Loading...
76-03 OrdinanceRECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043 Ordinance No. 76-03 Passed 20 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DUBLIN CODIFIED ORDINANCES, SECTION 153.002 -DEFINITIONS, TO DEFINE MINOR PLAN MODIFICATION. (CASE N0.03-066ADM) WHEREAS, as a result of a joint meeting between the City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission on April 8, 2003, a request was made to define "minor plan modification" for use in Dublin's planned districts; and WHEREAS, C ity C ouncil g ave d irection t o p roceed w ith t his d efinition a t t he M ay 19, 2003 City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, minor plan modification is not adequately defined in the Dublin Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan was based on a study of the impacts of development and promotes a high quality environment in which to live and work; and WHEREAS, managing the impact of traffic is essential to maintaining the community's quality of life; and WHEREAS, it is necessary from time to time to amend the Code to update and to revise the standards and provisions contained in it; and WHEREAS, such amendment is enacted to protect the health, welfare, and safety of the community; and WHEREAS, the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this Code amendment on July 31, 2003 and recommends its adoption because it conforms to the direction given on this issue. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, ~ of the elected members concurring: Section 1. That the following definition be added to Section 153.002 -Definitions: MINOR PLAN MODIFICATION--A nominal deviation from, or clarification of, the adopted plan and/or text, provided it will neither increase the permitted density nor the potential traffic generated, and the proposal remains consistent with the original design, land u se, i ntent a nd d eveloper commitments of the adopted plan, a nd with the preferred scenario o f t he C ommunity P lan. Approval/disapproval o f a ny r equest f or a m inor p lan modification s hall b e d etermined b y t he P lanning a nd Z oning C ommission a s p art o f i is administrative review in a planned district. For the purpose of this section, the adopted plan and/or text refer to those documents adopted by City Council as part of a rezoning action, including a preliminary development plan. Section 2. That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the earliest period allowed by law. Passed this / ~ , 2003. Mayor -Presiding Officer Attest: C~~-~- ~ Clerk of Council Sponsor: Planning Division I hereby certify that copies of this Ordinance/Resolution were posted in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 731.25 of the Ohio Revised Code. ~, ~ C~r~ of Council, Dublin, Ohio CITY OF DUBLIN Department of Development Division of Planning 5800 Shier-Rings Road • Dublin, Ohio 43016 Phone: 614-410-4600 • Fax: 614-761-6566 TO: Members of Dublin City Council FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Managei~~~,,,,~...~`_~. ~j,~~c~x-,,.~: DATE: August 12, 2003 RE: Ordin nce #76-03 Minor Plan Modification (Case No. 03-066ADM) INITIATED BY:\~ M. Clarke, Planning Director/ ~C.r SUMMARY: Memo This Code amendment had its first reading on June 17, 2003, and it was referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a recommendation. The Commission recommends approval of this ordinance, as submitted. As reflected in the July 31, 2003 minutes, the Commission debated whether a mere majority vote should be sufficient to amend a zoning plan. The argument was made that determining if a requested change is truly "minor" should be completely obvious, in fact, should compel asuper-majority vote of the Commission. In the end, the Commission settled on the language as presented, with no extraordinary voting procedure. BACKGROUND: There has been along-standing administrative problem within the Planned Commerce District. Even the least significant change (one parking space, for example) ftom the zoning plan and/or text required the full rezoning process. This is cumbersome, time-consuming and costly. The City Council and Planning Commission met in joint meeting last fall and requested a Code change to address streamlining the `~ process for minor changes. Last spring, several potential definitions of a "minor plan modification" were presented to City Council, and this Code amendment is based on the direction given at the May 19 Council meeting. This definition will apply to all planned districts, not just the PCD. The language was selected to address the problem in the current Code; and to conform with the expected major changes to the Planned Districts (pending) as referred from the Development Code Task Force. While plan amendments in future Planned Districts may involve a new scheme (List A and List B items), this definition will cause no conflict with that proposal. Further, it will be needed in for the long-term administration of the existing planned districts. RECOMMENDATION: This is being submitted to City Council with a request for adoption. Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, Ohio 43017 Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490 C[1'Y OF DUBLIN TO: Members of Dublin City Council FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager ~ ~ , ~ '-'- DATE: June 17, 2003 ~~~ ~y~V~i INITIATED BY: Barbara M. Clarke,'"Planning Director`~~ RE: Ordinance #76-03 Minor Plan Modification (Case No. 03-066ADM) SUMMARY: Memo This request resulted from a joint City CounciUPlanning Commission meeting; the request was to define "minor plan modification" for use in Dublin's planned districts. In a May 13 memorandum to City Council, the staff outlined several possible definitions, and these were discussed at the May 19, 2003 City Council meeting. An ordinance has been prepared consistent with that direction. "Minor plan modification" will be added as a term in the Definitions section of the zoning regulations. It will apply to approved planned districts/texts. The Planning Commission will determine the appropriateness of requested minor plan modification. Adoption of this ordinance should not affect the processing or adoption of the Planned District ordinance, as recommended by the Development Code Taskforce. RECOMMENDATION: This ordinance should be introduced and referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a recommendation. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION JULY 31, 2003 ,.crr~~ uH, nl;~l,ln Division of Planning 5800 Shier-Rings Road C"" ",Ohio 43016-1236 Phi ~DD:614-410-4600 ~` NFax:614-761-6566 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 4. Minor Plan Modification Definition 03-066ADM Request: Review and approval of a modification to definition section of the Code, to create a definition of a "minor plan modification" for planned districts. Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Staff Contact: Barbara M. Clarke, Planning Director. MOTION: To recommend to City Council to adopt Ordinance 76-03, defining a minor plan modification, as submitted, because it conforms to the direction given on this issue. VOTE: 4 - 0. RESULT: This Code amendment was approved. It will be forwarded to City Council with a positive recommendation. STAFF CERTIFICATION Barbara M. Clarke Planning Director B~ ~~I l 03 , _g,l1R~ Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission D RAT Minutes -July 31, 2003 Page 4 3. Area Rezoning 0 54Z -Northwest of nd/Muirfield Intersection Bobbie Clarke sai ere is a pending rezo g application, (Hansel Propert Case No. 02-1382) involved. Staf as red-flagged this ap cation, and if the Hansel app ' ation is approved by City Council at site will be deleted om this rezoning. She said a site includes estate s along the east side of Dublin oad, asingle-family lot on the east s' of Avery Road, and ong the west side of Avery Ro ,the Franklin County portion of Riv' a Golf Club, school p perty, the Hansel subdivision, d a Muirfield Village Reserve area to ted in Union County o zoning history has been es fished in Dublin for these sites. R-1, estricted Suburban idential District, is requested most of them, and R, Rural Dist ' is requested for the M 'field Reserve. There are a tot f 11 parcels which comprise 154 a s. Ms. Clarke sa' staff is requesting that, as a ho keeping measure, R, Rural and R- estricted Suburban idential Districts be approved f these parcels. Mr. G er suggested adding a conditi regarding the Hansel property r Wing. Ms. Clarke acc ted that condition. Mr. Gerber made the motion t approve this rezoning applicatio ecause it will provide appropriate Dublin zoning cl ification for effective land use inistration, will main the established development p ern, -and will establish land use consistent with the Co unity Plan, with the conditio at if the Hansel Property (File o. 02-1382) rezoning ' approved prior to this moving rward, that the five acres will b withdrawn from this -sponsored application. Mr. sineo seconded, and the vote w as follows: Mr. Zi an, yes; Mr. Ritchie, yes; Mr. essineo, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Approved 4-0.) 4. Minor Plan Modification Definition 03-066ADM Bobbie Clarke said one of the main items discussed at the joint meeting between City Council and the Commission last fall was a mechanism to make minor plan modifications in planned districts. She said this ordinance received its first reading at City Council. She wrote a memo to ~~ City Council several months ago that listed three suggested definitions for a minor plan modification, two of which were based on definitions found in other codes. One of them was the "ten percent rule," where the Planning Commission would have the power to modify standards by ten percent. These might include raising a height limitation, decreasing a buffer, increasing density, etc. On those things that are quantifiable, there would be a ten percent addition/subtraction at the discretion of the Commission. Another way that Codes have dealt with this is to give a laundry list of issues that the Commission was specifically empowered to alter in a final development plan. Those lists varied widely in other Codes. Neither of those approaches used in other communities seem to fit Dublin. When the Commission is asked for an alteration, the first thing the Commission wants to know is how this fits with the Community Plan. She thought there should be a direct Code link to the Community Plan since that seemed to be a pivotal issue for the Commission's support. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -July 31, 2003 DRAFT Page 5 The biggest issue on which the Community Plan is based is traffic. That issue drove the whole three-year Community Plan process. The result was a set of land uses and a road network that everybody could live with. The definition being presented tonight to the Commission will be in the Definition section of the Code, and that section is not slated for revision. The proposed definition would work with the future Code as well as the existing one. It gives the Commission authority to make minor modifications at the final development plan or the development plan, sometimes years following the rezoning action. She said that if the Commission finds the traffic generation to be acceptable, and if the modification is consistent with the intent of the zoning plan, and Community Plan, the Commission will have the authority to approve it. It is the Commission's call. When she asked City Council if some kind of reporting mechanism should be created, Council said no. They expressed confidence that they knew what was going on at the Commission via the minutes and records of action received. Ms. Clarke said this definition is based on City Council's direction. She asked if this met the Commissioner's expectations and requirements. Ms. Clarke said the Commission has a letter from Mitch Banchefsky stating that the definition proposed is acceptable. Ms. Clarke said the current draft of proposed planned districts includes two lists in every planned district application. List A includes land uses and other essential items that cannot be changed. Modifications to items on the A List require going through the rezoning process. List B includes development standards, parking spaces, etc., and these could be varied without