Loading...
58-03 Ordinance RECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043 Ordinance No. SR-0~ Passed , 20 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 123-97, BY ADOPTING MODIFICATIONS TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN COMMUNITY PLAN TO INCORPORATE FINDINGS, POLICIES, ISSUES AND STRATEGIES RELATING TO COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMEMT (CASE NO. 03-OSOADM -COMMUNITY PLAN MODIFICATIONS). WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has adopted The Community Plan including general principles regarding the development of the City; and WHEREAS, housing and community character are integral parts of the Community Plan; and ~ i WHEREAS, City Council has objectives to promote a high quality built environment, to protect and preserve the City's existing inventory of quality homes, and to promote ~ positive neighborhood appearance in future neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan requires an on-going program of analyses to remain current and the detailing of strategies to be effectively implemented; WHEREAS, the City Council appointed the Appearance Code Committee to arrive at findings and make recommendations regarding residential appearance and said Committee has issued their report to City Council to include modifications to the Community Plan; j WHEREAS, the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Committee recommendations and the first reading Ordinance referred to them by City Council, and recommends the adoption without amendments because they serve to state findings and establish policies in the Community Plan to meet community needs regarding residential appearance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, ~_of the elected members concurring, as follows: Section 1 That the following statements be added to the Community Plan, Chapter Two, Community Character and Environmental Element: Page 18. • High Quality Development: In general, Dublin's development contributes positively to the community image. The built environment is characterized by high quality modern office buildings, well-landscaped areas, controlled signage and conscientiously designed commercial areas. Residential development, predominately approved through planned development ~ districts, also is typically characterized by high quality development. However, there is some inconsistency from one neighborhood to another and standard residential development does not have basic code requirements that replicate the quality of materials, amenities and landscaping seen in the typical planned district development. • Appealing Traditional Suburban Development: The "natural", "scenic", "rural", "high quality of development", and "sense of place" elements discussed above are evident in several older low-density single-family suburban developments. Attractive ~ older developments have set an appealing suburban image to be preserved and replicated wherever feasible in similar low density suburban development. .Mature street trees, private landscaping, and streets that meander with gentle curves moving left and right characterize that image. i RECORD OF ORDINANCES Page 2 of 3 Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. _ Form No. 30043 58-03 Ordinance No. Passed 20 These streets also frequently take advantage of natural changes in topography to incorporate slightly undulating movement up and down. Such changes from a straight and flat line of sight maximize the effects of both street trees and private landscaping, and varied setbacks and lot widths as one traverses the neighborhood. This visual emphasis takes advantage of the multiple characteristics that contribute to the overall visual appearance aild thereby reduces the visual impact and importance of the architecture of each individual home. Today's developments are more typically characterized with long straight streets and less landscaping. This can result in over- emphasis of the architectural. appearance of homes and increases concerns about the diversity of such architectural. appearance. Note that the Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) concept, addressed elsewhere in this document, stands in contrast to this suburban low density model in that it is intended for medium to high density residential. uses integrated with business/commercial uses. Consistency in appearance, and a more rigid grid and pedestrian-oriented road system are fundamental objectives. Similarly, the preservation of agricultural. land aild conservation of open space or "new ruralism" has differing but complementary purposes. Traditional Neighborhood Development, Traditional Suburban Development, and Conservation Design should not be considered as the only, or even as the primary, form of residential development for the future. Each has its purpose. Policies, Issues and Strategies Page 25: 10. Create/reinforce the traditional Dublin suburban characteristics in new single-family development where practical. Issues: • The appealing character of the more attractive older low-density single- family developments in Dublin is not being carried into new low density residential development. • There are several consequences of very low density residential development, particularly as it occurs on the edges of the City in the form of mini-country estates. Such development tends to convert agricultural land from productive farmland aild reduces open spaces and private property that acts as greenbelts around the more densely developed City core. This type of development typically locates individual homes on lots of one to f ve acres, or larger. Such spread out residential development provides a less than rural appearance and significantly increases the costs to serve development on a per capita or per dwelling basis Strategies • Encourage ne«~ residential development to incorporate curvilinear local streets as much as practical. The minimiun curvatw•e and angles of ~ intersections should not be less than that required of all local streets. • Require private landscaping in front yards to include trees selected from the established list of acceptable trees. The number and size of trees required should reflect the lot size. • Increase the number of street trees required over any given distance of street frontage. Concentrate on large trees with the intent to create a continuous and substantially consistent canopy. • Require landscaping and allow alternative shapes for residential cul de ~ sacs. i RECORD OF ORDINANCES page 3 of 3 Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043 58-03 Ordinance No. Passed . 20 • Street width, tree spacing, and tree selection should consider the objectives of obtaining a street tree canopy. Streets should be as narrow as practical for the neighborhood served and the overall street system. Section 2. That this Ordinance sh jall take effect on the earliest date provided by law. Passe y of a r/r~n,~ tJ~'' , 2003. Mayor -Presiding Officer Attest: L~,~i~'vnk- Clerk of Council Sponsor: Division of Planning i I ~,II I i I~ i i I hereby certify that copies of this Ordinance/Resolution were posted in the j City of Dublin in accordance with Section 731.25 of the Ohio Revised Code. D p ~ ty Clerk of Council, Dublin, Ohio j 58-03 (Redlined to reflect Commission Recommendations) PLEASE NOTE: In order to better understand the Commission's recommendations in context of the existing Community Plan, the following "redlining" format is used. The page numbers and section titles refer to the Communit~Plan, Chapter Two, Community Character and Environmental Element as published November 1997. Only the sections being modified are shown. The redlined changes are modifications to the November 1997 publication. Deletions are in red with astrike-through (s~i~e- t~eog~k) and additions are in red and underlined (underlined AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 123-97, BY ADOPTING MODIFICATIONS TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN COMMUNITY PLAN TO INCORPORATE FINDINGS, POLICIES, ISSUES AND STRATEGIES RELATING TO COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMEMT (CASE NO. 03-050ADM -COMMUNITY PLAN