Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 54-13RECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. 2nce No. 54 -13 Forth No. 30043 Passed . 20. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2007 DUBLIN COMMUNITY PLAN VHEREAS, the City of Dublin strives to preserve and enhance the unique high uality of life, community character and fiscal well -being offered to those who live r work in the community; and WHEREAS,, the City of Dublin seeks to manage growth and adapt to changes that result from the demand for corporate offices, high technology industries, homes, and mixed use development; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin seeks to preserve the public health, safety and welfare by managing the City's growth and change and ensuring that additional development and redevelopment does not adversely affect the community; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin strives to promote good governance through innovation, efficiency, transparency, and public involvement in all aspects of its community planning efforts; and WHEREAS, the Dublin Community Plan is a flexible planning document that is meant to guide the City in planning and development decisions; and WHEREAS, the Dublin Community Plan should be updated from time to time to respond to changes in the community and to maintain its accuracy, relevancy and usefulness as a decision - making tool. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, of the elected members concurring that: Section 1. The 2007 Dublin Community Plan is hereby amended and shall henceforth be officially titled as, "The Dublin Community Plan." A copy of the Community Plan is on file with the Clerk of Council's office, as of the effective date of this Ordinance. Section 2. The primary format of the Dublin Community Plan shall be a publicly - accessible website ( http:// CommunityPlan .Dublin0hioUsa.gov that will allow for future amendments to be efficiently incorporated. Section 3. The City Manager shall be authorized to implement an official policy regarding the continual maintenance and periodic technical update of the Community Plan to adjust such items as facts, figures, inventories and descriptions or graphic depictions of existing conditions. Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the earliest period allowed by law. Passed this day of 2013. Mayor — esi ing Officer ATTEST: a— Clerk of Council I cityof Dublin Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 -1090 Phone: 614 - 410 -4400 • Fax: 614 - 410 -4490 To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Marsha I. Grigsby, City Manager Date: June 20, 2013 Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning Justin Goodwin, AICP, Planner II Re: Ordinance 54 -13 — Amending the 2007 Dublin Community Plan Summary Memo Planning has presented potential amendments to various elements of the 2007 Community Plan at Planning and Zoning Commission meetings between July 2012 and May 2013. Planning has worked with staff from nearly every City department over the past year to review and update the Community Plan's text, maps, charts, figures and other supplemental content and to develop the new web -based format of the plan. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the amended Community Plan and the new web -based Plan format at their May 16, 2013 meeting. Community Plan Website The Community Plan website is designed to provide quick access and an enhanced user experience for both the general public and regular users of the Plan. For Council members who are reading this memo online or using an Wad or other mobile device, hyperlinks in this memo provide direct access to various sections of the Plan. Draft amendments to the Plan are available for review at http:// CommunityPian .Dublin0hioUsa.gov This website is designed to match the general organization of the published 2007 Plan document, including the Introduction section and the following ten chapters: Foundations Character & Environment Land Use Transportation Community Facilities Historic Preservation Fiscal Health Demographics Utilities Implementation The web -based format of the Plan is an innovative and cost - effective approach for maintaining and communicating this important policy document. In website form, the Plan can be easily maintained and revised on an as- needed basis, without unnecessary publication costs. This approach allows the City to quickly incorporate new planning policies and revised area plans into the official Community Plan. An example of this is the ability to adopt new plans and policies that significantly change the concepts of the 2007 Plan, such as the 2010 Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report. The web -based format also allows members of the public to easily comment or ask questions on the specific elements of the Plan that interest them most, and provides full access to the Plan without the need to purchase a full -size document. The website is designed to allow users to easily navigate through all sections of the Plan, including searching on key words. A brief, graphic explanation of how to navigate and use the website is attached to this memo. Memo re. Ordinance 54 -13 — Amending the 2007 Dublin Community Plan June 20, 2013 Page 2 of 8 Amendments Overview Many of the Plan's revisions involve updated references and information regarding major land use changes, including the West Innovation District and Bridge Street District. Planning has also revised text throughout the Plan for accuracy, clarity or style consistency, and updated technical information and descriptions of existing conditions, where appropriate. To review these changes, the proposed amendments can be viewed directly on the Community Plan website A redline ( "track changes ") copy of all proposed text amendments is available for download in PDF format for each Plan chapter. A print copy showing all changes is also available for review in the Council Planning Room. Key Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendations Following a number of Planning and Zoning Commission reviews over the past year, Planning presented a complete draft of the proposed Community Plan amendments at the April 11, 2013 Commission meeting where Commission members provided suggestions for additional content. Specifically, Commissioners felt the Plan should more directly address the concept of sustainability and more thoroughly consider the potential for future public transit service. Commission members also suggested the inclusion of a general introduction to the website that clearly explains in more detail the purpose of the Community Plan. Each of these suggestions was included in the final version of the amended Plan they recommended to Council at the May 16, 2013 Commission meeting. Sustainability The Building Blocks section in the Foundations Chapter outlines major planning issues and critical visioning elements of the Community Plan. This section now includes a brief discussion of sustainability and the importance of this concept to Dublin and the Community Plan. This reflects existing elements of the Community Plan that address sustainability. For example, Objective 2, Strategy E in the Community Character Chapter encourages "green" building practices, such as the use of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) construction standards. Other sustainability- oriented objectives are located throughout the Plan. Public Transportation The previous version of the Public Transportation section in the Transportation Chapter focused almost exclusively on the COTA bus routes serving Dublin today and the specific planned routes that have been designated in COTA's Long Range Transit Plan. Less attention was given to the possibility of future alternative forms of public transit. However, the 2011 Economic Advancement Zone Plan (now the West Innovation District Area Plan) included a section on various types of public transit and how each mode could eventually be accommodated in Dublin. This information was integrated into the Transportation Chapter and generalized within the context of the entire City. Explaining the Community Plan The Planning and Zoning Commission noted that members of the general public may be unfamiliar with the Community Plan and may not understand the long range nature of the Plan's recommendations. This is an important point; as the Plan's information becomes more accessible to the public, there must be a clear understanding of the differences between long -term planning policies and shorter term implementation efforts, such as the annual Capital Improvements Program. To address this issue, the home page of the Community Plan website now includes a prominent link called, What is the Community Plan? This section (part of the Plan's Introduction) provides a detailed explanation of what the Plan is and is not, and how the Plan relates to such documents as the Zoning Code and Capital Improvements Program. Future Land Use Map and Thoroughfare Plan Amendments Planning presented proposed revisions to the Future Land Use Mao and the Thoroughfare Plan at the November 8 and December 6, 2012 Commission meetings. Print copies of the adopted 2007 and the proposed updated versions are attached to this memo to assist Council in comparing the amendments to these key policy maps. Memo re. Ordinance 54 -13 — Amending the 2007 Dublin Community Plan June 20, 2013 Page 3 of 8 The most significant revisions to the Future Land Use Mao are related to the adoption of the West Innovation, Tech Flex and Bridge Street District zoning requirements. Key changes include combining the two "Office/Research & Development" classifications, and the replacement of the "Mixed Use Town Center' classification with "Mixed Use Urban Core." Other changes were made to reflect zoning approvals since the Plan was adopted, none of which are significant shifts in land use. Minor revisions to some land use classification descriptions were made to clarify intent or to reflect the complementary nature of some uses. For example, the "Office` land use classifications are now referred to as "Office/Institutional;' recognizing that some types of institutional uses (particularly hospitals, skilled nursing and assisted living facilities) are often located in or near medical office areas. Planning also presented the Commission a concept for incorporating an "open space overlay` into the Future Land Use Map to avoid concerns with depicting private land as open space without a "base` land use classification. The overlay has now been incorporated into a separate Open Space Overlay Mao (below) and is intended to suggest locations of sensitive areas that should be preserved, while depicting a more comprehensive and connected open space system. The Thorouahfare Plan updates are based primarily on recent roadway project completions. More significant revisions are based on newly planned thoroughfare concepts for the Bridge Street District and the West Innovation District. Mapped information within the Transportation chapter have been incorporated as "clickable - data within the Thoroughfare Plan map viewer. While this includes the roadway character designations, a separate, updated Roadway Character Map remains in the Plan. Roadway Character updates reflect the revised network shown on the Thoroughfare Plan and include a revised roadway character type called "Urban/Village Character" to accommodate the Bridge Street District's intended urban streetscape. Special Area Plan Amendments Specific special area plans of interest to the Commission included proposed revisions to the Coffman Park Area Plan (now referred to as the Emerald /Perimeter Area) and the graphic representation of the new Bridge Street District Area Plan. Planning refined the area plan graphics, based on the Commission's feedback. A summary of proposed area plan amendments follows. Memo re. Ordinance 54 -13 — Amending the 2007 Dublin Community Plan June 20, 2013 Page 4 of 8 Bridge Street District This new area plan incorporates the 2010 Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report and related planning information, including new text, graphics and design recommendations. This replaces the 2007 Historic Dublin and Sawmill /SR 161 Area Plans. Conceptual images recently developed for the Scioto River Corridor Urban Design Framework are also used, along with modifications to the planned street network. The graphic depiction of the Bridge Street District Plan was discussed extensively with the Planning and Zoning Commission. The result is a much less detailed depiction than that of the 2010 Illustrative Vision Plan; these details will develop "on the ground" through implementation of the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code. Instead, the area plan focuses on the development of the grid street network and block system with special attention paid to the planned greenway system. Westlnnovabon District This area plan incorporates the 2011 Economic Advancement Zone Plan, with minor technical updates. Proposed West Innovation District Plan (depicting the EAZ Plan's land use, open space and transportation plans) Memo re. Ordinance 54 -13 — Amending the 2007 Dublin Community Plan June 20, 2013 Page 5 of 8 US 33 Corridor Area This area plan, incorporating land outside the City's boundaries, is primarily a reflection of the Jerome Township Comprehensive Plan. Unlike the 2007 version of this area plan that extended to US 42, the revised version is consistent with Dublin's recognized planning area. Emera ld /Perimeter /Cofh n Park) Area The former Coffman Park area plan was revised to reflect more recent master planning for the expansion of the park. It now reflects new office development south of Perimeter Drive and demonstrates additional office development potential along Post Road. The graphics also depict more recent design work for the planned US 33/I -270 interchange improvements.' This area plan graphic was updated prior to the recent approval of an alternate interchange design by the ON Department of Raosportation. Planning will revise the graphic to accurately reflect the approved design. Memo re. Ordinance 54 -13 — Amending the 2007 Dublin Community Plan June 20, 2013 Page 6 of 8 Avery Road Corridor A portion of the Avery/Woerner - Temple focus area (adjacent to the Cramer's Crossing neighborhood) now depicts office development rather than residential as previously shown. The Future Land Use Map has been revised accordingly. This revision was made after meeting with and gaining the support of both the Cramer's Crossing Condominium and Homeowners Associations. This also allows the property to be consistent with its current office zoning. The approved development plan for property south of Dan Sherri Avenue is also shown. Adopted Avery/Woerner - Temple Plan Bright Road Area The planned roundabout at the future Emerald Parkway /Bright Road intersection has been depicted and a design recommendation added to note opportunities for a vehicular overpass connection between Emerald Parkway and the Bridge Street District west of Sawmill Road. i 1 t w" J + 7, S y J� Proposed Bright Road Plan Revision (depicting the Bright Road /Emerald Parkway Roundabout) d I �• 1� Sd Proposed Plan Revision (depicting office development) I 0 l y r Y � y i 1 t w" J + 7, S y J� Proposed Bright Road Plan Revision (depicting the Bright Road /Emerald Parkway Roundabout) d I �• 1� Sd Proposed Plan Revision (depicting office development) Memo re. Ordinance 54-13 — Amending the 2007 Dublin Community Plan June 20, 2013 Page 7 of 8 Southwest Area Minor graphic changes more accurately depict street and commercial driveway connections in the Tuttle/Wilcox Road area. :A tz I L I K L I ILL, Proposed Southwest Plan Revisions (depicting existing or planned street and driveway connections) Northwest Glacier Rldae Area This now includes the revised plan as adopted with 2011 Hyland-Croy Road Corridor Character Study. No new revisions are proposed. Summit VlewlSawmill Area No changes are proposed. Adopted Northwest/Glacier Ridge Plan Adopted Summit View/Sawmill Plan Memo re. Ordinance 54 -13 — Amending the 2007 Dublin Community Plan June 20, 2013 Page 8 of 8 Objectives and Strategies Amendments Planning recommended to the Commission a detailed list of proposed revisions to the Plan's Objectives and Strategies, which were based on a comprehensive review with staff throughout the City. Commission members provided suggestions for specific objectives and for general consistency in terms of how some items (such as the Bridge Street District) are referenced. A detailed summary of proposed revisions to Objectives and Strategies is attached to this memo. Public Involvement Planning introduced the Community Plan amendment process to the public at an open house in June 2012 at the Dublin Community Recreation Center. The open house provided an overview of the project objectives, process and opportunities for public review and involvement. Planning worked with Community Relations throughout the Plan amendment process to publicize events, post website updates and use public feedback options such as the City's E- newsletter, DubTV, and a variety of social and print media outlets. As this is to be an entirely on -line document, Planning created a unique opportunity for public input by hosting a live webcast on the Community Plan website in March 2013. The webcast provided an overview of the draft amendments and demonstrated how members of the public could use the website to review and comment on proposed changes. Webcast participants were able to submit questions live during the webcast. Public comments provided throughout the Plan amendment process are attached to this memo; this includes comments that were posted directly to the Community Plan website. Community Plan Maintenance and Amendment Policy Planning provided a memo to Council on April 18, 2013 (attached) outlining a framework for adoption of the Plan amendments and a policy for ongoing maintenance. With the conversion of the Plan to a digital format, it is clear that policies and procedures are needed to keep the Plan relevant over time, rather than expending significant efforts every few years. The proposed ordinance to amend the Community Plan authorizes the City Manager to establish and implement such a policy. A draft Administrative Order to accomplish this is attached to this memo for Council's reference. Recommendation The proposed Community Plan amendments address major planning initiatives, changes and trends that have occurred within Dublin over the past five years and incorporate new content recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The new web -based format will enhance the Plan's accessibility and interest. It will allow the City to ensure the Plan remains relevant, while providing significant cost savings. Planning recommends approval of Ordinance 54 -13 to amend the Dublin Community Plan at the second reading on July 1, 2013. ������ry DUBfIN Al AMDY PROP SED FUTURE 3 �OSPRAt z 0 0 SHIER -RINGS 33 B . O OAL Pq a F � w GS ROAD - -��I IE - :' WO D �Ma rf — r - n� a �QP EM Draft - June 20, 2013 FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION Suburban /Rural Residential g, R Suburban Residential Medium Density o w � WOERNER - TEM PQ' 81041 Mixed Residential Low Density p Mixed Residential Medium Density - Mixed Residential High Density -- - Standard Office/ Institutional : L i loop � J � 14.1�'r I Tl1TTLE1_ B . O OAL Pq a F � w GS ROAD - -��I IE - :' WO D �Ma rf — r - n� a �QP EM Draft - June 20, 2013 FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION Miles � � N City of Dublin Suburban /Rural Residential Suburban Residential Low Density Suburban Residential Medium Density Mixed Residential Rural Transition Mixed Residential Low Density Mixed Residential Medium Density - Mixed Residential High Density Neighborhood Office/ Institutional - Standard Office/ Institutional W Premium Office/ Institutional Flex Office /Research & Development General Commercial L Mixed Use Neighborhood Center i Mixed Use Village Center - Mixed Use Urban Core Civic /Public Assembly Parks /Open Space _ River Planning Area Boundary - - -- Future Roadway Railroad 0 0.5 1 2 Miles � � N City of Dublin FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION Residential Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Mixed Residential Rural Density Mixed Residential Low Density p \ 9 \ g 0 0.5 1 2 Miles AMITY Map 3.3 Future Land Use Adopted: Ordinance #58-o7 December 10, 2007 Revised: ED FUTU � n' Mixed Residential Medium Density _ Mixed Residential High Density Neighborhood Office Standard Office g 0 0.5 1 2 Miles AMITY Map 3.3 Future Land Use Adopted: Ordinance #58-o7 December 10, 2007 Revised: ED FUTU � n' Premium Off ice High Density Office /Research &Development Low DensityOffice /Research & Development ROAD General Commercial Mixed Use Neighborhood Center eRIGx ROAD B , Mixed Use Village Center Mixed Use Town Center TDLLER ROAD Public Institutional /Civic • _ Private Institutional II WE DORM - GRA II1iia - Parks /Open Space 1 r M N ROAD N River Planning Area Boundary Future Roadway 33 T Railroad g 0 0.5 1 2 Miles AMITY Map 3.3 Future Land Use Adopted: Ordinance #58-o7 December 10, 2007 Revised: ED FUTU � n' Draft - June 20, 2013 I X � 33 FUNCTIONAL ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION 257 POWELL ROAD Existing Future ........ Freeway ........ Major Arterial - Minor Arterial -------- Collector 00 Local BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT STREET FAMILES SD IT IE ROAD D0 E WO D Existing Future - _ Corridor Connector d6O . � District Connector Planned Interchange Improvement OA 100 o a 10 _E�� # ## Planned Right -of -Way Width (Feet) 9 ROAD 60 80 ,.__. Change in Right -of -Way 1I 9 � 80 f00 99mwnv Planned Variable -Width Median & g _ 2 2 (Additional Right -of -Way as Necessary) ST ETD BIN _NVL__ Railroad M R '�ROAD 161 Planning Area Boundary 0 0.5 1 2 Miles AMITY PIKE PROPOSED THOROUG 13Y -13 1 A Future roadway alignments are schematic only, and are subject to change upon further study through the design process of the Capital Improvements Program. N City of Dublin FUNCTIONAL ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION Existing Future .oew'.m xono i 8 mm �ta6 0 0.5 1 0AMI M ADOPTED THOROUGHFARE PLAN Future roadway alignments are schematic only, and are subject to change upon further study through the design process of the Capital Improvements Program. Map 4.5 Thoroughfare Plan AdopPed� ©rd {Hance SS8 -o7 Decerrib2rio, soot Revised' soo7Dubhn Co...mty Plan - - - - -- Freeway ______ MajorArterial - - - - -- MinorArterial V y - - - - -- Collector 39 Local s • Planned Interchange Improvement # ## Planned Right -of -Way Width (Feet) n Change in Right -of -Way t Planned Vadable -Width Median (Additional Right-of -Way as Necessary) 8 Railroad . - Planning Area Boundary 0 0.5 1 0AMI M ADOPTED THOROUGHFARE PLAN Future roadway alignments are schematic only, and are subject to change upon further study through the design process of the Capital Improvements Program. Map 4.5 Thoroughfare Plan AdopPed� ©rd {Hance SS8 -o7 Decerrib2rio, soot Revised' soo7Dubhn Co...mty Plan Summary of Objectives and Strategies Amendments Commun ty Character & Enwronment These objectives were previously organized by sub -topic but are now consolidated so that all chapter objectives are in the same location. Community Character Obiectives • Objective 1, Strategy B (Establish Roadway Standards...): reference to the Hyland -Croy Road Corridor Character Study as an example of corridor - specific recommendations for preserving rural character. • Objective 2 (Promote a high quality residential and commercial built environment): recognition that recent Zoning Code amendments have been implemented, and that additional Code modifications should be considered. • Objective 2: clarification that public art should be integrated into capital improvements and private development proposals where opportunities are available. • Objective 5, Strategy B (Consider Gateway Designs...): clarifies the intent for consistency in gateway signs, while not precluding unique design elements within gateway features. • Objective 5, Strategy C (Implement Special Packages... for directional and informational signs): removes reference to the Central Ohio Innovation Center, include Bridge Street neighborhoods and other business districts. • Objective 7, Strategy A (Consider Design Alternatives...): reference to the Hyland -Croy Road Corridor Character Study as an example of recommendations for integrating roadway design with surrounding open space character. Environment Obiectives • Objective 1, Strategy B (Consider Nature Education...): relocation of Health and Human - Related Services from the Community Facilities chapter as an additional strategy in Objective 1 (Create clear standards and policies for establishing Dublin as a "green" community that ... is a leader in environmental stewardship), as a more relevant location for this strategy. • Objective 3, Strategy C (Establish Soil Remediation Standards...): relocated to Objective 9 (Increase tree planting for future generations in Dublin) as these topics are more closely related. The strategy statement is expanded to recognize new structural soil requirements in the Bridge Street District zoning regulations as well as the need for standards in other portions of the city. • Objective 11 (Maintain and increase wildlife diversity): technical clarifications to background information and strategy statements to more accurately describe issues and solutions related to habitat change and associated impacts on biodiversity. Land Use • Objective 1, Strategy D (Develop a State -of -the Art Code...): recognizes recent Zoning Code amendments and that other modifications may be necessary. • Objective 2, Strategy A (Maintain Appropriate Development Levels...): accommodates the desire for higher land use intensities in the Bridge Street District and lower intensities in other portions of the city. • Objective 4 (Encourage Mixed Use Development...): new strategy to address the need for continual monitoring of the new Bridge Street District zoning regulations, and clarification that regulations for context- sensitive mixed use development in other portions of the City remain appropriate. • Objective 5 (Emphasize redevelopment efforts and infill development throughout the City): new strategy to address the need for continual monitoring and updates of the Land Use Plan, allowing responces to changing market trends in the older, developed areas of the city. Summary of Objectives and Strategies Amendments • Expansion of Objective 6 (Explore a broader range of housing options for Dublin's residents) to also address the need to preserve the quality of Dublin's aging single - family housing stock and desirability of neighborhoods as they age. New strategy statements are also included. • Objective 6, Strategy A (Provide a Mix of Housing Choices...): revision to clarify that the creation of new neighborhood types is appropriate, provided that the City's expectations for high - quality development are maintained. • Objective 7 (Encourage and integrate neighborhood -level retail...): new strategy in to identify design solutions that will minimize conflicts between neighborhood retail centers and nearby residential areas. • Expansion of Objective 8, Strategy C (Revise Development Codes...) to include monitoring of the new Bridge Street District regulations for their effectiveness in achieving pedestrian mobility goals. • Objective 10 (Preserve areas of open space for a variety of recreation activities): recognize the adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan. • Objective 12, Strategy E (Adopt and Implement Plans...): deleted reference to the Historic Dublin Revitalization Plan. While never adopted, many of the Revitalization Plan's recommendations were incorporated into the Historic Dublin Area Plan; these will be maintained and /or revised as necessary in the new Bridge Street District Area Plan. • Objective 12, Strategy F (Focus on the Scioto River Corridor): added the Indian Run as a key environmental resource within the Historic District, with additional text to emphasize that the goals of increasing access to and across these features must be balanced with the preservation of their natural and visual integrity. • Objective 14 (Ensure that land use policies sustain the community's economic and fiscal needs...): added text to recognize that strategic infrastructure investments will be needed to support increased development intensities in the Bridge Street District. • Objective 15, Strategy D (Improve Plan Review and Approval Processes...): added text to reflect the adoption of an administrative review procedure for the Bridge Street and Innovation Districts, and the need for continual monitoring to ensure its effectiveness. • Objective 17 (Promote education about current land use planning and development topics...): corrects omission of two strategy statements from the 2007 Community Plan publication. Transportation • Objective 2, Strategy C (Require Traffic Impact Studies...): clarifies that alternative transportation and access studies will be applicable to development within the Bridge Street and Innovation Districts. • Objective 3 (Maintain a quality LOS standard for Dublin's network): new strategy to promote travel demand management (TDM) policies and to monitor the effectiveness of new TDM -based parking incentives in the Bridge Street District. • Objective 5, Strategy E (Balance Transportation and Planning Objectives...): emphasizes the need to prioritize the most appropriate road widening projects. • Objective 6, Strategies A and B (Require Multiple Connection Points...) and (Provide Multiple Routes...): consolidates these interrelated strategies. • Objective 8 (Promote alternatives to the single- occupant vehicle within the City): reorganized to group related strategies involving transit service. Revised to emphasize the need to ensure Dublin's transit service goals are incorporated into regional transit plans, and to update descriptions of targeted areas for higher density development. Summary