City of Gahanna Legistar System

White stated that the Critique of the 2002 City of Gahanna Land Use Plan Update was

reviewed by Leonard Gilroy, AICP of Research Fellow, Reason Public Policy Institute

in Los Angeles, CA; the purpose of the report was to offer a critique of the 2002 City of

Gahanna Land Use Plan Update with regard to the principles of market-oriented land

use planning; in his report, Gilroy explains that market-oriented planning is an

approach to land use planning that acknowledges the fundamental role that markets

play in allocating resources (including land) in a free-market economic system; from a

market-oriented perspective, the best planning is that which is flexible and adaptable to

changing the community conditions; Gilroy further went on to say that in general terms

, the Plan does not appear to be overly prescriptive and market-intrusive in the matter

typical of plans that one might find in areas with strong "smart growth" style planning,

such as communities in Oregon, Florida, and Washington, for example; also, the plan

rightfully recognizes the need for flexibility in the planning process, stating that

unanticipated market demand, changing, demographics, and regional factors out of the

control of the City of Gahanna make flexibility an important component of this plan;

however, in contrast the plan correctly states that existing land uses have occurred over

time and reflect an land use pattern that may not meet current needs or market demand;

with discussion to bypassed land, Gilroy comments that the plan states that proposals

for bypassed land that vary from the land use plan must clearly demonstrate that the

land can not be developed and served in a manner consistent with existing plans and

that the proposed uses will not harmfully effect the established development in the area;

while it is certainly appropriate to examine the potential external effects of a proposed

development on surrounding properties, this statement also appears to reject by default

any infill development that does not conform to an established plan; this type of

inflexibility could potentially prevent quality, compatible infill development in certain

situations and could run counter to one of the plan's main goals of encouraging

mixed-use development. in regards to Compact Land Use, Gilroy comments that while

the City may feel that it is in the community's interest to encourage a compact land use

pattern, it is unrealistic to assume that leapfrog development can be prevented in a

free-market economy. White stated that this leapfrog development is dealing with

Jefferson Twp. Payne comments that true it is unrealistic to assume that leapfrog

development can be prevented in a free-market economy, but it can be discouraged.

White stated that Gilroy comments if public policy were to mandate compact

development, it would run the risk of reducung community quality of life by resulting in

equal or higher housing costs for lower-quality units. Payne commented that she didn't

believe the City of Gahanna's plan mandates compact development. White further went

on to say that Gilroy states that for communities concerned with minimizing

infrastructure and public service provision costs, an alternative market-oriented

approach to ensuring that new development "pay its way," regardless of development

design is the adoption of full-cost (or marginal cost) pricing for public services. Payne

commented this is a service administration policy and does not need to be included in

the Land Use plan to be considered. White added that Gilroy further goes on to say

that the plan recommends the modification of existing regulations to permit the

conservation development process; conservation development is a type of cluster

development focused on protecting the environmental attributes of a given site while

still allowing for the site's full development potential; also felt that we could offer

incentives (such as density bonuses) to developers that choose to adopt this type of

design. Payne said that since we don't have a lot of open space for development, she

didn't see this as a problem.

Thom stated that overall Gilroy's opinions were basically nice things to share. Payne

commented that the last sentence of the last paragraph sums it all up, basically the

market effects associated with even the most flexible, market-oriented land use plan will

be largely dependent upon real-world policy implementation and any potential

White commented that she has spoken to Mitchell about just taking the fees in lieu of

Parkland and fix up the parks that already exist. Both Payne and Thom commented

that fees in lieu of Parkland was a good idea.

Mitchell stated that there is a pond there and it is 1/2 acre; the pond is located on the

Mann property and is up towards the north end of the property; would prefer that we

recommend to accept the Parkland which is about 2.4 acres as long as it abuts the pond

and has access to 1 or both roadways. Payne asked so what you're trying to do is open

this up to more than just pocket parks. Mitchell replied that is correct; the property

owner has indicated that they may want to fill part of the pond in; told them that if we

can't attach to the pond, then we want fees in lieu of. Payne stated so basically we are

not ready to make a recommendation on this issue; asked do we have to make a

decision on this matter. Mitchell replied no. Thom stated that we need more

information; if the space is a large area, then I could see taking the Parkland; but we

have too many little parks with no one to take care of them; if they fill the pond, then we

want fees in lieu of.

Recommendation: Postpone for two weeks.