's report, input
should be solicited from Council about whether they want that working committee to continue
looking into the idea of a design review process.
Other
Mr. McCash brought up the issue of a property maintenance code, noting that this may come
before Council at the next meeting. Having a property maintenance code would be part of a
rating process for the City's building department which would affect insurance grading for the
City.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga provided some photos of examples of good design and materials used in the
Houston area. She asked that the staff keep these on file for reference materials in the design
review process discussion.
Discussion followed about insurance ratings and fire departments and the fact that the City
should possibly request another rating due to the improvements made since the last rating in
1985.
Mr. McCash would like to have discussion about tap fees for fire suppression, proposing that
an additional cost is not added if it's purely a fire suppression tap since fire suppression systems
benefit the City overall.
Mr. Foegler responded that Council has the right to waive these kind of fees for certain kinds
of economic development. However, waiving these fees could result in subsidizing water
improvements from the general fund. The tap fees are a major source of revenue to the water
fund for the City.
Further discussion followed about the bases used for establishing the water fees when the revised
fee schedule was adopted by Council.
I -73 Turnl2ike
Mr. Campbell reported that Mrs. King had sent a letter on behalf of the Community
Development Committee and Council regarding the City's opposition to the western route of I -73
Community Development Committee RAIrr
February 2, 1996 - Page 3
to state legislators. After the fact, Council ratified the Committee's position.
Mr. Foegler provided some background on the process. The Committee had earlier decided not
to take a position, and then suddenly indicated opposition to the western route of I -73. From
an engineering and development position, staff thought the opposition was the right thing to do.
Mr. McCash summarized that from what he understands about the proposed turnpike, the issue
is probably moot at this point since the western alternatives are not being considered. He
believes that Dublin does not need any more traffic at this point anyway.
Streamlining the Final Plat Process
Mr. McCash stated that a memo from the Law Director was referenced in the past minutes.
Mr. Foegler clarified that verbal discussion took place on the process. The bottom line
recommendation to the Committee and to Council was that with plats, Council is acting
administratively, not legislatively. Council is effectively saying that the final plat conforms to
the zoning and the preliminary plat. He believes that Council still needs to review the final plats
because they are accepting the right -of -way, effectively taking property. Only City Council can
accept public property. Council has the power to acquire and sell land.
Mr. Campbell commented that streamlining the final plat process has been discussed for years.
He agrees that this is an administrative action taken when the final plat confirms with the
preliminary plat and rezoning.
Retention & Expansion Report
Mr. McCash stated that the final report will be coming to Council at the February 20 meeting.
Sidewalk Waivers
Mr. McCash has some concern with recent waivers being granted due to possible ADA
compliance issues.
Ms. Clarke commented that in terms of Muirfield, the entire area would not be ADA compliant.
She noted that new sections of Muirfield coming in are treated differently than other
developments in the City.
Mr. McCash cautioned that he is concerned with any potential liability the City may have in
granting sidewalk waivers.
Annexation Policy Revisions
Mr. Foegler reported that the current policy has undergone a couple of revisions. An issue was
brought to the Committee last year regarding a potential annexation north of Muirfield into
Concord Township, spearheaded by David Haid. This area is not part of the sewer and water
contract area, and the developer would have to solve numerous problems before Council would
consider annexation. The previous direction of Council was not to spend additional staff time
on this annexation, but to let the developer work on resolving the problems.
Community Development Committee
February 2, 1996 - Page 4
He noted that an additional factor is that the school district has been looking at a tentative future
elementary school site in this area. Mr. Haid has come up with two or three sewer options, but
all of them require cooperation from the Muirfield Association. Council was asked if they
wanted to extend that sewer line, and the feedback from Mrs. King and Mr. Strip at a late hour
of a Council meeting was that they do not support annexations north of Muirfield and the
annexation policy needs to be amended.
Discussion was held later with other Council members, and they were not supportive of
amending the policy in that way. He noted that the schools actually own the land, and the
developer will have to buy it back if the issues are not resolved.
Mr. Foegler believes that Council needs to give further consideration to annexations north of
Muirfield. He has not yet drafted an amendment to the policy.
Jenmar Court
Mr. McCash stated that there are three options for alignments of the Emerald Parkway. The
option recommended at the August 29 meeting is the one adjacent to 270.
Mr. Foegler provided a copy of a letter sent to the residents in 1991. At that time, the residents
were told that the City could not possibly purchase every house that is affected by the
Thoroughfare Plan as it would take the entire City budget to buy all of that property. He
suggests that a reasonable policy for the Committee to adopt would be that if the property owner
is willing to sell at this time, the City will buy the property if a Plan is adopted that makes a
house totally useless for residential purpose and provided that the owner is willing to sell at a
fair market value. And because commitments were made in the late 80's to the owners of
Jenmar Court properties, the City should purchase the properties from those who are willing to
sell. The difficulty here is that normally, these properties would not be recommended for
purchase by the City, as screening and landscaping could mitigate the impact of the roadway and
the homes would still be usable.
He cautioned the Committee about setting a precedent since these will still be usable properties.
He recommends that a clear articulation be made of the commitments made in the 80's regarding
these properties.
Ms. Clarke recalled that in the late 80's, the Land Use Committee, chaired by Ms. Maurer had
met with the Jenmar residents and the residents indicated that they would like their homes to be
purchased by the City as quickly as possible. Later, Council became aware that there are many
properties affected by future roadways and the cost of purchasing all of them would be
enormous.
Mr. McCash suggested that one solution would be to buy the right -of -way needed for the
alignment at this time, install the landscape screening now, settle on a price to purchase the
remaining portion of the property, and agree to consider purchasing the property if the owner
can't sell the house within some reasonable time period.
Community Development Committee
February 2, 1996 - Page 5
Ms. Clarke stated that a critical issue is the value of the homes, noting that these homes back
up to 270.
Mr. Foegler suggested three independent appraisals on each one in order to arrive at a fair
market value.
Mr. Campbell noted that just because the City adopted a plan (Bright Road study), there would
be no obligation for the City to purchase more of the property than needed. The City could also
do a quick take for only the land it needs. However, the City owes these residents a reasonable
discussion of the options.
Mr. Foegler agreed to enlarge the map to show the impacts of the road on the properties. This
will be available at the meeting with the residents. He suggested finding out what the individual
property owners' concerns are.
Mr. Campbell commented that the easternmost property is most impacted. The others could still
be usable with screening and mounding.
Mr. McCash stated that he does not want to formulate the policy recommendation at the meeting
with the residents, but rather gather information and put a tentative proposal together based upon
the information.
Mr. Foegler cautioned that if Council does not have a policy, their actions become policy. In
this case, the circumstances may warrant an exemption to policy.
Landscape Code
Ms. Hide Pittaluga stated that she has provided a copy of a proposed landscaping Code for
review by Mr. McCash. She plans to request that Council refer this issue to the Committee.
Mr. Foegler commented that the Tree and Landscape Commission may be the appropriate body
to review it.
Mr. Campbell stated that if Council supports further investigation, he would probably advocate
review by Tree and Landscape for recommendation to Council.
Mr. Foegler cautioned that in view of the staffing shortage now and the workload, he has
concerns about staff resources for another project. Hiring an outside consultant still requires
close supervision and contact with a staff member.
He then suggested that before it is introduced to Council, that staff compare this to the existing
landscape code. He suggested that Ms. Hide Pittaluga inform Council at the next meeting that
this is being reviewed.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 a.m.
Clerk of Council
Community Development Committee
of Dublin City Council
Minutes of Meeting of February 6, 1996
6 p.m. - 5800 Building
Attending:
Tom McCash, Chairperson
Joel Campbell
Cindy Hide Pittaluga
Cathy Boring
Terry Foegler
Balbir Kindra
Bobbie Clarke
Ken Richardson
Tom Rubey
Residents of Jenmar Court and Grandee Cliffs Ct.
E'J
� p
Emerald Parkway Alignment (N.E. Quad portion)
Mr. McCash called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. He introduced Mr. Foegler who explained
the graphic representations of the preferred Emerald Parkway alignment in the northeast
quadrant and the 5 affected properties on the south side of Jenmar Court.
Mr. Foegler stated that at the last public meeting held in August on this topic, several options
were presented to the residents. Based on input at that meeting, the preferred option is the route
which parallels I -270. The residents' endorsement of this option is based on a satisfactory
acquisition policy on the part of the City. Staff has presented the preferred alignment to the
Council Committee, and the next step is for the Committee to develop an acquisition strategy
for recommendation to Council. The Committee requested another meeting with the residents'
group to obtain testimony from the property owners regarding their concerns, the kinds of
timeframes and scenarios for acquisition of the properties, or if the residents need more
information prior to indicating their preferences to Council.
He then explained the graphic representation which contains a typical section of the Emerald
Parkway and noted that the actual distance to the pavement would range from 57.5 feet at the
eastern end to 108.5 feet at the western end.
A resident asked about the timeframe for the project.
Mr. Foegler responded that the road construction for this section of Emerald Parkway is not
programmed in the 5 -year capital budget.