of Objectives and Strategies Amendments • Objective 9, Strategy F (Encourage State of Ohio and City of Columbus Officials...): includes the US 33 /SR 161 /I -270 interchange as a key focus area for transportation improvements. • Objective 9, Strategy A (Aggressively Explore Additional Bridge Locations...): expands options for identifying new river or interstate bridge crossings as opportunities arise. • Objective 10, Strategy C (Acquire Additional Rights -of -way): adds new Scioto River bridge crossings within the Bridge Street District. • Objective 11 (Promote bicycle and pedestrian mobility in and through Dublin): describes new types of bicycle facilities that have been implemented or planned within the city; address the need to monitor newly adopted bicycle parking requirements; and coordinate with the recommendations of the Bicycle Advisory Task Force. Commun ty Facilities The Community Facilities Chapter objectives were previously organized by sub -topic within the chapter but are now consolidated and renumbered so that all Facilities objectives are in the same location. General Facilities Objectives • Objective 3, Strategy E (Establish a Land Acquisition Program...): deleted since the City typically focuses on more flexible and less formalized approaches to land acquisition than implied by this strategy. • Objective 3, Strategy G (Adopt a Parks and Recreation Plan): recognizes the Parks and Recreation Master Plan adoption and the need for monitoring and periodic amendments. • Objective 4, Strategy A (Carefully Site Civic Uses...): clarifies the need for sufficient acreage to develop consolidated public facilities and open spaces. • Objective 4, Strategy E (Encourage Land Acquisition...): deleted as redundant with amended Objective 2, Strategy C (Identify Desirable Sites...). • Objective 5, Strategy C (Acquire Key Parcels...): emphasizes the importance of facility location rather than land acquisition and recognizes that opportunities for public- private partnerships may be appropriate when implementing this strategy. • Objective 5, Strategy E (Incorporate Recommendations... from the Historic Dublin Revitalization Plan): changes reference to the new Bridge Street District Area Plan. Parks and Open Space Objectives • Objective 1 (Provide a variety of recreational and open space facilities for all residents): new Strategy to recommend incorporation of urban open space types in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, along with guidance for key greenway connections and public open space locations in the Bridge Street District. • Objective 1, Strategy C (Require Parkland Dedication...): recommends monitoring of the new Bridge Street District open space requirements for residential and commercial development. • Objective 2, Strategy E (Implement Applicable Plans...): removes reference to the 2003 Pedestrian Tunnel Study, the key recommendations of which have now been implemented. This strategy will now include reference to the area plans and bikeways plan included in the Community Plan. • Objective 3, Strategy C (Implement a Detailed Master Plan...) and Strategy F (Target Critical Locations...): consolidate to eliminate redundancy. • Objective 3, Strategy G (Consider Additional Parkland Acquisition...): add focus on complementary site design and connectivity for new development adjacent to the Glacier Ridge Metro Park. Summary of Objectives and Strategies Amendments Municipal Facilities Obiectives • Objective 1, Strategy E (Acquire Necessary Land...): focuses on the need to identify appropriate sites for municipal facilities. • Objective 2, Strategy C (Assist Local Schools...): adds institutions and community organizations and examples of the type of support intended by the strategy, such as shared services. • Objective 2, Strategy E (Acquire Future Sites...): deleted to eliminate redundancy with amended Objective 1, Strategy E (Identify Desirable Sites...). • Objective 2, Strategy F (Establish Annexation Policies...): deleted to eliminate redundancy with Land Use Objective 16, Strategy B (Strategically Annex Unincorporated Areas /Islands...). Schools Obiectives Objective 2, Strategy D (Promote Technology -Based Education...): removes reference to the Central Ohio Innovation Center, replaced with Dublin's business neighborhoods. Libraries Objectives Objective 1, Strategy C (Consider Cooperative Partnerships): includes other strategic partners' and co- location of civic uses. Postal Services Objectives No amendments are proposed. Religious Institutions Obiectives No specific objective /strategy statements are included in the Community Plan. Cemeteries Obiectives Objective 1 (Explore options for the provision of cemeteries as a valued public service for Dublin's residents): places more emphasis on exploring private market -based options with the limited capacity of the Dublin Cemetery. Health and Human Services • Objective 1, Strategy B (Consider Nature Education...): relocated to Environment Objective 1. • Objective 1, Strategy C (Find a Prominent Location... for the Dublin Historical Society): deleted to eliminate redundancy with Historic Preservation Objective 5, Strategy D (Create a Visible Location... for the Dublin Historical Society). • Objective 16 includes a new strategy (E) to promote the creation of a medical technologies business cluster as an economic development strategy. Historic Preservation • Objective 4, Strategy G (Encourage Adaptive Reuse Policies...): adds historic preservation grants' as an example of economic assistance. • Objective 4, Strategy H (Utilize Preservation Consultants...): adds use of architectural consultants to reflect Zoning Code change. • Objective 4, Strategy I (Revise Code Requirements...): recognizes adoption of the new historic zoning districts in the Bridge Street District zoning and the need for monitoring to ensure their effectiveness in achieving desired development and preservation goals. • Objective 4, Strategy J (Complete a City- Sponsored Rezoning...): completed with the Bridge Street District rezonings. Summary of Objectives and Strategies Amendments Objective 4, Strategy K (Utilize Evaluative Tools...): consolidated with Strategy I (Adopt and Implement Revitalization Plans...) to eliminate redundancy and reference the new Bridge Street District Area Plan. Objective 5, Strategy B (Improve Awareness of the Architectural Review Board): recognizes new communication efforts, such as the Historic Dublin quarterly newsletter, and broadens the intent of this strategy. Fiscal Heath (formerly 'Fisca /Ana /ysis) Objective 1 (Seek alternative sources of revenue...) is consolidated with Objective 3 (Require new development to pay its fair share of growth impacts) to place more emphasis on using cooperative financing solutions rather than development impact fees. Some technical information is also removed from the revised objective statement, as it was redundant with background information described elsewhere in the Fiscal Chapter, and inconsistent with the general format of other objective statements. Demooraohics Contains no specific objective /strategy statements; however, the demographics analysis informs objectives and strategies in other chapters, particularly those dealing with the need for expanded housing options and municipal services to respond to the needs of an aging population and changing lifestyle trends for a range of generations. For example, see Land Use Objective 6 (Encourage a broader range of housing options for Dublin Residents) and Land Use Objective 10 (Preserve areas of open space for a variety of recreation activities). Uti/ ties • Objective 2 (Continue efforts to remove inflow and infiltration sources within the existing sanitary sewer system): strategy to address new Ohio EPA compliance requirements. • Objective 3 (Implement sanitary sewer extensions to growth areas...): strategy to address the need for a clear policy regarding the provision of sanitary sewer service to unserved areas of the city. • Objective 5 (Provide for the safe and efficient delivery of high quality potable water...): strategy to address the need for a clear policy regarding the provision of water service to unserved areas of the city. • Objective 8 (Determine future water tower sites appropriately to blend with the adjacent environment): deleted as the new Dublin Road tank fulfills the intent. • Objective 11 (Design future stormwater retention ponds and detention basins...): includes alternative Best Management Practices and addresses the unique stormwater management approaches needed for the Bridge Street District. Imp /ementation Objective 3, Strategy A (Require Concurrence in Rezoning Requests...): revised to clarify that it may sometimes be appropriate to revise the Community Plan, based on new planning and development decisions enacted by Council. Community Plan Website User's Guide Linking From the City of Dublin website ( www,dublinohiousa,00v) A link to the Community Plan website is provided at the top of the City of Dublin's main website. The Community Plan is formatted to coordinate with the City website with similar organization and navigation features. City of Dublin Abom . Government • Services Parks R Recreation Featured Headlines fo r of Dub a lin Outstanding Cdr Most Outstanding Hlghwav Projact Jars 22, Z013 BIIInBazrelHenefirs- Two newworkshop ante: atlaea Jun 07,2013 i i Ready Prepare. flan. Buy Informed. mergenry Preparedness .' a encourage you to take simple steps n vour home or business, to better umpam In rase of an .mergenry or eluasler a Mar Management htanagemen[ and Stream Pmtecaon Jun 05 2013 7,14 - 67; Outdoor Commun re , Pools Both City of Dublin Community Pods will be open beginning Memorial Day Weekend_ Open from 10 ane to 8 pm. only beginaing the firstweek in June. Conners with us: *000@000 Safety a Even6 e Q Events & Public Meetings mew me Compete cslenoar • Date: Saturday,June15,2013 Lyndsey6 K}1e 61 amodafRUll Dearnpbe. Mme lntormabon RAWRhdgeTafa"f Tmdc Dessnption Presented by Sunny 95 • flat¢: Sunday, June 16, 2DI3 sunda}s of S€bi Description IJore Information r7 Best, NESS Find out why'lfs Greener' in Dublin, Ohio, USA lbe Ciy ofOublin, Ohio, USA supports a livable, sustainable and safe community by emphasivng public safety, Innovative programs and expeonfirn yameal es. Construction Updates Beginning Monday June 3 through im 25,Shier Rings Road Wiff becloset west ofthe Cdys Fled Maintenance Drive to Eilerman Road Detonate Your Bike and Be Part of Dublin's Independence Day Jun 33, 2013 fo r of Dub a lin Outstanding Cdr Most Outstanding Hlghwav Projact Jars 22, Z013 BIIInBazrelHenefirs- Two newworkshop ante: atlaea Jun 07,2013 i i Ready Prepare. flan. Buy Informed. mergenry Preparedness .' a encourage you to take simple steps n vour home or business, to better umpam In rase of an .mergenry or eluasler a Mar Management htanagemen[ and Stream Pmtecaon Jun 05 2013 7,14 - 67; Outdoor Commun re , Pools Both City of Dublin Community Pods will be open beginning Memorial Day Weekend_ Open from 10 ane to 8 pm. only beginaing the firstweek in June. Conners with us: *000@000 Safety a Even6 e Q Events & Public Meetings mew me Compete cslenoar • Date: Saturday,June15,2013 Lyndsey6 K}1e 61 amodafRUll Dearnpbe. Mme lntormabon RAWRhdgeTafa"f Tmdc Dessnption Presented by Sunny 95 • flat¢: Sunday, June 16, 2DI3 sunda}s of S€bi Description IJore Information r7 Best, NESS Find out why'lfs Greener' in Dublin, Ohio, USA lbe Ciy ofOublin, Ohio, USA supports a livable, sustainable and safe community by emphasivng public safety, Innovative programs and expeonfirn yameal es. Construction Updates Beginning Monday June 3 through im 25,Shier Rings Road Wiff becloset west ofthe Cdys Fled Maintenance Drive to Eilerman Road Community Plan Website User's Guide /Navigating the website from the Community Plan Homepage The main navigation bar is located on every page in the website providing quick access to every part of the Plan. Click on the Special Area Plans, Future Land Use Map, or Thoroughfare Plan tabs to link directly to those pages. COMMUNITY PLAN Connect with us: Cityof Dublin 00000 Chapters . I special Area Plans Future Land Use Map Thoroughfare Plan I Recent Updates 2007 Plan I Q Click drop -down chapter Introtluction N — �C WA/ t� iS 7 � E � hy q� , s GROCu R eoMat4,, Click on the magnifying glass icon to on the Chapters' tab to view a s search topics by typing a key word. box and click specific Ml C'fMa2Acr� name to navigate to that page. ¢wova Transportation c oaeo /_ A slideshow on the home page provides Community FacilNes another way to Historic Preservation access each chapter. Click the R.l Hea0h _ image to navigate to Demographic the featured chapter Utillhes page. It Implementation wnai is Me Community Plan? Watch the Community Plan Webcast Upcoming Meetings Fnday, June 14 v Week Monty Agenda'. sae= .on .mgr Monday, June Tb J 7:00pm CM Council- Commundy Plan Arnentlment(1st Reading) Moaday, July i 1 J 7:00pm Cn Coural -C rnundy Plan AmerNment (2ntl Reatling /Ai Shomngeverrfsundla'15 Look /ormore 1 More information about the Plan is available by scrolling down the page. Community Plan Website User's Guide Reading Chapters Each chapter is divided into sections. Read more about each section by clicking on the associated image, or on the section name. I COMMUNITY PLAN Cityof Dublin Chapters x Special Area Plans Land Use The Chapter sidebar acts as a'Table of Contents' for each chapter, allowing users to quickly switch between different sections from anywhere in the chapter. Connect with us: 00000 Future "no Use Map Thoroughfare Plan Recent Updates 2007 Plan Q > OhfecLVes &St2(egles Land Use Background > eack ';. May m, aov3 'u ocommrar Previous Drafts > Boding Land use Taking a rook hack Since 1995, Dublin s residents and golicyreakee have ones withro the 34- square -mile land use and Lxal Toppling goes (planning desbM a plan that world control future traec congestion to the greatest ) Land Use Pinholes etlent feasible while maintaining appropriate land uses and contacted Local health. It was recognbed that although development patter > Key Planning Issues Continue Reading- > The Turn, Land Use Map > OhfecLVes &St2(egles Existing Land Use May O]_aol3 0Cmmwar Previous Drafts Vxow LaMar Map The City of Dublin maintains an Inventory of e%ISting land ones withro the 34- square -mile land use and Lxal Toppling goes (planning area) as shown In the Existing Land Use map The planning area > land Usp Teat -May 16, 2013 corresponds to water and sewer contract boundaries established] wall line > Land] USe Text -Hpr 11 2013 Conanbe Read na- > Land Use ClasslLCatlo> -Apr 11. 2019 Land Use Principles > Land Use odlectrves -All 11, 2013 Moy o,, so13 OCOmmenl > Land Use obfectrves - AUg 9. 2012 0esed upon eatensme touter, input drapasIOn with CH, counca and Me Planning and Zoning Commesseon. and eva ration oPoOmmutlly ecpecta0ons and rotor, needs, ten land use principles were developed to sarce as the basis for evaeuatloa of Lotus, development pmposaes CRy Council ConLnue Reading - 'Track Changes' copies of previous drafts allow users to see how each Key Planning Issues chapter has been revised through the Plan amendment process. Community Plan Website User's Guide Reading a Chapters Objectives and Strategies Each chapter contains multiple objectives and each objective contains multiple specific strategies. These sections are formatted so users can easily read all objectives and then select a specific objective to read more about it. Click the t +' next to an objective to read its strategies. 1 COMMUNITY PLAN connect with us: CityofDublin U Q © 0 Chapters u Special Area Plans Future Land Use Map Thcrouglafare Plan Recent Updates 2007 Plan Objectives & Strategies (Land Use) Land Use Mar 14, 203 � dyadmin " pCOmmm! > 6ackgountl > hoisting land Us- Objective 1: Use the Community Plan teat and maps to guide development decisions and to promote public health, safety, welfare and aesthetics. > Land Use Pnncry:'— > Key Plans., [acres O Objective 2: Maintain land development intensities sensitive to both the capacity of the transportation network and established land use policies. > The Fwure Land Da. Mep Dublin's strategic lntMion sel lto FVa. is national wpossurn k quality residential and amploandat >Objecllves85trategles development. and excellent schmis have all radical rapid growth that has increased traffic congestion - Balancing the laced Mdisbarment with the capacity "a read system had been a cnikal issue throughout the p real prmase- Maintalmng ace wrible leveed of demca an oruida mass is mredly inked to the clonally of Previous Drafts desrempment. Uubdinis expected to cnrM1inne adractingsubslarrtial grew@ war .... phand on amploymenL Thu. in Cum, oil > Land Use Text — May 16. 2013 permit the Cry to suppM very high W bLC samca Ideals. Factors usual to addressing traffic issues include: interesting acceptable limits for congaedon; controlling the stalby and pace of devedopndat inoutiymg areas; q Land Use Tani —Apr 11. 2013 assuring the quality of the out environment, and manlaiung revenues to support high quality services. I Land Use discussion s —Apr 11 -201: A. Maintain Appropriale Development Lei _. at the crescent targets assumed "a started Future Land > Land Use Ubjernsm —Apr 11 -2013 Use Map. Specific develpmenl residues should include comparable land use intensities as modeler in the Plan. Declaims to vary from adopted paliose should be consideretl within the wNexl "a larger area > Lantl Use Unit —Art 0. 2012 O Objective 3: Coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions and regional entities to manage the quality and intensity of growth along Dublin's periphery. O Objective 4: Encourage mixed use development as designated in the Plan to allow people to rive, work shop, learn and play in close proximity while minimizing conflicts between land uses. O Objective 5: Emphasize redevelopment efforts and i nfill development throughout the City. Community Plan Website User's Guide Viewing Specia /Area Plans Click the name of an area plan in the sidebar to navigate to that plan's page. I C 4 0MMUNITY PLAN Cityof Dublin Chapters n Special Area Plans Future Land Use Map Special Area Plans LANAAN 1lYp as .111 T/rP View LaryarlAxn Connect with us: 00000 lldoroughtare Plan Recent Updates 2007 Plan Q Special luaea Plans PERRY 1 nvP ri P rac Note: Area Plan concepts are general guides to Indicate potential developmebt options Plans are schematic only. and Me actual mR of land uses locations and courguratlons of buildings, ranging areas trawls and access Points will be deburnined througMhe public review process for Individual development proposals Poccones retain all > Bogs S reel Blsmal Soulbwesl Area ) Avery Road Pa r B/ghl Road Focus Area > Emeald /Perimeter Area ) west mnovaled Eudind > Nontrea l Clatter Rodge Area > Summll grew Sawmill Area > US 33 Condor Area Alternatively, click on a planning area boundary in the map to view the name of the area. Click the area plan name in the pop -up window to navigate to that area plan's page. Individual area plans can also be accessed by scrolling further down the page to see thumbnail previews of each plan. Special Planning Nrea. Briaoe street BlsNCt CiARBY TAP WAS. '— - om to LANAAN 1lYp as .111 T/rP View LaryarlAxn Connect with us: 00000 lldoroughtare Plan Recent Updates 2007 Plan Q Special luaea Plans PERRY 1 nvP ri P rac Note: Area Plan concepts are general guides to Indicate potential developmebt options Plans are schematic only. and Me actual mR of land uses locations and courguratlons of buildings, ranging areas trawls and access Points will be deburnined througMhe public review process for Individual development proposals Poccones retain all > Bogs S reel Blsmal Soulbwesl Area ) Avery Road Pa r B/ghl Road Focus Area > Emeald /Perimeter Area ) west mnovaled Eudind > Nontrea l Clatter Rodge Area > Summll grew Sawmill Area > US 33 Condor Area Alternatively, click on a planning area boundary in the map to view the name of the area. Click the area plan name in the pop -up window to navigate to that area plan's page. Individual area plans can also be accessed by scrolling further down the page to see thumbnail previews of each plan. Community Plan Website User's Guide Viewing Special Area Plans (continued) Embedded maps function similarly to popular web map sites such as Google Maps or Bing Maps. Zoom, pan and click icons as you would on those websites. I OMMUNITY PLAN Gtyor Dublin Chapters » Special Area Plans Bridge Street District The Bridge Street District and West Innovation District Plans contain multiple sections. Click a topic in the sidebar to read a specific section. Alternatively, scroll down the page to see thumbnail previews of individual sections. Om©O10 Future Land Use Map Thoroughfare Plan Recent Updates 2007 Plan Q Design point icons are colored to represent different topics (e.g, mobility, open space, etc.). Click an icon to read the design recommendation. Some 1 design points include photos or artist's renderings to help illustrate the point. Click the photo to see a larger version. - �f � Ir � -I H)glnT — p � LrAI � 1 �; y� e l, r �r = I Bridge street Uutria Future pedestrian britlge to connect rest .[do of over l _aam to Bridge Street District > overview ano Purpose > The Plural,, Process > Changing Market Demands > A each forms Future > The Urban Oadind Framework > Creating Walkable CISNCts > Creating Urban Open sperskand caverns, Correctors > Rsteong Transta loo Options > Using torsona lure EBclently > Implementing the Vision Special Area Plans ' Vlew Larger Map ' Note: Area Plan concepts are general guides to Indicate potential development options Plans are schematic only . and me antral mix of land uses, locations and configurations of buildings_ perking areas goods and acr ss points will be natinhood through me area review process for individual development Proposals Propert ClIn > endue steel Dall,I > Southwest Area > Avery Road Carndor > Ceti Road For us Area > Emerald/Pehmeler FUrus Aren > West Innovation District ClicktView Larger Map'to see a full Each area plan map is accompanied by screen version of the area plan. The a note emphasizing the conceptual large map version includes a legend nature of the plan, as was done in the explaining the different map icons. 1 1 2007 Community Plan. Community Plan Website User's Guide Viewing the Future Land Use Map I C I OMMUNITY PLAN City of Dublin Chapters u Special Area Plans FNUte land llse Map thoroughfare Plan Future Land Use Map Ful Land use W Future Mixed Use Urban Core Players Claseiromen standard ice Uate Updated 111112➢12. 0 =00 PM Notes oom to 1 a,—. w 1 The Future Land Use Map classive al panels wl the flublln planning area viith a recammended land use each shown who a dMerent color, The map is supported ne a dstalM doscnplion ef Lord Use an—firCatioos, which explain the 91 character of each land use type. including typical ranges for residential and ren reaidenual densities Click a land use symbol on the map to view a pop -up information window displaying the Future Land Use classification as well as the previous classification if it is proposed to be amended. > The Future L and Use Mep 1 Oblsen,so & State, as Previous Drafts s Land Use Last - May 16, 2013 s Land Use Test -Apr 11, 2013 1 Land Use Classfcatica, -A, 11 20'. 1 Land Us, Career. - An 11 2013 1 Land Use Objectives - Aug 9 2012 It t o es theacommended future land use re the same as the existing land use. However In certain locations ,r ushert the planning sees. the Future Land Use Map and special area plans mnd in parcels with existing uses that melt a part of a larger, at In ethereace it is not the intent or value or me quality oflife of�sdant is aMers ly aRecfltl o ClicktView Larger Map'to see a full sor developers the Ci ,a lon mn ad wow screen version of the Future Land Use ecomefeasibamdeao Map. The large map version includes a legend, measuring tools and print options. Connect earth us: 00000 Recent Updates 2007 Plan (; Scroll down the page to read the descriptions of each land use classification. Community Plan Website User's Guide Viewing the Thoroughfare Plan r c r oMMUNITY PLAN Cityof Dublin Chapters n Special Area Plans Thoroughfare Plan Connect with us'. Om ©O 200] Plan Transportation > Evisbng Conditions > Pmlecli^ns > The ThVrougM1(are Plan Future Land Use Map Thomughtare Plan Recent Updates Clasaffidde^n Planned Minor Artarial Planned aow 100 Planned Number lanes 4o Prop Load Agency Dublin Phase, 3 Character per. Length 1,056 Zoom to Click a thoroughfare symbol to view a pop -up information window displaying details like roadway classification, planned right -of -way width, number of lanes and roadway character type. > Transponad^n To. - May 16. 2013 > Transportation Teat -Apr 11 2013 > Transportmon Objeedme - Apr 11.201:' > Transportation Objectses - Aug 9.201' vanau p ThaThm,mgh(are Plan is composed oftwo yammer 1)a Click the 'Thoroughfare Plan table' link aiheaenadd rightawayeased.add2)an ociat to view a detailed listing of all planned Impmverromm. mcludri, number ^!lanc the number ad dyes needed tu. ear 2035 or proposed roadway improvements Th TloroughlaraPoanTablai ma'.smalhalsthelmp. depicted in the Thoroughfare Plan. ndme number otaxtadng I "V. role Indiweea roadways with a bander medi en. aToded madway An odd number 6) Insider" an Lndiir roadway win earner Iefi turn lanes, as needed_ while her at nght dhway wirathe are shown atldirona dgntd -way may be necessary to property awmard ae required number manes, padeshmao and bYyele fafa fee.add warfvay g aonet c Scroll down the page to read Click'View Larger Map' to see a full the descriptions of each screen version of the Thoroughfare roadway classification. Plan. The large map version includes a legend, measuring tools and print options. 7 ci of Dublin CITY OF DUBLIN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS OF THE CITY MANAGER I. PURPOSE The purpose of this Administrative Order is to establish a policy for the regular maintenance and periodic amendment of the Dublin Community Plan (the "Community Plan') following its conversion to a web -based format. It is the intent to establish and communicate reasonable standards designed to preserve the integrity of the Community Plan as an official reflection of City policy (as approved by City Council), while also providing for an efficient means to keep technical information in the Community Plan relevant and up -to -date in a responsive and publicly- transparent manner. This Policy will provide a structure in which City staff can determine the most appropriate procedures for updating and amending various aspects of the digital Community Plan. Questions regarding this Administrative Order should be directed to the Division of Land Use and Long Range Planning. II. APPLICABILITY It is the responsibility of Planning Director, Web Administrator, GIS Administrator and their designees to be aware of all aspects of this policy as may be applicable to their respective roles in maintaining and administering the Community Plan. Updates will be communicated through all of the normal City communication methods. This Administrative Order shall be applicable to all City employees (Full Time, Part Time, Temporary, Seasonal) who may from time to time be involved in the maintenance or amendment of the Community Plan, as well as temporary employees provided by outside temporary employment agencies and independent contractors. The policies and procedures set forth in this Administrative Order shall be applicable to all content of the Dublin Community Plan, as adopted by Ordinance ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER TO: Director of Planning, Website Administrator, GIS Administrator FROM: Marsha I. Grigsby, City Manager SUBJECT: Community Plan Maintenance and Amendment Policy DATE. June 20, 2013 I. PURPOSE The purpose of this Administrative Order is to establish a policy for the regular maintenance and periodic amendment of the Dublin Community Plan (the "Community Plan') following its conversion to a web -based format. It is the intent to establish and communicate reasonable standards designed to preserve the integrity of the Community Plan as an official reflection of City policy (as approved by City Council), while also providing for an efficient means to keep technical information in the Community Plan relevant and up -to -date in a responsive and publicly- transparent manner. This Policy will provide a structure in which City staff can determine the most appropriate procedures for updating and amending various aspects of the digital Community Plan. Questions regarding this Administrative Order should be directed to the Division of Land Use and Long Range Planning. II. APPLICABILITY It is the responsibility of Planning Director, Web Administrator, GIS Administrator and their designees to be aware of all aspects of this policy as may be applicable to their respective roles in maintaining and administering the Community Plan. Updates will be communicated through all of the normal City communication methods. This Administrative Order shall be applicable to all City employees (Full Time, Part Time, Temporary, Seasonal) who may from time to time be involved in the maintenance or amendment of the Community Plan, as well as temporary employees provided by outside temporary employment agencies and independent contractors. The policies and procedures set forth in this Administrative Order shall be applicable to all content of the Dublin Community Plan, as adopted by Ordinance Administrative Order DRAFT Page 2 of 7 June 20, 2013 54 -13, and as may be amended, updated or superseded by future ordinances. The Policy shall apply to all methods and formats used to record and publish the Community Plan's content, whether physical or digital. III. POLICY A. ADOPTION AND MAINTENANCE FRAMEWORK The Community Plan, as adopted by City Council, will be amended and updated on as- needed basis. Two broad categories of Plan content are recognized by this Administrative Order: Policy Elements and Technical Elements. Procedures for future revisions, amendments or updates for each category are outlined below. B. POLICY ELEMENTS Policy content includes a variety of Plan elements that form the vision and direction for future growth and development of the City as established by City Council. Policy elements will be updated or amended by Council action. 