rezoning. This is legislation that has been referred to the Commission. She said the previous past minor plan modifications approved by the Commission were in PCD districts, they included reducing parking spaces, minor encroachments, etc. Examples were Walgreens, Bob Evans and McDonald's on Tuttle Crossing, Burger King and Wendy's on Avery Road, Dominion Homes covered crosswalk, and a side yard for Children's World at Tuttle Crossing. Currently, every PCD change must go back through the rezoning process. Mr. Ritchie was concerned that there were two fixes that might conflict, this minor plan modification definition, and the planned district Code amendment being prepared by the Taskforce. He thought the two should be consistent. Ms. Clarke said this was devised to work with both Codes. She did not know why the Taskforce chose to utilize the A and B list, nor did she know if it will remain, as the legislation is fine tuned. Mr. Ritchie said the A and B Lists would not work with the old zonings, and he was comfortable with this definition. Mr. Messineo said he could live with this definition #1, but "minor" should be self-evident. He thought this should require asuper-majority Commission vote (5-2). Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -July 31, 2003 DRAFT Page 6 Mr. Gerber said the Planning Director will make the first call as to whether a modification is minor or not. Then it will be brought to the Commission for approval. Mr. Messineo said if the vote was 3-4, there is the question whether the change was "minor." Mr. Zimmerman said the original rezoning texts are approved without asuper-majority vote. He did not think this needed to be different. Mr. Messineo restated his position that a minor modification should be so obvious that it would have no problem getting asuper-majority vote. If there is a problem, it is probably not "minor." Cynthia Reed, a resident, was concerned that the Planning staff would be empowered to make a decision on density changes without notifying the residents. Mr. Gerber said there would be a public meeting, and all affected residents would be notified of minor modification cases. Mr. Banchefsky and Ms. Clarke agreed. Mr. Gerber preferred Definition #1, and a majority vote being required. Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Zimmerman agreed. Mr. Messineo said to try it and see how it worked. Mr. Ritchie made a motion to make a recommendation to City Council to adopt Ordinance 76- 03, defining a minor plan modification, as submitted, because it confirms to the direction given on this issue. Mr. Gerber seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Mr. Messineo, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; and Mr. Ritchie, yes. (Approved 4-0.) Mr. Gerber assured Ms. Reed that minor modifications will come before the Commission for approval, and like any other case, the adjacent property owners will be notified of the hearing. 5. Admi rative Code Ame ent 01-113ADM - is District Code ents .~ J This was postponed to the meeting se Senior Planner Combs is central to discussion. Hew able to atten ere was no discussi r vote. The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /~ A l v V y~~~~~ % ~ ~~ Libb Fa`~rle ~ ~" Y Y Administrative Secretary Planning Division Dublin Planning and Zonir~ Commission -- Staff Report -July 31, 201._ Page 13 4. Minor Ptan Modification Definition 03-066ADM Request: Review and approval of a text modification to create a definition of a "minor plan modification" for planned districts. Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Staff Contact: Gary P. Gunderman, Assistant Director of Planning. BACKGROUND: The City Council and Planning Commission met in joint session last fall, and the issue of varying the text standards in planned districts, especially the PCD, Planned Commerce District, was discussed. It was determined that some simplification of the decision-making process was in order, so that aone-space pazking variance, for example, would not require all of the steps of a rezoning application. The staff was directed to provide several possible definitions of a minor plan revision for consideration. The staff of the Law Director's office researched other codes from around the country. None of those examples seemed to exactly fit the Dublin situation. The Planning Division staff then prepared several definitions and submitted them to City Council in May. City Council directed that a Code amendment be prepared in line with the preferred definition. That Code amendment received its first reading on June 23, 2003, and the ordinance was referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its review. This is a legislative item for the Commission's consideration. Once the Commission makes its recommendation, this ordinance will be returned to City Council. It will be scheduled for a public hearing and the final vote. CONSIDERATIONS: Definition of problem There are three planned districts that are widely used in Dublin-the PUD, PLR, and PCD. The Planning Commission currently has some flexibility in its decisions at the final development stage within the PUD, Planned Unit Development District. The PLR, Planned Low Density Residential District is completely silent on the issue. However, in the PCD, Planned Commerce District, the duty of the Planning Commission is to determine if the development plan "complies in all respects" with the adopted composite plan and development text. If the development plan complies in all respects, the Commission "shall approve" it. There is no latitude to modify the composite plan or text provisions. Even the most minor change to the PCD development text standards currently requires a full rezoning process--with two readings at City Council, recommendation by the Planning Commission, 30-day delay to go into effect, etc. In short, it is administratively cumbersome, time-consuming, and relatively expensive for the applicant(s). The direction from the joint meeting was to devise a swifter process for minor issues. This is not an attempt to change the ultimate outcome, only to streamline the procedure. City Council provided additional direction which has also been incorporated. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -July 31, 2G Page 14 Possible approaches • Based on the direction from the initial joint meeting, other municipal codes were researched for provisions related to minor plan changes in planned districts. Less than half of those other municipal codes include .terms such as minor plan revision, non-major plan change, inconsequential plan modification, or similar language. The most common code approach to address a minor plan change in a planned district is to invoke a "ten percent" rule. That is, the development standards established for the planned district (building height, front setback, side and rear yards, required buffer dimensions, building area and/or floor area ratio, parking space ratio, parking stall size, etc.), can be reduced below the minimum or increased above the maximum, by up to ten percent. Any greater deviation is considered to be a "major" change and requires going through the full rezoning process. This approach would address a number of Dublin's PCD issues, such as required parking spaces, but it cannot address a change in azchitecture, building materials, or other less quantifiable criteria. [See Definition 3 on the attached memo to City Council, dated May 13, 2003.] • Another way to codify a minor plan amendment was to present a list of variables in the Code which could be modified. The lists varied widely from code to code in other municipalities, but only those enumerated items could be modified without invoking the full rezoning process. The Dublin staff has found through experience that it is commonly the unanticipated items that need variation a few yeazs down the road. [An example of this type is Definition 2 from the May 13, 2003 memo to Council.] • Other Code definitions did not require consistency with the municipality's master plan or general plan (in Dublin, called the Community Plan). Only one code was tied to traffic generation. Because these two issues, conformance with the Community Plan and traffic implications, are often central to any discussion about modifying a plan, the staff incorporated them into Definition 1. Of the three model definitions submitted to City Council, this was selected. It was used as the basis for this code amendment. It is a generalized definition, will apply to all planned districts, and the Planning Commission is the body that will "make the call." None of the applicant's appeal procedures will be influenced by this Code amendment. • The Law Director's office has reviewed and approved this proposed Code amendment. Due to some technical difficulties, however, the written verification from the Law Director was not available for this writing. Reporting to City Council • Typically, minor plan changes are handled by the Planning Commission in other cities. Several codes required a report back to City Council, and one required the confirmation of City Council. In its review on June 23, 2003, Dublin City Council expressed that the Commission meeting minutes are more than adequate notification of actions taken. Council directed that no additional reporting procedure is needed. Pending Planned District Code • In the last six months, the Planned District regulations have been under review and are undergoing major revision. The Development Code Taskforce has forwarded a recommended draft of the Planned District in ordinance form. It has been introduced at Dublin Planning and Zonir -Commission Staff Report -July 31, 20t,_ Page 15 City Council and referred to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. That piece of legislation is not yet scheduled for Commission review. This draft ordinance to define a minor plan modification was necessitated due to difficulties in using the current Code, and it really should not be as critical to the future code. However, the language in this proposed definition has been selected for use with both the current Code and the latest draft of the proposed Planned District revisions. In the new Planned District draft, as currently proposed, two lists are established in the zoning text at the time of rezoning. The "A" list includes items that are essential to the plan. The "A" list will generally contain permitted land uses among other items, and these could not be varied at a later date. The "B" list will contain development standards and items that could be modified over time with the Commission's approval. Again, these are not under consideration with this administrative case, and their merits will be discussed by the Commission in the context of the upcoming Planned District ordinance. Part of the existing planned district language in Dublin's Code is expected to be repealed with the adoption of the new Planned District ordinance. Because of this, all of the implementation language for the minor plan modification is presented within the definition itself. It is not included in the PCD, PUD, or PLR text sections which will be subject to the upcoming modification, or perhaps even wholesale repeal. RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes this conforms to the direction given on this issue. Staff recommends approval of this Code amendment. Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, Ohio 43017 Phone: 614-410-4400 -Fax: 614-410-4490 C[TY OF DUEiLIN TO: Members of Dublin City Council FROM: Jane S. Brautigani, City Manager DATE: May 13, 2003 INITIATED BY: Barbara M. Clarke, Planning Director RE: Minor Plan Amendment Memo Summary Direction was given at the joint meeting to bring back several possible definitions for the City Council to .review on the subject of granting variances from the strict standards in planned districts. Several possible definitions are attached for review, and direction is needed on several content issues as well. Background At last fall's joint meeting between the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission, there was discussion of defining a "minor plan modification" for use in the planned district(s). Specifically, this discussion topic involved empowering the Planning Commission to approve some minor amendment(s) to the "zoning plan" as part of its