Mr. Campbell noted that the 5 property owners affected directly by the roadway may have
different opinions on whether or when they want to sell their properties. It is Council's goal to
minimize the negative impact on the residents. He noted that some jurisdictions have a policy
of acquiring only the land they need, at the time they want it, and at the price they want to pay.
There are several options for the property owners and for the City, including buying the
properties now and re- selling them to owners who are willing to live near the new road.
Community Development Committee
February 6, 1996 - Page 2
M
Jody Reinbolt 3571 Jenmar Court (the easternmost property) testified that they purchased their
home in 1992 and were not made aware of the future roadway which would impact their
property. Ideally, she stated that she does not want to still be in the house when construction
of the roadway begins. Due to the uncertainty about the timeframes, she and her husband have
been unable to proceed with plans to build a garage on their property.
Dave Marlow, 3601 Jenmar Court stated that he has owned his property from the time that
discussions began about this issue 6 years ago. He wonders if they as property owners should
have representation tonight in view of the number of legal issues raised. Former Council
members committed that the City would be fair to the owners, that the property would be
purchased at a fair and equitable price and that relocation expenses would be paid. The value
of their properties is 25 percent less to anyone other than the City or the developer. They do
not want to lose their trees and yard.
Mr. Campbell stated that Dublin is trying to work with the residents as opposed to the take
process which can be used at the time the City requires the right -of -way. The City wants to find
out what all five owners want to do.
Mrs. Reinbolt stated that all five property owners don't want to be there.
Mrs. Marlow stated that they would like to move out and get started on their lives somewhere
else.
Mr. Campbell stated that if all five owners want to sell in the near future, the next step would
be to get appraisals and to determine the funding source, etc. The property owners can certainly
get their own appraisals if they desire. It is the City's intention to be fair.
Mary Leimenstoll, 3581 Jenmar Court noted that Dublin made it easy for the resident on the
other side of the river to sell his house immediately. She stated that she wants to sell her entire
property to the City.
Don Jude. 3593 Jenmar Court stated that he is concerned about the additional noise by adding
a four lane road north of the already noisy freeway. He would choose to sell today as well.
They were promised that this project would be in the five -year plan 6 years ago.
Jeff Goliver, 3615 Jenmar Court noted that there is frustration among the residents tonight who
expected to get answers tonight. The residents previously stated that they wanted the option to
sell right away and if not that, at least a commitment to buy at a later date. The tree line is an
important issue to the residents as the existing tree line minimizes the noise of 270. The
residents had also discussed in August the fact that it was their recommendation that the five
houses - which would then be substandard to the rest of the neighborhood - be demolished and
a green space buffer installed.
Discussion followed about the appraisal process used by the City.
Community Development Committee
February 6, 1996 - Page 3
a �
'''
Mr. Campbell commented that appraisals are based on fair market value, and are computed on
comparable sales. If there are issues, multiple appraisals are obtained.
Mr. Foegler noted that appraisals are based on multiple comparable sales. If as part of their
appraisal, a percentage is deducted for the planned roadway, Council will be advised and they
can then decide not to deduct that percentage.
Mr. Marlow stated that he wants to be able to buy a comparable property in Dublin to replace
what he has. He is seeking replacement value, in other words.
Mr. Foegler responded that the commitment is fair market value plus relocation expenses.
Mr. Foegler commented that the City must negotiate with 30 property owners this year for land
needed for right -of -way acquisition. Therefore, City policies for acquisition of land must be
based on market value, not replacement value. This acquisition must be viewed within the
context of all right -of -way acquisitions within the City.
Mr. Foegler then explained the thoroughfare plan for the City and the process of programming
improvements in the five -year CIP. There are many roads on the plan which are not
programmed. Because of the special and direct impact on this neighborhood and the residents'
need for future planning, a separate strategy is needed, perhaps, to address this area totally
separate from other areas on the thoroughfare plan.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga commented that an important point to consider is that this is a moral
obligation of the City in view of what the residents were told in the past. Tonight's testimony
has indicated that everyone wants to sell. There will be give and take on both sides, but from
a moral standpoint, it is important to provide the residents with some certainty so that they can
get on with their lives.
Mr. McCash added that the timing of the road may depend on future developments for the land -
it is difficult to predict at this time when the road will be built. The goal is to be fair to the
property owners.
Mr. Campbell summarized that all of the things said tonight do not conflict with what was said
in the past. The next step is to get the appraisals done.
Mr. Foegler stated that the Committee is to recommend to Council a strategy, including the
desires of the residents, a policy to acquire the properties at fair market value under terms and
conditions as specified by the Committee (fair market value, relocation costs), ordering the
appraisals, and entering negotiations.
Mr. McCash indicated that he will draft a recommendation to Council this weekend for
submission to Council on February 20 under Committee reports.
Community Development Committee
February 6, 1996 - Page 4
=
Mr. Campbell stated that when a majority of Council accepts the Committee recommendation,
appraisals will then be ordered.
Mr. Foegler stated that the appraisals can be turned around in 6 weeks. He added that the City
has never shared appraisals for land they want to acquire. Based on Council's review of the
appraisals, offers can then be prepared for the property owners.
Following discussion of timing, the Committee agreed that the commitment to the residents is
that offers will be in their hands by the end of the school year - June 12.
Mr. Foegler asked if the neighborhood would have a preference about retaining the homes for
resale to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood as opposed to tearing them down and turning
the area into parkland.
Randy Roth stated that a majority of the residents would like to save the homes if possible.
They would like to discuss with the City landscaping to mitigate the impact of the new road.
The road could be lowered to minimize the noise impact. The utilities could be planned for
underground and easements minimized. The impacts on the septic system when the lots are
acquired would need to be assessed.
Mr. Campbell invited the residents to attend the February 20 Council meeting to be present for
the discussion which will take place under the Committee reports portion.
Evelyn Davis asked if the developer is going to build Emerald Parkway to Bright Road.
Ms. Clarke responded that within the next 6 months the developer plans to bring in the plans
for the shopping center, for the single family located south of Hard Road and west of Emerald
Parkway, and all of the roadway in that area. On their plan, the Saltergate extension will come
from Sawmill, ending at the south property line at Mrs. Davis' back yard.
Mr. Foegler indicated that it is the City's obligation to build the rest of the road.
Mr. Campbell noted that one of the issues involved in the timing was that the Bright Road
residents did not want the road brought through until the rest of the parkway was constructed
so that traffic would not increase on Bright Road in the interim. He suggested that Mrs. Davis
give some thought to her preferences about staying or selling her property.
Proposal for Burial of Power Lines on Coffman Road
Mr. Foegler stated that when the alignment of Coffman Road widening was resolved with the
Willow Grove property owners, the City agreed to explore the option of burying utilities in the
area from north of the Emerald Parkway to Post Road. The power company estimate was
initially $400,000, now is $500,000 plus, and staff wanted to explore with the City's consultant,
Paul Blazer, ways to do this more economically. In terms of timing, a decision has to be made
now whether to include this in the design or to drop it.
Community Development Committee
February 6, 1996 - Page 5
In response to Mr. McCash, Mr. Foegler explained that the $400,000 figure has been put
together by the consultant and staff has the breakdown of those costs.
Mr. Campbell noted that lots of time and money has been spent to address the concerns of
Willow Grove, and he wondered what kind of adverse impacts would result for Willow Grove
if the power lines are not buried.
Mr. Foegler responded that the concern was the elimination of mature landscaping, mounding
and stone walls in front of their development. If the power lines are not buried, the power
company will need additional easements to string and move their poles, possibly resulting in
removal of trees at Willow Grove.
Staff's concern is also with the preservation of the residential appearance of the roadway. The
question is whether there is $400,000 of value in this.
Discussion followed about the City's policies about burying utility lines throughout the City in
existing areas and new areas. New developments are required to bury utilities, and existing
overhead lines are very expensive to bury later. Staff had hoped to bring down the costs from
the power company estimate, but a major reduction was not possible.
Mr. McCash asked if it would be possible for the City staff to do any of this work.
Mr. Kindra responded that this type of conduit for major electric service should be installed by
an experienced contractor. It will be coordinated with the road construction project. The
portion to be buried is from Post Road to north of Emerald Parkway.
Mr. Foegler committed that staff will continue to explore utility burial in future projects which
involve existing overhead power lines.
Mr. McCash supports doing this because of the high visibility of the Emerald Parkway project.
Mr. Foegler noted that additional funding for the project was obtained through Issue 2 funds.
Mr. Campbell commented that in view of the impact on Willow Grove, he would support
burying the lines.
Mr. Foegler stated that the City still needs right -of -way from Willow Grove for the widening
project, and this would be a good negotiating point. He will meet with the Willow Grove Board
next week and let them know that the committee will recommend this to minimize the impact
on them. He added that an above - ground component on a pad will be needed on the
Blankenship property. It will be screened, and Mr. Richardson assured the Committee that it
will be a switching box and will not hum excessively.
Mr. Foegler added that there is a timing issue involved to meet Cellular One's occupancy needs,
and an emergency appropriation will probably be required to meet the timeframes.
He will prepare an appropriation ordinance and a report for Council, including the Committee's
Community Development Committee
February 6, 1996 - Page 6
recommendation.
Mr. Campbell moved to recommend to Council that the staff's proposal of $400,000 be accepted
for the burial of electric utilities along Coffman Road between Post Road and Emerald Parkway.
