The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About101-00 Ordinance AMENDEDRECORD OF ORDINANCES Blank Co. Ordinance No.....1.0.1.-0.0...(Amended)...... Passed .................................................................., ....................... VF 1R AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PORTIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TO PROMOTE ARCHITECTURAL DIVERSITY WITHIN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. WHEREAS, the Community Plan promotes a high quality built environment; WHEREAS, the Community Plan also promotes both bicycle and pedestrian safety and mobility in and through Dublin; WHEREAS, Dublin City Council desires to preserve and promote the City's distinct visual character; WHEREAS, City Council desires architectural diversity within Dublin neighborhoods; WHEREAS, City Council set neighborhood design standards as a top priority during its 2000 Goal Setting session; WHEREAS, the Subdivision Regulations are being amended as a component of single- family residential design standards to enhance the livability of Dublin neighborhoods; WHEREAS, dispersing house designs throughout a development creates amore interesting and livable neighborhood; WHEREAS, varied lot widths and setbacks provide the opportunity to utilize multiple building types and to create a more interesting streetscape; WHEREAS, a minimum buildable depth will create lots large enough to accommodate both a house and accessory structures such as pools, sheds, decks, and porches; WHEREAS, larger lot widths and increased setbacks promote safety throughout residential neighborhoods; WHEREAS, placing concrete bikepaths along the street in front of houses enhances the livability of a neighborhood; WHEREAS, requiring larger setbacks along bikepaths increases safety along these paths; WHEREAS, wider sidewalks will facilitate safer pedestrian activity along through streets and streets carrying higher traffic volumes; WHEREAS, locating utility boxes towards the rear of properties increases safety by creating a more uncluttered and clearer streetscape, as well as enhances the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood; WHEREAS, it is necessary from time to time to update the Code and to enact new standards to protect the health, welfare, and safety of the community; and WHEREAS, the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments on August 10, 2000 and recommends approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Council, of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, ~ of the elected members concurring, as follows: RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordinance No.....1.01-.00..(Amende.d)...... Passed ................................................................... ..................... Page Two Section 1. That the following definitions be added to Section 152.002 and read as follows: BOX CUL-DE-SAC-A typical setback treatment on a cul-de-sac where the building lines for the lots fronting on the bulb, or rounded pavement at the terminus, are placed in straight lines and create right angles to form a partial square or rectangle around the bulb. BUILDABLE AREA-The area of a property where structures maybe located. BUILDER-Any company that constructs houses. Any builder that has a parent/subsidiary relationship will be considered the same builder. EYEBROW-A geometric roadway configuration, typically found at street angles 45 degrees or greater, that is used to provide increased lot frontage. NO-BUILD ZONE-An open area where construction is prohibited. All structures including, but not limited to buildings, parking, driveways, sidewalks, sheds, swimming pools, patios, decks or other accessory structures, swing sets/play structures, fences, antennae and basketball courts or other sport courts are prohibited in order to preserve open space. A no-build zone is typically found along the rear of asingle-family lot. Over lot grading and the placement of underground utilities are permitted within no-build zones. NO-DISTURB ZONE-An open area that will not be physically disturbed in order to preserve existing natural or new landscape features. Trees or other significant vegetation must remain in their natural condition and may not be removed from such a zone. Grading activities and the placement of utilities are also prohibited within this area. Utilities may cross at right angles through a no-disturb zone, if necessary and designed to minimize impacts. All structures including, but not limited to buildings, parking, driveways, sidewalks, sheds, swimming pools, patios, decks or other accessory structures, swing sets/play structures, fences, antennae, and basketball courts or other sport courts are prohibited within a no-disturb zone. Section 2. That Section 152.048 be amended to read as follows: Sidewalks and/or bikepaths shall be constructed on both sides of all streets except as waived by Council. Within all residential developments, sidewalks shall be four feet in width, except on "through" or more important streets where five feet will be required. mt,o r;~.. >r., ~t,.,tt ao~o .,t,o~t~o ;a„ „tv ,. i.:v .,~>,,, ,.i,.,tt t.e ~~... ,.