review of the final development plan or development plan. The desire is to change the rp ocess for such a modification, but not to give approval to some type of unwarranted modification. a The most critical procedural problem exists in the PCD, Planned Commerce District, but staff will draft the Code amendment to apply to all current planned districts. The PCD provisions in the Code provide no opportunity for deviation from the development text adopted with the rezoning ordinance. Minor changes in the final plans in this zone have required the applicant to retrace the steps through the rezoning process to modify the development text. The most common reason has been to reduce the required parking standard. (The most common parking standard set up in a PCD development text requires "parking in accordance with Code.") When the finalized site plan comes up a few parking spaces short of the Dublin standard Code, a rezoning to change the text (which requires a rezoning hearing by the Commission and City Council) was the only route available. The Tuttle Crossing, Perimeter Center, and Riverside Hospital PCDs, among others, have all had very minor modifications made through the rezoning process. The next step needed is for City Council to consider several possible definitions fora "minor plan modification" that might apply to the Dublin process. When there is consensus on the preferred direction, the legislation incorporating the definition will be submitted as a Code 03-066ADM Minor Plan Modificati< Memo to City of Dublin C Heil Re: Minor Plan Amendment May 13, 2003 -Page 2 amendment on the next available agenda. It will then be scheduled for second reading and adoption after the Planning Commission makes its recommendation. At the first joint meeting, there was specific direction that any definition of a minor modification could not include modifications to the sign package. Because there has been more recent discussion at the City Council level that would seem to modify that stance, signage is only noted as a possible exclusion. If there is clear direction at this time, signage cah be specifically included or excluded, if either is desired. Additionally, of the numerous zoning Codes from other communities that have been reviewed on t` this issue, only one actually required a report back to City Council if the Planning Conunission granted some type of modification variance. This idea, however, was recorded in the staff notes from the joint meeting. Direction is requested on whether City Council desires a report each time a plan modification would be granted. In the redrafting project for Dublin's Planned District(s), now underway through the Development Code Taskforce, minor plan modifications are being set up differently. Under the proposed code, at the time of adoption of the ordinance establishing a new planned district, the text is to include two separate groups of issues, Category A and Category B. Category A includes the generally more important items, and a rezoning action would be required to alter any of them. Items contained in Category B could be varied at the discretion of the Planning Commission, during its consideration of the final development plan. Because none of the existin planned districts have been set up with Category A and B texts, this definition will probably need to be retained in the redraft. Minor plan modification possible definitions. In the three instances listed below, it is the Planning Commission that is being empowered to determine whether the minor plan modification is appropriate for approval or not: Definition 1. A deviation from, or clarification of, the adopted plan* and/or text that tit~ill neither increase the permitted density nor the potential traffic generated, provided the proposal otherwise remains consistent with the original design, land use, intent and developer commitments of the adopted plan *, and with the preferred scenario of the Community Plan. Definition 2. A nominal deviation from the specific development standards adopted at the time of rezoning related to minimum and ~riaximum building height, setback from interior and exterior property lines (for structures or parkingJ, number of required parking spaces, parking space size, aisle width, loading space requirements, lot coverage, building materials, colors, etc., as detcrr~zined by the Planning Canmissio~~ at the time of development planlfrj~al development pla~~ review. Such change shall not include alteration to the permitted uses or the adopted sign package. Definition 3. A ~rtodificalion of not more Than 10 percent from one or more of the eir~pirical standards, noted or implied through the adopted plan* including a development text, if applicable, or the general provisions of the Code. * "Adopted plan" refers to the document(s) adopted by City Council as part of the rezoning to a planned district. 03-OGGADM Minor Plan Modificatioi Memo to City of Dublin C ncil Re: Minor Plan Amendment May 13, 2003 -Page 3 Recommendation Staff believes some language that follows the example in Definition I, plus feedback on dealing with signs and reporting on modifications to City Council, would best fit the Dublin example. A listing of items that could be modified by the Commission, no matter how complete it appeared to be when drafted, can never anticipate every case. Definition 1 relies on the Community Plan preferred scenario and the intent and commitments of the original rezoning without referring to a list of specific standards that can be varied. This leaves the responsibilit}~ to the Planning Commission to "make the call" in a public forum on what can, and what cannot, be varied as part of its final review of a specific project. [It should be noted that the two most common code approaches in other municipalities was either to define a long list of specifics--which varied fairly widely from code to code--or the general "10 percent rule" as the basis for modification.] 03-OGGADI\Z Minor Plan Modification RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of ___.___ _ ____-_--Qublin City Council__ _ ____ I`![ecting o,..a..«ka~.