The motion was seconded by Mr. McCash.
Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Foegler noted for the Committee in regard to Jenmar Court that another consideration is
whether the Committee's recommendation is contingent upon the fact that the homes could be
sold. If it is determined that onsite sewage systems are not feasible because there is not enough
land or because there's no depth of rock and the homes are not saleable, that would be an
additional factor for consideration.
Mr. Campbell stated that he believes the City needs to proceed with acquisition, whether or not
they can be resold.
Mr. Foegler stated that his concern would be with the precedent established involved with the
western property acquisition.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga stated that the unique circumstances should be pointed out in the report.
Mr. Campbell added that the report should include the unique circumstances, the history
involved, the timing, and that it is important to move forward.
Discussion followed about how binding any past commitment would be.
Mr. McCash pointed out that the distance from some of these houses to the pavement is not any
closer than many properties in Dublin.
Mr. Foegler added that the alignment study is nearly done for Avery Road. Many property
owners are involved and it will likely be referred to this Committee. He suggested that whatever
policy is drafted should probably be reviewed by the Law Director.
Mr. Campbell stated that the goal here is not to articulate a city -wide policy but to resolve the
situation for these residents.
Mr. Foegler noted that the recommendation should be clear that it is based upon the sellers'
willingness to sell at a fair market value. If a resident does not agree to sell for fair market
value, they are choosing to live with their land for some other reason. The city should not get
drawn into value negotiation.
Mr. Campbell stated that some seem to want a commitment for a sale at a certain price for a
certain period of time.
Community Development Committee
February 6, 1996 - Page 7
Wt
Ms. Hide Pittaluga supports bringing closure and purchasing the homes. It's important to get
three appraisals.
Mr. Foegler pointed out that other considerations could be given to Council, although they may
not need to be addressed with this acquisition. Any discounts to the property for the proposed
road should be articulated by the appraisers so that they can be subtracted.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Clerk of Council
Community Development Committee of DRAFT
Dublin City Council
Friday, March 22, 1996 - 4:00 p.m.
5800 Building
Attendin
Tom McCash
Joel Campbell
Cindy Hide Pittaluga- Excused
Balbir Kindra
Terry Foegler
Bobbie Clarke
Chris Cline
Avery Road Residents
Paul Blaeser
Mr. McCash moved to adopt the meeting minutes of the February 2 and February 6, 1996
meetings.
Mr. Campbell seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. McCash summarized that the Post and Avery Road southeast corner has been referred to this
committee to look at a possible city iniated rezoning, prior to the Community Plan update for this
area.
Ms. Clarke gave a history of the parcel's zoning noting that there is consensus that Limited
Industrial is not the appropriate zoning. The property owner's desire at the time of the Perimeter
rezoning was to leave this zoned as Limited Industrial.
A discussion followed with the Post Road residents about the conditional uses which could be
approved under the current zoning.
Ms. Clarke reviewed with the committee how conditional uses are different from permitted uses,
in that conditional uses can have a greater impact on the area than permitted uses. She stated that
the Planning Commission considers whether a conditional use has a negative impact on the
surrounding property, criteria for approval, if it is in accordance with appropriate plans for the
area, and if it will prevent undesirable effects on adjacent and surrounding property. They can
limit the extent or intensity of the development, change landscaping or lighting, control of access,
etc. The requirements for disapproval are: 1) the proposal is not a conditional use of the zoning
district or the applicable development standards are not or cannot be met; 2) that the proposed
development is not in accord with appropriate plans in the area; 3) that the proposed development
will have undesirable effects on the surrounding area or is not in keeping with existing land use
character or physical development potential.
Mr. Foegler noted that Council has chosen to delegate to its Planning Commission broad
Communty Development Meeting
March 22, 1996
Page 2
discretionary authority with regard to conditional uses.
Ms. Clarke stated that in her opinion the appropriate use for the site is office, and the only office
zone available is Suburban Office and Institutional District.
Mr. Foegler suggested that the city initiate the zoning change and meet with the property owner.
Chris Cline stated that he would prefer it be a planned district similar to the Riverside property as
opposed to Suburban Office with conditional uses.
Mr. Foegler stated that one of the problems with rezoning to a planned district would be that the
applicant would not have to formally agree to the conditions of the text before Council, which
would be difficult to legally enforce.
Mr. Foegler suggested that the planning staff do a site plan for all of those areas that aren't
currently within a planned district. At a minimum Council can adopt a site plan ordinance that
establishes plans for the commercial and industrial districts as well as a review process.
Mr. McCash suggested that Steve Smith prepare a legal opinion about whether the city could
impose a planned district on a property owner if it is substantially similar to the adjacent planned
districts.
Mr. Foegler suggested staff make a recommendation of all of the zonings available and how to
proceed. SO may seem like the best choice today, but in the future another zoning may be
preferable.
Mr. Mast is concerned about who his neighbors will be. He would like the city to review the
northeast corner zoning, which currently is single family residential - a little out of context with
the other three corners. It is currently zoned R -1.
Mr. Campbell moved that the committee recommend to Council that the southeast corner of Post
and Avery be rezoned and that the staff be instructed to investigate the appropriate zonings giving
preference to office use and the methods by which that can be accomplished.
Mr. McCash seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Campbell explained that before staff spends significant time on this he wants to have
Council's support.
Mr. Cline stated that he would be happy to assist in any way.
The Post Road residents left the meeting at this time.
Communty Development Meeting
March 22, 1996
Page 3
State Route 161/Frantz Road Utility Burial
Mr. Foegler presented a memo outlining the alternatives.
Mr. Kindra stated because of the substantial costs, the city is negotiating with AEP through
consultant Mr. Paul Blaeser, of Blaeser Engineering Services. He will recommend what the city
can buy directly or contract out and which items the city has to have AEP do. The estimates
right now for AEP to do everything is $75,000 to $450,000 based on which option is selected.
Mr. Blaeser estimates costs savings between 15 to 20% through negotiations.
Mr. Blaeser explained that the city could actually buy the manholes at a third of the cost than
what AEP would furnish them for. Mr. Blaeser negotiated for all the switches at a cost of
$17,000.
Mr. Kindra noted that Mr. Blaeser has a good handle on the issues right now and that the
Engineering Department agrees with his recommendations.
Mr. Blaeser further explained that AEP must actually install the electric cables and make the
electrical connections, which is a specialty area. He proposed that AEP work on an as cost -basis
with time sheets submitted for work done, etc. That will give the city more control over costs.
Mr. Campbell stated his appreciation for all the negotiations regarding this which will result in
savings to the city.
Mr. Blaeser pointed out on the map what will be buried and what will remain overhead under the
various options.
Mr. McCash reiterated the options available:
Option A is $300, 000 Option C is $220,000
Option B is $450,000 Option D is $75,000.
Mr. Campbell moved to accept Option B given the fact that it not only improves the intersection
but significantly enhances the surrounding property and also enhances what is now potentially
developable property to the south. Along with that motion would be that staff should also make
every effort to facilitate some consideration for the fact that the city is expending greater sums of
money.
Mr, McCash seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. McCash requested that staff investigate the costs of burying utilities on the north side of Post
Communty Development Meeting
March 22, 1996
Page 4
Road,
Mr. Blaeser answered that it would be approximately another $120,000 to go that extra distance,
under Option C.
Mr. Campbell noted that if they go with Option B they are already half way there.
Mr. McCash moved to recommend more of the lines be buried on Post Road and consider a
public /private partnership to do so.
Mr. Campbell seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Campbell reiterated that the first motion was to follow- through with Option B, and Mr.
McCash's motion was that if there was a possibility of burying more to the north with incentives
from the property owners and with contributions then that should be done as well.
Mr. Kindra stated that in order to get the project done this construction season, he would
recommend moving the process along with Council so that staff will have direction.
Mr. McCash asked staff to contact OCLC and other companies affected, and he will then modify
the recommendation to Council at that time.
Mr. Foegler stated that he would get an estimate from Mr. Blaeser on the costs of the full
extension to the north. He will try to get in contact with some property owners before the next
Council meeting, and report back to them.
Mr. McCash stated that perhaps he should amend his motion by adding a dollar limit. He then
suggested having a short Community Development meeting before the Monday Council Meeting
to finalize their recommendation to Council. He reiterated his goal is to bury as many of these
electrical lines as possible at the lowest cost.
Mr. Blaeser noted that the utility service boxes for the bank and McDonald's are unsightly, and he
will propose burial of these as well. He further stated that costs will not be known until bids are
obtained from the contractors.
Mr. Campbell asked about the construction time assuming they could get approval from Council
during April.
Mr. Kindra answered that construction would be started in June.
Mr. Kindra also announced that notification of the funding approval for the Dublin Road bike path
was received yesterday.
Communty Development Meeting
March 22, 1996
Page 5
Mr. Campbell noted that he had seen that in the paper, and that he was very grateful that Dublin
would be getting 50% funding for that bikepath.
Mr. Mc Cash reminded the members of the short meeting before the next Council meeting to
review additional information necessary to make the recommendation to Council.
Review of Committee Projects and Prioritizations
Mr. McCash noted that since Ms. Hide Pittaluga is not present, he would like to postpone this
until the next meeting.