~„a For purposes of this section, bikepaths will be installed in lieu of the required sidewalk. Bikepaths shall be installed in accordance with the adopted Community Plan and to provide connections to all parks, schools, adjacent neighborhoods, etc., as approved by the Planning Commission. When a bikepath is placed along the front of residential lots, the bikepath shall be at least eight feet in width and constructed of concrete. In addition, the front building lines for those lots shall be at least 35 feet behind the bikepath. When bikepaths are required along a side property line of asingle-family lot, the house shall not be constructed within ten feet of the bikepath easement, or the bikepath itself, if not contained within an easement. Section 3. That Section 152.053 be added and read as follows: Within residential developments, utility boxes, transformers, and similar mechanical equipment must be placed in the rear yard, wherever practical. If locating these RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordinance No.....1.01.-.00....(Amended).... Passed .................................................................., ....................... VF.1R Page Three structures in the rear yard is not practical as determined by the City Engineer, then they shall be at least 25 feet behind the right-of--way. Such equipment is prohibited from being located within the right-of--way, adjacent to the streets and in no-disturb zones. Such equipment must be screened by landscaping in accordance with Sections 153.077 and 153.133 (C). Section 4. That Section 152.019(C)(6) be added and read as follows: Within all residential subdivisions, including those within a Planned Unit Development District, the minimum front setback will be determined for each street by the zoning district in which the development is located. The setback should be varied among adjacent lots by at least five feet. No more than one-third of the lots within the subdivision may employ the minimum setback line, and the varied setbacks should be reasonably dispersed throughout the subdivision. The Planning Commission has the discretion to waive or modify this requirement within PUD zoned areas provided it determines such action is warranted to maintain a desired development style or design. Section 5. That Section 152.019(C)(7) be added and read as follows: Within residential subdivisions, including those within Planned Unit Development Districts, a 65-foot minimum "buildable" depth shall be maintained for each lot. This depth will be measured as the minimum perpendicular distance between the front building line and the required rear yard, no-build zone or no-disturb zone, or other applicable setback(s). The "buildable" width is the minimum distance between required side yards and will be measured parallel to the right-of--way line whenever practical and shall not include any portion of no-build zones, no-disturb zones, bikepath easements, or other applicable setback(s), except that the minimum buildable width restriction shall operate to accommodate side-load garages, driveways, and parking areas. The minimum buildable width will be established at the time of zoning. The buildable area of a lot is established to contain the building, any building additions, decks, porches, accessory structures, on- siteparking, and any accessory uses. The Planning Commission has the discretion to waive or modify this requirement within PUD zoned areas provided it determines such action is warranted to maintain a desired development style or design. Section 6. That Section 152.019 (C)(8) be added and read as follows: Variation in lot width shall be required for all subdivisions with more than eight lots, including those within Planned Unit Development Districts. No more than six lots in a row may have the same lot width. There must be a minimum variation of 10 feet. Lots of varying width must be dispersed throughout the subdivision. No more than 50 percent of the lots contained within the preliminary plat shall be of the minimum width. In addition, 15 percent of the lots contained within the preliminary plat must have a width at least 20 feet above the minimum requirement. Corner lots will not be counted toward the 15 percent requirement. When all of the lots within a development are 100 feet or wider, then the varied lot width requirement shall not apply. The Planning Commission has the discretion to waive or modify this requirement within PUD zoned areas provided it determines such action is warranted to maintain a desired development style or design. Section 7. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the earliest date permitted by law. RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordinance No.....~.Q1.-QQ..