~ ~ ~~~ ~•,.a - ---------- May 19, 2003 Page 10 ~~. Held 20 Mrs. Boring noted t t the information states that the ity of Hudson uses palm pilots and spread sheet to document inspections. It also otes that Oakwood does apre- sale inspection p or to closing. What does this e il? _ Mr. Ciarochi st ed that this is a transfer inspecti done prior to real estate closing Mrs. Borings gelled that pefiaps this be do for commercial properties. - Mr. Ciarochi ill check with Oakwood on their rdinances and enforcement proc s. Ms. Salay led that she would support the ntal property inspection as listed n the survey. Mr. t_ec ider concurred with Ms. Salay a Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher's comm ts. His focus ould be with the commercial std of code enforcement. But in vie of the time spen on issues during the planning st gel, it is important to maintain th e high .-,.,.. ...a.. , Cemetery Fee Waiver - Me ine Family i ayor McCash stated that the d tails are outlined in the memo. it ~, Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher moved proval of the waiver. i Mr. Kranstuber seconded th otion. l - Vote on the motion: Ms. C nnici-Zuercher, yes; Mc Kranstu er, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Cash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. cklider, yes. • Facility Use Waiv r -Dublin Coffman High School heater Boosters Mr. Kranstuber move approval of the waiver. Mrs. Boring second d the motion. Vote on the motto Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Rein ,yes; Ms. Salay, yes; M or '! McCash, yes; Mr .Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuer her, yes; Mr. Lecklider, y STAFF COM ENTS • Mem re Potential Sign Code Modifi lions Mr. Kran uber moved to schedule a join ession with Planning & Z ing Commission to devil a list of areas for possible mo fication. Mrs. ring seconded the motion. Ms. alay clarified that Council has ready held a meeting with 8~Z to devise such a list The memo presented tonight i staff's response. . Brautigam stated that staff is ow requesting feedback o the proposed list from ity Council prior to preparatio of an ordinance. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher sugge d that Council postpone di cussion on this item until he June 9 meeting. Mr. Kranstuber withdrew h' motion. Ms. Salay noted that th new building at Martin Roa and Sawmill on the Meij 's outlot is very nice looking, h ever the four separate sig in place for the various Hants greatly detract from t e appearance. For the tutu ,she would suggest tha he Code require a cohesive for palette and Zook for a s Aping center or retail ce let's signage, similar to the Stan ands set at Avery Square a Perimeter shopping ce ers. Ms. Clarke lug sled that Council members ho support this concept lay this to the Planning Com fission. Staff was very surer' ed that there was no re irement by P&Z for coordinat signage at that building. S ff had recommended su signage, but the applicant b ked and Planning Commissi n did not append such a ondition. Mrs. Bori noted that in the case men ~ Wed, there were four diff rent tenants and four different ogos. This is strictly a retail tea and she does not fin it offensive. The identif ng signage helps customers locate the businesses. May McCash stated that this file could be included in the ne 9 discussion. He sked that staff check on the w UPS store at the Peri eter Center, as their si Wage is different from all of th other standard signage i the Center. • Memo re Definitions of Minor Plan Revision , Ms. Clarke noted that in review of other cities' codes, most do not have a definition of minor plan amendment. In talking with staff from those cities, the most common way this is accomplished does not fit the Dublin example. Staff has devised Definition #1 which they believe is more tailored to Dublin. Much of what is done at the Planning Commission level relates to traffic generation and the Community Plan, and staff felt that a minor plan modification should be tied to those items. 03-OGGADM ~~ Minor Plan Modification RECOF~D OF PROCEEDINGS jvlinutcs of_ _ __-_-_- __ _Dublin City CounciL__ Mccting____ o,r,«. «~k a~."« ~_ Few "o .a,_b May 19, 2003 Page 11 Mr. Lecklider noted some discomfort with the term "deviation" without qualification. Could it be qualified by saying, "nominal deviation"? Ms. Clarke stated that if this increases Council's comfort level, that is acceptable. Mr. Lecklider stated that he believes Definition #1 is quite broad in terms of the. discretion being granted to P8Z without an opportunity for Council to later review it. Mayor McCash stated that PB~Z also would have the ability to determine whether it is a minor revision or needs further review. The language which follows in Definition #1, "provided the proposal otherwise remains consistent with the original design, land use intent and developer commitment" serves to narrow the term "deviation." Ms. Clarke stated that staff would reorder the words to ensure that the consistency is there, and if so, the Commission would then have the power to grant a deviation or clarification. Ms. Clarke stated that a question remains of whether or not a report must be made back to City Council after P&Z grants such a deviation from the adopted plan. Mayor McCash stated that there are many items tweaked in a final development plan which are not later reported back to Council. He would see this as an unnecessary step for a minor plan modification. The minutes of P&Z should suffice. It was the consensus of Council that the minutes of P&Z will suffice to report these items. • Memo re edestrian Tunnels and Dublin Ro d Bikepath Safety Concerns Mr. Hamme mith stated that information has een provided in response to co erns discussed t the last Council meeting. Ms. Chi ici-Zuercfier stated that the City veloped the bikepath concept nd it was appar tly shortsighted in view of them y access issues being raised his time. The major items should have been rammed in the CIP for the fu re. The op ing of the new Dublin Jerome H~ School will increase traffic o rand Road and t residents' safety concerns with rossing Brand to access the pa and school. Ms. Salay asked about the Bris I Parkway/Brand Road area, w re a bikepath