A discussion followed regarding scheduling of the Community Development meetings, which
have been proposed for the third Friday of the month at 4:00 p.m.
Ms. Clarke noted on those Friday afternoons she is under deadline for the BZA staff report.
Mr. Campbell suggested meeting on off - Monday nights.
Mr. McCash noted that Mayor Kranstuber was setting the policy sessions on the off - Council
Mondays.
Mr. McCash suggested leaving the meeting for April on Friday the 19th, and then in May move to
the second Friday.
Mr. McCash adjourned the meeting at 6:10 p.m.
Anne C. Clarke
Clerk of Council
Community Development Committee
of Dublin City Council
Minutes of Meeting of April 19 1996
4 p.m. - 5800 Building
Attending:
Tom McCash, Chairperson
Joel Campbell (excused)
Cindy Hide Pittaluga
Tim Hansley
Balbir Kindra
Bobbie Clarke
Mr. McCash called the meeting to order at 4 p.m. The only agenda item for today is review
of new information regarding the burial of utilities with the Frantz and 161 widening project.
The approval of the minutes of March 22 were delayed until the next meeting.
Mr. Kindra provided a brief overview of the various options (A, B, C & D) reviewed by the
committee at the last meeting. He noted that staff has not heard back from the Midwestern Auto
Group owner regarding feedback on the right -of -way acquisition.
A discussion followed on the estimated right -of -way costs for the burial.
Mr. Kindra explained that staff is hoping that the costs will be less than what Mr. Blaeser has
estimated. He noted that staff has not yet resolved with AEP the labor issues.
The timeframe for the project has been delayed 4 to 6 weeks for a decision on burial of utilities.
Mr. Hansley noted that there is no legal obligation to do the widening project this season. The
City has committed, however, to OCLC and Cellular One that the widening would be done in
the near future.
Mr. Kindra reported to the Committee that the costs for construction of Emerald Parkway Phase
II will likely be higher than the design estimates. The engineer's estimate is listed at $5.5
million, adjusted from the $6.5 million Burgess & Niple estimate. The bid opening on Emerald
Parkway is May 2, and the legislation accepting the bid will be included on the May 6 agenda.
Mr. Hansley commented that costs of the project are higher due to the "Dublinization" of the
project - bikeway underpass, landscaping, and the rock conditions. However, the Emerald
Parkway is funded via a TIF, not through the CIP. Thus, this will not impact the CIP budget,
and doing the utility burial at Frantz & 161, if Council chooses to do so, will not impact the
Emerald Parkway project. It will be necessary to delay a project on the CIP list in order to fund
the utility burial - a possibility would be the Coffman Park redevelopment project at $620,000,
programmed in 1997.
Community Development Committee
April 19, 1996
Page Two
Following discussion of the capital projects which could be delayed, the Committee agreed to
recommend to Council that the Coffman Park redevelopment project be delayed in order to fund
the utility burial at 161 & Frantz.
Mr. McCash moved to recommend to Council that Option E at a cost of $630,000 (option B as
previously recommended by the Committee, plus additional line burial along Post Road) be
implemented, based on the assumption that additional right -of -way needed can be obtained at no
cost to the City, and based on delaying the redevelopment of Coffman Park by one year. Ms.
Hide Pittaluga seconded the motion.
Motion carried.
Mr. Hansley noted that he will communicate this recommendation to Ms. Jordan on Monday.
Mr. McCash briefly reviewed items for upcoming meetings - street tree and sidewalk waiver
policy, landscaping code, and the revised fence ordinance.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
Clerk of Council
®k 4p
r
Community Development Meeting
of Dublin City Council
Meeting Minutes
Friday May 10, 1996
4:00 p.m. - 5800 Shier -Rings Road
Attending
Tom McCash
Cindy Hide Pittaluga
Joel Campbell
Terry Foegler
Mr. McCash called the meeting to order at 4:15 p.m.
Mr. McCash moved to approve the minutes of the March 22, 1996 meeting.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga seconded the motion.
The motion carried.
Mr. McCash moved to approve the minutes of the April 19, 1996 meeting.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga seconded the motion.
The motion carried.
Fence Code Revisions
Mr. McCash commented that this has been on the agenda for some time because of the vacancies
in staff in Planning. He has taken the fence code section, Section 150, and based upon the
discussion that occurred in a prior Community Development Committee meeting, has made some
changes in keeping with the Indian Run Meadow subdivision guidelines. He asked Mr. Foegler,
Ms. Clarke and the other Committee members to review his changes and provide feedback.
Sidewalk and street tree waiver ordinance
Mr. McCash stated that Council's concern was that the city was granting a waiver and thereby
saving the developer money, and then losing a benefit to that particular development. The issue is
should a fund be set up with these monies to provide for future street trees or some sort of
forestry program. He took sections of the code dealing with street trees and sidewalks and has
added a draft provision for sidewalk waivers on applications.
Mr. Foegler stated that there is currently no fund set up to do that. He added that sidewalk
waivers are not granted frequently.
Community Development Meeting
May 10, 1996
Page 2
Discussion followed regarding sidewalk waivers in general.
Mr. McCash commented that he would like to develop the bike path system with fees paid when
these waivers are granted.
Mr. Campbell stated that the original concept was to require developers to pay fees when a
required improvement is waived. He agreed with Mr. McCash that the money could slowly build
up in a separate fund for future improvements.
Mr. Foegler stated that even though it is a subdivision requirement, sidewalks are generally the
last thing done. He stated that if the developer wants the sidewalk waived, the city should put the
obligation on the developer to work it out in lot sales. He cautioned that there are some legal
issues involved once the city agrees that a sidewalk is not needed in an area.
Mr. Campbell stated that is a very good point. That's exactly what that case was about in
Oregon, saying that there was no rationale or basis for a bike path in that area, and they prevailed.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga stated she does not know if the city has a right to that money if there is no
need for a sidewalk at that location.
Mr. Foegler suggested that they could consider asking the developer to put in other pedestrian
improvements in another part of the development.
Mr. McCash stated that this same issue was referred on street tree waivers as well. He has the
same type of proposal on waiving street trees which would require funds for the city's
beautification fund when street tree requirements are waived.
Ms. Hide Pittalgua stated that this street tree waiver would cross reference with the revisions
being done to the landscaping code right now.
Mr. Foegler clarified that the Tree and Landscape Commission was asked to review the landscape
code to see what elements of it might be appropriate for incorporation into our modern landscape
design.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga stated that she will be following up with Ms. Epp of the Tree and Landscape
Commission on this proposed revision to the street tree section.
Mr. McCash stated that he believes the landscaping code needs to be revised and re- defined so all
related provisions are in one location.
Community Development Meeting
May 10, 1996
Page 3
Mr. Foegler stated that the subdivision regulations deal with public improvements and public
right -of -ways. The landscape code involves private property.
Mr. McCash stated that a cross reference should be in the code.
Mr. Campbell suggested including the section on street tree waivers in the landscaping code
review and to leave that as an option. On the sidewalk waivers, he suggested adding to the first
section in the draft "unless also waived by Council ". Where it states "sidewalks/bike paths in
areas designated" change to "adjacent areas" to clarify we are talking about the area nearby. He
suggested that this proposed language be sent to the law director for review.
Mr. McCash asked if the city has a "public access program ". He then amended "bike path and
public access program" to read "bike path master plan ".
Mr. Campbell moved that the modified language be submitted to the law director for review and
comment prior to the time that this goes before Council for hearing.
Mr. Foegler asked if the motion could include that the law director also submit his comments to
the Development Dept for review.
Mr. Campbell amended his motion in this manner and continued his motion, that the street tree
section be referred to the Tree and Landscape Commission to be considered with the modifi-
cations to the Landscape Code.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion - Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes; Ms. Hide Pittaluga, yes.
Mr. McCash stated that he will consult with the rest of Council regarding a proposed amendment
to the street tree requirement about replacement of trees removed or payment into the city's tree
beautification funds. Westerville already has this in place as a protection of their wooded areas.
Billingsley Ditch renaming process
Mr. McCash stated that Chuck Petty has informed him that the stream is not particularly named
on the U.S.G.S. map. It does show up on the Franklin County G.S. map and is called "Billingsley
Ditch ". He has a copy of all the forms to submit a name for Billingsley. Currently, he is obtaining
a print -out of all of the watersheds in Dublin. Chuck Petty knows of two other water sheds in
Dublin that are not named.
Mr. McCash suggested that the naming be a community competition. There is a provision on the
Community Development Meeting
May 10, 1996
Page 4
document that names for features already established in spoken or written form by local citizens,
even though the names do not appear on current maps, are given priority. Because of that
provision, they may have to keep the name "Billingsley" in the name somehow.
Mr. McCash stated that he would continue to give the committee updates on this.
Sandwich Board signs at 161
Mr. McCash noted that this was referred to the Committee at the last Council meeting. ODOT
doesn't want them in their right -of -way.
Mr. Campbell stated that these signs have been the advertising vehicle for local groups. There
have always been issues involved with these signs in view of Dublin's sign code restrictions.
Mr. Foegler suggested some type of a high quality changeable sign board at this gateway area into
Dublin.