~Ameladed)..... Passed .................................................................., ....................... Page Four day of ~ 2000. Attest: Presiding Utticer Clerk of Council Sponsor: Planning Division I hereby certify that copies of this Drdinance/Resolution were posted in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 731.25 of the Dlio Revised Code. CI ri of Couneil, ~ubfin, Ohio CITY OF DUBLIN To: City Council Members From: Holly R. Susong; Planner Date: September 14, 2000 RE: Architectural Diversity (# 101-00) MEMO As you are aware, the first component of the architectural diversity standards is scheduled for City Council review on September 18, 2000. This ordinance includes a section that prohibits the same or "similar" model type from being repeated within three lots on the same side of the street or on the three closest lots across the street. The building industry is concerned about the staff interpretation of these terms. To better address this issue, staff has created examples of the types of houses that may be considered "similar" or "different." These examples are not intended to be incorporated into the code, but may be used to provide a clearer understanding of the types of models that may be considered "similar" or "different." A copy of these examples has been included in your packets. In addition, the Building Industry Association is also concerned with a lengthy time frame for reviewing the proposed elevations. The industry has submitted a letter addressing several proposed changes to this ordinance. A copy is attached for your reference. The suggestions include athree-day time frame for the staff decision on the "~" same or "similar" model standard. Ordinance 101-00 is an amendment to the subdivision regulations, and it is not the appropriate place to incorporate this time frame. Staff believes that a limited time frame may be established to accommodate the industry, but it should be placed in the second architectural diveriity ordinance that will be tied to the building permit application. Staff has met several times with the building industry and has listened to concerns regarding both of the proposed architectural diversity ordinances. Staff will continue to meet with them as needed. Attachments as noted SEP-13-2000 10 44 BIAiCENTRAL OHIO 891 0535 P.02i03 WILES BOYLE -"j'~ . J - ~ ~ Q4 ~y~` DS/30/00 13:26 '8'614 221 4541 proposed changes to Oub~in Archi;tectuyal Diversity ordinance Section 7 should be amended to Include the following language: •When a model is submitted to the CItY bV a builder, developer or home buyer for diversity determination, such determination shall be made ~ by the Clty within three (3) business days. If such determinatian is not made within three (3) business days, then the model shall be deemed to comply with the requirements of this Section, and shall be approved for ,~ construction on the lot as submitted. •In order to rele~ a model submitted for diversity determination under this section, the city must demonstrate that at least eight (8l of the elements I(sted to the defln[tion section of the Ordinance are identical or substantially similar to Conti nder th~ section unle s al d•emonstrat on can approved and appropriate u be made. •In making diversity determinations, the City shall employ licensed design professionals. »Recognlzing that a prolonged appeal by its very nature (s inequitable, when staff has reJected a submission for diversity determination reasons under this Section, the applicant may file a written eNNrol will~i llic Devtlapi»ent Oepartrnenti. Wihhln seven (71 calendar days after the ftling of that appeal, a panel shall be convened to consider that appeal. They shall render their decision within a period of three l3) additional calendar days. The City shall maintain a list of llcensea design professionals not employed by the Clty, who, on a random basis, shall compose the panels hearing such appeals. In the event the appeal is successful, the cost of the design professionals shall be borne by the city. In the event the appeal is unsuccessful, the cost of the design professionals shall be borne by the applicant. The decision of the appeal panel shall be final. section 6 Should be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following language: "In order to encourage variation in lot widths, at least fifteen percent (15°6) of all lots shall be one hundred feet (100') In length in all subdivisions. Corner lots should not be computed in any manner toward the percentage requirements. The Planning commission has the discretion to wave or modify this requirement and PUD-zoned areas, provided It determines such action IS warranted to maintain a desired developmental style or design." Section 4 should be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following language: r SEP-13-2000 10 44 BIA/CENTRAL OHIO 08/30/00 13:27 $814 221 4541 WILES BOYLE B91 0535 P. 03/03 ~ uva "within all residential subdivisions, including those w1t111n planned unit development districts, the minlmum front setback will be determined for each street by the zoning district in which the development is located. The setback should be vaned among adjacent lots by at least flue feet 15'). No more than one-third t1/3) of the lots may employ the minlmum setbacK line." Section 5 should be amended and the following Ia~gua9e inserted In the second- to-last sentence: "Except thatthe minlmum buildable depth restriction shall operate to accommodate side-load garages, drivewaVS, and parking areas, In the geflnltlon section for "no•builct zones," the words "parkway" antl -driveway" should be deleted. 