MODIFICATIONS). Section 1 That the following statements be added to the Community Plan, Chapter Two, Community Character and Environmental Element: Page 18. • High Quality Development: In general, Dublin's development contributes positively to the community image. The built environment is characterized by high quality modern office buildings, well-landscaped areas, controlled signage and conscientiously designed commercial areas. Residential development predominately approved through planned development districts also is typically characterized by high quality development. However, there is some inconsistency from one neighborhood to another and standard residential development does not have basic code reguirements that replicate the quality of materials amenities and landsca~ing,seen in the typical planned district development. • Appealing Traditional Suburban Development: The "natural", "scenic", "rural", "high quality of development" and "sense of place" elements discussed above are evident in several older low-density single-family suburban developments. Attractive older developments have set an appealing suburban image to be preserved and replicated wherever feasible in similar low density suburban development. Mature street trees private landscaping and streets that meander with gentle curves moving left and right characterize that image. 58-03 (Redlined to reflect Commission Recommendations) Page 2 of 3 These streets also frecpuently take advantage of natural changes in topography to incorporate slightly undulatin_,g movement up and down. Such changes from a straight and flat line of sight maximize the effects of both street trees and private landscaping, and varied setbacks and lot widths as one traverses the neighborhood. This visual emphasis takes advantage of the multiple characteristics that contribute to the overall visual appearance and thereby reduces the visual impact and importance of the architecture of each individual home. Today's developments are more typically characterized with long straight streets and less landscaping. This can result in over- emphasis of the architectural appearance of homes and increases concerns about the diversity of such architectural appearance. Note that the Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) concept, addressed elsewhere in this document stands in contrast to this suburban low density model in that it is intended for medium to high density residential uses integrated with business/commercial uses Consistency in ~pearance and a more rigid grid and pedestrian-oriented road system are fundamental objectives. Similarly the preservation of agricultural land and conservation of open space or "new ruralism" has differing_but complementary_purposes Traditional Neighborhood Development Traditional Suburban Development and Conservation Design should not be considered as the only= or even as the primary form of residential development for the future. Each has its purpose. Policies, Issues and Strategies Page 25: 10. Create/reinforce the traditional Dublin suburban characteristics in new single-family development where practical. Issues: • The appealing character of the more attractive older low-density sin~le- family developments in Dublin is not being carried into new low density residential development. • There are several consequences of very low density residential development particularly as it occurs on the edges of the City in the form of mini-country_estates Such development tends to convert agricultural land from productive farmland and reduces open spaces and private property that acts as greenbelts around the more densely developed City core This type of development typically locates individual homes on lots of one to five acres or larger Such spread out residential development provides a less than rural appearance and significantly increases the costs to serve development on a per capita or per dwelling basis 58-03 (Redlined to reflect Commission Recommendations) Page 3 of 3 Strategies • Encourage new residential development to incorporate curvilinear local streets as much as practical The minimum curvature and angles of intersections should not be less than that required of all local streets. • Require private landscaping in front yards to include trees selected from the established list of acceptable trees. The number and size of trees required should reflect the lot size. • Increase the number of street trees required over any given distance of street frontage Concentrate on large trees with the intent to create a continuous and substantially consistent canopy. • Require landscaping and allow alternative shapes for residential cul de sacs. • Street width tree spacing and tree selection should consider the objectives of obtaining a street tree canopy. Streets should be as narrow as practical for the neighborhood served and the overall street system. Section 2. That this Ordinance shall take effect on the earliest date provided by law. Passed this day of , 2003. Mayor -Presiding Officer Attest: Clerk of Council Sponsor: Division of Planning RECORD OF ORDINANCES Davwn Legul Blunk, Inc Form No_3W93 _ - Ordinnnee No. 5R-0'i Passed 20_ = AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 123-97, BY ADOPTING MODIFICATIONS TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN COMMUNITY PLAN TO INCORPORATE FINDINGS, POLICIES, ISSUES AND STRATEGIES RELATING TO COMMUNITY L NEIGHBORHOOD ENTIA SID TER AND RE CHARAC DEVELOPMENT (CASE NO. 03-OSOADM -COMMUNITY PLAN I' i MODIFICATIONS). WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has adopted The Community Plan including general i ~i principles regarding the development of the City; and ii WHEREAS, housing and community chazacter are integral parts of the Community I% Plan; and ' I' WHEREAS, City Council has objectives to promote a high quality built environment, to protect and preserve the City's existing inventory of quality homes, and to promote positive neighborhood appearance in future neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan requires an on-going program of analyses to remain current and the detailing of strategies to be effectively implemented; ~I' WHEREAS, the City Council appointed the Appearance Code Committee to arrive at findings and make recommendations regarding residential appeazance and said ' Committee has issued their report to City Council to include modifications to the Community Plan; WHEREAS, the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Committee recommendations and the first reading Ordinance referred to them by City Council, and recommends the adoption without amendments because they serve to state fmdings and establish olicies in the Community Plan to meet community needs regazding residential P appeazance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, of the elected members concurring, as follows: Section 1 That the following statements be added to the Community Plan, Chapter Two, Community Character and Environmental Element: Page 18. • High Quality Development: In general, Dublin's development contributes positively to the community image. The built environment is chazacterized by high quality modern office buildings, well-landscaped azeas, controlled signage and conscientiously designed commercial areas. Residential development, predominately approved through planned development districts, also is typically chazacterized by high quality development. However, there is some inconsistency from one neighborhood to another azid standard residential development does not have basic code requirements that replicate the quality of materials, amenities and landscaping seen in the typical planned district development. • Appealing Traditional Suburban Development: The "natural", "scenic", "rural", "high quality of development", and "sense of place" elements discussed above are evident in several older low-density single-family suburban developments. Attractive older developments have set azi appealing suburban image to be preserved and replicated wherever feasible in similar low density suburban development. Mature street trees, private landscaping, and streets that meander with gentle curves moving left and right characterize that image. 