Mr. Campbell stated that the intersection is to be improved anyway. He would like to see a nicer
way for these organizations to have advertising access.
Mr. McCash noted that some cities have a kiosk, or a focal point feature, like a tower in a
gateway area.
Mr. Campbell stated that it should be readable from the car, if possible.
Mr. Foegler stated the he could come up with cost estimates for such a feature.
Mr. McCash noted that it should be something uniform, with a maximum of six messages and that
it should be incorporated into a gateway feature.
Mr. Campbell agreed.
Mr. McCash adjourned the meeting at 5:25 p.m.
* CTy o ouncil
152.048 SIDEWALKS.
--{A) Requirements. Sidewalks or bike paths shall be constructed on both sides of all streets
except as waived by Council. The Municipal Engineer shall determine whether sidewalks or bike
paths shall be constructed.
(B) Sidewalk Waivers. Whenever an owner of a parcel for which the construction of sidewalks or
bike paths are required under paragraph (A) desires to have this requirement waived, the owner
shall file a written request for waiver with the Clerk of Council which shall include the following
information
1.) Name, address, telephone of the owners of record of the parcel.
2.) The name or other designation, if any, of the parcel.
3.) The total size of the parcel.
4.) The total linear footage of public streets contained within the parcel.
5.) The use, existing and proposed, for all portions of the parcel.
6.) A scaled site plan indicating the location of all public streets, existing utilities, right of
ways, existing sidewalks, or bike paths within 1000 yards of the parcel.
7.) A statement indicating the reason for requesting the waiver.
8.) Any other information that may be necessary for the determination of the request by
Council.
Upon receipt of the above information, the Clerk of Council shall request from the Division of
Planning and the Parks and Recreation Director a report indicating the impact on the city's bike
path master plan. Copies of the waiver request and a copy of the staff report shall be provided to
Council for review and hearing.
After review and hearing, Council may waive the construction of sidewalks or bike paths for that
parcel. Any owner receiving a sidewalk/bike path waiver for a particular parcel shall either pay
into the citys bike path fund an amount equal to the cost of the amount of sidewalk/bikepath
waived or provide sidewalk/bike paths in areas designated by the Municipal Engineer and
Planning Division in an amount equal to the waived amount.
153.138 STREET TREE AND PUBLIC TREE REQUIREMENTS.
The planting of street trees shall be required at the time a parcel is developed or
redeveloped, in all zoning districts, and in accordance with the following regulations. The
following are requirements for the planting, pruning and removal of trees within city -owned
property. For the purposes of this section, city -owned property shall include all public ways,
streets, alleys, parks or other property owned by the municipality.
(A) Requiremems.Unless a request for waiver has been filed with the Clerk of Council
pursuant to Paragraph (1) of this section, it shall be required that all subdividers or developers
plant trees along public streets of their developments in such a manner, type, quantity and location
as approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and as defined by the following conditions,
and that any undeveloped street or existing street with undeveloped frontage shall conform to
these requirements at the time of development.
[section continued]
(N) Whenever an owner of a parcel for which the planting of street trees is required under
paragraph (A) desires to have this requirement waived, the owner shall file a written request for
waiver with the Clerk of Council which shall include the following information
1.) Name, address, telephone of the owners of record of the parcel.
2.) The name or other designation, if any, of the parcel.
3.) The total size of the parcel.
4.) The total linear footage of public streets contained within the parcel.
5.) The use, existing and proposed, for all portions of the parcel.
6.) A scaled site plan indicating the location of all public streets, existing utilities, right of
ways, existing sidewalks, or bike paths within the parcel.
7.) A statement indicating the reason for requesting the waiver.
8.) Any other information that may be necessary for the determination of the request by
Council.
Upon receipt of the above information, the Clerk of Council shall request from the Division of
Planning and the Urban Forester a report as to the type, size, quantity and species of trees that
would be required for the parcel. Copies of the waiver request and a copy of the staff report shall
be provided to Council for review and hearing.
After review and hearing, Council may waive the installation of street trees for that parcel. Any
owner receiving a street tree waiver for a particular parcel shall provide trees in an equal size,
type and quantity as would have been required for the waived parcel in a location determined by
the Urban Forester and the Tree and Landscape Advisory Commission or shall pay into the city's
beautification fund an amount equal to $200.00 per required tree.
Community Development Meeting
of Dublin City Council
Minutes of Meeting, June 17, 1996
4:00 p.m. - 5800 Building
Attending:
Tom McCash, Chair
Joel Campbell
Terry Foegler
Mr. McCash called the meeting to order at 4:15 p.m.
Mr. Campbell moved to approve the minutes of the May 10, 1996 Community Development Meeting
minutes.
Mr. McCash seconded the motion.
The motion passed.
Status offence code revisions
Mr. McCash stated that what he had done with the fence code, was looked at what the Community
Development minutes reflected in making his modifications. He would like this to be reviewed by
Bobbie Clarke to get staff's input.
Mr. Foegler stated that due to the staff shortage in the Planning Department, this item is still pending.
A brief discussion of the Planning staffing situation followed.
Sandwich board design status
Mr. Foegler reported that he has gotten an estimate from Jim Houk, which was less than $5,000. He
will be bring a detailed proposal back to this committee at the next meeting, at Mr. McCash's request.
Mr. McCash asked that since this intersection will be widened shortly, can that design be worked into
the widening project.
Mr. Foegler answered that he is having Mr. Houk look into all aspects of that.
Discussion of greenspace provisions of commercial zonings
Mr. McCash noted that some municipal codes have a greenspace landscaped islands included in the
parking lots.
A discussion of this followed.
Landscape /street tree code enhancement
Mr. McCash explained this is on the assignment list for this committee. He noted since this was
referred to this committee, and he believes the code is currently unclear, he would like to see a review
of it.
Community Development Meeting
June 17, 1996
Page 2
Mr. Foegler agreed that developers often comment that they are unclear about the landscaping/street
tree code and that staff is supportive of having the code reviewed. He suggested having a landscape
architect who works in Dublin be part of the group.
Mr. McCash moved to recommend to Council to undertake a re -write of the landscape code provisions
in order to clarify /clean -up and refine the provision to make it more easily readable and understandable
by the development community and to address Council's current goals and concerns.
Mr. Campbell amended the motion to include both the commercial and the street tree issues.
Mr. McCash agreed to the amendment.
Mr. Campbell seconded the motion.
The motion passed.
Jenmar Court
Mr. Foegler reported that he has taken calls from three residents on Jenmar Court and told them that
the basic appraisal of the units are done. The analysis of where landscape mounds and the road will be
is now complete. The appraisals of the after - condition will be done within the next 10 days. Some of
the residents thought they would have an offer in their hand by a certain date, but Council amended and
broadened the Committee's recommendation to say in addition to the appraisal of the home, Council
also wanted to see an appraisal of the after - condition, so there will be two appraisals. He has reported
this information to Council member Boring, who agreed this was consistent with her understanding of
what Council asked to be done, and she will be talking with the Jenmar Court residents. He further
suggested that at the next Community Development Committee meeting an executive session be held,
for the reason of land acquistion.
Mr. Foegler reported that Council member Boring feels the additional studies staff is doing is in the best
interest of the home owners. They are working to get the work completed as soon as possible.
Mr. McCash stated that the options for these home owners will be discussed during executive session at
this Committee's next meeting.
Haid Property/Three mile jurisdiction provisions
Mr. McCash gave a brief history of Mr. Haid's property north of Muirfield. He has tried to talk the
sewer issues over with the Muirfield people, but could not get the sewer issue resolved.
Mr. Foegler confirmed that Mr. Haid has never formally applied to the City for the property to be
annexed into Dublin. He is still trying to resolve the sewer issue. He is now one of the players in the
Community Development Meeting
June 17, 1996
Page 3
new golf course north of town. He probably figures that he can get his sewer and water issues included
in their application.
Mr. Campbell agreed that this description of the history of this situation is correct. He has met with Mr.
Haid three times over the last few years. Mr. Campbell believes that Mr. Haid was waiting until after
the Council election but then the whole thing changed with this new golf course application. Part of the
Community Plan states that in order to get this area annexed he would have to prove it would be a
benefit to the community, therefore he included a school in his plan. He recognized that he also had to
get the sewer issue resolved, then the people from Cincinnati approached him, so he no longer needed
that little gap.
Mr. McCash stated that he has not talked to Mr. Haid recently, and he has not seen anything formal
come to the city from him. He does not believe the people at Muirfield like this new development, but
it is not part of Dublin.
Mr. McCash noted that Mayor Kranstuber has spoken with Jan Antonoplos regarding this, requesting
her to convene to the Commissioners that Dublin is not waiting to annex this.
Mr. Foegler suggested that Dublin could offer resources to Delaware Township on this issue. They
only have one planner for the entire county.
Mr. Campbell suggested, due to Dublin's staff already having a full plate, and he believes this will move
fast, he would like to hire a consultant to deal with this issue.
Mr. Foegler stated that he doesn't know how the 3 -mile jurisdiction matter would be perceived
politically. He would suggest a cooperative approach, in saying let us help you in making this a good
development. The advantages of the development are, the overall net density they are proposing is
quite low, a centralized sewer system as opposed to 300 on -site septic tanks, and a nice public golf
course. Regarding the 3 -mile jurisdiction, additional legal advise is needed to make sure the authority
is there.