2 ~~~ M~ Ae~~ acv TOTAL P.03 DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION August 10, 2000 (:1'I'l 111' Ul R1,1\ ""~`~ Division of Planning 5800 Shier-Rings Road )ublin, Ohio 43016-1236 Phone/100:614-761-6550 Fax: 614-761-6566 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. 00-071ADM Subdivision Regulations Amendment Request: Review and recommendation of a Code amendment to promote architectural diversity within single-family residential subdivisions. Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Tim Hansley, City Manager, 5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. MOTION: To approve this code amendment because it is a step toward residential design standards to increase architectural diversity and enhance the viability of Dublin neighborhoods, and it codifies several policies typically negotiated during the rezoning and platting processes, with two conditions: 1) That Section 3 be revised to state that if locating these structures in the rear yard is not practical as determined by the City Engineer, then they shall be at least 25 feet behind the right-of--way; and 2) That both staff and the Law Director review and revise Section 7 to exempt a subdivision with four or more builders from the architectural diversity requirement if a subdivision: (a) Has no more than 150 lots; (b) No builder constructs on more than 35 percent of the lots within the subdivision; and (c) The different builders are reasonably dispersed throughout the subdivision, as approved by staff. VOTE: 5-1. RESULT: This amendment was approved. It will be forwarded to City Council with a positive recommendation. STAFF CERTIFICATION SUBN4ITTED T~0 COUNCI • J ~ ~~~ _ ~~ ~ `~'- ~ -: b fOR MEEflN(i ON I~ d ~ Holly S g Planner `~ crr~~ ~-r u~~i,l.l,~ Division of Planning 5800 Shier-Rings Road Dablin, Ohio 43016-1236 Phone/iDO:614-761-6550 fax: 614-161-6566 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us STAFF REPORT DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION August 10, 2000 CASE 1: Code Amendment 00-071ADM -Subdivision Regulations Amendment Request: Review and recommendation of a Code amendment to promote architectural diversity within single-family residential subdivisions. Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Tim Hansley, City Manager, 5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Staff Contact: Holly Susong, Planner. Update: This case was tabled on July 20, 2000 after the Planning Commission discussed the location of utilities, staggered setbacks, and varied lot widths. Since that time, staff has met with the BIA to discuss its concerns with this proposed ordinance. A few minor modifications/clarifications have been made to both the staff report and the ordinance to address the suggestions rtiade by the Planning Commission during the last meeting. Background: City Council and Planning Commission, over the past several years, have expressed a strong interest in increasing architectural diversity within residential subdivisions. Both have requested more stringent residential development standards to enhance the aesthetic quality of Dublin. This issue is typically debated and negotiated during the rezoning and/or platting reviews. Mechanisms include requiring the developer to create an architectural diversity plan, to install concrete bike paths along the front yard of residential lots (rather than asphalt), and to place utility boxes in less conspicuous locations. These "policies" have evolved to ensure quality development, but they are not contained within the Code yet. This proposed Code amendment addresses the issues that. can be properly incorporated into the preliminary platting requirements. It also creates new standards, such as varied lot widths and setbacks, as well as a minimum "buildable" depth to increase safety and promote diversity throughout residential neighborhoods. Larger sidewalks will also be required along through streets to improve safety within the community, and several definitions are being added to clarify terms used throughout this Code amendment. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -August 10, 2000 Page 2 This Code amendment is the first step in completing citywide, residential design standards. Additional requirements, such as diversity in building facades, architectural materials, four-sided azchitecture, etc. will be addressed. in a second Code amendment, and it is tied to the building permit process. Staff will present the second Code amendment addressing some of these issues in September. The first reading by Dublin City Council was held on July 10, 2000, and the second reading-will be scheduled after the Planning and Zoning Commission makes its recommendation. Any ""`~" changes made by the Commission will be incorporated and submitted as an "amended" ordinance for the public hearing. Considerations: • This Code amendment is intended to eliminate