tunnel has been requested. What ar the future. plans for a bikepath ong Brand Road? Mr. Hammersmith stated th this was discussed at a recent aff CIP review meeting. Staff is reviewing ways th the gaps can be filled along Br d Road to provide connectivity to existing thways. ~~ Ms. Salay stated that i a tunnel were to be considered ong Brand Road, it would be important to places h a tunnel at the optimum locaf n to serve all of the area. Another considera ~ n is that a neighborhood may I e their school busing if they hav walking access t a school. Some parents may h e concems with this. In view of the 35 mph sp d limit which is not adhered to i this area, would it be possible to lower the sp d to 25 mph and install a raise rosswalk as was done on Avery oad near St. Br' id's School? The tunnels are v costly and there are some safe concerns ith the fact that tunnels provide place for people to loiter, eosin threat to child n. Mr. H mersmith stated that in terms the concern of providing safe pe estrian cro ing for a major arterial in the ne ork, a road of 36 to 40 feet wide ith a left h d turn lane, with a volume of 8, 0 vehicles in 2001 - a raised cro walk would t meet the need. Lowering the peed to 25 mph on a road which cries a high volume of traffic is not desirabl n terms of moving traffic. Installi g such raised crosswalks will decrease the ficiency of the transportation ne ric, penalizing those who do adhere to the spee imits. Ms. Salay noted that she ews this differently -slowing to 2 mph is not a major change. The raised cro walk on Avery seems to be ef(ec e in addressing the safety concerns. Mr. Hammersmith st ed that it works well in that the fairly low volu of traffic. In regard to Ms. C CIP planning, th e are other considerations for t As the bikepat network is evaluated, connectivit considered. e cannot address what has happ considerati swill be important for the future. Mr. Kran ber asked if staff has a recomme day the CIP ~ti due to the road width and i i-Zuercher's concerns about _Is which have been discussed. d the expense must be , in the past, but these about including such a tunnel in Mr. H mersmith responded that in vie f the volume of traffic, the fact that it is a maj arterial, that there is a park, scho and community pool located across from the n ~ hborhood, the fact that there is si nificant pedestrian traffic of young people, and i view of the width of the road at 36 feet and site visibility constraints on Brand, this 03-O66ADM Minor plan ModiCicatit Joint Meeting of Council and Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2002 Page 2 Variance Procedures in Planned Districts Ms. Clarke stated that the discretionary authority of the Planning Commission is broader in the PUD's. The Commission can grant variances within their consideration of the final development plan. However, in a Planned Commerce District oc PCD, the text governs what can be approved. Therefore in many PCD's where a small variance i~requested, i.e., signage change, modification by a few spaces of parking requirements, requests for a smaller side yard - a rezoning is required. A rezoning involves introduction of an ordinance at Council, referral to P&Z, notifications of affected properties, and at the end a 30-day waiting period before the zoning is effective - in other words, a very involved process for a simple modification to the text. The question is whether there is an easier way to handle these. For a number of years, these variances were sent to the Board of Zoning Appeals. In one case, however, a variance granted by the BZA was very unpopular and since that time, the Administration has taken the position of handling these through a text change which requires a rezoning. This is very cumbersome for applicants, and there is now a desire by Council to consider a more streamlined process. Mr. Kranstuber asked if such a variance would then be considered by Council or by P&Z. Ms. Clarke responded that that is the issue on the table tonight. Mr. Kranstuber asked at what level does something become a major text change as opposed to a minor variance issue. Ms. Brautigam stated that in Colorado, there are a number of planned unit developments. Most cities have an ordinance in their Code which specifies that.a minor modificatir~n be reviewed administratively by staff, while major modifications are reviewed by P&Z or Council, depending upon the City. A major modification would involve a change in the use or the density, while a minor modification would be parking changes -not more than 20 percent -and sign changes. Staff is seeking input from Council and P&Z on what process they would be comfortable with for review of these items. Mrs. Boring suggested adding another step -allowing for a variance without undergoing the lengthy process. The first step would be to define a variance to a PCD and then to determine by what body it should be reviewed. Mr. Messineo asked where these definitions would be housed. Ms. Brautigam staled that once the variances are defined, there would be a subsection in the planned development district in the Code with the amendments. The Law Department would determine the appropriate place in the Code for these amendments- Mr. Kranstuber stated that in the case of the Perimeter Center, there was a very long and tough negotiation process. The sign package was negotiated as part of that. If someone later wants a larger sign or a higher roof height as a variance, he believes this would 03-OGGADI\'I Minor Plan Modification Joint Meeting of Council and Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2002 Page 3 constitute a rezoning. He would not want to undo the work done by past Councils and Planning Commissions in negotiating these complicated rezonings. Ms. Salay stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals is more of a quasi judicial board. P&Z would have much more discretion. She would prefer these changes b~ reviewed in K, avenue where the maximum discretion exists. There shouldn't bean "end run" around Council and P&Z by sending these to the BZA. Mr. Smith stated that if Council desires to enact legislation such as this, it could specify that all