Mr. Campbell noted that Concord Township Leadership is still smarting from the confrontation on the
boundary adjustment, and this is the kind of thing that you don't want to step on anybody's toes. But
Mr. McCash has a good point, that they should do additional research to find out what kind of authority
they really have before they exercise it and try a low -key conciliatory approach. He doesn't think
people are opposed to the golf course, or the low density, but the issue about how this will effect
Dublin's infrastructure, and Dublin's traffic.
Mr. McCash noted that a lot of traffic will be generated through Dublin by this development, and if they
were part of Dublin, they could at least get some impact fees or something.
Community Development Meeting
June 17, 1996
Page 4
Mr. Campbell stated that he would like to see an evaluation of the impact on Dublin, and the only
question he has is from a staffing perspective, can that be done time -wise given the current work load of
the city staff. He would like to hire a consultant on this issue, and to keep Concord Township apprised
of what Dublin's concerns are.
Mr. Foegler noted that everybody who is downstream from Dublin has these same issues with Dublin
regarding traffic.
Mr. Foegler suggested that Mr. McCash, as Chair of the Community Development Committee request
that Council refer the matter of the 3 -mile jurisdiction to the Community Development Committee.
Mr. Campbell stated that this could be discussed at the next Council meeting, and then a Committee
meeting set before the next Council meeting.
Mr. Foegler suggested they may want a specialized zoning attorney.
Mr. Campbell asked Mr. Foegler if a consultant could be present for the next Community Development
Committee meeting.
A discussion followed regarding setting the next meeting date.
Other Items/Future Agenda Items
Mr. McCash gave an update on the Billingsley Ditch renaming. He has spoken to Ms. Puskarcik about
setting up a community contest, which would include some long term residents of Dublin as judges.
This contest would not be started until after July 4, 1996. He still needs to get the names of all the
ditches in Dublin from Chuck Petty.
A discussion followed regarding historical names and historical sites here in Dublin.
Mr. Foegler gave the members of the Committee a brief description of the Krier Drive alignment which
will be heard Monday at the June 17, 1996 Council Meeting.
Mr. McCash mentioned that the Cellular One building has three signs and is not in compliance with the
Dublin sign code.
Mr. Campbell mentioned that Dublin Auto Sales is not in compliance with code.
Mr. Foegler stated that he noticed that also, and it will be taken care of Mr. Foegler stated that he
would like to suggest on conformacy issues, that if someone is not conforming, then give them 6
months and have staff will work with them as to what the ordinance says.
Community Development Meeting
June 17, 1996
Page 5
Mr. Campbell agreed that Mr. Foegler is right, that the businesses that are not conforming, it is not fair
to those who are.
A discussion of car dealerships followed.
Mr. McCash would like to see a very nice landscaped car display area for the dealerships as opposed to
what they are now doing.
Mr. Foegler would like to work with the car dealerships on these compliance issues.
Mr. McCash adjourned the meeting at 5:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Asslsianf4lerk of C tcil
Community Development Committee
of Dublin City Council
Minutes of Meeting of June 25, 1996
5 p.m. - 5800 Building
Attending:
Tom McCash, Chairperson
Joel Campbell
Cindy Hide Pittaluga
Terry Foegler
Steve Smith
Mr. McCash called the meeting to order at 5 p.m.
Three -Mile Extraterritorial Platting Jurisdiction
Mr. McCash stated that the general concern he has heard from Council members relates to
development outside of Dublin's boundaries. He stated that he would like to see Dublin work
cooperatively with these townships in regard to zoning and landscaping issues.
Mr. Foegler commented that the Community Plan process looks into these issues as well,
especially in terms of traffic outside of Dublin affecting Dublin. He explained the background
of the three -mile jurisdictional authority and the original intent which was that municipalities and
townships would work together in cooperative ways.
Mr. Smith explained that municipalities do not have any right to go outside their borders to
govern, with the exception of what was given to them via this statute. He has researched the
three -mile platting authority throughout the state and has found no case law. The statute was
originally adopted to give municipalities the authority to look at platting issues and subdivision
regulations in areas that abut them. He further explained that a proposed House Bill in
committee at this time will eliminate the three -mile jurisdiction. He is of the understanding that
this bill will remain in committee and will not be approved. Westerville uses the existing statute
to basically "rubber stamp" subdivisions that come in from the townships.
Mr. Foegler noted that Westerville has had a few split decisions on these approvals.
Mr. Smith affirmed that exercising this authority would be a high risk area as it could result in
an expensive court battle or could potentially reactivate the House Bill regarding townships
which is currently in committee.
Mr. Foegler added that the townships are winning the annexation bill at this time.
A discussion followed regarding water and sewer systems and the type of packaged sewer
treatments that are being proposed for the area north of Dublin in Concord township.
Mr. Foegler noted that the Ohio EPA has the final authority in Ohio on all water and sewer
RAFT
systems.
Mr. Campbell stated that at a recent Community Plan meeting, a mistaken impression was left
regarding the authority of municipalities for three -mile extraterritorial platting jurisdiction. It
is important to communicate to the Steering Committee that there are limits to this three -mile
jurisdiction.
Mr. Smith stated that he will discuss this matter with Mayor Kranstuber.
Mr. McCash asked about Mr. Smith's meeting with Becky Princehorn of Washington Township
regarding satellite dishes and cellular towers.
Mr. Smith responded that he met with Ms. Princehorn who did some research on these issues
and delivered documents to his office yesterday. He will review those documents and report
back to the Committee.
Mr. Campbell and Mr. McCash stated that they would like to work with the townships in a
cooperative way. Mr. McCash suggesting a meeting of the various township trustees and
Council to discuss issues.
Mr. Campbell suggested it might be helpful to first have Mr. Smith meet with the legal
representative of Concord township in an informal setting to let them know that Dublin is not
trying to "step on anyone's toes." He stated that Mayor Kranstuber's memo regarding this
matter was accurate - Dublin is not planning to annex this area.
Mr. McCash stated that the Mayor has not sent anything formally on this, but has talked with
Jan Antonoplos, Washington Township trustee.
Mr. Campbell moved that staff further investigate the issues that would be addressed with
adjoining townships, including Jerome, and possible resolutions on this particular zoning issue
as well as the other extraterritorial issues in general that can be addressed by virtue of this
extraterritorial statute.
Mr. McCash seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion - Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes; Ms. Hide Pittaluga, yes.
Mr. McCash moved to adjourn to executive session to discuss land acquisition matters.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion - Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Hide Pittaluga, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes.
Mr. McCash adjourned the meeting to executive session at 5:45 p.m., announcing that the
meeting will not be reconvened following the executive session.
IA4AA
Ass 'lerk Council
Community Development Committee
of Dublin City Council
Minutes of Meeting of September 16, 1996
5:30 p.m. - City Hall
Attending:
Tom McCash, Chairperson
Joel Campbell
Cindy Hide Pittaluga (excused)
Terry Foegler
Bobbie Clarke
Mr. McCash called the meeting to order at 5:50 p.m. Mr. Foegler indicated that he was prepared
to provide an update on some land acquisition matters.
Mr. McCash moved that the Committee adjourn to executive session for the purpose of discussion
of land acquisition matters.
Mr. Campbell seconded the motion.
The meeting was adjourned to executive session at 5:50 p.m.
The meeting was reconvened at 6:10 p.m.
Mr. McCash noted that the Committee has several pending items for discussion, including fees
to be paid when waivers are granted for such items as street trees, sidewalks, storm water
detention, etc; replacement for sandwich board signs for Frantz & 161; the status of the fence
code revisions; street tree code and landscape enhancement; southwest area development issues;
and some recent signage issues.
Mr. McCash noted that there are some constitutional problems involved with requiring payment
when requirements are waived such as street trees and sidewalks. He has forwarded some sample
legislation to Mr. Hansley related to storm water waivers where payment is required to improve
the storm water system.
Mr. Foegler acknowledged that since excess runoff is still produced when a waiver is granted for
storm water and the runoff would still have to be handled elsewhere in the storm water system,
this would likely be supportable. A similar rationale could probably be used when pedestrian
traffic is added elsewhere in the system when a sidewalk is waived.
Mr. Foegler stated that prior to implementing such charges, he would recommend having a policy
adopted.
In regard to the Campden Lakes subdivision sidewalk waiver on the Council agenda tonight, he
noted that Campden Lakes has a good alternate system for pedestrian traffic to offset the impact
of the waiver. He explained that the Wedgewood plat came in previously and included the front
piece of Campden as they both are off of Summitview. Subsequently, Campden Lakes came in
with a development concept including how it tied into the front piece. All of Campden does not
have sidewalks - it has a bikepath system and a pathway system. When the first piece was platted
Community Development Committee
September 16, 1996
Page 2
with Wedgewood, the sidewalks were never physically waived. So tonight's action is merely a
formal waiver just to ensure that the record is clear.
Mr. McCash indicated that the storm water waiver fees could be considered after completion of
the study currently underway.
Mr. Foegler noted that there will likely be a recommendation out of the study that the City
implement storm water utility fees.