the potential ambiguity associated with "policies." Straightforward standards are being created to ensure consistent developments as well as a more predictable review process. Several definitions are being added to provide clarity. • Definitions for the no-build and no-disturb zones have. typically been included on final plats, but these definitions have varied from development to development. In addition, the plats for some older subdivisions do not include any specification as to the permitted or prohibited structures within the no-build and no-disturb zones. Staff has a general definition that is applied to these older developments. These current, uncodified definitions allow swing sets and other moveable structures (no foundation) to be placed within these areas. • This Code amendment will include the first codified definitions for no-build and no-disturb zones. Defining these terms will assist in long term administration. The proposed definitions are more stringent than the ones currently used by staff, because they prohibit all structures, including swing sets, within these areas. • Section 152.048 states that sidewalks and bikepaths shall be constructed on both sides of all streets except as waived by Council. The Municipal Engineer shall determine whether sidewalks or bikepaths should be constructed. This Code amendment maintains the bikepath sidewalk requirement, but it amends the current Code to require that the location of bikepaths be in accordance with the approved Community Plan. This Code amendment also requires bikepaths to be constructed of concrete when required along the front of a residential lot. This Code amendment also increases the width of sidewalks to five feet when located along through or more important streets. • When a bikepath is required along a side property line, structures would be required to set back ten feet from the bike path easement or the bikepath itself, when not contained within an easement. In addition, when bikepaths are required along the front of a residential lot, the front building lines for these lots must be at least 35 feet behind the bikepath. These "extra" setback requirements could be incorporated into subdivision design much earlier (and more cheaply) in the process. These setbacks will increase the distance between structures and bike paths to improve safety and enhance the livability of a neighborhood. • The current subdivision regulations do not address the location of utility boxes. Most have been placed at the rear lot line, but several new utility providers have placed them at the corners of the lots_ Locating these boxes away from the street enhances the neighborhood and creates a more uncluttered, safer streetscape. All utility boxes will be required in the rear yard, where practical. Otherwise utility boxes must be at least 25 feet behind the right-of- Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -August 10, 2000 Page 3 way. These structures will be prohibited from being located within the right-of--way and no- disturb zones. Varied setbacks are also proposed. The minimum setback will be established by the underlying zoning, most generally 25 feet. No more than two adjacent lots will be permitted to have the same setback. A minimum variation of 10 feet will be required. Staggered setbacks will break up the visual monotony that can result from houses being set in a straight row. This standazd will not apply to lots located on the bulb of a cul-de-sac. A 65-foot minimum "buildable" depth is also proposed to assist in creating lots lazge enough to accommodate both a house and accessory structures such as pools, sheds, etc. Varied lot widths are also proposed. No more than two adjacent lots will be permitted to have the same lot width. There must be a variation of at least 10 feet. In addition, no more than 50 percent of the lots within a development will be permitted to have the minimum lot width, and 15 percent of the interior lots must have a lot width at least 20 feet above the minimum requirement. Different lot widths allow for different types of housing. Larger lots will be able to accommodate houses with side-loading garages, whereas this design may not be feasible on a smaller lot. Dispersing lot widths throughout a development will add to the overall diversity. When all of the lots within a development are 100 feet or wider, then the vazied lot width requirement will not apply. The general architectural diversity language is really very difficult to apply literally. Its success depends upon the flexibility and good will of the developer involved. While developers have been quite accommodating on this point, the standard needs to be clearer and easier to apply. The "two lots on the same street side" only works for a straight run of lots-not for eyebrows, curves, and cul-de-sacs. The new standard will only allow the same or similar model to be presented once in every three lots on the same side of the street, and the same or similar model will also be prohibited on the three closest lots across the street. In addition, all lots fronting on a cul-de sac bulb or