variances in regard to planned districts be reviewed by P&Z. Currently, these are reviewed by BZA. Legal staff would present a list of items to be included for Council's approval. These could include such items as a variance to a sideyard setback of a certain percentage, parking changes, relocation of signage, etc. Ms. Clarke stated that the criteria for practical difficulty are not the same for a plan modification in planned districts. The more important consideration is if the modification would violate the approved plan, or if it is consistent with what was approved. Mr. Reiner stated that when someone applies for a rezoning, the rules are already established. The applicant should follow the format, and he would not favor modification of these rules. There could potentially be many applicants desiring these variances. Dublin already has a codified law which lays out the expectations. He does not want to open the door for another round of requests for variances. If a future Planning & Zoning Commission was not strong, there could be wider swings in variations of the laws. Mr. Gerber asked what is the scope of the P&Z authority - is it arbitrary on the part of P&Z? Would there be rules in place regarding their discretion? Mr. Kranstuber stated that if a development plan has already been approved, P&Z would `""" then have total discretion for these types of requests. For example, if a variance were requested in regard to the highly controversial Schottenstein rezoning and it was granted by P&Z, there would be no opportunity for a referendum as there would be with a rezoning. Ms. Clarke stated that the door is open for Council to propose a system they are comfortable with -the goal is a shorter time for review, not a process that would guarantee an approval. Mr. Reiner stated that this would create more bureaucracy for staff. The rules are written, and he does not support modifying them. Standards should be kept high. Mrs. Boring stated that over a 20 year period, things could change, i.e., Dublin Village Center. She believes that what Mr. Reiner has suggested will limit Council and P&Z's options in the future. 03-06GADM Minor Plan Modification Joint Meeting of Council and Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2002 Page 4 - Mr. Kranstuber stated that under the present system, modifications could be requested. However, a rezoning request reopens all of the development to additional review and new conditions. Mrs. Boring stated that for some items, it shouldn't require a lengthy process for disapproval. Mr. Kranstuber stated that he doesn't disagree -the issue is with defining what is minor. Perhaps signage would be one item where the current process would still be required. Mr. Gerber stated that there is still a text in place, even if the applicant applies for a rezoning. Mr. Kranstuber stated that in some cases, the text might allow 80 square feet of signage and the applicant now requests 90 square feet. Mr. Zimmerman stated that in the case of Big Bear, signage problems should have been expected at the outset due to the layout of the Center -the outparcels obviously would block the signage of some of the tenants at the back of the site. Mr. Kranstuber summarized that perhaps signage is too controversial to be included in the list -anything approaching a major change for signage should require a rezoning. Mr. Saneholtz asked if problems will be created 30 years into the future when those present tonight are gone -does the variance open up a Pandora's box at that point in time? Some may not understand the rationale and history of establishing this change in the process. Mr. Gerber responded that this is why the text is in place. Mr. Kranstuber noted that the Perimeter Center has a text which limits the building roof height to 39 feet because of the concerns expressed by the adjacent neighborhood. Mr. Saneholtz stated that in 30 years, if that was determined to be unreasonable, they would have to undergo a rezoning. Mr. Lecklider stated that all of this discussion would be in the records. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked about the estimate of time saved with the change in process. Ms. Clarke responded that anything short of a rezoning process will be much more efficient - a rezoning often takes G months or longer. If an applicant could be heard by P&Z and have the action ratified by Council, the process would be much more efficient. She then gave examples of the minor text modifications which have required a rezoning, but which could have been handled with a variance heard by P&Z: Panora Bread, Crown Eurocar sideyard issue, Children's Hospital parking space issue, Burger King reduced sideyard and parking, Daimler at Tuttle increase in density, signage in Perimeter Center, 03-O6GAD1\'[ Minor Plan Modification Joint Meeting of Council and Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2002 Page 5 Walgreen's parking space issue, UDP parking issue, Kinko's at Tuttle parking issue. All of these have been through the system with text modifications, and could likely have been handled with a variance process. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she would be interested in reviewing something in writing regarding the definition of what is minor -that seems to be the concern .~, _., expressed. Ms. Brautigam stated that she was seeking input from these groups prior to drafting anything. Based on tonight's input, she does not believe signage will be included in such a list. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher moved to direct staff to draft for Council's consideration proposed amendments to the planned unit development section of the Code. Mr. Kranstuber seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked when Council could expect to receive this draft. Ms. Brautigam estimated that it would be ready in January. Ms. Clarke asked for clarification - a change to the zoning code requires a referral and recommendation from P&Z. In this case, she assumes that Council will first review the Code amendment and the Commission will be kept informed of the progress. Mr. Smith confirmed this. 03-OGGADI\~ Minor Plan Modification