Sandwich Board Sign Alternatives
Mr. Foegler noted that Jim Houk has been contracted to develop 3 alternative concepts for
Council's review. Mr. Houk is also working on the view issues for Shawan Falls and the redesign
of the parking lot for the BMW dealership in conjunction with the City's road widening. He noted
that Ms. Clarke has suggested that the design of the physical sign itself be done by a sign company
and not a landscape architect.
Mr. Foegler will check with Mr. Houk on the status of the project.
Fence Code revisions
Mr. Foegler reported that until the Planning staff recruitment was completed, he has delayed any
new assignments. When the new planners are hired and trained, projects will be assigned to them.
Street Tree Code and Landscape Enhancements
Mr. Foegler asked for clarification of the direction given to staff on this.
Mr. McCash clarified that the intention is to rewrite the Code to clarify and incorporate Council's
current policy - making it more easily understood and readable. He added that this will also
include enhancements to various provisions, i.e., perhaps coming up with a provision for the
commercial parking areas to require breaking up the parking areas with more green space.
Mr. Foegler asked if this is something which the Tree and Landscape Commission would review
and make recommendation to Council about.
Ms. Clarke responded that the Commission has worked on several revisions as have several staff
members.
Mr. McCash noted that the previous suggestion was to assemble a task force of P &Z
representatives, residents, developers, Tree and Landscape Commission representatives, and
Community Development Committee members for this purpose.
Mr. Foegler noted that the commercial developers have expressed some frustration in
understanding the City's landscape code. It would be desirable to involve them in the process.
Mr. McCash noted that he has provided copies to the Committee previously of a Westerville Code
provision requiring protection of major trees during the development process, establishing a ratio
for replacement. He would also recommend a credit for saving trees if it would make sense.
Community Development Committee
September 16, 1996
Page 3
Mr. Foegler suggested that the Committee request a motion from Council directing the Committee
to organize a working group to look at these specific kinds of issues - parking lots, tree
preservation provisions for lot development.
Mr. McCash commented that this motion was approved by Council back in June. It's now a
matter of organizing the task force.
Mr. Foegler proposed that staff submit a recommended structure for the working committee -
likely 8 people or less.
Mr. McCash noted that he has had preliminary discussions about this with John Fergus. Jim Houk
or Brian Kinzelman would be good candidates as well.
Mr. Foegler stated that staff would provide a recommended list by the end of the week for the
Committee's review.
Mr. McCash stated that the goal is to have revisions in place prior to the spring construction
season.
Mr. McCash further noted that he would like at least 1 or 2 citizen representatives for the group.
Mr. Foegler stated that these could possibly be from the Planning Commission.
Mr. Foegler will provide the proposed list to the Committee for their review prior to convening
a session for the task force.
Southwest Area PUD proposals
Mr. Foegler noted that a motion was made by Council to refer this matter to the CDC a few
weeks ago. The Edwards Company is looking at several pieces of land in the southwest area for
annexation to the City and requesting a City contribution for infrastructure. The City's preference
would be to have a large enough land mass to establish a central park area around which major
community facilities could be located, with a large central detention basin. The developer would
even consider special impact fees. The next step would be to take this concept to Council for their
feedback.
Mr. Campbell stated that the City should seriously consider such a proposal. The interim
annexation policy was put into place to avoid piecemeal development without a planning effort
for the whole area. The possibility of a large PUD would be worth seriously considering.
Mr. Foegler stated that there could be multiple developers and owners who want to participate in
a larger planning effort. He would suggest that the ideas be brought to this Committee for review.
Staff has encouraged Mr. Edwards to pursue these kinds of opportunities, but wants to ensure that
Council is supportive.
Mr. Campbell emphasized that efforts should be made to ensure that quality projects come to the
southwest area. This can be encouraged by the City's putting public art pieces in the southwest
area, attractive entry features, boulevarded streets. The next decade of growth in Dublin will be
in this area.
Community Development Committee
September 16, 1996
Page 4
Mr. Foegler stated that the City is running out of developable residential land. Council would
have the opportunity to establish the parameters under which residential development could occur
in these areas.
Ms. Clarke added that there is also an opportunity to work with Washington township regarding
the implementation of development controls in the township. If Dublin does not annex these areas
and serve the properties with water and sewer, there will be more township development.
Mr. Foegler stated that he will inform Pete Edwards and John Fergus to continue to work on
proposals for large scale master planning with a central core of community facilities. This is very
preliminary, and there are no City commitments at this time.
Si na
Mr. Foegler stated that Cellular One has merged with Airtouch Cellular and will be required to
use the new name in the near future. The sign installed at this time is temporary and does not
technically meet Code. He added that Cellular One was aware of Dublin's sign code restrictions
for the building, but was not aware that only one -color signs were permitted along the interstate.
Mr. McCash stated that he does not recall that there was a one -color restriction.
Ms. Clarke commented that the draft code provided to the Land Use Committee for the freeway
sign revisions were designed for corporate headquarters only. She had understood that the signage
was to be as clean as possible and subdued with the company name only. The requirements call
for up to 100 square feet per story of building up to a maximum of 300 square feet. The signage
must be installed on the wall of the building, not on the rooftop mechanicals.
Mr. Foegler stated that this went to P &Z for review as a hardship situation. P &Z did not feel
comfortable with making this modification. In drafting the recent code revisions, staff took
direction from the Council Committee to make the signage as clean as possible, thereby restricting
it to one color. He would recommend amending the sign code for building space along the
interstate versus doing a text amendment for the Cardinal property. However, if Council's
preference is not to amend the recently revised sign code, he will certainly pass that message
along.
Mr. McCash stated that if the City allows 3 colors on signs everywhere else, he would not have
a problem with allowing 2 colors with this larger sign. The individual canned letters allowed
under the Code would avoid the box look which is less desirable.
Mr. Foegler commented that this has not been referred to the Committee by Council, but he
wanted to make Council aware of the issue. He suggested that the Committee request referral at
tonight's Council meeting.
Community Development Committee
September 16, 1996
Page 5
Mr. Campbell stated that he would support a 2 color sign along the freeway with a smaller
percentage for one color which would still constitute a subdued sign.
Mr. McCash suggested that the Committee also look at the size of signage in relation to the size
of the building, the amount of setback, and how high up the sign can be placed.
He would suggest that the issue in general be referred instead of specific aspects.
Mr. Foegler suggested that the sign regulations be revisited in view of some of the development
underway, i.e., Cellular One, Marriott.
Mr. McCash will bring this matter to Council's attention for referral to the Committee.
The meeting was adjourned at 7 p.m.
6VCle of mcil
Community Development Committee ORAPT
of Dublin City Council
November 8, 1996
Minutes of Meeting
Attending;
Tom McCash
Joel Campbell
Cindy Hide Pittaluga
Mary Newcomb
Mira McKissic
Mr. McCash called the meeting to order at 4:20 p.m.
He distributed proposed changes to the sign code to the Committee members, noting that the
specific issue referred to the Committee was the two color sign for the Cellular One /AirTouch
company along I -270. His proposal for sign code changes is in a rough draft form.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga commented that she has difficulty visualizing how large a sign is without
actually seeing it.
Mr. McCash responded that he had a sign company go to the Nationwide building and hang an 80
foot wall sign and take photos of it.
He proposed having some dialogue about improving the sign code so that it does not discriminate
against some businesses. He believes the McDonald's sign on Avery/Muirfield is too large for the
size of the building, yet it meets Dublin's sign code. Another concern brought up during the
Marriott hearing is the intensity of illumination of signs. Residents have concern about bright
signs, and he would like to limit illuminations per square foot.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga stated that she would prefer handling these issues on a case by case basis.
Mr. McCash responded that leaving it, "subject to Council discretion" does not provide a clear
intent. He noted that "illumines" are different from wattage. He also suggested that signs be
back -lit to make them easier to read from the freeway.
Mr. Campbell noted that he is aware of three signage issues currently - the Marriott signage, the
AirTouch two color sign, and the Xerox sign size which is small for the building. While he would
agree with reviewing these on a case by case basis, some kind of standard is needed.
He recalled that Ms. Clarke had stated that the 10 percent color for a second color is likely not
feasible to accommodate a company logo sign. He noted that the City of Columbus has begun to
limit advertisement signs downtown. At one time, there was no limit on downtown signage.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga commented that she would prefer to leave things status quo. She understands
that this will not please the companies in Dublin.
Mr. McCash stated that Dublin wants to attract large businesses along I -270. He does not recall
the one color sign restriction being added to the code
Mr. Campbell stated that he has mixed feelings on revising the sign code. He is not ready to have
the Committee take a recommendation to Council at this time. The language in the proposed
amendments would be a starting point for Council discussion.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga agreed, stating that she would do some site visits around town to familiarize
herself with existing signage.
Mr. Campbell suggested that Council discuss revisions to the sign code under the "Other" portion
of a Council agenda. He does not believe a wholesale revision of the sign code is needed at this
time.
Mr. McCash suggested having another Committee meeting in a couple of weeks, and he will
bring pictures and additional information for review by the Committee.
Mr. McCash added that he will draft a memo to Council to inform them about these issues being
considered by the Committee.