eyebrow will be required to have a different model. This Code amendment will ensure that architectural diversity is consistently applied to all proposed subdivisions. This Code amendment requires a developer to submit a table indicating which lots may not have similar houses (i.e. Lot # 3 cannot have a similar model as Lots 1, 2, 4, 5, 18, 19, 20). Staff will use this table to determine whether a particular model is permitted on a certain lot during the building permit process. The BIA has expressed its concern with the time that it may take staff to determine if a particular model is permitted. The BIA has requested a time frame, for making such a decision, be placed on staff. Staff believes the BIA's request can be addressed, but the subdivision regulations are not the appropriate place to incorporate it into the Code. Staff will incorporate this time frame into the ordinance that will be tied to the building permit process. The staggered setback, varied lot width, minimum buildable depth, and architectural diversity requirements will apply to single family residential subdivisions, including those within Planned Unit Development Districts. However, the ordinance will allow the Planning Commission to waive or modify these requirements within PUD zoned areas provided the Commission determines that such action is necessazy to maintain a particular development style or design (i.e. patio homes or single family condos). Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -August 10, 2000 Page 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that this Code amendment incorporates more straightforward development standards into the Code to ensure consistent developments and a more predictable review process. This amendment will also promote architectural diversity within residential subdivisions and will increase safety throughout the community. Staff recommends approval of this Code amendment as presented. Bases: 1) This Code amendment is a step toward residential design standards to enhance the livability of Dublin neighborhoods. 2) The standards created within this Code amendment will create diversity and increase safety within residential neighborhoods. 3) These amendments will codify several "policies" typically negotiated during the rezoning and platting processes, and will reduce any potential ambiguity associated with the preliminary plat procedure. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -August 10, 2000 Page 2 Commission has the t to amend its agenda. He noted at no staff report was prepared. The Commission is n ligated to hear a case because it as on the published agenda. Mr. Fis said Sos Codispoti of Llewell arms gave him copies of plans £or the Wuertz prop for the other Commissioners, ho ever he did not have them to dist ' te. He suggested ' might be an appropriate subjec or a subcommittee. The land u and the future bridge shown in the Community Plan ig issues. Mr. Lecklider pointed that the residents would have o ortunity to speak about t ' as it proceeds as a rezo ' g. He thought forming a subco ittee would be premature. has not been presented a Commission as yet. Ms. Cl e said a rezoning applicati for asingle- family subd' Sion on the Wuertz property has b n filed. Ms oring thought all meetings shou e scheduled with staff an pen to the public. The mplete debate should be open, e was uncomfortable with- ubcommittee forum. Mr. Fishman said he was y delivering a message fro "e resident. Mr. Sprague noted that sub-committee meetin e public and announced in t newspaper. Ms. Salay agreed. Mr. Charles D 'Coll (the applicant in the W rtz rezoning case) announced that he does not want a sub mmittee. also announced Cas~.~lis being postponed. ~'hc 1. Code Amendment 00-071ADM -Subdivision Regulations Amendment Ms. Susong said the Commission discussed this case on July 20, 2000. The main issues included the location of utilities, staggered setbacks, and varied lot width. Since then, staff met with the BIA twice. This proposed ordinance concerns architectural diversity within single-family subdivisions. She said this is the first of several issues dealing with architectural diversity, and it involves the changes to the subdivision regulations. Several definitions were added. Ms. Susong said it establishes. a required four-foot sidewalk or concrete bikepath along all ~ streets, in accordance with the Community Plan and to connect to schools, parks, etc. More important streets will have five-foot sidewalks. Setbacks along bikepaths will be increased to ten feet if along a side lot line, or to 35 feet along the front of a lot. She said Section 3 deals with utility boxes. Putting them at the rear of the lot is encouraged, but in no case closer than 25 feet to the right-of--way line. When it is not practical to put them at the rear, this is an alternate. Ms. Susong said Section 4 requires staggered setbacks. As proposed, only two contiguous lots could have matching setbacks, and then there would have to be a variation often feet on the third lot. Section 5 establishes a minimum "buildable depth" of 65 feet. This is to create a lot that is big enough for a house and accessory structures such as decks, within the buildable area. Section 6 deals with varied lot widths. Not more than 50 percent of the lots in the subdivision could have the minimum lot width, and 15 percent of the lots need to be at least 20 feet wider than the minimum. Subdivisions with all 100-foot lots are exempt from this requirement. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -August 10, 2000 Page 3 Section 7 is the architectural diversity component that assures that a specific model, or one that looked substantially similar, is not repeated more often than every third lot on the same side of the street, and not on the three closest lots on the other side of the street. Each lot affects two lots in each direction plus three houses across the street. Section 8 requires a developer to submit a diversity plan, such as a lot matrix, with the preliminary plat. Ms. Susong noted a letter from the BIA was distributed. She said specialized developments with the same lot size, or condos and patio homes could be handled through the PUD process. °~ ° Ms. Salay asked if this includes the golf course project because it is not officially rezoned. Ms. Clarke responded that this ordinance is not yet in place. She does not know if, and when, it will be made effective by City Council. That is a Council issue to decide. She noted the golf course rezoning is scheduled for City Council vote on August 14. Ms. Salay wanted to know if this would apply to a subdivision that is half built. Ms. Susong said these specific regulations are applied at the preliminary plat, prior to road construction. Ms. Salay asked how might more houses be able to be added to Dublin in the future. After checking the Community Plan, Ms. Clarke said if all eligible land is annexed, the buildup will be about 16,700 houses. She estimated there are currently over 9,000 homes in Dublin, and there may be another 2,000 lots in the pipeline. This ordinance will affect at least 5,000 lots. Ms.. Susong said when there is a bikepath running between two lots, it should be installed when the streets are constructed. When the house is built, it should already be in .place. Mr. Hammersmith agreed. Ms. Salay asked how a buyer knows about a bikepath in front of the lot, if it is not installed until later. Mr. Hammersmith said the best notation is on the plat in terms of the bikepath easement. Ms. Salay said some people don't read their plats before they buy. Ms. Boring said Section 3 states the rear yard for utilities may not be practical in some cases. Who defines practical? Ms. Susong suggested leaving this to the determination of the City Engineer. Mr. Hammersmith said if there is a no-disturb zone, or trees to protect, it would not be practical. You might not want boxes adjacent to a park area. Ms. Boring thought the reference should be added noting the City Engineer. Regarding setback variations, Ms. Susong said the staff does not feel the five-foot offset works. Whole streets would be platted at 25, 30, 25, 30, and so on every other lot, and bikepath streets would vary at 35, 40, 35, 40. This would be expected for efficient layouts along lots of the same depth. The 33 percent quota of deeper setbacks would be along the bikepath streets. Ms. Susong said this was patterned after Donegal Cliffs, which has the 10-foot offsets. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -August 10, 2000 Page 4 Ms. Boring said the way it is written, any apartments, condos or cluster housing would have to use the PUD. They could not use straight zoning because they could not follow these rules. Ms. Clarke said most apartment developments did not involve a plat, but staff will check on this. Ms. Boring said she does agree with the BIA's letter regarding Section 7. It is too vague. Ms. Susong suggested using an architect on staff to examine each model. Ms. Clarke noted that examining the models themselves would not be done at the time of the platting. It will be done in conjunction with a building permit, and that will be covered in the next ordinance. The definition of what is "substantially similar" will be defined in the next ordinance. Determining which lots will affect the architecture on which other lots is all that is being considered within the subdivision regulation. The hard part is in the next ordinance that will be tied to the building permit process for individual lots within single-family developments. Ms. Boring thought this issue should be addressed now, perhaps by referencing the future ordinance. Ms. Clarke said she understood the concern. "Substantially similar model" is a term that seems too discretionary. More specific language might be included to give a better understanding how it will be administered. Ms. Susong said a number of the elements would have to be repeated on two elevations for them to be considered as similar. Ms. Boring was still uncomfortable -with this explanation. Ms. Clarke asked if graphics would help. Ms. Boring said yes. Ms. Clarke said staff has determined what is similar or dissimilar since the first cataloging of models was