3,~~FOR MEE~i ON : 3 D RECORD OF ORDINANCES Page 2 of 3 - Dayton Legal Blank. Inc. Form No30043 - _ _ ---~i 58-03 Ordinance No. Passed • 2~_ _ _ i j_ These streets also frequently take advantage of natural changes in topography to incorporate slightly undulating movement up and down. Such changes from a straight and rivate landsca in and flat line of si ht maximize the effects of both street trees p p g, g and varied setbacks and lot widths as one traverses the neighborhood. This visual II'I' f he multi le characteristics that contribute to the overall emphasis takes advantage o t p I, visual appeazance and thereby reduces the visual impact and importance of the - II architecture of each individual home. Today's developments are more typically Vii'' characterized with long straight streets and less landscaping. This can result in over- emphasis of the architectural appearance of homes and increases concerns about the diversity of such architectural appearance. Note that the Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) concept, addressed ' elsewhere in this dociunent, stands in contrast to this suburban low density model in that it is intended for medium to high density residential uses integrated with i'I business/commercial uses. Consistency in appearance, and a more rigid grid and ,I pedestrian-oriented road system are fundamental objectives. ~i, 'I Similarly, the preservation of agricultural land and conservation of open space or 'I "new ruralism" has differing but complementary purposes. Traditional Neighborhood ' Development, Traditional Suburban Development, and Conservation Design should not be considered as the only, or even as the primary, form of residential development i for the future. Each has its purpose. Policies, Issues and Strategies i II Page 25: 10. Create/reinforce the traditional Dublin suburban characteristics in new f I single-family development where practical. Issues: • The appealing character of the more attractive older low-density single- family developments in Dublin is not being carried into new low density ' I' residential development. There aze several consequences of very low density residential development, particularly as it occurs on the edges of the City in the form I of mini-country estates. Such development tends to convert agricultural land from productive farmland and reduces open spaces and private property that acts as greenbelts around the more densely developed City core. This type of development typically locates individual homes on lots of one to five acres, or larger. Such spread out residential development provides a less than rural appearance and significantly increases the costs to serve development on a per capita or per dwelling basis I, Strategies • Encourage new residential development to incorporate curvilinear local streets as much as practical. The minimum curvature and angles of intersections should not be less than that required of all local streets. II,. Require private landscaping in front yards to include trees selected from the established list of acceptable trees. The number and size of trees I ~ required should reflect the lot size. • Increase the number of street trees required over azry given distance of street frontage. Concentrate on large trees with the intent to create a continuous and substantially consistent canopy. • Require landscaping and allow alternative shapes for residential cul de sacs. I i RECORD OF ORDINANCES Page 3 of 3 Darmn Legal Blank. Inc. Form No. 30(411 _ _ ~i~ _ - 58-03 Ordinance No. Passed 20 I' • Street width, tree spacing, and tree selection should consider the objectives of obtaining a street tree canopy. Streets should be as narrow as practical for the neighborhood served and the overall street system. Section 2. That this Ordinance shall take effect on the earliest date provided by law. Passed this day of , 2003. iI ~I Mayor -Presiding Officer Attest: Clerk of Council ~I' Sponsor: Division of Planning I' i~ k.,. , PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION JULY 10, 2003 ._crrt err ut lll,u Division of Pknning 5800 Shier-Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016-1236 Phone/fD0:614-410-4600 Fax: 614-161-6566 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 2. Administrative Request 03-OSOADM Community Plan Modifications Request: Review and approval of modifications to the 1997 Dublin Community Plan to incorporate findings, policies, issues and strategies relating to community character and residential neighborhood development. Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Staff Contact: Brandol Harvey, AIA, AICP, Senior Planner. MOTION: To approve amending the Community Plan because it is appropriate to update findings and policies, to provide the basis for upcoming Code amendments, and to address neighborhood appeazance issues, as requested by City Council. VOTE: 7-0. RESULT: This Community Plan amendment was approved. It will be forwarded to City Council with a positive recommendation. STAFF CERTIFICATION J- Barbara M. Clarke Planning Director STAFF REPORT DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 10, 2003 -~a~n ttF~ 1x:R1,l,^~ Division of Planning """"'10 Shier-Rings Road D ,Ohio 43016-1236 Phon jIDD:614-410-4600 Fax: 614-161-6566 Web Site: www.dubGn.oh.us 1. Administrative Request 03-050ADM -Community Plan Modifications Request: Review and approval of modifications to the 1997 Dublin Community Plan to incorporate findings, policies, issues and strategies relating to community character and residential neighborhood development. Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Staff Contact: Brandol Harvey, AIA, AICP, Senior Planner. NOTE: The Commissioners received a handout June 5 on this subject which included minutes from the Appearance Code Committee meetings and the referral document from the City Council which included the Committee's recommendations, City Council's changes prior to the first reading, and topics for additional Commission discussion. Part A, "Additions To Policy Statements Of The Dublin Community Plan". pages 3-4 of the referral document present the subject of this case. Also being discussed July 10 are the first parts of the companion case (Administrative Request 03-014ADM). These items regarding "Minimum Landscape Requirements" and "Street Tree and Public Tree Requirements". are presented in Part B, pages 5 through 7 Discussions on the remainder, Part C "Residential Appearance Code" (pages 8-13) are targeted to begin July 17. BACKGROUND: The Communit~Plan is the official City statement of findings, issues, policies and strategies related to planning and development of the City. These statements are the guides and justification for the requirements in the Development Code, the approval of rezonings and plats, the Capital Improvement Program, and other decisions. In order to remain effective the Community Plan must be a living document that is continuously maintained and updated whenever appropriate. The Appearance Code Committee was appointed by City Council in July 2002 to investigate and make recommendations on residential appearances of the City. Their recommendations were made in May 2003 and have been reviewed by City Council and forwarded with comments to the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -July 10, 2003 Page 2 Commission. The Commission has very briefly reviewed the entire scope of recommendations and elected to schedule the first hour of the July 10 meeting to discuss, and possibly act on, the recommendations to modify the Communit~Plan. The attached ordinance will incorporate findings, policies, issues and strategies into "Chapter Two -Community Character & Environment Element" of the Community Plan. CONSIDERATIONS: The Committee's findings relate to Dublin's "Community Chazacter" as contained in Chapter Two of the CommunitYPlan. It was found that some of Dublin's older low density neighborhoods, termed "Traditional Suburban Development," contained features which significantly relate to the "natural", "scenic", "rural", "high quality of development", and "sense of place" community chazacteristics and objectives identified in the Community Plan. These features include: Curvilinear streets. Taking advantage of topographic changes when possible. Mature and closely spaced street trees. Mature and consistent provision of front yard trees. Vaziety in building setbacks and lot widths. The Committee found that when the above features are evident, the awazeness of the azchitecture of the individual homes is significantly reduced. Therefore, the need for architectural diversity standazds is significantly reduced. A short discussion of the differences between "Traditional Suburban Development", "Traditional Neighborhood Development", and "New Ruralism" is included. RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff recommends adoption of the proposed Community Plan modifications. The Community Plan modifications were drafted to accompany the Code amendments in the companion case (Administrative Request 03-014ADM). It can be forwazded to City Council immediately or taken with the Code amendments, as the Commission prefers. Bases: 1) The Community Plan needs to be modified whenever appropriate to incorporate new findings and policies. 