1. Future Land Use Map and associated content' Amendments to future land use classifications as depicted on the Future Land Use Map and as described by text shall be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved by City Council. 2. Thoroughfare Plan and associated content' Amendments to thoroughfare classifications as depicted on the Thoroughfare Plan Map and associated table and as described by text shall be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved by City Council. This includes all related thoroughfare plan designations such as planned lane configurations and right -of -way widths, as well as planned roadway alignments and connection points. This also includes any Roadway Character designations as depicted on the Roadway Character Map and as described by text. The Thoroughfare Plan map and table may be updated as needed to reflect the completion of planned capital improvements; implementation updates shall be reported to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council as described in paragraph F below. 3. Special Area Plans' Amendments to Special Area Plans (or additions of new planning areas), including geographic plans, design recommendations, conceptual "Base map' information (used to display existing conditions in maps also containing policy recommendations) may be updated as needed, as described elsewhere in this Administrative Order. Policy -level map information may only be revised as described in this section. Administrative Order DRAFT Page 3 of 7 June 20, 2013 illustrations and associated text shall be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved by City Council. 4. Objectives and Strategies The Community Plan includes numerous official statements of City policy and associated recommendations referred to as Objectives and Strategies.' Any amendment to an Objective or Strategy, except for revisions necessary to correct a typographical or grammatical error, shall be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved by City Council. S. General policy statements and associated content The Community Plan includes a number of general policy statements that provide context for the specific planning and development recommendations described above. These include, but are not limited to: • The Community Plan's Building Block' concepts (Foundations Chapter) • The Ten Land Use Principles (Land Use Chapter) • Key Planning Issues (Land Use Chapter) • Any other general statement of City policy, recommendation or guideline intended for use in decision - making by City staff or by elected or appointed officials • Any supplemental content (photos, illustrations, charts, tables, geographic information, etc.) that is used to visually communicate City policy, recommendations or guidelines intended for use in decision - making by City staff or by elected or appointed officials Any amendment to a general policy statement or associated content, except for revisions to correct typographical or grammatical errors, shall be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved by City Council. Geographic information may be updated as needed to reflect the completion of planned capital improvements; implementation updates shall be reported to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council as described in paragraph F below. C. TECHNICAL ELEMENTS Technical content includes a variety of factual, statistical and descriptive Community Plan elements that supplement and inform Policy Elements, but which do not themselves provide policy direction. Technical content will be maintained administratively, under the direction of the City Manager or designee. This approach will ensure that the Community Plan's factual background information and descriptions of existing development conditions throughout the city are always correct and up -to -date. Administrative Order DRAFT Page 4 of 7 June 20, 2013 1. Descriptive and Factual Content The Community Plan contains a variety of text descriptions, photographs, illustrations, figures and tables that are used to communicate existing conditions or supplement descriptions of completed planning and analysis processes. Content that is used solely to provide descriptive or factual information and is not used to communicate a specific policy recommendation may be updated as necessary to maintain relevancy and accuracy. Examples include, but are not limited to: • Text descriptions of existing conditions (e.g, development and infrastructure) • Text descriptions of plans or policies in other jurisdictions, • Text descriptions of completed planning and analysis processes • Photographs of existing conditions • Figures, charts, tables, etc. of existing conditions /inventory information • References or links to relevant external information sources or the City's main website 2. Technical Map Content a. Base Data The Community Plan includes numerous maps depicting technical and /or policy - related information. Many of these maps are embedded in the Community Plan Website as live' user - interactive services, linked directly to the City's Geographic Information System. These embedded maps display a variety of base' data, such as, but not limited to: aerial photographs, roads, parcel lines and ownership information, corporate boundaries, etc, b. Inventory Data In addition to base data used for all maps, some maps and /or data in the Community Plan are used primarily as an inventory of existing conditions. Examples include: • Existing Land Use • Community Facilities • Utilities • Environmental Features • Historic Properties c. Technical Data Maintenance Base data and inventory data display existing conditions using the most current and accurate data available to the City. These data types are used broadly by other GIS services throughout the City in Administrative Order DRAFT Page 5 of 7 June 20, 2013 addition to the Community Plan; as such they will be updated by the GIS Administrator or designee on an as- needed basis, and will be reflected on applicable Community Plan map services in an on- going manner. A summary of base and inventory updates will be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council as part of regular status reports described in paragraph F below. 3. Implementation Updates As the Community Plan is implemented through the completion of public improvements and private development, some text descriptions or graphic depictions of planned or potential conditions may be updated to reflect implementation. This may include map features displayed as planned' (or using a similar description such as potential,' future,' etc.), such as planned roadways, bikeways, utilities, parks, public facilities, etc., provided that the item clearly represents the implementation of the depicted feature and there is no longer a need to depict the item as planned.' A summary of implementation updates will be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council as part of regular status reports described in paragraph F below. D. FORMAT AND FUNCTIONALITY The Community Plan website and its technical components should be maintained in working order at all times to ensure continuous public access to all Plan content. The Web Administrator shall determine the most appropriate website platform(s) and methods for organizing and displaying Community Plan content on computers and other web - enabled devices. The GIS Administrator shall determine the most appropriate map service platform(s) and methods for organizing and displaying the Community Plan's map content. The web -based format of the Community Plan allows for efficient integration of new technologies and other adjustments to improve functionality. Such improvements should be undertaken from time to time to enhance access and usability of the Community Plan, but shall not have the effect of altering Community Plan content or creating the perception that content is being altered, expanded, or removed without prior approval by City Council, except where associated with technical updates as described in paragraph C above. Format and functionality- related elements include, but are not limited to: • General graphic design standards • Font style standards • Website search and navigation features • Interactive map display, functionality and feature symbology • General content management requirements Administrative Order DRAFT Page 6 of 7 June 20, 2013 • Image quality standards • User- enabled printing capabilities • Public comment /contact options and social sharing features • Adjustments necessary due to changes or upgrades to relevant digital technologies E. SUPPLEMENTAL WEB CONTENT The web -based format of the Community Plan provides an opportunity to incorporate supplemental information that is related to the Community Plan, but which is not considered part of the Community Plan's official content. Such supplemental features may be located on the website home page and /or primary navigation bar(s). Examples include, but are not limited to: • Explanations or tutorials (e.g. videos, flyers, web posts, etc.) to help readers understand how to use or interpret the Community Plan • News updates related to Plan implementation efforts • A calendar of Community Plan- related events (e.g, public meetings, webcasts, etc.) • Archives of previous Community Plans and records of past or proposed Community Plan amendments and updates • Links to relevant information sources or other planning documents F. REPORTING, ARCHIVING, AND PUBLIC REVIEW As a public document and official representation of City policy, the Community Plan should be maintained in an orderly and transparent manner. The most recent adoption or amendment date(s) and supporting documents (e.g. ordinances, resolutions, reports, etc.), shall be prominently displayed on the Community Plan website. The Division of Land Use and Long Range Planning shall provide regular reports on the status of the Community Plan to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council on at least an annual basis. Reports and recommendations may be provided more frequently if deemed appropriate by the City Manager or as requested by City Council. Status reports shall document all recent or pending technical updates to Community Plan content and any functionality enhancements or other alterations to the Community Plan's web -based format. Reports shall also include recommendations for the consideration of policy - related amendments and /or additional studies, analyses or other planning efforts that may impact the Community Plan. All Community Plan status reports shall be posted prominently on the Community Plan website and subsequently archived for future reference. Public notification of technical updates and proposed policy amendments shall occur through all of the normal City communication methods. Administrative Order DRAFT Page 7 of 7 June 20, 2013 G. PUBLIC COMMENT The Community Plan website provides multiple opportunities for direct public feedback to various aspects of the Community Plan. Staff shall publicize public input opportunities for all proposed Community Plan amendments. Additional public involvement efforts should be undertaken as necessary for specific planning initiatives, geographic areas of interest or other amendment topics. 1. Posted Comments The website allows members of the general public to submit comments directly related to specific sections of the Community Plan, and intended to be publicly visible on the website. All submitted comments shall be reviewed by the Website Administrator and /or Land Use and Long Range Planning for legitimacy by verifying the message is not an unsolicited bulk email (spam). Spam emails, messages determined to contain links to malicious websites, or messages that serve solely as a commercial or non - commercial advertisement may be filtered and removed. All legitimate public comments shall be permitted to appear and remain on the Community Plan website for the 'lifespan' of the Community Plan or the applicable Community Plan section. If a section of the Community Plan is subsequently removed by amendment, the associated comments shall be archived. Comments shall not be prohibited based on their general content or on the commenter's support or opposition to any aspect of the Community Plan or to a proposed Community Plan amendment. However, comments may be prohibited from appearing on the website if they contain foul, derogatory or defamatory language. 2. Submitted Questions/ Feedback The website also allows members of the general public to submit a question or comment directly to staff via email, and not intended to be publicly visible on the website. Questions or comments submitted in this manner shall be forwarded to the appropriate staff member and a response shall be provided in a timely manner. 3. Other Feedback Options Future enhancements to the Community Plan website may include additional options for public interaction and feedback. All future public comment features should follow the same principles as described above. 7 c l ity of Dublin Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier Rings Road Dubtin, Oho 43016 -1236 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 www.dublinohiousa.gov RECORD OF ACTION MAY 16, 2013 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 2. Community Plan Update 12- 046ADM Administrative Request Request: Administrative review and recommendation to City Council of proposed amendments to the 2007 Community Plan. Planning Contact: Justin Goodwin, AICP, Planner II. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4677, jgoodwin @dublin.oh.us MOTION: To recommend approval of this Administrative Request to City Council of proposed amendments to the 2007 Community Plan. VOTE: 7-0. RESULT: Approval of the proposed amendments to the 2007 Community Plan will be recommended to City Council. RECORDED VOTES: Chris Amorose Groomes Yes Richard Taylor Yes Warren Fishman Yes Amy Kramb Yes John Hardt Yes Joseph Budde Yes Victoria Newell Yes PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ST F CERTIFICATION ustin Goodwin, AICP tanner II Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission May 16, 2013 Meebng Minutes Page 19 of 20 2. Community Plan Update 12- O46ADM Administrative Request Mr. Goodwin said he wanted to give a quick summary of what has changed from the last Commission meeting. He said they had a thorough review at that time and Planning has summarized the changes made since then in the Planning Report. He said that Planning has gone through and done a comprehensive effort at formatting the site and taken the track changes off, so the Commission can see what the Plan is going to look like. Mr. Goodwin said there are still some tweaks to the formatting that will be done. He said the bulk of the plan is what will be adopted as seen now. He said you can click on different chapters and see the previous track changes in a PDF format. Mr. Goodwin said Planning has placed a lot of images throughout the Plan to help illustrate the points. Mr. Goodwin said the Commission had addressed doing a better job at addressing public transportation and they have tried to graphically expand how they are discussing future bus enhancements and potential rail options to Dublin in the future in the transportation chapter. He said they are making sure they have a complete bikeways plan depicted and they are showing all of the future bikeway connections that they would see in the various area plans as well as in the CIP. Mr. Goodwin said on the front page they have added the "What is the Community Plan" section with a lot of text and also added some images to address the Commissions concern of the lay person not understanding the difference between a Community Plan, the Zoning Code or the Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Goodwin said it was suggested that they better address sustainability in the Plan and they have added that as one of the Foundation Elements of the Community Plan because Planning agrees that the concept of sustainability is inherent to all of the Community Plan's objectives but wanted to do a better job of explaining this. Mr. Goodwin said Ms. Readier can address the process for adopting the new digital format of the plan if needed. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there were anyone from the general public that would like to speak to respect to this application. [There were none.] Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there were any further discussion from the Commission. [There were none.] Motion and Vote Mr. Hardt moved, and Mr. Budde seconded, to approve this Administrative Request and forward a recommendation of approval to City Council of the proposed amendments to the 2007 Community Plan. The vote was as follows: Mr. Taylor, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Ms: Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Budde, yes; and Mr. Hardt, yes. (Approved 7 — 0.) i 4 city of Dublin Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 www.dublinohiousa.gov PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION APRIL 11, 2013 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. Community Plan Update 12- 046ADM Administrative Request Request: Administrative review and recommendation to City Council of proposed amendments to the 2007 Community Plan. Planning Contact: Justin Goodwin, AICP, Planner II. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4677, jgoodwin @dublin.oh.us MOTION: To table this Administrative Request to allow the final draft of the proposed amendments to the 2007 Community Plan to be thoroughly reviewed by the Commissioners. VOTE: 6-0. RESULT: This Administrative Request was tabled. RECORDED VOTES: Chris Amorose Groomes Yes Richard Taylor Absent Warren Fishman Yes Amy Kramb Yes John Hardt Yes Joseph Budde Yes Victoria Newell Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION e5L ol-a f:) Aooe Justin Goodwin, AICP Planner II l ityof Dublin Land Use and Long Range Planning PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 4 301 6 -1 236 Phone 614.410.4600 MEETING MINUTES fax 614.410.4747 ww .dublinohiousa.gov APRIL 11, 2013 1. Community Plan Update 12- 046ADM Administrative Request Chair Chris Amorose Groomes introduced this Administrative Request for review and a recommendation to City Council of proposed amendments to the 2007 Community Plan to be presented by Justin Goodwin. Justin Goodwin explained that since December 6, 2012, when the Commission had last seen the proposed amendments, various aspects of the Plan have been completed. He said that many of the items reviewed at this meeting would be things that the Commission had reviewed previously. He said the bulk of the changes placed on the website in the past few weeks have been text changes in all the chapters that were mundane, technical, and grammatical, but some chapters had substantive changes. He said given the amount of additional information placed on the website, that if the Commissioners had a discomfort in making a recommendation to City Council at this meeting, Planning would understand. Mr. Goodwin said however, Planning would like to receive a recommendation to City Council so that the Plan can proceed through the process. He said that the target is to get the Community Plan Update to City Council in May. He said that still could be done if Planning came back to the Commission for the Commission's recommendation at the May 2, 2013 meeting. Mr. Goodwin used the website to review every section of the Plan at the chapter level to provide a brief overview of what, if anything is proposed to be amended. He said the most substantive changes proposed were in the Land Use and Transportation chapters. Mr. Goodwin also reviewed the proposed updates to the Special Area Plans. Mr. Goodwin said there will be changes to the front page of the Community Plan website as the entire plan is finished. He said the biggest change to the front page was requested by the Commission which was making sure that people who visit the site understand what the Plan is, how it is used as a policy guide, and how it is used as a long range planning guide so that it is not confused with things like the Capital Improvements Program, or think if they look at one of the special plans, that the City has a specific plan to make them happen within a particular period of time. He explained that information related to that is in the introduction section of the Plan already, and Planning is going to repurpose some of that into the front page so that it is very prominent. He said currently, on the front page, text and a video explains why the plan is being amended and various aspects of the Plan that are being amended. Mr. Goodwin said there were not many changes proposed in the Introduction chapter, which includes an explanation of the current update process and the new format of the Plan. He said the 'How to Use the Plan' will be incorporated into the front page of the site. Mr. Goodwin said the Foundations chapter includes the unchanged City Mission statement. He said the Building Block section discusses the overall arching policy statements for Dublin as expressed in the Community Plan. He said the only subsequent change is the addition of text describing how the Town Center concept relates to both to preserving the Historic Core and the larger Urban Core concept that is now in the Community Plan. John Hardt said that he had read through most of this and had very few comments. He asked how long the strikeouts and track changes will live on versus just showing a clean version of the text. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 11, 2013 — Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 13 Mr. Goodwin said that he did not know exactly how long that will remain. He said it may be that they remain through the First Reading at City Council, and then everything is cleaned up into the final version. He said a record of the changes will be kept. He said all the pdfs of the previous version will always be available. Mr. Justin said that he could incorporate an archive section with the 1987 and 1997 Plans, and screenshots with track changes shown. Mr. Goodwin said that as they move through the adoption process, not only will the text be cleaned, but photographs will be placed, to make each page attractive. He said that a lot of graphic design and formatting work still remains to be done. He said similarly, there is some map functionality that needs to be worked through to make sure that everything works correctly. He said if the Commissioners had used any of the embedded maps and noticed issues; it was probably not just their personal computer. He said staff is aware of some of those things and will work on them in the next few weeks. Mr. Hardt asked if there was a viable way to make the maps printable. Mr. Goodwin demonstrated that by clicking on the View Larger option there is a Print function that can be used. He said that when the Website is finished, there will be explanatory information at the beginning to explain how to print. Mr. Goodwin referred to the Community Character and Environment chapter, and said that the Objectives and Strategies section incorporated the Commission feedback provided last August which were general comments about making sure that new zoning districts or area plans were described the same consistently. He said the 2007 Plan Character Element Map was made more interactive, showing the park system, wooded areas, barns, public art, and other features and information. He noted that the Coffman Park barn on Post Road needed to be removed since it was no longer there. Mr. Goodwin said the only major text addition to this section was a discussion of Public Art itself as one of Dublin's Community Character elements. He said that in the Environment section, did not change much except the addition of discussion regarding area wildlife issues, the basic species, and new developments with invasive insects attacking trees in the region. Mr. Goodwin said that significant changes are proposed for the Land Use chapter. He said the Background section includes an overview of the 2007 Plan Land Use modeling process and updated information about how currently, we are refining what became the Land Use Scenario that is represented on the Land Use Map, and how it is being adjusted this year with the Bridge Street District and the West Innovation District. Mr. Goodwin referred to the current existing Land Use section with the map and an updated explanation of what the existing Land Use Inventory is, and a table breaking down the land use throughout the city. He said though there were not many changes, shown is about 36 percent residential between all the Residential Land Use classifications, under 10 percent to Office, 16 percent Parks and Open Space, under 10 percent vacant land that can be developed within the existing corporate area of the city. He said the same statistics are included for the larger Planning area, which includes all of the negotiated service area in the northwest area along U.S. 33 which is recognized to not likely to ever to be annexed into the City but to a degree is part of the planning. Mr. Goodwin said that the Land Use Plan section text -wise was one of the more significant updates to the Community Plan. He said this section in the 2007 Plan, included a subsection called Key Planning Issues that mainly discussed Dublin's housing needs and retail. He said that a comprehensive overall of the section has been done to discuss residential development needs and issues, commercial development issues, and mixed use development issues. He said that there was still formatting that needed to be done. He said for residential development, key items being touched on are housing needs related to our aging population and housing needs for retracting and maintaining young professionals which has a lot to do with Bridge Street. Mr. Goodwin said they need to ensure that we are not forgetting Dublin's existing residential neighborhoods as they age over time. He said with regard to commercial development, in 2012 Dublin's Economic Development department engaged Battelle to complete an economic Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 11, 2013 — Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 13 development study to look at what are the emerging and current industry requestors in the City with those industry types we should be focusing on to enhance and continue attracting and retaining in the City. He said the six classifications are Internet Commerce and Computer Services Industries, Business Support Services, Corporate Headquarters, Managing Offices, Medical and Biosciences and Health Care Services, Industry, Residential Health Care Services, and Tourism, Entertainment, and the Arts. Mr. Goodwin said from an economic development and land use perspective, the City needs to make sure that we are accommodating and encouraging all of those industries to locate and stay in Dublin. He said there is some additional discussion included about office, industrial, research and development issues and needs. He said in the Land Use perspective, there is some discussion that includes the recent rezoning for the Technology Flex District and the Innovation District. Mr. Goodwin said the next section discusses Dublin's retail needs generally, and also institutional uses. He pointed out that there have been a number of zoning and development requests related to a variety of nursing facilities and retirement skilled, and assisted living types of uses that there is a growing demand for in the City. Mr. Goodwin said in the Mixed Use Development section, in Bridge Street, there is the Urban Core Concept now, and there is still the Village Center Land Use type, which deals with Historic Dublin as well as the Amlin area in the Southwest area. Mr. Goodwin said Suburban Neighborhood Centers are smaller neighborhood serving retail centers described in the 2007 Plan as well, along with some specific design recommendations. He said that updates have been proposed in that section because those 2007 design recommendations were geared for all mixed -use development. He said mixed -use design is covered with Bridge Street and that zoning code, so the focus is on issues related to neighborhood centers specifically. Mr. Goodwin invited questions or comments. Mr. Goodwin asked that corrections and typos be pointed out or emailed to him as the Commissioners review this proposed update. He said when the track changes are turned off, inevitably things will be found that need to be cleaned up or fixed. Joe Budde asked if this was compatible with the iPad and expanding it. He said when he expanded it, it popped back down and it would not stay there. Mr. Goodwin asked if he was referring to the maps. Mr. Budde said not just the maps, even the text. Mr. Goodwin checked and noticed that himself. He said he would discuss it with the Website Editor about that response. He said he realized that some people would want to zoom in to see the map closer. He said also, related to that, when looking at the web -based maps you need to turn to a landscape view to make that work on the iPad. Mr. Goodwin said the proposed changes to the Future Land Use Map were reviewed by the Commission previously in November and December. He said the previous Land Use Classifications in the Bridge Street District have been converted for the most part to an Urban Core classification, with the exception of Historic Dublin, specifically still a Mixed -Use Village Center, and then the Shier -Rings Corridor, the West Innovation District, and the bulk of the U.S. 33 Corridor as a consolidated Office, Research, and Development classifications, some adjustments to other parts of the U.S. 33 Corridor that are related to our new thinking about how development is likely to occur in the West Innovation District, some residential development anticipated as part of Jerome Township's Land Use Plan. He said that it is a far west area thought to be unlikely that the City