The discussion of the sign code was tabled until the next meeting
Ms. Newcomb reported that the Tree and Landscape Commission will be reviewing proposed
code changes at their Tuesday night meeting. A copy of the revisions were sent to Council last
spring.
Mr. McCash stated that he received a copy from Kathryn Epp. He would like to schedule a joint
meeting with Tree and Landscape regarding the proposed revisions.
Copies of the revisions were provided to Ms. Hide Pittaluga and Mr. Campbell.
Mr. McCash adjourned the meeting at 5:20 p.m
(�V1, LM
Assist t ' 1 rk of until
Community Development Committee
of Dublin City Council
Minutes of Meeting
November 22, 1996
Attendin
Tom McCash, Chair
Cindy Hide Pittaluga
Joel Campbell
Bobbie Clarke
John Thaxton, SuperAmerica
Jeff Brown, Attorney
Chris Cline, Attorney
Mr. & Mrs. Driscoll
Mr. Mast
Mr. Lecklider
Mr. McCash called the meeting to order at 4:25 p.m.
Mr. McCash stated that today's agenda is the proposed rezoning of the site at the southeast corner
of Post and Avery. An ordinance has been referred from Council to Committee to rezone this site
to suburban office. Mr. McCash would prefer to do this as a planned text instead of a straight
rezoning. He has discussed this with the neighbors and would like to come to agreement with
Ashland and the neighbors about an appropriate use for the site.
Mr. Cline stated that the neighborhood group would like to see uses with a low impact on the
surrounding neighborhood.
Mr. Thaxton stated that Ashland owns the property and has an economic interest in its
development unlike the others in the room. Some types of office use would be more economically
viable than other office uses. He has had some interest from a party who would like medical
office space and a pharmacy in this location.
Mr. Campbell noted that Council would like to move this process quickly toward finding a
solution that is reasonable from Ashland's view economically and reasonable from the City's view
in terms of land use. The concern with a delay is that a somewhat undesirable zoning could attach
itself to the land as currently zoned.
Mr. Thaxton stated that Ms. Driscoll and Mr. Cline have told him they are not concerned with
the current LI zoning as it has been zoned that way for 20 years.
Ms. Clarke noted that P &Z would be able to hear this rezoning on the January agenda since there
is not a second December meeting. Therefore, Council would have to make a recommendation
Community Development Committee
November 22, 1996
Page Two
for referral prior to the January meeting of P &Z.
Discussion followed about the possible uses under the straight suburban office zoning.
Mr. Cline commented that clearly the starting point is the word "office ". He would like to see
Ashland make a profit and at the same time have an acceptable use to the neighbors.
Ms. Clarke stated that a pharmacy could be a viable use with the medical office on this site, but
it is difficult to put this together without participation from the end user.
Mr. McCash noted that the zoning text could be revised later to accommodate a particular end
user.
Ms. Clarke agreed that changes and modifications can be made through the zoning process. But
what she is hearing is that Ashland may actually bring an application to the table and the rezoning
would no longer be City sponsored.
Discussion followed about the need for development standards within a PCD text in order to give
Planning Commission discretionary overview.
Mr. McCash proposed that a planned development text be drafted which would meet everyone's
criteria for the site. He believes a plan could be drafted that would address 80 percent of the
possible types of uses for the site.
Mr. Thaxton noted that the interested party in the site is out of town at this time.
Mr. McCash suggested that between now and December 2 Council meeting, Mr. Thaxton could
meet with the party interested in purchasing the land and a Community Development Committee
meeting could be set prior to the December 2 Council meeting for an update and then
recommendation back to Council.
Mr. McCash set a tentative date for the next CDC meeting on Monday, December 2 at 6 p.m. for
an update on the status of doing this as a planned district. He asked Mr. Thaxton to review some
of the uses in the suburban office and OLR districts to see if they would be acceptable.
Mr. Thaxton noted that Ashland and SuperAmerica are not developers but rather discretionary
land owners. It is their business to operate SuperAmerica retail stores - in this case, they own a
piece of land. They will likely dispose of the land or will hold it and do nothing with it in the
near future. He would be more supportive of a planned development text than a straight suburban
office zoning where the intention is to revise it at a later date.
Community Development Committee
November 22, 1996
Page Three
Mr. Mast commented that in terms of access to the site, he would prefer that it be via the
Perimeter Mall.
Mr. Brown commented that this site has prime visibility and should have access to both streets,
as Mr.Cline had noted earlier in the meeting.
Mr. Cline responded that in all fairness, the site should have access to both roads but it would be
beneficial if the site would have a back door access through the Perimeter Center. However, that
is a private road and would be problematic.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:25 p.m.
As 4i tan Jerk c Council
Community Development Committee DRArr
of Dublin City Council
Minutes of Meeting
December 2, 1996
At tending.
Tom McCash, Chair
Cindy Hide Pittaluga
Joel Campbell
Bobbie Clarke
Chris Cline, Attorney
Jim Renard, Lowell Trace Civic Assn.
Bob Adamek, Wyndham Village Homeowners Assn.
Mr. McCash called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. and noted that the purpose of this meeting
is to determine whether a planned district can be proposed for the Post & Avery site as a joint
application between the City and Ashland Chemical. Ashland's representatives were not able to
attend tonight. He distributed a planned development text for discussion purposes noting that
Ashland has not reviewed this to date.
Mr. Campbell stated for the record that this Committee met with representatives of Ashland and
their legal counsel a week ago Friday at the last Committee meeting. At that meeting, the plan
was to reconvene tonight to discuss the possibility of a planned text proposal. Since no one is
present to discuss this on Ashland's behalf, the Committee's intention is to recommend to Council
that the matter be referred to Planning and Zoning.
Mr. McCash agreed and called for a motion.
At this time (6:20 p.m.) Mr. Thaxton arrived at the meeting and proceeded to hand out an outline
of a proposed development text standard for the site.
Mr. McCash noted after quick review that it seems very similar to his draft proposal for text.
Mr. Thaxton stated that most of the text was taken from the Perimeter text, the Mast property text
and from the Dublin Code.
Mr. Thaxton noted that he wanted to bring something to the table for discussion purposes; the text
could be massaged to have something agreed upon to take to Council.
Mr. McCash noted that it is impossible to go through and mark up this proposed text for
submission to Council by 7 p.m.
Mr. Campbell noted that between now and the time Planning & Zoning reviews the text and it
comes back to Council, all of the issues would have to be resolved and finalized for the adopted
text.
Community Development Committee
December 2, 1996
Page Two
Mr. McCash noted that modifications for P &Z's review must be provided no later than 15 days
prior to their actual meeting.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga asked Mr. Thaxton if he has met with any possible buyers or tenants for the
site.
Mr. Thaxton stated that he has talked to three of five potential interested parties. Certain of the
uses proposed would fall under Section 1159 and others under 1175.
Mr. McCash suggested that Council continue the tabling of the ordinance until December 16 so
that the text could be finalized for referral to P &Z on December 16.
Discussion followed about the logistics of putting together an acceptable list of uses and the time
frame to have the ordinance on the P& Z January agenda.
Ms. Clarke noted that the staff review sessions for the January agenda items are scheduled on
December 9 and 11 and her concern is having adequate review time to draft the staff
recommendation.
Mr. McCash noted that what is being discussed is not an elaborately detailed planned text.
Mr. Cline noted that the neighbors would not support and Council would likely not support any
of the Limited Industrial uses. Mr. Cline asked if eliminating the Section 1171 uses will prompt
Ashland not to participate in a planned district process.
Mr. Thaxton responded that 1171 was included because potential buyers have inquired about some
of the uses in that group. He is not certain which ones would and would not be acceptable to the
neighborhood groups.
Mr. Cline stated that he believes SO and OLR are the appropriate uses for the site.
At this point, Mayor Kranstuber arrived at the meeting.
Mr. McCash commented that he would like this item to be tabled by Council until December 16
and at that point make a formal referral to P &Z. Between now and Friday, he would like to meet
with Mr. Cline and Mr. Thaxton to put together a planned development text and submit that to
Ms. Clarke for her staff meeting on Monday.
Mr. Cline clarified that he represents the region to the north of this site and this is a general
community concern and not just one of those living close to the site.
Mr. Campbell agreed with the plan of action since it will not delay the application and will likely
result in a better product.
Community Development Committee
December 2, 1996
Page Three
Mr. Cline suggested that it would be appropriate for Ms. Clarke to be involved in drafting the
text.
Mr. Campbell commented that he does not want to burden staff with this, especially since the land
owner has an interest in it and it would be incumbent upon Ashland to have their representatives
do the initial paper work.
Mr. Thaxton noted that a corporate decision has not been made at this time regarding whether
SuperAmerica will do a joint application with the City.
Mr. Campbell pointed out that there is a financial advantage in being a co- applicant since the
filing fees will not have to be paid again and much of the process has already been initiated.
Mr. Cline provided a copy of the subarea text for the Riverside property, noting that there are
some uses included that do not show up in an SO district.
Mr. McCash will provide a report from the Committee at the Council meeting, requesting that the
matter be continued on the table until December 16.
The meeting was adjourned at 7 p.m.
9 knn
Assis rk of C ncil