2) The proposed modifications aze in response to City Council's request to address neighborhood appeazance issues. 3) The Appearance Code Committee has researched the issues, arrived at findings, and determined appropriate responses. 4) Adoption of the modifications explains and forms the basis for the companion Code amendments. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -July 10, 2003 Page 3 1. Administrative Request 03-OSOADM -Community Plan Modifications Brandol Harvey said these documents are for the proposed Residential Appearance Code and they were distributed in early June. He noted an introduction to the recent findings of Residential Appearance Code Subcommittee had been presented on June 19. The Community Plan establishes the rationale for municipal actions and decisions. It indicates where Dublin is and wants to be, and then policies and strategies are developed. He said changes are proposed to the Community Character section, Chapter 2 of the Community Plan, to add some of the findings that resulted from the Residential Appearance Code investigations. Several older Dublin neighborhoods have a very positive appearance, but those characteristics are not necessarily being replicated in new developments. New developments should include curvilinear streets, especially to take advantage of topographic changes. Moving the streets up and down, as well as left and right, makes a very positive difference in the appearance. Mr. Harvey said older neighborhoods have bigger trees, and they are planted close to the road to create a pleasant streetscape. The design of cul de sacs was formerly less standardized. He noted that private landscaping, generally in the front yard, also adds to the positive appearance. Private landscaping is not required in single-family developments. Varied lot width and setbacks are evident in older subdivisions also. Mr. Harvey said the Subcommittee found that improving the residential neighborhood itself was much more important than the architectural of the individual houses. Once that was deXermined, the discussion of architectural diversity per se, became much less important. Mr. Harvey said Dublin needs consistent standards. Positive characteristics ought to be repeated. He said there was discussion of traditional suburban and neighborhood developments and conservation design. Each of these has its purpose. Mr. Harvey the Committee made its findings and proceeded to Policies, Issues and Strategies. These encourage curvilinear streets, increase the number and size of street trees to establish a continuous tree canopy, require landscaping in several forms for residential cul de sacs. Also, private landscaping in front yards should be increased in single-family developments. He said the Community Plan needs to be modified to update incorporated new concepts and policies, and the staff recommends approval of these amendments as noted in the staff report. Mr. Gerber made a motion to approve amending the Community Plan because it is appropriate to update findings and policies, to provide the basis for upcoming Code amendments, and to address neighborhood appearance issues, as requested by City Council. Mr. Zimmerman seconded, and the vote was as follows: Mr. Ritchie, yes; Ms. Boring, yes; Mr. Sprague, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Mr. Messineo, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Approved 7-0.) Mr. Gerber thanked Mr. Harvey. Ms. Boring congratulated Mr. Harvey and acknowledged the Committee's positive efforts. Mr. Gerber extended the gratitude of the entire Commission. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION ._CITt' OF DUBLIN JUNE 19, 2003 Division of Planning 0 Shier-Rings Road Di Ohio 43016-1236 Phone%fDD:bl4-410-4600 Fax: 614-761-6566 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 7. Administrative Request 03-OSOADM: Community Plan Modifications Request: Review and approval of modifications to the 1997 Dublin Community Plan to incorporate findings, policies, issues and strategies relating to community character and residential neighborhood developmemt. Applicant: City of Dublin, c% .Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Staff Contact: Brandol Harvey, AIA, AICP, Senior Planner. MOTION: To table this administrative request. VOTE: 7-0. RESULT: After a short discussion, this administrative request was tabled. It will be presented again at the July 10 Commission meeting. STAFF CERTIFICATION i Barbara M. Clarke Planning Director 03-OSOADM Community Plan Modifications Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -June 19, 2003 Page 26 7. Administrative Request 03-OSOADM: Community Plan Modifications Request: Review and approval of modifications to the 1997 Dublin Community Plan to incorporate findings, policies, issues and strategies relating to community character and residential neighborhood developmemt. Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Staff Contact: Brandol Harvey, AIA, AICP, Senior Planner. NOTE: The Commissioners received a handout June 5 on this subject which included minutes from the Appearance Code Committee meetings, a copy of their recommendations, City Council's changes prior to the first reading, and requests for additional Commission discussion on select topics. City Council minutes for May 12 and 19 are not available. BACKGROUND: The Community Plan is the official City statement of findings, issues, policies and strategies related to planning and development of the City. These statements are the guides and justification for the requirements in the Development Code, the approval of rezonings and plats, the Capital Improvement Program, and other decisions. In order to remain effective the Community Plan must be a living document that is continuously maintained and updated whenever appropriate. The Appearance Code Committee was appointed by City Council in July 2002 to investigate and make recommendations on residential appearances of the City. It consisted of the following members: Chuck Kranstuber, City Council Representative George Peplow, Chairman John Messineo, Planning & Zoning Commission Charlie Driscoll, BIA Representative and Edwards Land Company David Meleca, AIA, Architect Greg Wieland, AIA, Architect The Committee conducted 12 meetings over 8 months, including research as to what makes neighborhoods successful, considering multiple facets of neighborhood character, investigating current Code requirements which affect neighborhood appearance, the evolution of Dublin's development, and the potential for new development. Specific topics included subdivision layout and topography, architectural diversity, architectural design elements, four-sided architecture, street trees, private landscaping, and code enforcement The attached ordinance will incorporate findings, policies, issues and strategies into "Chapter Two -Community Character & Environment Element" of the Communit~Plan. City Council has conducted the first reading of this ordinance including two discussion sessions on this and the companion Code amendment. City Council had no substantive concerns regarding this ordinance. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -June 19, 2003 Page 27 CONSIDERATIONS: • The Committee's findings relate to Dublin's "Community Character" as contained in Chapter Two of the Community Plan. It was found that some of Dublin's older low density neighborhoods, termed "Traditional Suburban Development," contained features which significantly relate to the "natural", "scenic", "rural", "high quality of development", and "sense of place" community characteristics and objectives identified. in the Community Plan. These features include: Curvilinear streets. Taking advantage of topographic changes when possible. Mature and closely spaced street trees. Mature and consistent provision of front yard trees. Variety in building setbacks and lot widths. • The Committee found that when the above features are evident, the awareness of the architecture of the individual homes is significantly reduced. Therefore, the need for architectural diversity standards is significantly reduced. A short discussion of the differences between "Traditional Suburban Development", "Traditional Neighborhood Development", and "New Ruralism" is included. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Community Plan modification was drafted to accompany the Residential Appearance Standards Code amendment. However, it can be processed separately if desired. It is a much simpler document. In order to proceed, the Commission needs to determine whether a review subcommittee is needed and to select its membership. Additionally, a schedule needs to be set for future presentations. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -June 19, 2003 Page 12 7. Administrative Request 03-OSOADM: Community Plan Modifications 8. Administrative Request 03-014ADM - -Code Amendment -Landscape Code and Residential Appearance Standards Ms. Clarke said the amendments to the Community Plan are completely non-controversial. She said that Mr. Harvey tried to strengthen the connection between the Community Plan and the Code modifications and drafted additional text for inclusion in the Community Plan. These two cases can be heard together or separately, as the Commission chooses. Brandol Harvey said a report showed the combined recommendations from the Appearance Code Committee and City Council. The comments from Council resulted from its two work sessions and indicate areas for further study. He said the Appearance Code Committee was made up of George Peplow, Chuck Kranstuber, John Messineo, Charles Driscoll, David Meleca, and Greg Wieland. The Committee met twelve times over eight months. Mr. Harvey said the Committee researched various neighborhoods to determine the appropriate characteristics of "traditional suburban" developments. The Committee chose meandering streets, numerous topographic changes, heavy public and private landscaping, and diversity in setbacks and lot widths and important characteristics. He said consistent private and public landscaping along the streetscape become a strong neighborhood element, and it decreases the need for architectural diversity controls. Mr. Harvey said architectural diversity became a big issue because houses were so visible from the street, particularly in new developments. Mr. Harvey said suggestions are being made to the Policies, Issues and Strategies of the Community Plan. The Community Plan amendment establishes the findings and some strategies that would be implemented through the Code amendments. He said more trees are recommended on single-family lots. Other types of development currently require private landscaping, but not single-family houses. Recommendations include increasing the impact of street trees and landscaping cul de sacs. Mr. Harvey said amendments to the Landscape Code are proposed: to increase the size to 2'/2 inches, to decrease the spacing by five feet, and to require additional trees in the front yard based on lot width. Mr. Harvey said the most complex issue is appearance standards for the houses themselves. The topics include garage placement and door size, vinyl siding, specifications and detailing for vinyl homes. Mr. Sprague interrupted and raised aluminum siding as an issue. Ms. Boring said when it states that City Council requested the Commission to consider an issue, not all Council members said to do it. Their discussion was getting too long and engrossed. The Commission should consider the issues and return with a recommendation to City Council. Mr. Gerber said their purpose tonight was to determine a process for review. Mr. Harvey said another topic was four-sided architecture. There were several formulas. He said City Council was generally satisfied with the recommendation. There was a comment that Planning Commission look at balancing or symmetry in a street facing elevation. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -June 19, 2003 Page 13 Another general topic involves building materials. They are fairly straight-forward. There was a comment from City Council that the Commission look at limiting chimneys, regardless of the main material on the house, to brick, stucco, or stone. Mr. Messineo asked if foundations to ground were required on the chimneys. Mr. Harvey said no. There was a short discussion on foundations. He said the recommendation is that foundations be clad and several materials are suggested. The windows and trim topic was generally accepted. by City Council. There was some discussion about perhaps requiring mullions, muntins, or glazing pieces for windows to appear as separate window panes. A set of definitions is included, and there is a section on applicability and exemptions. The Appearance Code Committee wanted to address planned districts because they constitute such a great percentage of Dublin's existing development. There was some discussion about exempting existing planned development districts with architectural review committees in place. It will be a complicated discussion. There was a suggestion that standards for topsoil placement be considered. Not only regarding vegetation and its protection, but perhaps the affects it has on the foundation and the ability to cover the foundation with vinyl, brick, etc. Mr. Gerber suggested this could be tackled by the whole Commission over several meetings or by a subcommittee. It could meet and then present findings to the entire Commission on a later date. He asked the Commissioners for their preference. Mr. Saneholtz asked Ms. Clarke for ideas. Ms. Clarke she had assumed there would be a subcommittee. She also thought it could be discussed for the first hour of every meeting until it is done. She said the problem in the past was that if there was a subcommittee of three, and one person is absent, the two remaining do not feel empowered to do anything. She said there is interest on the part of City Council that this be undertaken reasonably quickly. Mr. Harvey said there were two, perhaps three topics or issues raised by City Council that could be separate discussions. The Commission may raise additional items themselves. He said the Community Plan would probably proceed fairly simply by itself, and the landscaping code would probably go forward very quickly. Mr. Gerber suggested beginning with the Community Plan issues, then landscaping and residential, in that order. Ms. Boring reminded the Commission that the Appearance Code Committee work did not need to be redone, but finalization of the recommendations was needed. Mr. Gerber said the Commission is going to be setting a precedent in the Appearance Code that many applicants will want to follow. Ms. Boring said there is no Code requirement now and we should be aware of attempting too much. We need to be conscious of the increased cost that each decision puts on those houses. She said this is something that always can be changed. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -June 19, 2003 Page 14 Ms. Clarke said all meetings had to meet in a public place, advertised in the media, and open to the public. Mr. Gerber suggested this be divided: Community Plan, Landscape Code, and Residential Appearance Code. Ms. Clarke suggested the Community Plan and the Landscape Code be combined. There is more of a learning curve for all of the architectural detail and standards proposed. Mr. Harvey suggested the Residential Appearance Code have one presentation on that entire part of the Code, and then it be broken into subunits for discussion. The topsoil and four-sided architecture issues may require separate meetings. Mr. Gerber asked if starting July 10~', the Commissioners agreed to an hour presentation for the Community Plan and Landscape Code, and then on July 17~', they would act upon it. The Residential Appearance Code could be addressed on August 14~'. He said they would have the presentations and discussions of each topic at the beginning of the meetings. Ms. Boring suggested that they remember the audience. Mr. Sprague agreed, but said the Commissioners need to make these very important decisions at the beginning of the meetings. Mr. Gerber agreed. Ms. Clarke said the rest of the cases could be advertised to begin at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Zimmerman asked if new information would be in the July 10`~ Commission packet. Mr. Harvey no. Mr. Gerber asked for afive-minute outline of the probable schedule on July 10~'. Mr. Gerber made a motion to table the Community Plan Modifications, and Mr. Ritchie seconded. The vote was unanimous in favor. (Tabled 7-0.) Mr. Gerber made a motion to table Landscape Code and Residential Appearance Standards, and Mr. Zimmerman seconded. The vote was unanimous in favor. (Tabled 7-0.) RECORD OF ORDINANCES Form No. 3IXH3 Dayam Lceal Blank.lnc. ~y Ordinalce No. -03 Passed AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 123-97, BY ADOPTING MODIFICATIONS TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN COMMUNITY PLAN TO INCORPORATE FINDINGS, POLICIES, ISSUES AND STRATEGIES RELATING TO COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMEMT (CASE NO. 03-OSOADM -COMMUNITY PLAN MODIFICATIONS). WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has adopted The Community Plan including general principles regarding the development of the City; and WHEREAS, housing and community character aze integral parts of the Community Plan; and WHEREAS, City Council has objectives to promote a high quality built environment, to protect and preserve the City's existing inventory of quality homes, and to promote positive neighborhood appearance in future neighborhoods; and , WHEREAS, the Community Plan requires an on-going program of analyses to remain current and the detailing of strategies to be effectively implemented; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, of the elected members concurring, as follows: Section 1 That the following statements be added to the Community Plan, Chapter Two, Community Character and Environmental Element: Page 18. • High Quality Development: In general, Dublin's development contributes positively to the community image. The built environment is characterized by high quality modem office buildings, well-landscaped azeas, controlled signage and conscientiously designed commercial areas. Residential development predominately approved through planned development districts also is typically characterized by high quality development. However, there is some inconsistency from one neighborhood to another and standard residential development does not have basic code requirements that replicate the Duality of materials amenities and landscaping seen in the typical planned district development. • Apnealin~ Traditional Suburban Development: The "natural", "scenic", "rural", "high quality of development" and "sense of place" elements discussed above are evident in several older low-density single-family suburban developments. Attractive older developments have set an appealinl* suburban image to be preserved and r~licated wherever feasible in similar low density suburban development. Mature street trees private landscaping and streets that meander with gentle curves_ moving left and right characterize that image. These streets also frequently take advantage of natural changes in topography to incorporate slightlyundulating movement up and down Such changes from a straight and flat line of sight maximize the effects of both street trees and pnvate landscaping, and varied setbacks and lot widths as one traverses the neighborhood. This visual emphasis takes advantage of the multiple characteristics that contribute to the overall visual appearance and thereby reduces the visual impact and importance of the architecture of each individual home Today's developments are more twically characterized x ith long straight streets and less landscaping This can result in over- emphasis of the architectural appearance of homes and increases concerns about the diversity of such architectural appearance. 03-OSOADM Community Plan Modifications RECORD OF ORDINANCES page 2 of 2 Dayton Legal Blank. Inc. Form No. J0043 ~n -03 Ordinance No. `b Passed • Z~- business/commereial uses Consistency in appearance and a more rigid Arid and pedestrian-oriented road system are fundamental obiectives. Similarly the preservation of agricultural land and conservation of oven space or "new ruralism" has differing but comylementarv pumoses Traditional Neighborhood Develoyment. Traditional Suburban Development, and Conservation Design should not be considered as the only or even as the primary form of residential development for the future. Each has its purpose. Policies, Issues and Strategies Page 25: 10. Create/reinforce the traditional Dublin suburban characteristics in new single-family development where practical. Issues: • The appealing character of the more attractive older low-densiri sinele- family developments in Dublin is not being carried into new low density residential development. • There are several consequences of very low density residential development, particularly as it occurs on the edges of the Citv in the form of mini-country estates Such develoyment tends to convert agricultural land from vroductive farmland and reduces oven syaces and yrivate proyerty that acts as greenbelts around the more densely developed Ciri core This type of development ripically locates individual homes on lots of one to five acres or larger. Such spread out residential development provides a less than Waal appearance and si>rnificantly increases the costs to serve development on a per capita or per dwelling basis Straw • Encourage new residential development to incorporate curvilinear local streets as much as tactical. The minimum curvature and angles of intersections should not be less than that required of all local streets. • Require private landscaping in front yards to include trees selected from the established list of acceptable trees. The number and size of trees required should reflect the lot size. • Increase the number of street trees required over any given distance of street frontage Concentrate on large trees with the intent to create a continuous and substantially consistent canoyy. • Require landscaping and allow alternative shaves for residential cul de sacs. • Street width tree spacing and tree selection should consider the obiectives of obtaining a street tree canopy. Streets should be as narrow as practical for the neighborhood served and the overall streets sY ten~• Section 2. That this Ordinance shall take effect on the earliest date provided by law. Passed this day of , 2003. Mayor -Presiding Officer Attest: Clerk of Council Sponsor: Division of Planning 03-OSOADM Community Plan Modifications RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS _Minutes_of_ D.ublirLCity_C.ouncil Mee~ing_ OAVTON LEGAL 6UNN. INC., FORM AIO. 10148 i, May 19, 2003 Page 4 Held 20 I Ordinanc 3-03 Amendi Portions of the Zoning Code to ablish the Historic Business (HB) Distri and the Historic Residential (HR) istrict (Case No. 01-113ADM - Hist is Dis act Code Amendment) dinance 54-03 ezoning Approximately 83 Parce Comprising an Area of Approxim ly 72.7 I Acres in Historic Dublin and Vi ity, To: HR, Historic Residential D' tract (Case No. 01-1142 -Historic Developme District Rezoning I). Ordinance 55-03 Rezoning Approximately 4 Parcels Comprising an Area of roximately 28.11 Acres in Historic Dubl' and Vicinity, From: CCC, Central mmunity Commercial District and CB, Ce al Business District, To: HB, Histo ' Business District (Case ~ No. 01-1142- Hist is Development District Rezoning I ~ Ordinance 56-0 Amending P ions of the Zoning Code to Establi the "Architectural Review District" a to Re-Organize the Architectural view Board (ARB) and Repealing Section 53.170 through 153.187 (Case No. -049ADM -Architectural Review I Distri and Architectural Review Board Pr cedures). Ord' ance 57-03 opting the Old Dublin Design Guid Ines (Case No. 00-118ADM). • r. Kranstuber moved to introduce O finances 53-03 through 57-03 and to r er them to the Planning & Zoning Commissio I!, Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded emotion. ~I Vote on the motion: Ms. Chin ci-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes' r. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor McCash es; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, y Ms. Salay asked fora stimated hearing date at P&Z. Ms. Clarke respond that the HB and HR districts must fir be established before any properties can be ezoned to those districts. The archite ural guidelines have been in use for about f years, and this formally adopts the delines. The reorganization of the ARB would n follow, and finally the rezoning oft parcels identified. She expects the ~ I process t egin in June and continue through L or Day. May Kranstuber asked that the titles of Or ances 58-03 and 59-03 be read tog er, I~~: a ey both relate to the appearance co ~ Ordinance 58-03 Amending Ordinance 123-97, by Adopting Modifications to the City of Dublin li Community Plan to Incorporate Findings, Policies, Issues and Strategies Relating to Community Character and Residential Neighborhood Development. (Case No. 03- 050ADM -Community Plan modifications) Ordinance 59-03 Amending Portions of the Zoning Code by Amending Section 153.133 (Minimum Landscape Requirements), Section 153.134 (Street Tree and Public Tree Requirements), and Adopting Section 153.190, Residential Appearance Standards. (Case No. 03-014 ADM -Landscape Code Amendment and Adopting Residential Appearance Standards) Mr. Kranstuber introduced Ordinances 58-03 and 59-03. 'I Ms. Brautigam noted that at the last study session, the recommendations of the Appearance Code Committee were presented in part. Tonight's presentation includes the remainder of the recommendations. Mr. Harvey presented the recommendations to Council. Vinyl Siding The first recommendation relates to vinyl siding and the question of the proper thickness of the material. (He showed slides of the various examples of installation of vinyl siding in communities around the Greater Columbus area.) The Vinyl Institute recommends the 44 ' mills as a desirable standard. Some of the upper-end housing developers use 50 mills. The durability of 44 and 50 mills is expected to be 40 years. The cost differences ' between 44 to 50 mills is not substantial -fora 2,500 square foot home of 44 mills, the material cost is $3,600. At 40 mills, the savings is $900. Taking it from 44 to 50 mills ~ brings an increase of $1,100. The Village of Highland Lakes houses shown in the slides ~ use 50 mills, and the same developer building now at the Reserve at Ballantrae uses 50 I', I', mills. The restricted covenants for the original part of Ballantrae require 44 mills as a ~I minimum. He added that proper installation is required to prevent warping and ! RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS _ ___._Miaute~_o~_-_ Dublin City_Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 1018 '~I May 19, 2003 Page 5 Held 20 III separation of vinyl siding. Some municipalities have prohibited pneumatic Hailers, but the newer equipment sets the nail properly on the siding. I Mr. Kranstuber commented that many existing homes in Dublin have 36 mill siding, so this j will establish a standard. The Committee tried to be sensitive to the issues of affordable ,i, housing, and endorses a midline standard focusing on durability. ~i ~i Mayor McCash commented that the 50-mill siding is produced by only a few suppliers in ij Central Ohio, and would be available in fewer colors. From a diversity of color standpoint, ; the higher standard may reduce the options. Mr. Harvey responded that several manufacturers provide 46 and/or 4E mill vinyl siding. I jl Mr. Reiner commented that he endorses a higher standard so that the product will endure - perhaps a standard of 46 to 48 to minimize City inspections in the future. ~ Mayor McCash responded that the thickness would not affect the fading from ultraviolet light. ~ Mr. Reiner stated that he believes that the higher quality product has a superior j appearance. j, Mayor McCash noted that much of the look relates to the installation. i! Mr. Kranstuber stated that banning vinyl siding has been considered by some groups in the past, or limiting the percentage of homes with vinyl siding. Upon closer examination of it examples throughout the area, the Committee decided to focus on quality of the product. I' Mr. Reiner noted that another consideration is the City inspection of installed siding -are I there times when the builder is required to remove poorly installed vinyl siding? If the only control the City has is over the material, and not the installation, he would support a higher ualit material. q Y t at t n and as none exis s ized that the desire is to establish a s a d Mr. Kranstuber em has II, P this time. The concern is with not makin the standard so hi h that housin becomes 9 9 9 unaffordable. Mr. Lecklider asked if the difference between 44 and 46 mills is noticeable? ~I II! Mr. Harvey responded that it is not visibly different, but theoretically it would be proportionately stronger, last longer and would resist high temperature changes. Therefore, it would separate less over a period of time. Mr. Harvey then described the vinyl accessories that can improve the appearance of a home at an economical price. He showed slides of the various items available, i.e., door surrounds, mantel systems above windows, shutters, fascia boards, molding, trim boards, ICI accent panels. He summarized that the recommendation of the Committee is for a minimum thickness of 44 mills, that it must be applied to the OSB or plywood, that it must have a low gloss finish and that it must be properly installed to prevent warping or separation. Mr. Reiner asked about the dimensional thickness for the plywood. Mayor McCash stated it should be a minimum of due to the structural load. However, this is a building code issue and not related to the appearance code. Mayor McCash suggested as a follow-up, that the Building division staff should devise some proposed language to address these items. Mr. Harvey agreed that staff would research the thickness of the underlayment as suggested. Additional Requirements for Predominantly Vinyl Siding Homes Mr. Harvey stated that the Committee recommends that every predominantly vinyl home should be vinyl on the entry side. Where there is a vinyl sided elevation, a minimum 6" fascia board should be required. In addition, two other options -such as shutters, mantels, cornices, etc. -would be required. Mr. Lecklider suggested that P&Z also consider the windowpane look for other than front I~~I - elevations, These are done with inserts in the windows. Mr. Kranstuber stated that these are a nuisance when cleaning the windows. Mrs. Boring commented that these types of inserts are not compatible with certain house designs. I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of_ - Dublin City Council Meeting _ _ DAYTON LEGAL BUNK. INC.. FOgM NO. tOtdB - - - May 19, 2003 Page 6 I Held 20 Discussion followed about requiring mantels on other than the front of the house. II' Ms. Brautigam suggested that Council forward a detailed transcript of tonight's suggestions to the Planning Commission for their review, and that revisions not be made tonight to the draft Appearance Code. In this way, the Commission can consider all of the Committee's proposal as well as