will annex. Mr. Goodwin said the only change on the Future Land Use Map since seen by the Commission last December is the small area of vacant land on Corporate Center Drive adjacent to the Cramer's Crossing neighborhood which was included in the Avery Road Plan which was classified as a Mixed Residential Low Density development in conjunction with the Mixed Use Center development that is planned at Woerner- Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 11, 2013 — Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 13 Temple Road and Avery Road. He said Planning took a closer look at that area and thought more likely that Office is going to develop there. Mr. Goodwin said that was reviewed with the Cramer's Crossing homeowners association and the condominium owners association who said that they would prefer to see office development there, and so that change is being proposed here. Mr. Goodwin said since the Commission review in November and December, fairly technical updates have been made to some of the names of the Land Use classifications to attempt to clarify the differences between some of the residential classifications. He said the Mixed -Use Urban Core classification has been added which was discussed previously. Mr. Goodwin said reviewed also in December was an issue with regard to specific pieces of private property being classified as parks or open space on the Land Use Map and potential legal concerns with that. He said descriptive text has been added to the open space overlay previously presented to the Commission showing the Future Land Use Map in black outline those areas that previously have been shown as parks on the 2007 Future Land Use Map. He said those are now shown with a base land use classification, but identifying portions of those sites with stream corridors or wooded areas that we would expect to be preserved and incorporated into a larger development. He invited questions or comments. [There were none.] Mr. Goodwin referred to the Transportation chapter updates. He said a comprehensive technical update had been done to the Existing Condition section with updated figures on current roadway capacity and traffic volumes using 2010 data from MORK, and a lot of completed Capital Improvement Projects that could be taken off the list with a few new ones to add. He said similarly, with the Projection section, over the past year, Engineering has been updating the Travel Demand Model that was run for the 2007 Plan, moving it out to the Year 2035 horizon year to be consistent with MORPC's Regional Travel Demand Model. He said it was found that a lot of it was related to the economic downturn and that a lot of development slowed, so a lot of what was anticipated to be necessary by 2030 from a capital improvements standpoint has not really changed, but it has just moved back about five years. Mr. Goodwin said the Transportation Plan is really the Thoroughfare Plan itself and it was reviewed by the Commission in November and December. He said there are no real changes since then, except for additional functionality that has been added to the map. He said the Conceptual Street Network for the Bridge Street District and the street network as it appears in the West Innovation District Area Plan have been added. He said that things planned or completed previously are shown as such now. Mr. Goodwin said that additional data has been added to the Thoroughfare Plan showing the proposed rights -of -way for each of those roadways. He said if you click on a roadway segment, additional information including the functional classification for the road, the planned rights -of -way, the number of lanes, and if a roadway character has been designated. He pointed out that the separate Roadway Character section remains in the Plan with the Roadway Character Map updated. He said that the big update is the Bridge Street District. He said the roadway system corresponds to the updated Thoroughfare Plan. He said there were no real changes except for the Classification of Roadways in the West Innovation District and the Bridge Street District. Mr. Goodwin said the 2007 Plan included a Village Character type that was focused on Historic Dublin, and the Amlin area. He said that is proposed to be expanded to an Urban /Village Character that would apply to those areas as well as to the Urban Street System and Bridge Street. Mr. Goodwin said other sections of the Transportation chapter were the Bikeway Plan and Public Transportation. He said the 2007 Community Plan includes a map that is a combination of the existing inventory of bikeways throughout the City as well as some conceptual bikeway connections. He said many of the bikeway conceptual connections are based on connections that are shown in the Special Area Plans. He said that they need to finish as they move through the adoption process the Inventory of Bikeways and planned Capital Improvements of bikeways expected to happen over the next five years Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 11, 2013 — Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 13 such as the bike lanes on Muirfield Drive and the Brand Road bikepath connection. He said what was not yet depicted on the map are those more long term conceptual connections related to the Special Area Plans. He said for instance, the overall bikeway system planned for the Bridge Street District is not depicted yet. He said he wanted to note that because he thought the Commission might be particularly interested because they will be finishing the map. Mr. Goodwin said in the updated text includes the description of different types of bicycle facilities, including sharrows, sign- shared routes, and cycle tracks as was discussed for potential streets within the Bridge Street District. He invited questions or thoughts about bikeways. Mr. Hardt asked a procedural question about changes between now and the time that City Council would review the Plan. Mr. Goodwin said he expected this item to be a point of discussion, and this may be one of those items that if for any reason, the Commission wanted to wait to see the final map, Planning would certainly understand that. Jennifer Readier said that if the City engaged acquisition that resulted in this Plan being modified, she thought it could be updated. She said she thought that was more of a technical update like they talked about distinguishing between the policy versus the technical. She said if we actually have an adopted Plan in place and this needs to be updated to reflect that piece that comes later, she thought that could be done without amending the whole Plan. Mr. Goodwin said that there was a gray area. He said Ms. Readier was describing more specific types of improvements, but there are much longer term bikeway connections that they would like to depict on this map that are not currently depicted, and those are more of the longer range planning types of items that maybe are right on the boundary of policy and technical content. Mr. Hardt said his broader question was not specific to the map, but asking having a document that is electronic in nature for the first time, how the Commission votes and then enacts something that is a moving target. Ms. Readier said that they are trying to distinguish between those things that we can go into and update so that the Commission does not expect to see it again and those that are expected to come back and go through the process. She said they are going to archive all of the different iterations of it so everything done will be available as a point of reference schedule, but it is not a physical document and it will be harder to process. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked what was the Law Department's policy. She said if it were Dublin's Code, every time a 'the' was changed to an 'a' they could have to vote on it. She asked what was the expectation or criteria going to be for this. Ms. Readier explained that they researched to see if they had example situations like this, and it was a situation where case law is not caught up to technology. She said that the Legal Department wanted to ensure that because this is a policy making document, that they were not changing the policy elements but rather create a process where City Council can delegate to staff to make minor and technical updates and ensure that we can change those sections that are not the broad policy making documents that you would expect to have recommendations on from the Commission and there will be ways to keep track of the changes electronically. Ms. Readier said that if someone comes in and wants a physical document of the Community Plan, we will be able to provide it to them. She said the document will have different revisions, but it is going to be a breathing document that City Council is going to give staff the authority to make those types of administrative changes. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 11, 2013 — Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 13 Ms. Kramb said the shorter term question was how do they deal with changes that are going to be made between now and then like is a condition needed. Mr. Gunderman said he thought in general, there is no difference here necessarily from what the Commission does in other cases where they add a condition. He said if a condition can be found that the Commission is comfortable with that is precise enough that it does what they want, then that is something that staff can work with between now and the time of City Council's adoption. He said in the case of this particular item, staff happens to know that there are some longer term things that are a little different character than what has been going on so far, but we do expect to get those completed before Council adoption. Ms. Kramb asked if staff would have a list of the changes that they are going to do between now if the Commission would approve it, and when it goes to City Council, or would they rather wait until it is ready to take to Council and then bring it back to the Commission for a vote. Mr. Fishman said it seemed it would be easier to wait until staff is finished and the Commission knew exactly on what they were voting on. Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out that staffs hands would be tied if they found something that needed a more substantive change that did not fit into the condition. She asked what if some significant event took place between now and the time it was taken to City Council and it resulted in a significant change to something in the document. Mr. Goodwin said he thought if it was not something that staff had discussed with the Commission, and anticipated; Planning would want to bring back to the Commission. Ms. Kramb, she was fine with staff making the changes and then taking it to City Council. She said the question is how many of items did staff have. She said that the Commission would have to know staffs list of how many and what they are so that they could put a condition together. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there was a big advantage to having this voted upon now, other than not needing to make this presentation one more time. Mr. Goodwin said that there was not a particular advantage to having a vote tonight. Mr. Gunderman said that was based on the assumption that the Commission has a high comfort level with the broad range of things that they have heard, and there are not going to be great big changes. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she thought they had seen a reflection of that with the number of questions that staff has been asked. Ms. Kramb said she had not read every single text change, but she had a high comfort level that this is great, and going forward and she was fine with it. She said she thought it would be best if staff wanted the Commissioners to read every single text change, to tell them that now, and then at the next meeting, staff has it completed and ready to present to City Council, and then the Commission voted or there were one or two things left on the list for the Commission, so that they can agree with the changes, and then it can be presented. Ms. Kramb said she thought there would be better feedback given. She said she did not have any big issues with the overview, but she would be glad to catch typos and read everything if that was what staff was wanted. Mr. Hardt said he was still waiting to hear the answer to his question 'How many more of these are there." Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 11, 2013 — Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 13 Mr. Goodwin said he did not have a full list Mr. Hardt said that since bikeways and connectivity have become an integral part of our planning in recent years, he preferred to have the map modified and then vote on it. He said if it is done that way, he would anticipate that the next time the Commission sees it, it almost would be like a consent conversation. He said he would not expect another two -hour conversation about it. He said if the other Commissioners were comfortable voting, he could probably be brought around to that position, but he would not want to see too much. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she could not get comfortable without a list of issues outstanding. She said if the Commission had a definitive list of outstanding issues that will be resolved; she could come to terms with that. She said short of that, she did not know that she could vote on something not knowing in its entirety for what she was voting. Mr. Goodwin said that on this particular item, essentially they will look at all of the area plans and try to depict those general bikeway connections. Mr. Hardt pointed out that the final version of the map would have some indication of a bridge crossing to Historic Dublin which is not there now and it is a big deal. Mr. Goodwin said that the data exists, but there are some technical and internal discussion points that need to happen. Victoria Newell said she was not involved with this update process from its beginning. She asked if any of the content of the proposed document was still open for discussion. Mr. Goodwin said that all feedback was welcome Ms. Kramb asked if the Commissioners were actually being asked to read through every section Mr. Goodwin said that would be great if they would like to do that. Ms. Kramb suggested that on every page, that the first time in a paragraph a blurb is used that the acronym be spelled out, for example, in the Transportation chapter, MORK was not spelled out in the first paragraph. Mr. Goodwin said that was a good idea. He said maybe when you click on an acronym, it could be spelled. Mr. Goodwin said that in the 2007 Community Plan there is a map included showing the existing Columbus Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) bus routes that serve Dublin and routes that were planned at the time proposed Long Range Transit Plan. He said that the text has been updated to discuss COTA's most recent Long Range Transit Plan. He said there have been changes that have affected bus routes in Dublin. He said like the Bikeways map, the map shows the existing routes, but not the planned routes that area described in their Plan, and that is something that staff wants to add as well. He said it was a little different from bikeways because it just reflects the COTA information and it was out of Dublin's hands. He said however, at some point, we may want to show what our preference would be, but it is not likely to happen with this amendment. He said you can click on the routes and see the COTA bus schedule. He said that it was another piece that staff will clean up in the next couple of weeks. Mr. Goodwin asked if there were any other thoughts or comments regarding the Transportation chapter. Ms. Kramb asked if there had been any discussions with COTA regarding the relocation of the Dublin Park and Ride on Dale Drive. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 11, 2013 — Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 13 Mr. Goodwin said that staff has been in contact with COTA and they will be working through the potential impacts of that location. He said that COTA is interested in having other Park and Ride locations within the City. He said that they have to determine if the others planned would take the place of the one in the Bridge Street District or if they need to find a new location. Mr. Fishman recalled that a Sawmill Park and Ride had been reviewed by the Commission several years ago. Ms. Amorose Groomes recalled that it was disapproved by the Commission. Mr. Goodwin said that Park and Rides on the north side of Sawmill Road and at the Dublin Methodist Hospital are the preferred sites. Ms. Amorose Groomes recalled that when the Commission talked about the Bridge Street Corridor, that future light rail lines and things like that were discussed. She said she thought it would behoove us to add long range thinking things like a potential light rail on a drill down screen. She suggested something like Provisions made and current zoning issues,' so that if someone would say that they did not know that there was ever going to be a light rail would come through Dublin, that just like the bridge, we would have the ability to say that it had been contemplated by the City for 50 years and now is the time for it. Mr. Goodwin said that some of that discussion was included in the Bridge Street District Area Plan as well as in the West Innovation District, which is potentially a different rail system, but they would look at that again. He said he thought that was a great point and although it is very long range, we do not want to forget about it. Ms. Amorose Groomes reiterated that it would be nice to have it in a drill down, below Transportation or Objectives and Strategies, Next Centuries Transportation Planning' or something along those lines. Mr. Goodwin said that it could be another section of Public Transportation. Mr. Hardt asked if the working assumption was that any rail, whether tomorrow or 50 years from now would be in the existing rail rights -of -way. Mr. Goodwin said no, that it could be in existing streets rights -of -way Mr. Fishman asked if COTA would be the one to contact for light rail. Mr. Goodwin said that remained to be seen. Mr. Fishman said that someone should be contacted for a likely light rail route Mr. Goodwin said that there had been those discussions. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that the City could pick their own route. She said that they made provisions if rail were available where they wanted the route when they were creating the Bridge Street Corridor. Mr. Goodwin said that there was a line shown in the original comprehensive Bridge Street Vision Plan, but because that was so far out in the future, they started refocusing on where we can densify to get better bus service in the near term with the expectation that hopefully, some day that would lead to a conversion to rail. He said that staff could take another look at that and add some language. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 11, 2013 — Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 13 Ms. Kramb said that the effort to show better bus service is very key, especially in the Bridge Street Corridor because residents who move there may want to walk both communities and still go somewhere else. Mr. Goodwin said they added in the text some language that mentioned the Bridge Street District as a priority area from Dublin's point of view to encourage COTA to continue adding more service. He said that COTA recently added Bus #118 which travels Sawmill Road to Village Parkway, stopping at Lowe's. Mr. Hardt said the map did not explain what the red, blue, and green lines on the map meant. Mr. Goodwin said if you click on Legend', it will describe what color shows the cross towns, links, and local bus routes. He suggested that Click on a line to receive more information' text on the maps would work better. Ms. Kramb pointed out that something was missing in the last sentence, at the bottom of the page, With over 800 acres of land for High Density Mixed Use Urban Development Bridge Street District it will be important in the.' Mr. Goodwin said that in the 2007 Community Plan, the Community Facilities chapter was long partly because it included the inventory of every park in the City. He said now, the adopted Dublin Park Master Plan is being referenced and information about a park can be found by clicking on it which reduces the amount of text. He said the 2007 chapter included individual maps focusing on different types of facilities and in the proposed update, they have been consolidated into one interactive map showing municipal facilities, health care facilities, schools, parks, fire stations and essentially, everything. He said most of the text changes in this chapter were technical, updating inventories of facilities and that sort of thing. He said that there was a discussion added regarding the recent City building space need analysis done for some municipal buildings including an addition to the Justice Center over the next couple of years. He said that updated projections from the Dublin and Hilliard school districts have been included in the School section. He said in the Parks section, for future parks, the planned Riverside Park in the Bridge Street District is described. Mr. Goodwin said overall, there were not many substitutive changes made to this chapter. He asked if there was interest in delving into this chapter further and invited general thoughts or comments. [There were none.] Mr. Goodwin said in the Historic Preservation chapter, there were not a lot of substitutive changes. He said in the Existing Conditions section, the maps that appear in the Community Plan are embedded interactive maps so that you can click on any of the dots and receive the inventory and see an informative description of that particular historic structure. Mr. Goodwin said in the next section, there were not many substitutive changes, although text was added at the end that discusses the new historic zoning districts as part of Bridge Street, and how those are intended to preserve and enhance the Historic Core. Mr. Goodwin referred to the Fiscal Health chapter, which in the 2007 version of the Community Plan was called Fiscal Analysis. He said there were not a lot of substitutive changes to this very technical chapter. He said they have tried to clarify some of the text because it previously read too technical. He said that the intent was not changed; they just attempted to make it easier to read and understand. He said a note was included about Dublin's Bridge Street District Fiscal Analysis and scenarios are still being run with new information obtained with some of the detailed planning that is happening in the River Corridor. He said that they are waiting to incorporate the larger analysis into the Plan which will not happen with this particular amendment, but at a later time. He said that likely, within the next year or so, in light of Bridge Street and the West Innovation District, we will go back and do a more comprehensive Citywide fiscal analysis as a refresh. Mr. Goodwin said that the Demographics chapter had been overhauled and updated with the 2010 Census Information and recent information from MORK (Mid Ohio Regional Planning Commission). He Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 11, 2013 — Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 13 said the City's current population is between 42,000 and 43,000 people and there are over 15,000 housing units. He said that Dublin's population grew by 25 percent between 2000 and 2010. He said Dublin's population is very highly educated. Mr. Goodwin said regarding Jobs and Employment, given economic conditions, the City has done well. He said the commuting patterns are largely the same, with a slight decrease in Single Occupant Vehicles, which seems to be related to more carpooling and more people working at home. He pointed out that the legend key for 2000 on the Dublin's Age Distribution chart was missing. He said between 2000 and 2010, the younger age groups were decreasing and for 50 years and above, substantial increases are seen in the percentage of the population, consistent with regional and national trends. Mr. Goodwin said that text had been added in the Housing Unit section to discuss how Dublin's housing stock relates to some of the other population trends, particularly the aging trends. He said that Dublin's 68 percent of single family detached housing units serves the young family market very well, but as the population ages, there is the need for additional housing choices. He said that was essentially the bulk of the Trend section in the Demographics Chapter. Mr. Goodwin said that the Projections section of the Demographics section had also been updated based on the adjustments to the Land Use Plan. He said the 2007 Plan included a table which showed the existing inventory of housing by type, single - family, two - family, single - family attached, and multiple - family, and based on the capacity of the Land Use Plan in the areas that it will either redevelop or vacant land will develop, what the projected number of housing units is within the existing City Limits, within our Exclusive Expansion Areas, and within the larger planning area. He said the population projections have been updated for those same areas. Mr. Goodwin said based on the Land Use Plan now, Dublin's population is projected to be somewhere around 65,000 at build out. He said a lot of that growth has to do with population growth in the Bridge Street District and the Southwest Area as they build out. He said also included are Employment Projections, based on the projected capacity for non - residential developments. Mr. Goodwin said that the City has close to 19 million square feet of non - residential development currently, and the Land Use Plan has the capacity for between 35 and 40 million square feet at build out. He asked if the Commission had any thoughts or questions regarding the numbers. [There were none.] Mr. Goodwin said that the Utilities chapter was somewhat similar to Community Facilities with a lot of inventory information on the sewer network, the water supply system, and stormwater management. He said in each of the sections, Engineering has gone through and explained how the Bridge Street District Analysis fits into the overall Utilities Analysis done with the 2007 Community Plan. He said there is also some reference to new statewide requirements having to do with the maintenance of sanitary sewer systems. He said in the Municipal Agreement section, there is a map included showing the Exclusive Service Areas, with the township islands, and a small portion of Jerome Township, which Dublin can annex without having an agreement with the City of Columbus. He said it includes a discussion of the recent Economic Development Agreement between the City of Columbus and the City of Dublin covering the area around the SR 161 /Post Road interchange as well and the negotiated expansion areas to the northwest. Mr. Fishman asked if Dublin was about halfway through its 50 -year contract with the City of Columbus. Mr. Goodwin said he believed it would end around 2033. Mr. Fishman asked if all the expansion discussed was included in the 50 -year contract. Mr. Goodwin said yes, but for the area farther northwest, every annexation has to be negotiated with the City of Columbus. Ms. Readier said that some of that had been impacted by Marysville service towards that area, so that area is evolving, but it was contemplated, so there is an expansion area contemplated in the Columbus agreement where Dublin has to negotiate how we are going to annex. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 11, 2013 — Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 13 Mr. Fishman remembered that in the agreement, a limited number of taps were allowed which affected Dublin's growth. He asked if that had been taken into consideration. Mr. Goodwin said that Engineering had taken that into consideration. He said for Bridge Street, it would impact the growth areas. Mr. Fishman said that the density had changed dramatically in the Bridge Street Corridor since the agreement with the City of Columbus had been signed. Mr. Goodwin said he did not know the details of the agreement, but he did not believe that redevelopment areas within the existing City that were already served are affected one way or the other with that agreement. Ms. Readier said that she did not believe that there was a numerical limitation overall. She said that Dublin had designated the area. Mr. Goodwin said that the analyses for Bridge Street found that within Bridge Street, because all the trunk sewers are converging in Bridge Street, there is sufficient capacity for that development. Mr. Goodwin referred to the last chapter, Implementation. He said it was a synopsis of all of the objectives and strategies in the Community Plan and that there were no substantive changes to it. Mr. Goodwin said regarding the Special Area Plans, the Commission had seen at previous meetings versions of all of the amendments to the area plans. He highlighted the proposed updates to the graphics of the plans. He said some of the additional design points still shown as red targets will be converted into the same symbols used everywhere in the Plan. He said on the Bright Road Area Plan, the intersection with the planned roundabout has been updated, but there are no other graphic changes. He said one design point discusses exploring the potential for an overpass connection between Emerald Parkway and the Bridge Street District, although there are no definitive plans. Mr. Goodwin said the Bridge Street District Plan was reviewed by the Commission in November and December and a large point of discussion was the amount of detail with regard to the use of colors on the plan. He said that version has been cleaned up and adjustments have been made. He said the River Corridor planning work was previously shown with a street bridge connection, and now the thinking is that it is only to be a pedestrian bridge connection which is shown now. He said a more refined illustration of the likely alignment and configuration of Riverside Drive is shown and some of the MKSK graphics have been added. He said other than that, there are no substitutive changes to the Bridge Street Plan. Mr. Goodwin said what was called in the 2007 Plan, the Coffman Park Area Plan is proposed to be called the Emerald Perimeter Area to focus more on the non -park development in the area, however it was previously suggested to remove the graphic depiction of Coffman Park itself, and the Commission recommended that Coffman Park still be shown. He said that Parks and Open Space is planning its final state, so that is what has been done, however the name of the area plan has been changed, still showing all of Coffman Park in context. He said now, the Parks and Open Space master planning efforts for the park are included. He said the big change is that we are not looking for the large sort of sailing pond previously contemplated. Mr. Goodwin said new development was shown in the 'bow -tie' along Post Road with the Delta Energy site and some office development. Mr. Goodwin said for the Avery Road Area Plan, as mentioned earlier, the small area in the Northwest Corporate Center Office Park previously had shown residential development and now, a potential office development has been laid out in that location. He said otherwise, there were no real changes to the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 11, 2013 — Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 13 Avery Road Area Plan. Mr. Goodwin said that a disclaimer language note was added to every area plan page and the adopted document that explains that they are very conceptual in nature; that any of this development or capital improvement would have to go through a public review process, separate from the Community Plan. Mr. Goodwin said that staff previously suggested revising the Avondale Woods section of the Southwest Area Plan because that rezoning was moving slower than anticipated, therefore it has been pulled out and no change is proposed. Mr. Goodwin said that the Commission had seen an earlier version of the West Innovation District Plan and staff has simply gone through it to make a more attractive and legible version. He said that it shows what was already depicted in the Economic Advancement Zone Plan. Mr. Goodwin said similarly, on the U.S. 33 Corridor Plan the same thing has been done by reviewing an earlier version of the land use layout showing additional office, research and development uses, north of State Route 161 at different scales and intensities as an expansion of the Innovation District should those areas annex into Dublin and then moving out into a lower density, research and development and some residential uses, consistent with the Jerome Township Plan, the farther away that you move. Mr. Goodwin said that the Commission had commented that for these areas, specifically the U.S. 33 Corridor, it should be explained that none of the area is currently in the City of Dublin. He said that text has been added that puts that into context. He said the Commission also suggested making sure that the existing corporate boundary is shown. He said that has not been done yet on the maps, but it would be done. Mr. Goodwin referred to the Northwest Glacier Ridge Area Plan. He said as they had previously discussed, the amendments to the plan that the Commission reviewed and City Council had adopted in 2011 with the Hyland -Croy Corridor Character Study, the revised plan graphic, the new design recommendations, and some of the conceptual renderings for instance potential development scenarios along Hyland -Croy Road and the Halls Corner area were folded into this format. Mr. Goodwin concluded his presentation and offered to answer any questions, discuss the process or anything about the website's functionality. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she interpreted from the Commissioners previous conversation that there was not a high level of comfort to vote on the Plan tonight. She said she would hate to make a list to have staff work on something not on the list, and then all the sudden they had to double their work because something else arose. She said they were not interested in tying hands and at the same time, she did not think the Commissioners were interested on voting on something that is incomplete, not that it will ever be 100 percent complete. She asked if she had misspoken on any of that. Mr. Fishman said it sounded perfect. Ms. Newell said she would have loved to have had more time to read through everything between last Friday and tonight. She noted that there was nothing in regards to sustainability included. Mr. Goodwin said that was a good point. He said maybe it was just how they were describing certain things that it was not really obvious. He said the comprehensive nature of the Plan and considering fiscal impacts and long range land use impacts and housing choice and environmental impacts all go toward a sustainable plan, but there may be an opportunity to describe that a little more in the terms of sustainability. Ms. Newell suggested it would be important that it is even written as a goal. She said the reason was that she had ten projects she was working on that were all seeking LEED certification. She said as an example, the things that are available for an architect, the efficiencies they are getting on mechanical systems and how quickly they are changing are changing very rapidly, so just in the course of a two or three year time, she has more options and things that she can do. She said there was no stated goal in the Community Plan, and some of those guidelines are going to be ever evolving. She said she Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 11, 2013 — Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 13 understood that the goals were there, but they did not jump out at you because it was never stated as an actual goal. Ms. Newell said that the concepts are there within what is printed, and she expected when she read that section that she would find some reference about how we were looking at our land in the future of what the goal might be. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested that in the Objectives section that there could be a comprehensive statement that all of this is pointing in this direction. Mr. Goodwin said that he thought that made sense. He said he thought one of the objectives for strategy statements mentioned LEED, but it was buried. He said that a broader statement could be made and they would do that. Ms. Amorose Groomes invited public comments. [There were none. No one was present in the audience.] Ms. Amorose Groomes asked what Mr. Goodwin would like to be done with this application. Mr. Goodwin said that they would love to have a recommendation to City Council, but as previously discussed, it would not really impact the schedule of getting to City Council if they wait and come back in May. He requested a tabling to complete the outstanding work. Motion and Vote Mr. Fishman moved to table this Administrative Request, and Mr. Hardt seconded. The vote was as follows: Ms. Newell, yes; Mr. Budde, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Hardt, yes; and Mr. Fishman, yes. (Tabled 6 — 0.) Commission Roundtable Ms. Husak said that an iPad discussion was planned for the May 2n meeting. Mr. Fishman asked Ms. Readier to discuss how the Commission should react to any potential discussions regarding recent reports by the media. Ms. Readier suggested the Commissioners remember that they represent the City of Dublin and even though no application had been filed to date, the subject has been met with a high level of scrutiny. Ms. Amorose Groomes requested Planning notify the Commission of any new applications being filed with Planning. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there were any other Roundtable issues to discuss. [There were none.] She adjourned the meeting at 8:27 p.m. As approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on May 16, 2013. Cityof Dublin Land Use and Long Range Planning Shier Rings Road PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 5800 Ran Dublin, Ohio 43016-1235 Ph. 614.41(14600 RECORD OF ACTION fus 614.410.4747 www.dublinohlou6a.gov _- DECEMBER 6, 2012 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 2. Community Plan 2012 Amendment 12- 046ADM Administrative Request Request: Review of draft amendments to the 2007 Community Plan as part of the 2012 Community Plan Amendment process. Planning Contact Justin Goodwin, AICP, Planner II. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4677, jgoodwin @dublin.oh.us RESULT: This presentation was an overview of revisions to the draft Bridge Street District Area Plan and Future Land Use Map, with a demonstration of additional improvements to the interactive Community Plan website. STA Yustin Goodwin, AICP Tm'c7 Planner II Dublin Planning and Zoning Comm scion December 6, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 3 of it hings help unlock a right kind of Bevel pment and get the velopers into the ri t mind set of what they all want to for the Bridge St Corridor, that resp rids to what Dublin peas. He said the first projects out f the gate in 2013 going to set the s ge for the V and what is the ba , what is going be done and wha Is Dublin doing, thi will set the get it right and e developers wil now what the exp lions are and positi ly spiral from Mr. Herma summarized some the questions the p ject team has bplating for th urban design fra ework regarding pa ng in the Historic D' riot and the conn een the two ides of the river. Mr. Fo6gler said if there arfelements of things at the Commission #ould like to make su they have thought about make sure ti share those with theFTearn or at the Join eetin4. M: Amorose Groomes 91ked if there has bee a date determinY Ih , January. Ms. HusalAaid it looks like will be a scheduled eeting night for the mmission on Janthere are threi Council Members hat have confirmed r that date. Ms. Am rose Groomes said out on that date, Mr. Taylor said h ad been taking no while they were king and he could t begin to talk abou this because the will be here all nigh and everything said s what he has been aiting to hear for fo r years, especiall the part where they re finally going to getting so/,park, input. He said they re ready to start ing some solution and not just talk a ut the "what wants to make sur hat they are not lowing this to be de gned by committee hey need a corong design perso libel to put the stamp on this and ake it their own, at it has consracter. He said at the Commissi produced a def,ni ' e paper about all the things they ere priorities f r years ago. H aid one of which w hierarchy to this ff, so that the lib municipal s ce, green space i I all equal and n a scale. Ms morose Groomes saifthey are all very exyited and they have otA a lot of blood sweat/and tears into th roject and are loold ' forward to comet g tangible. Amorose Groome sked if there were /nyone from the gene/al public that would Yke to speak to this ect. [There were one.] 2. Community Plan 2012 Amendment 12- 046ADM Administrative Request Ms. Amorose Groomes introduced this administrative request for review of draft amendments to the 2007 Community Plan as part of the 2012 Community Plan Amendment process. Mr. Goodwin apologized for not being able to provide revised content in advance of this meeting. He said he not expect any detailed feedback but wanted to provide an overview of the revisions to the Bridge Street Plan and the future land use map. Mr. Goodwin said they have removed the specific colors shown on the Bridge Street District Plan and are using a neutral brown color across all of the blocks to address the Commissions' concern of the reading too closely as land uses on the map. He said the overall Bridge Street District Plan graphic is the same with the same street network, conceptual open space and green way connections. He stated the big change noted is a series of different colors for the design points, which were previously orange. Mr. Goodwin said the design points are classed into different categories or topics to help people understand which design points deals with a specific topic. He said the blue is a specific design detail recommendations, the yellow symbols represent development opportunity areas, orange is used for general or miscellaneous items, purple is used for mobility, and green is used for open space and green way connections. He said the blue square is used to represent locations of conceptual illustrations that Goody Clancy developed and were included in the Vision Report. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 6, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 11 Mr. Goodwin said the character boundaries were added in black and the different colored designations of different development areas were eliminated. He said the Scioto River overlay is shown in yellow. He said if you click anywhere in the District on the map and it will pop up the name of the district and you will be able to zoom directly to that District. He said they have also added the text, from the Vision Report for each the character districts. Mr. Goodwin asked the Commission go onto the site and look at the plan and click on the design points they have added images to the text. He said they have mages of how architecture may frame a roundabout, the Greenville Liberty bridge as an example of an iconic pedestrian bridge, and additions images from Greenville as they have been inspiration of much of this project. He said they included projects throughout Columbus and some existing conditions within the area. He said this is a work in progress and do not consider any of the specific images or design points to be final. Mr. Goodwin said he would welcome any feedback or additional images that better represent the design points. Mr. Goodwin said there were concerns identified internally of how to depict potential parks and open space areas on the Future Land Use Map (FLU Map), particularly with regards to private properties. He said the FLU Map shows primarily parks and open spaces areas in the western portion of the planning area that have yet to develop. He said the map shows the stream corridor areas, potential open space nodes that would be I nked to the stream corridors, a greenway along the potential alignment for Tuttle Crossing Boulevard extending up north of SR 161, and large wood lots depicted as parks and open space. Mr. Goodwin stated while it is appropriate to target areas for future open space preservation, it is problematic to show as a land use designation called Parks and Open Space on the future land use map when the areas are private property. He said he is working on including an overlay that shows these areas with a park land use designation, but also allowing them to show a specific base land use. Mr. Goodwin asked if the Commission had any comments on the Bridge Street Plan and if the Commission thought they were moving in the right direction with how to graphically depict the plan. Mr. Hardt said he agreed the Area Plan is moving in the right direction. He said understood the problematic nature of how green spaces area depicted and said the proposed overlay is a good solution. Mr. Goodwin said moving forward he will continue to work through December into January to get to a final version and will be scheduling a public meeting to show the website in a real -time environment. He said the goal is to bring everything back to the Commission for a full review and recommendation to City Council and in February. Ms. Amorose Groomes said they would be voting of digital media and didn't know if they have ever done that. Mr. Goodwin agreed and talk to our legal department about how to move into an ordinance, as there will be a few pieces of the project that will need to be in a hard format, such as the Future Land Use Map and the Thoroughfare Plan. Ms. Newell asked if anyone that is color blind attempt to use the website and if they were able to recognize the different colors distinctions. Mr. Goodwin said they are working with the website editor and making sure that this website is an accessible as it can be and there are various things they can do and they will have that discussion with them and with GIS editor and thanked her for bringing it up. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there were anyone from the general public that would like to speak to this application. [There were none.] Ms. Amorose Groomes thanked Mr. Goodwin for his hard and tedious work on this project. Riverside Planngd Commerce Dist North, Subarea 7ning/Preliminar,/Development — The Perimete rigf 12- 073Z /PDP/ P Perimeter Drive Re Play It of Dublin Land Use and Long Range Planning 6800 ublin, Rings ftoatl PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION D , Oh b 930]6 -1236 pine 614.410.600 RECORD OF ACTION (as 614.410.4747 w .tlubllnonlousa.gov NOVEMBER 8, 2012 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: Community Plan 2012 Amendment 12- 046ADM Administrative Request Request: Review of potential amendments to the 2007 Dublin Community Plan as part of the 2012 Community Plan Amendment Process, including the Bridge Street District, West Innovation District and US 33 Corridor area plans, the Future Land Use Map and the Thoroughfare Plan. Planning Contact: Justin Goodwin, AICP, Planner II Contact Information: (614) 410 -4677, jgoodwin @dublin.oh.us RESULT: Planning presented amendments to special area plans, the Future Land Use Map and the Thoroughfare Plan using the Community Plan website. The Commission generally supported the proposed revisions, but expressed concern that the Bridge Street District plan could be misinterpreted as proposed, and requested further modifications to address this issue. STAFF CERTIFICATION Justin Goodwin, AICP Planner II I ci of Dublin Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 www.dublinohiousa.gov PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 2012 AGENDA CASE 1. Community Plan 2012 Amendment 12- 046ADM (Presentation and Discussion) Chair Chris Amorose Groomes Iled the meeting to rder at 6.30 p.m. d Other Co mission members sent were Richard aylor, Amy Kramb, al John Ha t arrived at 6:50 p. . Victoria Newell w absent. City repr nta Rachel ay, Justin Goodwin Ina Wawszkiewicz, nd Libby Farley. /shma and Vote ylor moved to a ept the documents nto the record as esented, The vote wa as follows: Mr. B de, yes; Ms. Kram , yes; Ms. yes; and Mr aylor, yes. (Appro ed 5 — 0.) Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes November 8, 2012 Page 1 of 13 Administrative Request led the Pledge of Ileglance. en Fishman, an Joe Budde. ives were Stev Langworthy, Mr. Fish an seconded the Amoros Groomes, yes; Mr. Rachel Ray said at IT had orde !Pads for the Co mission members December 31 Ms. Ray ask at the Commissio rs keep Thursday, nuary 24"' open on h Meeting reg ding the Communi Plan, in case the ulariy scheduled nl. agendas ar full, should calendars for F 3` and 17"' Adminisftative Business Ms. A rose Groomes brifly explained the lies and procedur of the Planning and Zoning Comm ion. 1. Community Plan 2012 Amendment 12- 046ADM Administrative Request Chris Amorose Groomes introduced this review of potential amendments to the 2007 Dublin Community Plan as part of the 2012 Community Plan Amendment Process, including the Bridge Street District, West Innovation District, and US 33 Corridor area plans, the Future Land Use Map, and the Thoroughfare Plan. Justin Goodwin used the new Community Plan website, http: I /communi1yi2lan.dublinohusa.gov/ for this presentation. He said also, the City's main website, http:lldublinohusa qav, includes a link on the front page to the Community Plan. He reviewed the new content that has been added which includes new area plans or revisions to existing area plans included in the 2007 Community Plan. He explained that Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes November 8, 2012 Page 2 of 13 partially, due to the integration of the Economic Advancement Zone Plan, the US 33 Corridor Area Plan has been modified as the West Innovation District Plan. He said an entirely new area plan has been added for the Bridge Street District that will replace the Historic Dublin and the Sawmill /161 Area Plans from the 2007 Community Plan. Mr. Goodwin said that updates to the Future Land Use Map and adjustments to Land Use Classifications will be reviewed as well as an overview of some technical updates to the Thoroughfare Plan. Mr. Goodwin said that as new content is added to the site, they are also continuing to improve the functionality of the website. He said they are aware that there are always some technical issues, especially depending upon which browser is used. He said they are continuing to work through those issues and are trying to make the site as easy to use as possible. Mr. Goodwin pointed out that since the last time the Commission reviewed the site, the map viewers have been embedded directly into the pages so that rather than having to open another frame, tab, or window, it is there with all the text, and you can still interact with each of the maps to minimize the number of clicks that a user has to perform to access information. Special Area Plan Revisions US 33 Corridor Plan Mr. Goodwin reviewed the US 33 Corridor Plan map as it appeared in the adopted 2007 Community Plan. He said it is being proposed to separate the area formerly known as the COIC, Central Ohio Innovation Center, now referred to as the West Innovation District, as part of the EAZ, Economic Advancement Zone Plan adopted last year from the rest of the US 33 Corridor, as its own area plan. Mr. Goodwin explained that the dark purple colored area shown on the 2007 Plan which comprised most of what now is the West Innovation District was a High Density Office, Research, and Development land use. He said the lighter purple color is a Low Density Office Research and Development land use. Mr. Goodwin said retail centers are noted along SR 161, a new potential interchange at McKitrick Road, as well to the north of the area plan. Mr. Goodwin said in the 2007 Community Plan, the center of the area between Industrial Parkway and the CSX railroad tracks, this Plan included a Mixed Use Town Center concept and a few differing types of Mixed Residential classifications. He said the assumption was for somewhat more of an Urban Core to what would be a high intensity development area moving westward along the US 33 Corridor. Mr. Goodwin said some conditions have changed, and it is thought that the concept no longer really applies here, so adjustments are being proposed to this area plan accordingly. Mr. Goodwin presented the revised draft sketch showing the land use classifications throughout this area. He explained that the land uses are based on a series of land use classifications that are incorporated into the West Innovation District which essentially represent the intent of the Office, Research, and Development classification on the Land Use Map. He said the land use is somewhat coordinated with Jerome Township's adopted Land Use Plan where it may make sense. He said the likelihood is that most of this planning area will probably develop within Jerome Township, because the City of Dublin does not expect to continue to annex and expand this far west. Amy Kramb asked if Dublin's current northwestern City Limit is shown on the map. Mr. Goodwin said that was something technical that they needed to be sure was depicted correctly on all the maps. He said the City Limit was shown, but he thought it could be made clearer where the existing Corporate Limit is located along SR 161 and just east of Hyland Croy Road. Ms. Kramb said that the text should be included under the existing character in describing this area. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if most of this area was in Jerome Township. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes November 8, 2012 Page 3 of 13 Mr. Goodwin said it was in Jerome Township's jurisdiction now, and potentially it could be served by the City of Maryville's water and sewer systems. He said it was possible that Dublin could see some of the land develop under its jurisdiction. He explained that Dublin had entered into an economic development agreement with the City of Columbus in 2009 for a portion of a planning area located around the interchange. He said that Dublin had planned for the interchange improvement at some point in the future and land just north of SR 161 is included in an economic development agreement area with Columbus. He said it is possible that area could annex into Dublin in the future, but there is no guarantee that will happen. Ms. Kramb recommended making it clear in the beginning of the existing character that a majority of the area in this plan is not within the City of Dublin. Mr. Goodwin said that the text did allude to that, but they could make sure that it was clearly explained and was also shown on the map. He said the text itself with this area plan will be updated. Ms. Kramb said she did not think the impression should be given that this is going to be what Dublin is going to do with the land. She said there would be some unhappy people if they purposely move there thinking this is going to be in Dublin and there is little indication that the land will develop in the manner shown. Mr. Goodwin said it is described in a couple of places in the Community Plan why our planning area is drawn the way it is and that it is based on the City of Columbus' and City of Dublin's agreement for water and sewer service. He explained that there is a potential that part of this area could annex into Dublin to receive sewer service, but there are multiple options for sewer services in this area. He said that was described in the Utilities chapter of the Community Plan as well as this area plan, however he thought it could be made a little clearer, and links and cross - references would be added throughout the plan in all of the sections. Steve Langworthy said that Ms. Kramb was right that the upside and downside of the interactive maps is if they are really interactive, that people will focus their attention on more on the maps and graphics rather than digging through the text to find things. He said for some of the really important points, they will probably have to add dick -ons on the map. Mr. Goodwin said in addition to the text, design points and recommendations still remain to be updated and added, so that can still be addressed. Warren Fishman asked if the Jerome Township area shown on the map was within the Dublin City School District. Mr. Goodwin said he believed this entire planning area was within the Jonathan Alder School District. Mr. Goodwin explained that in the 2007 US 33 Corridor Area Plan, a Land Use concept was sketched all the way to US 42 and over to the CSX Railroad tracks to the west. He said that area is not actually in the City of Dublin's planning area, but was defined by the City's water and sewer agreement with the City of Columbus. He said it was simply drawn as a concept to coordinate with the rest of the planning area, and because it is not expected that the City will extend that far out, that area has been removed from the graphic for the updated area plan. Mr. Goodwin asked if the Commissioners had other questions or comments regarding the US 33 Corridor Plan. [There were none.] Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes November 8, 2012 Page 4 of 13 West Innovation District Plan Mr. Goodwin said all of the text from the Economic Advancement Zone Plan that was adopted last year was inserted into the Community Plan, but they are still working on the graphic content from that plan. He presented a graphic area plan that was a representation of the Land Use Plan that was adopted with the Economic Advancement Zone Plan. He said the same land use classifications are used as they were in the US 33 Corridor Plan. [Mr. Hardt arrived.] Mr. Goodwin said higher density research office development is shown along the primary frontage along US 33. He said at the intersection of Avery Road and Shier Rings Road, it is also shown as Research Office Land Use, but with the possibility of some commercial business support services that could occur in that location. He presented the concept included in the EAZ Plan of transitioning from higher density, more prominent architecture along US 33, and transitioning down in land use and development intensity, moving to the west. Mr. Goodwin said that the pink color indicates a Flex Office classification and the light purple color is a Research Assembly Land Use, more of a light industrial classification and that the land use plan included a Mixed Use Center concept that could occur near Darree Fields at the intersection of Cosgray Road and Shier Rings Road. Mr. Goodwin said that Ohio University has purchased the Buckeye Check Cashing site and that area is included as a Research Office use which would be generally consistent with the University's intent to develop a college of medicine at that location. Mr. Goodwin said that this plan also shows the Thoroughfare Plan included in the Economic Advancement Zone. Mr. Goodwin said the graphic representation of the adopted Plan has not changed. He said as they move forward with finalizing all the graphics, it will be rendered in color, to be consistent with the other area plans. Mr. Goodwin said it also shows here, and in the Avery Road Corridor Plan, a potential interchange improvement at Avery Road and US 33 which is a concept. He said that it is known that there is a need for an improvement at the interchange, however they do not know exactly what the design would be or when that would happen. He said an additional engineering study would be required in cooperation with ODOT. Mr. Goodwin explained that this plan also shows the final design of the improvement to the SR 161 /Post Road /US 33 interchange, which is pending. Mr. Goodwin asked if the Commissioners had other questions or comments regarding the West Innovation District Plan. [There were none.] Bridge Street District Plan Mr. Goodwin said that they have taken as much relevant content as they could identify in primarily the Goody Clancy Vision Report and the Planning Foundation document that Goody Clancy had developed in advance of the Vision Report, and incorporated it into this new area plan. He said a redline /strike- through version was not provided for this area plan because it would be confusing in terms of what is really new and what has changed. He said if there was text in the document that they felt really did not apply any longer, it was not included. He said that they reorganized things as well. Mr. Goodwin said information from some technical analyses, such as the Nelson Nygaard Transportation Analyses, have been included here as well. He said this is a synthesis of a variety of documents put together as part of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes November 8, 2012 Page 5 of 13 the Bridge Street Corridor planning process. Mr. Goodwin said with the concept of what they are calling a 'Vision Report 2.0' this is Planning's thought on how they could address those concerns in some of those initial conversations that they had with the Commission. Mr. Goodwin briefly reviewed the nine sections of the Bridge Street District Plan and demonstrated how to access the background information. Mr. Goodwin pointed out that one public comment regarding this Plan had been received online. He encouraged the Commissioners to review from time to time the online public comments received. Mr. Goodwin said that a Bridge Street District Area Plan concept has been developed to replace the more detailed illustrative Vision Plan included in the Vision Report. He said the graphic was a work in progress and the Commission's feedback was welcomed. He said a concern previously heard from the Commission through the Bridge Street Corridor Code process and meetings after the Code adoption was that the large amount of detail and specificity that was shown in the illustrative Vision Plan was a concern, and there is a desire for something illustrating the overall intent for the urban design principles in the Corridor, but not suggesting that we know exactly where individual buildings are going. Mr. Langworthy asked if the big cluster of design points shown around the Historic District were from the 2007 Historic District Area Plan. Mr. Goodwin explained that where possible, if there were specific design recommendations in the Historic Dublin Area Plan or the Sawmill /161 Area Plan included in the 2007 Plan, they were incorporated into the Bridge Street District Plan. He said for instance, the longtime pedestrian bridge concept was included in the Historic Dublin Area Plan, so there is an illustration of a potential pedestrian bridge shown and the design recommendation is simply noting that as well. John Hardt asked if any of the older design recommendations were found that were arguably no longer valid, given the Bridge Street Corridor. Mr. Goodwin said that there were a few and some of them had to do with the high degree of specificity that was included in the Historic District Area Plan. He said it was much like the illustrative Bridge Street Plan in that it was showing a very specific concept for development on the school site and many of the design recommendations were very specific to that. He said for instance, crating a new civic building in a specific location and another one was along Riverside Drive, where the Sawmill /161 Area Plan had not anticipated the potential realignment of Riverside Drive, so the concept and one of the design recommendations was to have a large green space setback between Riverside Drive and new residential development to the east. He said that concept is different now because we are contemplating open space between the realigned Riverside Drive and residential development coming very close to Riverside Drive, complementing the park. Mr. Hardt asked if in instances like that, were the design recommendations deleted or altered. Mr. Goodwin explained that in some cases, they were deleted and in others, they were altered. He said that many of the other design recommendations are taken directly from the Vision Report, so each of those very specific character area vignettes shown in the illustrative Vision Plan also had some specific design recommendations. He said those were reviewed and the ones that still applied based on the planning that had occurred since that report was adopted were incorporated or revised where it was thought necessary, and some of them that were thought to be too specific were not included. Mr. Goodwin said the concept seen with the broad variety of colors is trying to describe different character neighborhoods such as Walkable Core, Highway Visibility Area, Greenway Frontage Area, Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes November 8, 2012 Page 6 of 13 Residential Core, Historic Core, Established Neighborhoods, key Gateway Corridors, and Transitional Areas. He said a legend will be incorporated into the site which is currently described in the text. He said in red, walkable cores in the Dublin Village Center (DVC) area and in the center of the OCLC site are consistent with the neighborhood areas included in the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code where some shopping corridors could occur. He said what is described in the text for these areas, is that they are both walkable, high intensity cores. He said the DVC location will be more intense and probably have more of a regional draw, as opposed to the one that might occur on the OCLC site, that they think may be smaller and probably provide more localized services to new development, primarily occurring within the OCLC site itself. Mr. Goodwin said in yellow, the Residential Core is very consistent with the adopted zoning, the Bridge Street Corridor Residential District. He said it is acknowledged that it is also a mixed -use area, but primarily providing residential support for the new walkable cores. Mr. Goodwin said in orange, along Riverside Drive and a potential roadway through the school site and connecting to the OCLC site and also along the extension along Shawan Falls along the North Fork of the Indian Run are key greenway frontage areas where we expect would be primarily residential development that can take advantage of attractive views of the Scioto River or to the new greenways along the Forks of the Indian Run. He said they are great opportunity areas for development, but also need to sensitively be sited to not detract from the character and ecological integrity of those areas. Mr. Goodwin said in purple along I -270 is the Highway Visibility Area, and the text describes it as a very prominent location where taller buildings are expected, ideally more focused on office uses and residential uses in some areas. He said the idea was to create high intensity development that set the tone from the highway for the type of development areas in Bridge Street. He said some of the design recommendations are to maintain some views into the Bridge Street District, so it would not be just a wall of buildings along the highway. He said there should be some internal views so that people passing by can see what type of development area we are creating. Mr. Goodwin said in dark blue along SR 161 -West Dublin - Granville Road to the east, and along the interchange area along West Bridge Street, the area has been identified as key gateway address visibility areas. He said it could be similar types of development that occur along the highway visibility area, but obviously, having much more of a pedestrian focus along Bridge Street and West Dublin - Granville Road. Mr. Goodwin said in dark brown the area identified is the Historic Core and the highly walkable portions of High Street and Bridge Street. He said that they have extended that out along West Bridge Street which is consistent with the Historic Transition Neighborhood adopted in the Zoning Code. He said development that is compatible with the character of the Historic District, but not necessarily trying to exactly emulate the historic character of those buildings, but something consistent with the scale of Historic Dublin is desired in this area. Mr. Goodwin said in lighter shades of all of the colors are the Transitional Areas have been identified that could be a variety of mixed use development patterns, depending on how the street network ultimately develops, which would typically complement either key Gateway Corridors or the Walkable Cores. Mr. Goodwin said that Planning was interested in hearing the Commissioners' feedback as to whether this was closer to addressing the concerns they had identified with the specificity in the original illustrative Vision Plan. Mr. Langworthy said one of the complicating factors they found was there was some confusion about the term `neighborhood' because a lot of people had the idea that 'neighborhood' was only residential and Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes November 8, 2012 Page 7 of 13 there were not any commercial neighborhoods or mixed use neighborhoods. He said that got them away from that generalized concept and got them down to where they had to speak to more specifics in some of the neighborhoods than they might have originally planned. Mr. Goodwin said in addition to land use character areas, they are showing a street network that is generally consistent with the adopted Bridge Street transportation network in the Development Code. He said it is not exactly that network, but it is very consistent. He said as with all of the area plans, they will make sure that there is disclaimer language that explains that everything that is shown here is a concept, and is not suggesting that this is the exact alignment of particular roadways, but the idea is to show this walkable framework of streets and blocks where development will occur. Mr. Hardt said it satisfied his concern about the previous graphics being too specific. He said seeing the graphic for the first time, unfortunately confirmed one of his biggest fears about the Bridge Street Corridor. He said the first thing that came to his mind was that it was the antitheses of mixed use because what they were telling people was that all the commercial retail stuff goes in the red block over there, and all the residential goes in the yellow block over here. He said that was not consistent with the desire for true mixed use development or formed based zoning. He said it seemed more consistent with the use -based zoning associated with the other area plans. He said he realized that this was not zoning per se, but what the graphic did was send a message to both the community at large and developers about the type of development we expect to see in those areas. Mr. Goodwin said there is text describing each of the areas. He said he understood the point and staff had the discussion as well that this could create an impression that we are specifying land uses, so Planning tried to find a balance between addressing the development character of these areas and what may be more of a focus on certain mixes of land uses without creating the impression that these are more traditional single -use areas. He said Residential Core is one of the few character neighborhoods specifically references land use. He said the description explains that it is also a mixed use area, and commercial development could happen in it, but we expect primarily an urban residential character there. Mr. Goodwin said obviously, Established Residential Neighborhoods would be the existing neighborhoods like the Indian Run Estates. He said the Gateway Corridors are a mix of uses as well. He said they learned a lesson from the names of the zoning categories, and they had that in mind with using terms like Gateway Corridors. He said obviously, the Residential Core does speak to land use. Mr. Goodwin said they agreed and understood that could be a perception that should be avoided. He said they welcomed Commission feedback or thoughts on better solutions, both graphically and in the text or the use of terminology for the names of these types of areas. Mr. Hardt said that there was terminology already in the Bridge Street Code. He said that he had read some of the descriptions, and while he thought the language in the text said the right thing, a picture was worth a thousand words, and many people will never get past the pictures. He thought that was where the confusion was likely to occur. Mr. Goodwin said there were things that they could do within the graphic itself to try to explain the point more clearly. He said this is a draft, and they will revise it based on the feedback they get. However, he said with the US 33 Corridor, incorporating more information into the graphic itself and allowing people to click on information, and hopefully forcing people to acknowledge that there is more than just a graphic sketch. He said they can take information from this text and incorporate it somehow into the graphics so if someone clicked on a certain portion, they would get the text that describes what the character intent for that area is, so there are some options. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes November 8, 2012 Page 8 of 13 Ms. Amorose Groomes recalled that Mr. Goodwin's presentation began with discussing the EAZ and Tech Flex where some town center areas were previously shown, but that concept no longer applied. She asked if including this level of detail was not repeating the same mistake because these concepts may not apply. She said if it is truly going to be mixed use, then the graphic would not be representative of something that would be truly mixed use. Mr. Goodwin said the idea was that all of these areas were mixed use. He said it is likely to be a different mix of uses in different areas. He said that he understood they could not pick exactly where certain things will happen, but they do not think, for instance, that the type of dense walkable core that could happen at the Dublin Village Center is likely to happen everywhere. He said it was not likely to be the same development pattern throughout the area. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she also struggled with wanting to use the colors on the map. She recalled the discussions that the Commission had about the Bridge Pointe shopping center about what it should be zoned. She said she thought every time something was put out there that so quickly become irrelevant, it discredits their ability to effectively predict what is best or likely to develop on a given site. Mr. Goodwin pointed out that there were many internal discussions about how to depict the area plan, and Planning has gone back and forth on a number of strategies. He said the Commissioners' comments were very much appreciated. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested dropping in the street grid and not complicating the graphic much more than that. Mr. Goodwin said one of the most important things about having any graphic is showing a network of walkable blocks, regardless of land use. Ms. Amorose Groomes agreed, and said that was the foundation of the form -based code. She said she did not understand why they would not leave it at that and say to developers, bring us your best and brightest, and if it is a good project, it can be accommodated. Mr. Goodwin said to the extent that there are differences in permitted and conditional uses in the various districts that were adopted... He said the intent behind this area plan is certainly not to suggest a restriction of uses anywhere simply to paint a picture of some key focus areas. Mr. Langworthy said that it might be better if they just circled the districts and put the character names in, so that people will just see the character and not get side - tracked or confused by the intent of the different colors. He said that maybe a click -on could be added on the title of the character to take you down to the written description of it, so that you see that it is not intended to establish a particular land use. Mr. Hardt said his point was that if you drill into the Code regulations that actually govem these sites, it dearly does not require all residential in one area or another. He said it allows for the mix of uses, but the picture gives a different impression. Mr. Langworthy said that when you see colors, many developers and designers automatically associate red as commercial, for example. He said that he thought that maybe they could get away from that because this is probably the only place where that is not true. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes November 8, 2012 Page 9of13 Mr. Goodwin said this segues nicely into the discussion he would like to have with the draft Future Land Use Map. He said this does relate to how they are dealing with the Bridge Street District on the Future Land Use Map as well. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she had a little heartburn about even having character districts or neighborhoods. She said she thought the character will be brought to the district by what happens in that area. She said she thought that development should start to happen first, rather than the character being defined, and then building to meet the character. Mr. Hardt said he made the argument several months ago that they should codify what the buildings are to look like and not wont' about the land uses inside, but that was not what ended up being approved. He said his concern was that this was the Community Plan, and he had spent nights at meetings where people pointed to maps like this and said this clearly shows the City's intent, getting hung up on what color a particular piece of land is shown on a map. Mr. Goodwin suggested an approach would be to generalize this further, getting away from using colors, and maybe relying more heavily on the use of the design points. He said where appropriate, if there are key planning, development, or transportation goals, those should be shown, but not associated with a specific color that can be confused with land use. Mr. Goodwin asked if there were other comments on the Bridge Street District Plan. [There were none.] Future Land Use Map Mr. Goodwin said a few updates had been made to the Future Land Use Map and fairly minor revisions to some of the Land Use classifications themselves, which are shown in the strikethrough /redline format on the website. He said they tried to clarify some of the residential classification names, but none of the density recommendations have been changed. He said they tried to make the names of each of the different densities of residential classifications centrally consistent between our standard residential and mixed residential classifications. Mr. Goodwin said the Future Land Use Map adopted in 2007 specified the High Density Office Research and Development and Low Density Office Research and Development in dark purple and light purple as part of the US 33 Corridor area, and because of the recent Tech Flex zoning and the creation of the Innovation Districts, Planning thought that it may be more appropriate to combine those into one Hex Office, Research and Development classification and generalize that on the map using one color. He said the zoning is adopted for those areas, and the zoning is what governs the specific permitted and conditional uses, so they thought the land use map can show the broad pattern of land use, but it should not necessarily show very specific designations. He said many of the areas have areas plans and that is where they can show, if it is appropriate, a more specific allocation of different land uses. Mr. Goodwin said they would like to tie the Future Land Use Map more closely to the area plans, and that can be done with the new digital format. Mr. Goodwin said looking at the 2007 Future Land Use Map, the light blue and dark blue colors are used throughout the map to identify public and private institutional and civic uses. He said in some cases, it was very specific about existing private institutional uses, like an urgent care medical facility, as it exists today, and was shown as a private institutional use in the future. He said they do not know what all of these will be in the future, and they are not saying that it always has to be some sort of urgent care or hospital use. Mr. Goodwin said they suggested combining the private and public institutional uses, and using a dark blue color which includes religious facilities and schools. He said also, adding some types of Institutional uses to the Office category so that they would essentially be Office and Institutional categories which would allow for assisted living, skilled nursing, and some of those lower intensity Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes November 8, 2012 Page 10 of 13 medical services that are sometimes considered a type of Institutional use, which they think is consistent with an office development pattern as well. He said they are generalized on the map. Mr. Goodwin said that in the land use classifications, they have eliminated what was the Mixed Use Town Center classification that had been the designation in the US 33 Corridor. He said the other Mixed Use Town Center was specifically for the Dublin Village Center and the Sawmill Area, and that has been replaced with a Mixed Use Urban Core classification which is only applicable to the Bridge Street District. Mr. Goodwin referred to the 2007 Future Land Use Map where a broad variety of Land Use classifications were shown. He said that they are proposing to generalize the classifications where the bulk of the Bridge Street District would be classified as the new Urban Core classification, areas that are currently publically owned green space would continue to be shown as Parks Open Space, the Historic Dublin area and additional land adjacent to the part of the Historic Transition Neighborhood under the Code as the Mixed Use Village Center area because it was important to designate that it has a different character, and the existing Residential Areas shown as well. He said that was the general intent they pursued with trying to show two classifications with the Urban Core and the Village Center. Mr. Goodwin asked if there were comments regarding this approach. Mr. Hardt noted that the mostly brown - colored Bridge Street Corridor dearly indicated that there was an overall thought that covered the whole area. Thoroughfare Plan Mr. Goodwin said that a new design recommendation for the Bright Road Area Plan was included that suggested exploring options for a new overpass over I -270, between the Bright Road Area, Emerald Phase 8 and somewhere in the Bridge Street District, likely to Tuller Road or Village Parkway. He said it was not something they had gone to the extent of actually sketching out a specific alignment because it was too premature for that. He said the design recommendation would also be included in the Bridge Street District Plan as well. Mr. Hardt asked if the potential overpass would be vehicular, pedestrian, or both. Mr. Goodwin said it would be both vehicular and pedestrian. He did not think it would be pedestrian -only because the idea would be to connect to Emerald 8 as an alternative to Sawmill Road. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she thought that was a great recommendation. Mr. Hardt recalled when the Commission reviewed the Bridge Street Corridor Plan, one of his comments was that he thought they were shooting themselves in the foot by creating a walkable urban core and then have it be separated from the rest of the community. He said any connections that we can make, as difficult as they may be, would be favorable. Mr. Goodwin asked if there were other comments on the Future Land Use Map. [There were none.] Mr. Langworthy asked the Commissioners if they had viewed and interacted with the Community Plan website. Ms. Kramb said that she found it did not work well using her version of Internet Explorer. Mr. Goodwin explained that the site is designed to be responsive to all the major browsers, and it will be responsive in different ways. He said that they know that there are issues with Internet Explorer and to Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes November 8, 2012 Page 11 of 13 the extent that they can resolve those, they will, but there may still be versions of Internet Explorer that pose some challenges. He suggested that everyone keep Internet Explorer updated, and consider using other browsers such as Chrome or Firefox. Thoroughfare Plan Mr. Goodwin said similar to the Land Use Map, there have been some fairly technical updates. He said the red points note specific changes. He said many of the changes are noting improvements that were planned in 2007, and have since been completed. He said for instance, the closure of Post Road at Coffman Park, some widening of Avery Road, the Avery/Tuswell roundabout, Dublin Methodist Lane, the realignment of Industrial Parkway to SR 161, the improvements to Emerald Parkway to be completed soon, and the extension of Eiterman Road to Rings Road. Mr. Goodwin said from the Bridge Street District Network Map adopted in the Code, what were identified as the District Connector Streets, the higher level streets, the extension of Shawan Falls Drive and the crossing of the North Fork of the Indian Run to Dublin Road, and then extending eastward, across the new bridge, across the Scioto River and eventually, all the way to Sawmill Road and then a new east/west connection extending from Dublin Village Parkway, westward to Dale Drive, extending across what could potentially be a new vehicular bridge across the Scioto River at some point in the future, and extending westward through the school site, across the Indian Run and into the OCLC area, and then connecting to a realigned Post Road. He said there are a few other key connections shown as well. Mr. Goodwin said that they are not showing all of the neighborhood streets that were identified on the Bridge Street District Street Network Map, which are the equivalent of local streets that would occur with any neighborhood subdivision In any other part of the City, and they will be developed through the Development Review Process. He said the streets that have been included here are essentially the higher level streets that the City has a greater expectation of pursuing and implementing over time. Mr. Goodwin said target rights -of -way are shown that would accommodate both the vehicular and pedestrian realm elements that are required or recommended in the Bridge Street Code. Ms. Kramb asked what the numbers were shown on the Plan. Mr. Goodwin said the numbers were target right -of -way widths. He said that they have tried to be conservative with the numbers and allow enough right -of -way width to allow for all of the variations of street elements, so obviously the vehicular travel lanes, parking lanes, sidewalks, either a tree lawn or a hardscape planting zone in some of these streets, particularly ones that there is 80 feet, like the east/west ones where cycle tracks are expected to occur, some additional right -of -way is necessary for that as well. He said it is possible that we will not actually need the full 80 feet in those locations, and that again, would be determined as we proceed with those capital improvements or with specific development proposals. Ms. Kramb asked what was the existing right -of -way on West Dublin- Granville Road /SR 161 and if those numbers were correctly reflected. Tina Wawszkiewicz said they were reflected correctly for the most part, but it was much narrower in the Historic District where the constraints are known. Mr. Goodwin said similarly, they have incorporated the transportation plan in the conceptual street alignments that were included originally in the Economic Advance Zone Plan and they are now depicted in the West Innovation District Plan. He said primarily, that includes a potential new street that would extend from Shier Rings Road and move up through the West Innovation District to the east of the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes November 8, 2012 Page 12 of 13 Sports0hio Complex, eventually connecting to Industrial Parkway, and then a series of other streets providing developable frontage within that area as well. Mr. Langworthy asked where the pedestrian crossing was shown. Mr. Goodwin explained that was a design point included in the area plan. He said the Economic Advancement Zone Plan had recommended pursuing specifically a pedestrian bridge crossing over US 33, likely associated with a long term greenway connection throughout the City from the South Fork of the Indian Run moving towards the east, but it is not included in the Thoroughfare Plan. Mr. Goodwin said that the Commissioners could access the redlined version of the Thoroughfare Plan table which is in a pdf format. He said it shows the addition of each of the new street systems for the Innovation District and the Bridge Street District. He said some of the things marked in red are really technical updates, just using consistent terminology, for instance. He said although there are a lot of redlines, there is not actually a lot changing on the Thoroughfare Plan. Mr. Goodwin asked if there were comments on the Thoroughfare Plan or general comments on what had been reviewed this evening. Richard Taylor asked if the Thoroughfare Plan was previously a formal part of the Community Plan. Mr. Goodwin said that the Thoroughfare Plan had always been a formal part of the Community Plan, published together in the same document. He explained that it was part of the Transportation chapter and it was referenced in the Zoning Code as well as adopted by ordinance which was the adopted date of the Community Plan. He said the Thoroughfare Plan itself could be updated separate from the Community Plan through another ordinance. Mr. Hardt said his only comment, which was not new, was that from the perspective of someone who had used these documents before, he thought this was a huge step forward. He said he had been in many cities before where when you try to work on a development and the first thing you pick up is the zoning code, then you make a phone call to someone within the city and you find out that you have to go find the thoroughfare plan, then find out you need the main street overlay, and you end up looking for 18 different documents and try to figure out how they all inter - relate. He said that putting them all in one place is a huge step forward. Mr. Langworthy said that he needs to talk to the Law Director because Dublin's current Community Plan is a document adopted by ordinance, and presumably, any changes to it have to also be adopted by ordinance. He said that in this kind of format, it really lends itself to be able to be updated a lot more frequently. He said as new projects are done, they would not necessarily have to wait five years to reflect them in the Plan. Mr. Langworthy said they are trying to find a way that they can put updates in the Plan that maybe would not change anything, but would reflect changed conditions without having to go back through the ordinance process. Mr. Goodwin said likely, there would be some key items that might still be adopted by ordinance. He said the Thoroughfare Plan and the Future Land Use Map will likely always be elements that are adopted by ordinance. Mr. Hardt said it seemed to him that everything in this document could be divided into Existing Conditions and Future Intent categories. He said a question for the Law Director could be, is it possible to come up with a way where existing conditions can just be revised to reflect the existing conditions on a continuing basis? Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes November 8, 2012 Page 13 of 13 Mr. Langworthy said he would look into that also. He said if they can find a way to do that, that makes this literally a living document because it could be kept current, almost up to the day, rather than having to wait every five years to keep it current. Ms. Amorose Groomes invited public comments with respect to this discussion. Jen Vargo, 7751 Wryneck Drive, said that from an outsider's perspective, she thought each of the colors used on the Bridge Street District Plan indicated a different purpose, as the Commissioners had previously discussed. Ms. Amorose Groomes thanked Ms. Vargo. She said her comment was very helpful. Mr. Hardt referred to the issue of this being adopted by ordinance or not. He said what they were seeing was a revised version of the document that is online and available to the public, but has not been adopted. Mr. Goodwin said how this is being treated right now, is the public can see the draft changes to this adopted document, and once it is determined what is the appropriate adoption process now for this set of 2012 amendments, then all of the redline /blue line changes go away and that becomes the adopted document. He said it will replace the printed 2007 version of the Plan. Ms. Kramb said it has been made dear that public comments are being taken online, and that there are public comment sections at the end of each section. Ms. Kramb said some of the sections she read were full of planning jargon and very wordy. She suggested simplifying the text to make it easier by giving it to someone who is not a planner to read. She said if this is the opportunity to revise it, then we should simplify it, and make it so everyone can understand what they are talking about. Mr. Goodwin said that they started that process, and intended to do more. Mr. Goodwin said that the intent moving forward is to take the feedback received tonight and revise these sections accordingly. He said the remaining chapters that the Commission has not reviewed in detail are technical, and have not been reflected on the website yet so they will be doing that over the next few weeks. He said many of the graphics in the Plan are not incorporated into the website, so they will be doing that as well. Mr. Goodwin said that the intent is to have essentially a whole version of all of that ready in December for the Commission. He said that they do not intend at this time, looking at the Commission's likely agenda for the December 6"' meeting, that there will be a lot of time to cover all of that, but they would like to have it ready, so that through December, it is available for the Commissioners' review, and then if they can either use one of the scheduled meetings in January, or if necessary, schedule a Special Meeting potentially on January 2e to dedicate reviewing the whole Community Plan. Mr. Goodwin said that they are also intending to have some form of a public input meeting in early January as well. Co miis;!on Roundtab M . Amorose Groomes ed if there were eeting at 7:58 p.m. As approved by Planning and Zonin Cc other comments. ere were none.] S adjourned the ssion on Dec ber 6, 2012. Citycif Dublin PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Land Use and Long Range Planning SON Shier Rings Road RECORD OF ACTION Dublin, Ohio 41016-1136 alluc 614.410.4600 to 614.420.740 OCTOBER 11, 2012 www.dubilnahiousa.gw The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. Community Plan 2012 Amendment 12- 046ADM Administrative Request Request: Review of potential amendments to the special area plans in the 2007 Community Plan as part of the 2012 Community Plan Amendment process, including updates to the text and graphics. Planning Contact: Justin Goodwin, AICP, Planner D Contact Information: (614) 410 -4677, igoodwin @dublin.oh.us RESULT: Planning continued presenting amendments to the special area plans in the Community Plan using the Community Plan website to the Commission. STAFF CERTIFICATION ��' "r ` 0 t Justin Goodwin, AICP Planner U Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 11, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 9 Ms. Newell orrected page 11, f h paragraph / gethe ntence, to replace " f the building" removed." Mr. Ha t corrected page 14, ourth paragraph fbottom, Chang he word "trowel" to and ge 25, second paragr ph from the top, ch word "molds" o "malls." Mytion and Vote P . Kramb moved /as pt the Septem/ , 2012 meeting mi tes as corrected/MHardt seconded he motion. The vo as follows: Mose Groomes, y , Mr. Taylor, yes; Mman, yes; Mr. Budde, yes; Ms. Ne es; Mr. Hardt, d Ms. Kramb, y (Approved 7 — 0.) Communicati ns Steve Langw by reminded the C . mission about the p on Monday, Octob r 15` leaving C/Kh 9:30 am. H said they have inv' d some of the Adm' istrative Review Te members and consultan or the Bridge Stree istrict, to join the oup. MKSK will talk out projects they Involved and other general rojects in the downt n area. Mr. Vngworthy said they /will have meeting �tes for next year tq/vote on at the ne� meeting in Nov tuber and asked thayfthe Commission brin their calendars. / a dministrative Bus' ess s. Amorose Groo s asked if anyone wi ed to remove anythi g from the consent enda. [There was no �esponse.] Sh riefly explained the ules and procedures f the Planning and oning Commission. She announced t at they will hear the onsent case #2 first. he meeting minut reflect the published agenda order.] 1. Community Plan 2012 Amendment 12- 046ADM Administrative Request Ms. Amorose Groomes introduced this request to review potential amendments to the special area plans in the 2007 Commun ty "Ilan as part of the 2012 Community Ran Amendment process, including updates to the text and graphics. Justin Goodwin sad this was an update on some new content that has been added to the Community Plan website. They are focusing on the Economic Advancement Zone Plan, now renamed to the West Innovation District Plan and some new functionality of the site. Mr. Goodwin said they received a comment from the Commission last week to show the edited text in color, in addition to strike through and unce-line, so they have started to do that. Mr. Goodwin sa d they now have the West Innovation D�str ct added to the area plans, for which updates are in progress. -e said the Commission recommended approval to City Council of the Economic Advancement Zone plan and it was approved in June 2011. He said it was a lengthy and detailed area plan as compared to other area plans. The fourteen separate sections in that document are now incorporated as separate pages with a table of contents on the side of the page, so there are different ways to access these sections. He said they have updated the text from the EAZ Plan, much of which was dust changing the name. There are few substantive changes to the text. He said one change was to note that the Dublin Entrepreneurial Center is moving out of this d strict to the Metro Office District to make way for Ohio University. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 11, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 9 Mr. Goodwin said all of .he text is uploaded but not all of the red line and the additions are complete. He said they are incorporating all of the graphics from the EAZ Plan as well and there are a couple of examples that they have worked on. He said there are a number of app items in the plan showing land use and transit options and the transportation plan is specific for the Innovation District, they have not yet incorporated those into the area plan map viewer that was presented last week. Each of the maps are shown currently as a graphic on the website. Mr. Goodwin said one of the areas they have been focusing on is creating architectural Identity and that section of the EAZ Plan is set up as a pattern book and there are a lot of graphics that are intended to function in conjunction with the text to explain the intent for the district. They have tried to incorporate the different graphics, talking about different types of buildings with different examples and then specifically for different architectural components. He said all of the graprscs are Incorporated as photo galleries, so a user can click on these and then move through a slide show to access the different images. He said this is another p*ece of functionality that the website editor has been working on and will be incorporated throughout the entire Community Plan website. Mr. Goodwin thanked Tori Proehl, Planning Assistant, for working on getting all these graphics ready fo, upload to the site, he said it is a lot of tedious work. He said they asked who all is working on this at the last meeting and she has done a lot of the graphic processing for the website and not just the Innovation District. He noted that Tori is leaving us and her last day is Friday, October 12, 2012 and is going to 3D Group. Mr. Goodwin said moving forward with the Community Plan as the upload new larger sections of content will keep the Commission updated with emails over the next month. There is a special meeting scheduled for November 8` and the meeting is entirely dedicated to the Community Plan and will focus on the remaining area plans that need updated and the main being the US 33 Corridor Plan updated in response to the Innovation District Plan and incorporation of the Bridge Street District Plan as an area plan as well. Ms. Amorose Groomes said it is continuing and will be wonderful when they get there. She asked if there was anyone from the general public that would like to speak with respect to this application. [There were none.] 2. Ballantrae, Sections Ond 2, Entry Featur Dalmore Lane an Eiterman Road 12- 065AFDP Amend d Final Develop me Plan Right -of -Way Encr chment Ms. Amorose Groom introduced this app' ation requesting an mended final develo plan and a right -of -way encro ment for a subdivis' n entry feature in( ing landscaping and one monoliths for Sections 1 and of the Ballantrae su ivision. The site is t the intersection o Dalmore Lane with Eiterman Road. he said they did n need a presentatio and asked if there vas anyone from the general public at would like to spe with respect to this pplication. Lorie Fost 5629 Royal Dublin ive, at th/hout orner of /ning's Eiterman, stated that she came to a meeting to review a plans. Ms. A ,orose Groomes aske for a brief overview. Mr Langworthy said the Ian has an arc in to refle conditions to make design look similar o the other entry fe Balshowed an example of ar existing design. aDublin Land Use and Long PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Land Us Range planning 5800 Shier Rings Road RECORD OF ACTION Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 phi a 614.410.600 W 614.410.4747 SEPTEMBER 6, 2012 w w.dubllnohousa.gov The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: S. Community Plan 2012 Amendment 12- 046ADM Administrative Request Request: Review of draft modifications to the area plan in the 2007 Community Plan as part of the 2012 Community Plan Amendment process. Planning Contact: Justin Goodwin, AICP, Planner H. Contact Information: (614) 410-4677, jgoodwin@dublin.oh.us RESULT: A brief overview of the draft modifications to the area plans was presented. STA CERTIFICATION Y CLTf n N o "' ; L Justin Goodwin, AICP Planner II Dubin Planning and Zoning Commission September 6, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 22 of 22 t na and did not obj . to the branding sign; owever, she was con med that they were tting a with the brandi se Groomes id she really liked building. She said s shared the concern t the rings were too high. Ms. A orose Groomes said at the Commission w d give leeway for siz rand specific, but she did not th' there was enough pport for the height f the rings. She said ere were many opportunities to wer them. She said II the other buildin had ground signs i icating directional specific brands nd she did not see here a similar sign uld be on this parti lar plat in terms of branding. Sh said she was not ve concerned about th aintenance of the h neycomb because her experience as that Audi takes a of their things. M Amorose Groomes ' to make sure that t mechanic s are not visible. kmorose Groome said the building w very exciting and e appreci ed the fact that they ad gone to the troub to come up with s thing more appropri for the si} and does the surrou ing architecture justi . Mr. Parish thanked the Commission. S. Community Plan 2012 Amendment 12- 046ADM Administrative Request Chris Amorose Groomes stated that the following application is a request for review of draft modifications to the area plan in the 2007 Community Plan as part of the 2012 Community Plan Amendment process. Justin Goodwin presented slides and explained the intent for dealing with adjustments to the nine Area Plans. He said overall, there were not a lot of huge changes to the existing graphic plans and recommended land uses. He said they want to reflect recent development that was not entirely consistent with what areas were drawn. He said Delta Energy and the Coffman Park Plans were examples. He said with the exception of area plans being replaced with new planning areas like Bridge Street/ there were no major changes. He said they will thoroughly review the planning issues and design recommendations described in each area plan to make sure they do not need adjusted. Mr. Goodwin said that they want to integrate some of the new planning initiatives and give planning area boundaries the city has developed over the past few years. He said that the first week of October, they will begin bringing specific area plans for the Commission to review. Ms. Amorose Groomes invited public comments. [There were none.] Ms. Amorose Groomes requested that in the future, for these presentations, either a meeting agenda be cleared or a special meeting be scheduled. She said even with lighter agendas, it might be more appropriate to set aside a separate time or something different could be done. Ms. Husak said that there were back to back October meetings and only one meeting in November on the first of the month which was filled. She said that they were considering adding a November 8"' meeting. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked that feedback from the Commissioners regarding a November 8"' meeting be collected. communi tion Mr. Lang rthy pointed out tha II the cases on to H/said at Ms. Husak had do a an outstanding job Mose Groomes as if there were oth c m t 9:58 p.m. As approved by the nning and Zoning Co igfit's agenda were ve complex with s nd he was really pro of her. mments. [There ere none.] She i on October , 2012. the City of Dublin Land Use and Long Range Planning 51M Sher Rings Road PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone 614.410.4600 RECORD OF ACTION he 614.410.4747 www.dublinobloue .gov AUGUST 9, 2012 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 4. Community Plan 2012 Amendment 12- 046ADM Administrative Request Request: Review of draft modifications to objectives and strategies in the 2007 Community Plan as part of the 2012 Community Plan Amendment process. Planning Contact: Justin Goodwin, AICP, Planner II Contact Information: (614) 410 -4677, jgoodwin @dublin.oh.us RESULT: Potential amendments to the Community Plan's objectives and strategies were reviewed and discussed. STAFF CERTIFICATION Justin Goodwin, AICP Planner 11 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission August 9, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 20 of 21 Mr. Lytle s 'd they would like a tiling of this applica on. He said they w Id work with Ms. H ak to see what ey can work out on temporary basis. /a]Developrnent nd Vote lor moved /table table this R oning with Preli inary Developme Plan and Pla application as requ ed by the applicant Mr. Fishman seco ed the motion. was as folio s: Ms. Kramb, yes; r. Budde, yes; Ms. well, yes; Ms. Amor a Groomes, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; a Mr. Taylor, yes. R led 6 — 0.) 4. Community Plan 2012 Amendment 12- 046ADM Administrative Request (Presentation) [John Hardt rejoined the meeting for th s p esentaton.I Chair Chris Amorose Groomes introduced this Adm nistrative Request for a review of draft modifications to objectives and strategies in the 2M07 Community Ran as part of the 2012 Community Plan Amendment process. Mr. Goodwin explained that staff from various City departments has been reviewing all aspects of the Commun.ty Plan including all the objectives and strategy statements in the Plan. He estimated that there were over 300 statements. He said the proposed amendments ran the gambit from minor text changes for word ng consistency to revising wording Just to improve the clarity of what the policy intent is. He said in other cases, they were trying to recognize recent planning initiatives that the city has undertaken in the past five years; most notably, the Bridge Street and the Innovation District planning Initiatives and the associated zoning requirements which impact a number of objectives and strategies throughout the document. Mr. Goodwin said in some cases, they want to recognize that specifically with Bridge Street, the city has decided to do something very different for that part of the city, and we need to clarify that some new types of planning approaches are appropriate there, but maybe not in other portions of the city. He said for example, mixed use development, is obviously a key to Bridge Street and we already had some strategies in Chapter 3 that recommended incorporat +ng mixed use development in targeted areas throughout the city that is reflected on our Land Use Pan and now, Bridge Street takes that to a whole new level. He said that does not mean that mixed use development is not appropriate still in other portions of the city, but it is not going to be the same type of development that we see happening on Bridge Street. Mr. Goodwin said we want to see context sensitive mixed use development in certain areas. He said that was one example of what does this nev. b g planning initiative for Bridge Street mean for some of these other larger city policies. Mr. Goodwin summarized and explained the reason ng beh nd the proposed draft modifications to the objectives and strategies in each of the ten chapters of the Community Plan. He said that Planning recommends that the Commission discuss the proposed changes and policy additions and provide feedback to staff for further revision. He said no formal recommendation is requested at this time. He said a final draft of the proposed amendments, along with additional supplemental text within each chapter of the Community Plan will be brought back to the Commission for a future recommendation. Ms. Kramb said that in many places the 'Bridge Street Corridor' is called out and in others, it is 'Bridge Street and West Innovation' or 'Innovation' without the word 'West'. She said it was confusing as to why ;ust the Bridge Street was being called out in some cases. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission August 9, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 21 of 21 Mr. Goodwin said that was something that he was aware of as they were putting this presentation together. He said there were still consistency issues, but there may be areas where it was appropriate to single out one or the other. Ms. Kramb said there were times where the Tech Flex and Innovation also applied but were not mentioned. She said 90 percent of the references were just to Bridge Street and Tech Flex perhaps two percent of the time and the other part was West Innovation. She asked if 'Innovation' was different from 'West Innovation', or the same. Mr. Goodwin said that they were the same. Joe Budde referred to the Fiscal Analysis chapter. He said he had read recently that there were discussions about suburbs sharing some services and the state systematizing and taking over the collet Ton of income taxes and things of that nature. He asked if that was included or at least mentioned. Mr. Goodwin said that they had not discussed that with the F nance department. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there were any public comments related to this discussion. [There were none.] Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there were other comments. [There were none.] She adjourned the meeting at 9:24 p.m. As approved and amended by the Planning and Zoning Commission at the September 6, 2012 meeting. It of Dublin Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OuDlln, hl , Ohio Rings Road o 43016 -1236 0. 614A10.4600 RECORD OF ACTION fa 614.410.4747 www.dubhnohkusa.g JULY 12, 2012 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 2. Planning Presentation Topic: An overview of the major technical updates proposed for the 2012 Community Plan Amendment. Planning Contact: Justin Goodwin, AICP, Planner 11 Contact Information: (614) 410 -4677, jgoodwin @dublin.oh.us RESULT: An overview was presented regarding the major technical updates proposed for the 2012 Community Plan Amendment. STAFF CERTIFICATION ustin Goodwin, AICP Planner II Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 12, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 15 /con best to table the to modificat ons and vo on the amended fin development plan wit s, one of them bei the removal of the A i building. id it could be abled if it was comin ack, so she suggest disapproval. She su ested ommission uld be comfortable a roving a text modific ion to allow three sig in this nera! wit ut having specific loca ' ns. Motion #1 and to — Minor Text Mo fication Mr. Taylor mov d to disapprove this ' or Text Modification t allow an additional w sign for the Audi building with Subarea B to allow a applicant to refine d revise the archite a for the proposed building p to the review of an a itional wall sign. Ms: ramb seconded the m ion. The v e was as follows: Ms morose Groomes, yes? Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. and 7 in ewell, yes; Ms. Kramb es; and Mr. Taylor, y (Disapproved 7 — 0 #2 and Vote Amended Final Dev opment Plan Mr. Taylor moved to pprove this Amended anal Development PI application complies with the development text, t amended final dev opment plan development in t area, with five Condit' ns: yes; Mr. BuddeAes; re proposal and existing 1) That a applicant work , wit, lanning to reduce th sighting levels in the ehicle display areas alo the southern portion f the site; 2) Tat the row of shrubs d trees removed in f nt of the Volvo displ plaza be replaced a ontinued to meet the st display finger to th est; 3 That the applicant rk with Planning to sign the stormwater tention pond as livin eco- system , subject to �pproval to Planning 4) That the applicaf work with Engineerin to increase the interi turning radii in the p king lot, subject tXapcant pproval; and 5) That the remove the Audi uilding from the am ed final developmen Ian to allow the appl explore revised a hitecture for this buil ng to better comple nt the existing architect le of the campu Ben W. Hale /Jr., representing the applicant agreed to the fiA conditions. / h1r. Hard seconded the mo/ionhe was as folio Mr. Budde, yes/MKradnb, yes; Ms. New yes; r. Fishman, yes; mroe Groomes yes; Mr. Hardt, Mr. Taylor, es. (Ap ved 7 — 0.) "s. Amorose Groomes Vled a short recess at;/59 p.m. She reconven/d the meeting at 8:02 2. Planning Presentation Justin Goodwin presented an overview of the major technical updates proposed for the 2012 Community Plan Amendment. He said the Community Plan is 350 pages long and much of it is supplemental, background information, inventories of existing conditions, all of which will be updated to make sure it is accurate and reflecting current conditions. He said an update to the Land Use Inventory is being finalized to reflect the changes in land uses over the past five years. He said more information about the City's economic development strategies and how those relate to land use will be included. He said Dublin's Business Districts will be included. He said a detailed analysis of Dublin's office stock is being Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 12, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Pagel 5 of 18 prepared by Economic Development, which may lead to some objectives, strategy, and policy statements being incorporated into this update. Mr. Goodwin explained that some technical adjustments for some of the area plans are needed to reflect existing conditions. He said that Engineering has a much better idea of what the design of the fina phase of Emerald Parkway will be, what the intersection of Emerald Parkway and Bright Road will be, so that graphic in the Community Plan will be updated. Mr. Goodwin said that the Parks and Recreation Master Plan for Holder /Wright and Earthworks property will be coordinated similarly. He said a revised Master Plan for Coffman Park which looks different from the Coffman Park Area Plan will be included to reference the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and what is currently planned for that area. Mr. Goodwin said the Delta Energy office development which originally was to be an expansion of Coffman Park will be reflected as well. Mr. Goodwin said that with this Community Plan update the incorporation of the Bridge Street District and the West Innovation District, previously known as the Economic Advancement Zone or EAZ Plan, will be done. He said from the Bridge Street District, the SR 161 /Sawmill Area Plan and the Historic Dublin Area Plan will be removed and a larger Bridge Street District Plan will be incorporated. He said likely, the graphic will be much more general than many of Dublin's other area plans, more similar to what is seen in the EAZ Plan with more land use bubbles, dashed lines showing major thoroughfare areas, and not getting into a lot of building footprint types of details. He said there will be adjustments to the Future Land Use Map itself showing the adopted zoning for Bridge Street, the Zoning Plan for the West Innovation District so that it accurately reflects that policy when new land is annexed into the City. Mr. Goodwin said that regarding Transportation, there have been many new Capital Improvements over the past five years that are not reflected, and the Thoroughfare Plan has become outdated and needs an update. He said the Transportation Plan for the West Innovation District is needed. Mr. Goodwin said a version of the Street Network Plan for Bridge Street, not of the same detail as the Street Network Map that appears in the Bridge Street District Code will likely focus on the major thoroughfare routes that move the Bridge Street District will give developers what the minimal right -of -way requirements will be for those major roadways. Mr. Goodwin said the Bikeways Plan in the 2007 Community only focuses on the shared multi -use path system. He said there are the new types of facilities are the sharrow markings on Emerald Parkway and the City's first signed shared route from Coffman High School to Glacier Ridge Metro Park. He said they want to expand the Bikeways Plan with this update to be more comprehensive to include all types of bicycle facilities to provide a more realistic depiction of how people can get around the City by bicycle. Mr. Goodwin said also in the Transportation chapter, they are in the process of reviewing the Central Ohio Transit's Authority (COTA) Short and Long Range Transit Plans to make sure that they a accurately reflecting what is anticipated in the Dublin area. He said they may need to add additional policy statements that explain the City's desires for public transportation because the COTA Long Range Transit Plans do not show a lot of change in the Dublin area. Mr. Goodwin said regarding the Facilities chapter, there have been a number of park improvements and acquisitions of new parkland that need to be shown. He pointed out that are now at 34 acres per 1,000 residents, up from 23 acres per 1,000 residents five years ago which is substantially higher than the national standard recommendation of 10 to 20 acres per 1,000 residents. He said they will also incorporate the recommendations for new open space types in the Bridge Street District. He said there have not been many changes to the Municipal facilities; however, a space /needs analysis for the 5K10 Building and the Justice Center are being undertaken for this year, so the information from the analysis will be incorporated into the Plan. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commissior July 12, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 18 Mr. Goodwin said regarding the Historic Preservation chapter, a basic inventory is being conducted to ensure that Dublin's Historic Properties Inventory is up to date, but no changes are anticipated. Mr. Goodwin said they are going to leverage the new Community Plan website to provide more information in an easier to access interactive map format. He said in the current version of the Community Plan, includes an appendix of Historic Properties that is cumbersome to use. He said that GIS is working on an interactive viewer that takes the appendix information and incorporates it directly into the map. He demonstrated how it worked, showing a photograph of the site chosen and historic information about the site. Mr. Hardt asked if the intent was that the Community Plan website will be a separate mapping system, or will it be additional layers within the existing GIS, or both. Mr. Goodwin said it was a little of both. He explained that behind the scenes, it is all the same data, but it will be a stand -alone website with default layers setup so that the Community Plan version of the GIS can be seen. Mr. Goodwin said regarding Utilities improvements to be added in the Update, a water tower has been removed, and the Dublin Road Water Tower actual location. He said that there were new Ohio EPA requirements for monitoring sanitary sewer systems that will be incorporated into the Plan along with Engineering's 15 -year plan for a systematic monitoring and maintenance effort on the sanitary infrastructure. Mr. Goodwin said that one of the most technical parts of the Plan is demographics, and that the 2010 Census statistics and will be used to update graphics in the Community Plan. Mr. Goodman shared the Community Plan prototype introduced at the Community Plan Public Open House which lists reasons why the Community Plan is being updated this year. He said it is a project in the making and the Land Use Chapter is the only section of the current Community Plan completely uploaded and active at this time. He said the Thoroughfare Plan, the Future Land Use Map, and special areas plans can be accessed on the main navigation bar in a variety of ways. Mr. Goodwin explained that an interactive map product will allow users to compare different maps of existing and future land use and how the City has planned to change. He said it worked on any tablet device, IPad or other device, and generally in almost any browser. Mr. Goodman encouraged the Commissioners to go online and provide Planning feedback if something seems like It is not Intuitive or it could work a little better. He said as more Is added to the site, more functionality will be added as well. [Dana McDaniel arrived.] Mr. Goodwin presented the next steps and timeline for the Community Plan Update. Mr. Hardt asked if there were text amendments with strikethroughs indicating deletions to the old text, how ong will the strikethroughs rema n or would they expire. Mr. Goodwin said this time, because we have the existing text it will be easy, but with future iterations, we wil` need to consider in the future how to arch ve those changes so that if someone wants to refer back to exactly what the plan said years ago, it can be done. Mr. Goodwin said they were in the process of reviewing all of the Objective and Strallegy statements and related policy language in the document. He said where they think it may be necessary to revise some of the statements; they will bring them to the Commission for review at the August 9 "' meeting. He said many have to do with either Bridge Street or the West Innovation District. He said some are simply more technical in nature. He said some were recommended strategies in 2007 and they have been imp emewed or ii the process of implementing those strategies, so they want the Plan to reflect that. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 12, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 15 M,. Goodwin sa d the revisions to area plans and the new area plan for Bridge Street is intended to be brought to the September 6 "' meeting for the Commission's review. He said at the September 20` Commission meeting amendments to the Future Land Use Map and the Thoroughfare Plan will be brought with a target of the first meeting in October, having a full complete draft of all the information comp''ed for the Commission's consideration. Mr. Goodwin said then, a public review period will begin. Mt. Taylor asked if the EAZ in its ent rety was now the WID. M Goodwin said that the EAZ Pan has been renamed the West Innovation District. M-. Goodwin said the original COIC Area that became the West Innovation District and what is included in the EAZ Plan only covers a portion of the larger US 33 Corridor Plan. He said everything north of Post Road/SR 161 is still part of the US 33 Corridor Plan. He explained that the EAZ Plan was adopted by reference as an amendment to the US 33 Corridor Plan, so as they formally fold the West Innovation District into an updated US 33 Corridor Plan, they will look again at everything north of SR 161 as well to make sure that the rest of that plan still made sense in light of the EAZ Plan. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that this update looked like they would not need to have to have any joint meetings. Mr. Goodwin said he did not anticipate that being necessary at this time. He said perhaps if there was something relative to the Community Plan that it could be discussed at the Joint Commission /Council Meeting. Mr. Fishman said regarding t-ansportation and bicyc.es, Seattle, Washington had just Instituted a system that might be brought to City Council where they offer a service similar to AAA for bicycles. He said surveys they did found that especially women are apprehensive about riding to work when their bicycle could a break down or they could be stranded, and they can use their ceV phones to contact a service van to pick them up and repair their bike or take them to where they are gong. He suggested that could be done with a City service van. Mr. Fishman said that he had noticed that a sign had been installed at the Scott Miller property (formerly, Neat Nests). He reca led that the text had stated that the City would provide an access to the river there, but that it had not been done. Ms. Husak said that the Director of Parks and Open Space was working on an expansion of the Kiwanis Park located there to which the access is proposed and as part of that, :hey are working with the property owner on the access from the parking lot to the river. 3. Annual ItemsAf Interest Claudia Husak r inded the Commissi that there is an Ite of I n yet to be ompleted. She as if the Commis ' n was interested in mpleting it, changin course, or doing som ing else. Chris Amo se was pointed ut that there were w Commissioners /thwere not involved, Items of nterest selection and at the selection of it s should be describ ' Ms. sak said the only ityi that City Council ga a the green light of a the items that the mission sel ted was described a apost- occupancy in ntory where they w Id conduct a site vi and post- eplposed struction evaluate t site in light of wha the Commission saw n plan review in a sentation as to what ther is on the ground, to ook at what really w ked, turned out nice/what could be done differently, or at they had not anti pated. City of Dublin Land Use and Long SM Planning Shier tangs Road PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 5600 66 Dublin, Ohio 930164236 pin* 619.410.4600 RECORD OF ACTION fn, 614.410.4747 www 4011noMOUSa.gm APRIL 12, 2012 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 3. Planning Presentation Discussion: A brief introduction to the 2012 Community Plan Amendment project, including an overview of project objectives, review process and timellne. Staff Contact: Justin Goodwin, AICP, Planner H. Contact Information: (614) 41014677, jgoodwin @dublin.oh.us RESULT: This Is a discussion item only, no formal action was taken by the Commission. STAFF ERTIFICATION Justin Goodwin, AICP Planner 11 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 12, 2012 — Meeting Minutes / Page 7 of 9 develop ent. He said he Id like to m pplication contingent n bringing this site /to to /FF*m ' nce with the conditi that the site ake this provid public access to the er. He said the onl way know that there is cess to the river is t ugh t/aa ated n the adjacent pro Mr. said that the Co mission wanted peopl to have e ver, so they wanted a ark sign n the City's pr perty or on the parki lot of t nd an access to get the river through the parking Mr. Fishman said t t the access een provided, and h hought they should be require o br ng this site into ompliance basondition of approv from the final development pla in 1994. Amy Kramb inted out that Mr. Fis an was referring t 3 and 4 on t April 7, 1994, Final Developm Plan Record of Actio IF Rachel ay said that Plannin suggested a conditi that the applicant ordinate with the CI to suff i ' ntly address that co ition of approval to a original Final Dev pment Plan regardin park ac ss. She said that the a was small and chall ging so they wanted make sure that they uld be le to work through th a Issues to meet the s it and intent of the or' inal condition. Ms. Ray stated that a applicant has agree o the following Condit' n: 1) That th pplicant coordinate ' the City to ensure t the Final Develop nt Plan condition of app val for this property r fated to park access an visibility be addresse Ms. Ray s d that following the eeting, she would m 'e sure that the appl' ant has access to th previous onditions of approval. Mr. shman pointed out th the current property wners are doing a b utiful job of maintain' g the bu Ing and the property. a said the proposed II sign would be an a et to the owner and t City. Amorose GroomeV vited public commenteregarding this applicVon. [There were Motion and Vot Mr. Taylor mad the motion to approv this Amended Final velopment /eview on because the proposed mod' (cations are consisten ith surrounding deve pment and th criteria of the Zoning de with one condition• 1) at the applicant coor nate with the City to nsure that the Finat Plan cond n of approval for this pr perty related to park cess and visibility be Scat Miller, Seniority Ben /its Group, agreed to t� above condition. Mr. Fishman seconde(Ahe motion. The vote was as f lows: Ms. Kramb, y , Mr. Hardt, yes; Mr. Bode, yes; Ms. Newell, es; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Fishman, yes; and ly. Taylor, yes. ( Approv d 7 — 0.) 3. Introduction to the 2012 Community Plan Amendment Project Chris Amorose Groomes introduced this Planning presentation which was to be a brief overview of the updates to the Community Plan. Justin Goodwin presented the project scheduled for this year. He said last year there were two interim Plan amendments reviewed by the Commission and adopted by City Council. He said the amendment to the Northwest Glacier Ridge Area Plan as part of the Hyland -Croy Corridor Study was formatted to fit into the Community Plan and now there is an opportunity to do that. He said the Economic Advance Zone Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 12, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 9 Plan was adopted by reference as part of the Community Plan, and now there is an opportunity to integrate it directly into the Plar. Mr. Goodwin said also, Planning wants to integrate new, larger scale planning initiatives that have happened since the 2007 Plan was adopted, most notably, the Bridge Street Corridor, which is a significant change from the area plans covering that portion of the City. He said Planning wants to coordinate all of the planning initiatives together so that the Community Plan is an accurate reflection of current City policy. He said the Bridge Street Corridor and the Economic Advancement Zone have some other minor impacts to information located throughout the Plan as well. Mr. Goodwin said Planning intends to update some basic technical information. He said there is a large amount of statistical, inventory, and demographic information 41n the Plan which will be updated so that anyone using the Plan will get the most current picture of conditions in the City. He said there are a number of capital improvements that have been completed over the past five years that are referenced as pending or planned in the 2007 Plan which should now be noted as complete. Mr. Goodwin said this project will include an update of some of the policy statements and clarify language so that the City's policies can be better understood. He said there are also a number of policy statements that have been acted upon since the Plan was adopted. He said for instance, the Plan recommends the adoption of a Parks and Recreation Master Plan, which was completed in 2009 and should now be reflected in this document. Mr. Goodwin said to the City will also expand access to the Plan to as many users as possible. He said Planning believes that the primary means to do that is to create a robust website version of the Plan. He said this was actually a policy recommendation in the existing Plan itself. Mr. Goodwin said that Planning has been working with other divisions on various ideas for how to do this and they are making progress on building a prototype. He said with more cost effective technology now available it is possible to create a user - friendly interactive website that meets the needs that have been identified for the Commission, staff, members of the public, and the development community to electronically access all of the Plan's information, which is currently formatted as a 340 -page book. Mr. Goodwin referred to a memo in the Commission's packets which described the process and timeline and offered to address the Commissioners questions. He said that there will be further communication as the project progresses. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked when the Commission's participation would begin. Mr. Goodwin said Planning has ident ;fled a set of amendment types, and they would like to break down the review for the Commission into these different categories beginning at the first Commission meeting in June and continuing over the next series of already scheduled Commission meetings. He said that they were hoping to Integrate those into regularly scheduled agendas, depending on their size. Mr. Goodwin said that the Commissioners would be notified of any public meetings held. He said a public event is planned in mid -May with the intent to launch a prototype version of a website which will not be complete, but will prov de a flavor of what type of functionality will be offered. He said this meeting will also introduce to the public the larger process of amending the Community Plan. Mr. Taylor asked if the website would be deve oped in- house. Mr. Goodwin said the website development would be done by Community Relations with assistance from GIS staff to integrate maps such as the Future Land Use Map and the Thoroughfare Plan. Ms. Amorose Groomes announced at 7:32 p.m., that they would take a quick recess and reconvene for the Work Session to be held in Council Chambers. She invited anyone interested from the public to join them. Public Comments 6273 Hampton Green Place Dublin OH 43016 December 1, 2012 Justin Goodwin Planner II City of Dublin 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, OH 43016 Re: Proposed Avery/Woemer Temple Plan Dear Justin, Thank you for meeting with us in October to explain the city's proposed plan for the area around our condominiums. We appreciate the city's efforts to keep its residents informed, and we welcome the opportunity to provide you with our feedback. After discussion with the Board, we wish to specifically address Sections 18 and 19 (Mixed Residential Medium Density) as shown on your Figure 3.3 map. Given the proximity to our condominiums and the Cramers Crossing housing development, we are concerned that this area not be used for apartments and/or fast food establishments. It is our desire to keep the area so close to our homes free of any establishments that might increase traffic, noise and bring in elements not in keeping with the quiet enjoyment of our residences. Again, thank you for taking our concerns into consideration as the city continues to develop this area. We are confident that the City of Dublin will always maintain the integrity of its community, as it has done in the past. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me Sincerely, 0164, i Christy Stratton President Cramers Crossing Condominium Association cmrca,m. c�,r,wrye w . —wvme, mp: vmmw r N,r..mn uelav�,�a vrr„m elm �, m,� Dashboard Pa Option HNp Comments Posts Search Comments All I Pending (0) 1 Approved Bpam (13) 1 Trash (0) Portfolio BOIkActons Apply all comment Ross Fjner 3j�s Testimonial Price Table n ALIHI Cuaunert [it RdbViri To Gallery p Submitted on 2013128 1 at 822 on SumnilView Sawm Area Media This is already a highly congested area and me former addition mmtering the landscape with more oRowe c ommerc ial Ia lbuildingsls reprehensible. There is so much on used real estate m me Columbus t View PwA lapprovea Lima ower and Dublin areas redevelopment of should be therm priority If more traffic is aivnnNumfif y going to be added to Sawm Rd then the road should be widened. Who can the cry bury larger Pages onooam fam lots for neighborhoods instead of to squeeze every ounce o I of only 75 acres It ZOV 53128 1 ad to see me large open areas we enjoy being littered with useless development instead of green Comments 0 space for us all to enjoy. Why not make more recreational areas for schools Do? Soccer fields baseball fields? Dubin has great sports programs with camped feelings to hoa them on Appearance Plugins o Haden Submitted on 201911107 121 7 pm Changing Market Users Summonses De t VlePwt w Took c hildre n ove He n 20 yeNatfamolawnh moard ove ovdr the abd nad m y ears Ant fall lam orhoushouseholds bonboe ubmkahaa Dublin will All be family castration but the recognition that there will more older independent households is reapproved Stude operant n guiding t planning prods hahorA(J�b com The needs and Interests otmese residents need to be considered o housing mrmem late be Modernize 6412//220 successful If done well it wit contribute to the wear vitality of community creating a denser rimer environment that lea Tong termasset mrtbe cry. Transportation alternatives wlr be critical Collapse menu and mug be pan otnte backbone of any future planning there will a need to accommodate variety of alternatives D Hobe Submitted on 201907CO at 9: 10 on Avery Road Hate R w ould Corridor w 1approvea denngAVery aa the re i na al an oadfroma 2 Innate n lane whertfntsgoal a mapmcass of b d esigned oesbe cornea in regar ac l VIewPwt anistiover9o(A lo also t ng A se e rm Mto regd. oeab ndfor sidewa sbcgrobalnet r bike al oadyptanin place re s ofnanm the formati H p 99 current l the r seta mans becau s it s HTa too o da ause otAVery Oatl's T traffi p anp p acke d antra ro ,l am ride bike es knowtauan'Nstm m yself or da ther o otof rural erpe whodon acked mm those bi Spay lands INS knowma( not only d be oper ma nner Adbe who stdmy warred bike paths anamrnaezal�,m0a wawa be dardrremv bdndndlal to have in pia® Keep up the good work and thank you very much for yourtlme Sincerely Katie Hale 7 AiAbei fnmment In Response To BulkAdons Apply 32Arns Thankyou for creating with WordPres Version 351 1 of I 4/52013 0:50 PM Page 1 of 1 Justin Goodwin - Community Plan Contact Us [ 43] From: "Community Plan Contact Us" <no- reply @wufoo.com> To: <jgoodwin @dublin.oh.us> Date: 2/15/2013 7:29 PM Subject: Community Plan Contact Us [ 43] Name * Barbara e -mail * barbara.wegesin @ gmail.com Message * When will the Emerald Parkway - Phase 8 construction begin along Bright Road? Please email me with some information. file: HC: ADocuments and Settings \goodjm \Local Settings\ Temp \XPgrpwiseA511E8C9ADubli... 4/5/2013 Page 1 of 1 Justin Goodwin - Community Plan Contact Us [ 44] From: "Community Plan Contact Us" <no- reply @wufoo.com> To: <jgoodwin @dublin.oh.us> Date: 2/28/2013 2:45 PM Subject: Community Plan Contact Us [ #4] Name * Nicole Jurich e -mail * nicolemj7l @yahoo.com Message * I am a Dublin resident, and I am inquiring about what is in the plan for the land on which Riviera Golf Club currenly sits. I have heard that it is to be another development, where more homes will be built. My concern for Dublin is that there is so much building going on, and less and less land is being left as green space. On every corner, there seems to be a new housing development. Is there any chance that this land could be left natural, or made a park for Dublin residents to enjoy, instead of turning it into another housing development? Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Nicole Jurich file: HC: ADocuments and Settings \goodjm \Local Settings\ Temp \XPgrpwiseA512F6D85Dubli... 4/5/2013 Page 1 of 1 Justin Goodwin - Community Plan Contact Us [ 45] From: "Community Plan Contact Us" <no- reply @wufoo.com> To: <jgoodwin @dublin.oh.us> Date: 2/28/2013 11:55 PM Subject: Community Plan Contact Us [ 45] Name * Rocci Primavera e -mail * roccijayne@aol.com Message * when will work begin on Emerald Parkway final phase from Riverside to Hard Road ? It is years behind schedule and no one even talks of it. It will be a huge improvement to the east part of Dublin. file: HC: ADocuments and Settings \goodjm \Local Settings\ Temp \XPgrpwiseA512FEE81Dubli... 4/5/2013 Page 1 of 1 Justin Goodwin - Community Plan Contact Us [ 461 From: "Community Plan Contact Us" <no- reply @wufoo.com> To: <jgoodwin @dublin.oh.us> Date: 3/5/2013 9:08 AM Subject: Community Plan Contact Us [961 Name * Kent Senita e -mail * emeraidspringsproperties @yahoo.com Message * My family and I live at 6800 Dublin Rd. We have been following the community plans in hopes that our home would not be affected. As the plans have progressed, our hopes have diminished. file: HC: ADocuments and Settings \goodjm \Local Settings\ Temp \XPgrpwiseA5135B5F7Dubli... 4/5/2013 Page 1 of 1 Justin Goodwin - Community Plan Contact Us [ 47] From: "Community Plan Contact Us" <no- reply @wufoo.com> To: <jgoodwin @dublin.oh.us> Date: 3/5/2013 9:21 AM Subject: Community Plan Contact Us [ 47] Name * Kent Senita e -mail * emeraidspringsproperties @yahoo.com Message * Continued from the previous email that was sent before it was finished... My free time the last 8 years has been spent renovating the interior of our home. We have had plans to make this the house of our dreams with the perfect piece of land in a very desirable location. This is the home we want to spend our lives in and raise our 3 children. If our house will be taken by imminent domain, we would like to stay here as long as possible. We would appreciate your honest opinion whether we will be able to keep our home and land. If the plan calls for us to lose our property, please give us your best estimate of a time frame. Any changes to the plans that would allow us to remain untouched, would be very appreciated. Sincerely, Kent Senita file: / /C:ADocuments and Settings \goodjm \Local Settings\ Temp \XPgrpwiseA5135B923Dublin... 4/5/2013 Page 1 of 1 Justin Goodwin - Community Plan Contact Us [ 48] From: "Community Plan Contact Us" <no- reply @wufoo.com> To: <jgoodwin @dublin.oh.us> Date: 3/5/2013 11:53 AM Subject: Community Plan Contact Us [ #8] Name* e -mail * Gail g ai Ic rw@yah oo.co m Message * Hi Do you have any planning information specific to the Perimeter Commerce District? I see the Emerald /Perimeter Focus area, but it doesn't address the area labled Perimeter Commerce District. Thank You file: HC: ADocuments and Settings \goodjm \Local Settings\ Temp \XPgrpwiseA5135DCB1Dubli... 4/5/2013 Page 1 of 1 Justin Goodwin - Community Plan Contact Us [ 410] From: "Community Plan Contact Us" <no- reply @wufoo.com> To: <jgoodwin @dublin.oh.us> Date: 3/29/2013 2:31 PM Subject: Community Plan Contact Us [ 410] Name * greg mitchell e -mail * grmnjm0hotmail.com Message * are there any plans to add a bike path on the west side of Dublin road between the historic district and rings road? file: HC: ADocuments and Settings \goodjm \Local Settings\ Temp \XPgrpwiseA5155A5A4Dubli... 4/5/2013 Office of the City Manager -1200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 -1090 City of Dublin Phone: 614 - 410 -4400 • Fax: 614 - 410 -4490 To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Marsha I. Grigsby, City Manager V�c��a- Date: April 18, 2013 Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning Justin Goodwin, AICP, Planner II Re: Community Plan Adoption and Maintenance Policy Summary Memo Planning has worked with staff from nearly every City department over the past year to update various elements of the Community Plan and to develop the new web -based format of the plan. Draft amendments to the Plan are available for review at http:li CommunityPlan .DublinOhioUsa.gov With the conversion of the Plan to a digital format, Planning recognizes the need for a clear policy and set of procedures for how the updated Plan will be adopted and subsequently maintained. Planning has reviewed options with the Legal Department and has developed a framework approach for Council's consideration. Plan Adoption Since 1987, City Council has adopted each version of the Dublin Community Plan by ordinance. Adoption by ordinance is appropriate given the significance of the Plan as the City's principal policy guide, and its inclusion of specific development review tools used by staff and City officials, including the Future Land Use Map, Thoroughfare Plan and Special Area Plans. In keeping with this policy, staff also recommends adoption of this year's Community Plan amendments by ordinance. The ordinance should include a reference to the new web -based format of the Plan and describing the reasons for its creation (e.g. public accessibility, government transparency, efficiency and innovation, etc.). For official archiving purposes, a physical version of the document will be filed with the Clerk of Council. Ongoing Maintenance and Updates The adopting ordinance should also establish the general policy and procedures for all subsequent amendments and updates to the Plan. Staff has identified two broad categories of Plan content (Policy Elements and Technical Elements), and believes that the Plan can be more efficiently and effectively maintained by establishing procedures for future updates to each category, as described below. Policy Elements This content includes a variety of Plan elements that form the vision and direction for future growth and development of the City as established by Council. Policy elements should only be updated or amended by Council action. Examples of Policy Elements include: • Policy Maps— Future Land Use Map, Thoroughfare Plan, Roadway Character Map, etc. • Special Area Plans— Includes area plan maps, design recommendations, conceptual Memo re. Community Plan Adoption and Maintenance Policy April 18, 2013 Page 2 of 2 illustrations and associated text. • Objectives and Strategies — The specific policy statements found throughout the Plan. • General Policy Statements— Includes discussions of the Plan's "Foundations," "Key Planning Issues," the ten Land Use Principles, etc. Technical Elements This content includes a variety of factual, statistical and descriptive Plan elements that supplement and inform Policy Elements, but which do not themselves provide policy direction. Staff recommends that technical content be maintained administratively, under the direction of the City Manager. This approach will ensure that the Plan's factual background information and descriptions of existing development conditions throughout the City are always correct and up -to- date. Examples of Technical Elements include: • Descriptive Information — Includes existing conditions (e.g. development and infrastructure), descriptions of plans or policies in other jurisdictions, factual descriptions of planning and analysis processes used to develop the Plan, etc. • Inventory Maps— Includes existing land use, community facilities, utilities, environmental features, etc. • Supplemental Content —Includes photographs, illustrations, figures and tables (where not used to communicate specific policy recommendations). • References and Links — May be to external information sources (e.g. Ohio Department of Natural Resources), or to content on the City's main website (e.g. the Annual Report). • Format and Functionality — Includes graphic design, website navigation, interactive map features, etc. • Enhanced Web Features — May include explanations or tutorials to help readers understand how to use the Plan, news updates related to Plan implementation efforts, a calendar of Plan- related events, etc. (much of this information will be located on the homepage of the Community Plan website). City staff will maintain technical content on an ongoing basis, and provide regular reports to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council of any technical updates, along with public notification. Amendments to policy- related content will be handled as the need arises, through the typical Planning and Zoning Commission review and Council adoption process, with public review and feedback opportunities built into the process. This approach will allow the City to maintain the Plan with speed and efficiency, and will take advantage of the web -based format to ensure the Plan is never out - dated. Recommendation Staff seeks input from Council regarding this proposed approach for adopting and maintaining the Community Plan. If Council approves of this approach, staff will draft an adopting ordinance for Council's consideration. The ordinance will describe both categories of Plan content summarized in this memo, and will reference a more detailed set of procedures for how each will be updated or amended in the future. The procedures will be provided for Council's review and approval along with the ordinance. Planning expects to introduce the Community Plan amendments and the complete Community Plan website for a first reading at the May 20, 2013 Council meeting.