the concerns of Council. I Four Sided Architecture Mr. Harvey noted that this is a trend in the industry, and it helps to achieve a sense of ~i place or neighborhood. The Committee originally considered requiring three design ii elements somewhere on each elevation. The Committee then focused efforts on the I' mmittee recommends at I~I~ dispersal of design elements to avoid having blank walls. The Co j~ least two design elements in any elevation wherever it faces, with a little more treatment for the street facing elevation. The Committee recommends this formula: Each elevation must contain at least two design elements, and each street facing elevation must contain three design elements. Further in all cases there must exist at least one desi n element in each one-half of the q ~I elevation. At least one design element should occur on the first floor, and should there be ; . a large upper wall area that would otherwise be blank, then at least one design element would have to be located in the upper wall area. He then detailed the various examples of design elements that would meet these requirements. Discussion followed. Mr. Reiner noted that using the chimney as an architectural element may be problematic, and asked that P&Z look at this closely. Discussion followed about the type of materials allowed for a chimney. Mr. Harvey noted that the Committee is also recommending a set of definitions with illustrations. These are included in the draft Appearance Code. Another recommendation is to limit types of materials to be used on the exterior to wood, brick. stone (natural or cultured), products of siding that are Npical of the manufacturer, hardy plank, stucco. glass block or vinyl siding. In the elevations, no more than three materials can be used. (He showed an example of a house and the various requirements.) . Foundations must be faced with either brick, natural or cultured stone, split block, or the exterior siding material must be brought down over the foundation to within 12 inches of II'I the finish grade. Mr. Reiner noted that the split block would not be an improvement over what is presently allowed. is Mr. Harvey stated that the split block is becoming more of a common practice and it does break up the gray concrete block appearance. The Committee felt it could be an acceptable alternative. Mr. Kranstuber commented that the only consideration was bringing the foundation cover down as much as possible while still allowing for mounding and landscaping. It was not a cost issue. Mr. Reiner objected to the split block - it is not a strong design element. He also suggested that the City consider an ordinance that requires that the topsoil from a lot is stored and then redistributed on the site after the house is built. He also endorses stone or brick to cover the foundation. Having concrete block or split block around the base of the house is very unattractive, and homebuyers then purchase foundation plantings to hide this block. i Mr. Kranstuber clarified that what the Committee is recommending is bringing the cedar, ',II the stone or whatever material down to 12 inches from the ground. Mr. Reiner clarified that he is suggesting that the bottom 12 inches of base be brick or stone. III Mr. Lecklider stated that he believes all of the builders will opt for the split block if allowed. I He would recommend the brick or stone base instead. i', Mr. Kranstuber summarized that perhaps staff could propose some alternative language for P&Z to consider, based on these concerns. ~ ~I i RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ~inutes_of Dublin_City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC.. FORM NO. 10148 May 19, 2003 Page 7 Held 20 Application II Mr. Harvey stated that the appearance code standards would apply to all new construction 'i and for existing construction when there is an expansion of 25 percent livable area or i' significant exterior alteration. Only the portion being changed must meet the new standards. In terms of existing planned districts, the Committee is recommending a i period of transition of six months. After that exemption period, any new building permit I must com I with the new standards. For new planned districts, they would have to meet PY these standards at a minimum. For exemptions, all of the properties covered under the Architectural Review District would be exempt. Any interior alteration is exempt if not f affecting the outside appearance of the house. Any building permit already submitted would also be exempt. Discussion followed about the role of the subdivision architectural review committee fora planned district versus the appearance code requirements and their application. I I I'! Mr. Kranstuber stated that the appearance code would establish the minimum standards ~!'i that all development must meet. In cases where the subdivisions review committee requires less, the appearance code would gpvern. v th ~ II Mayor McCash stated that the way it is drafted, some people will be required to ha e e I City review architectural styles, but others will be reviewed by their neighbors. It seems it Ii Id e a lied a uall to all nei hborhoods -whether or not a nei hborhood has an i~ shou b pp q y g 9 ~ architectural review committee. III I' Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that she is hopeful that P&Z understands that Council ~ Ili ~ desires that the appearance code be approved this year. Much of the work has already ' been done at the Committee level where P&Z was represented. P&Z's role should be to 'I improve what already exists in the draft document. !I I Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher moved to refer Ordinances 58-03 and 59-03 to the Planning ~ Ij Zoning Commission. ~l Ms. Salay seconded the motion. I I Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. INTRODUCTION & PUBLIC HEARING -RESOLUTIONS III Resolution 26-03 !I Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into aOne-Year Contract for Legal Services with the Law Director. Ms. Salay introduced the resolution. Ms. Brautigam stated that at the time she joined the City, several Council Members expressed concern about the legal fees and their hope for improved monitoring and r, control in the future. She has discussed with Mr. Smith the various ways the legal fees 'i could be reduced, and much of any litigation the City is involved in has been resolved. In addition, a review was done of the average costs for the last three years and consideration has been given to implementing a retainer system. After reviewing the material, she believes that a retainer system,. as recommended in the report, would be a good opportunity for the City. She believes that the City will save approximately $200,000 over the next year, based on the amount of previous billings. She has also worked with members of staff to ensure that requests for legal services are closely reviewed. Routine, non-legal matters previously referred to Legal staff are now handled in house. The primary changes are as follows: 1) Presently, the City pays $6,000 per month for Mayor's Court legal fees. In the past year, the law firm has tracked the actual monthly costs for the Mayor's Court at the previous hourly rate and it averages $9,800 a month for a service for which the ' City pays $6,000 per month. This is too large a loss for the law firm to bear, in her view, and therefore she proposes increasing the fixed rate for Mayor's Court to $9,000 per month. They wilt still experience a slight loss for this work, but it does serve as a training ground for new attorneys in municipal law. 2) The City will no longer have an hourly rate for general legal services. Instead of I~, $120 per hour, which likely would have increased by ten percent this year, staff is I recommending a $60,000 per month retainer which will cover general legal I matters, civil real estate matters including negotiations with property owners over ~ right-of-way, and general litigation such as appeals from the Board of Zoning Appeals. The next level of complex real estate matters and litigation, involving I~~', numerous court appearances and discovery, will be charged at the hourly billing ~I