done with the Commission's approval. Ms. Boring wanted language in the ordinance about the diversity matrix. Ms. Clarke said it was not referenced because some developers may have a better idea than the matrix to establish diversity standards. Staff wanted to leave that opportunity in the ordinance. Mr. Fishman stated his concern in administering this. He attended the BIA meeting with staff, and the BIA raised some excellent points about subjectivity. He wanted it to be as specific as possible and easy to administer. He wanted non-subjective wording. Ms. Susong said staff already administers it this way in several new subdivisions. Ms. Clarke suggested graphic illustrations to indicate houses that were similar and dissimilar. She noted the current Code has very few graphics, which is a criticism of it. Dublin hired Ratio Architects to rewrite the Code because their graphics package was so strong. Mr. Sprague noted the use of graphics within the Community Plan and the Road to "Wow! ". Mr. Lecklider said he wants some flexibility so that other options can come forward. Unworkable aspects will be revisited. He said he is sensitive to the builders, and he does not want extremes in subjectivity. Mr. Sprague agreed, and he liked the idea of using graphics. ~. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -August 10, 2000 Page 5 Ms. Salay said she was not on the Commission in the early stages of dealing with this issue. She likes the idea of having more than just one builder. With three or more builders, the diversity issue takes care of itself. Mr. Lecklider disagreed and said some styles might be repetitious. Ms. Salay asks if three people pick one house type over a weekend does only the first person get it. Ms. Clarke said yes, she believed it would be based on first application received. The staff currently handles which houses can and cannot be built on which lots based on the design of the front facade, in several new subdivisions. _ Ms. Susong said several BIA members noted that several builders have the same footprint, which automatically results in the same sort of elevations. It is part of the building permit process, not the subdivision regulations. However, turn around times can be built into the process. Ms. Clarke said a quick turn around time is important. A larger builder has apre-approved .list, and it is clear what can go next door to what. The small builder needs to know that a specific house is approved. This would be in advance of the building permit process. Ms. Salay asked if we should encourage the builders to do an architectural review. Ms. Clarke said some developers do that now. Folks want individuality in the house they have selected. We'll try to facilitate as many builders as we can. Mr. Peplow wanted specific guidelines. He disagreed that different builders automatically give diversity. This lays the groundwork for phase two and phase three, and he is concerned about the administrative side of it. Ms. Susong said the current process seems to work, although it takes more time to administer. Mr. Fishman does not want subdivisions with flat roofs. Steeper roofs give a better appearance. He said having four or more builders would create diversity. Ms. Clarke said if there are ten builders on a cul-de-sac and if every house is a salt box, we goofed. Mr. Fishman said he does not want to make this a nightmare to administer and he wants to assure the small builders will be able to continue in Dublin. Ms. Boring asked if this would be the appropriate place to incorporate traffic control devices. Ms. Clarke said traffic calming probably does not belong in an ordinance that has a title of architectural diversity. It would also be an amendment to the subdivision code. Tom Hart, representative of the BIA, said they met with staff and appreciated that opportunity. The BIA has provided both comments and suggestions for amendment, and he distributed a letter. The BIA opposes the ordinance because it will have a large impact on this market. This ordinance puts definitions into code, into law. Explaining how this will work in a future Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -August 10, 2000 Page 6 ordinance is not acceptable. Three or more builders will provide diversity. Production builders can meet this ordinance, the smaller builders may not be able to. Part of the intent of this ordinance was to bring in and encourage small builders and small developments. Removing Section 7 will encourage them to come. He proposes that the ordinance not apply to subdivisions of 20 or fewer lots. There are plenty of our members who build one or two houses a year. Mr. Hart said they need a fixed time frame for decisions and for appeals. This especially impacts the out of town buyer. We don't understand how these decisions will be made or how the different factors will be weighed against each other. It is unclear what will be similar, and what won't be. That is unclear on the face of this ordinance. He wants design professionals in the decision-making at the staff level and at the appeal level. We would like a quick appeal. He recommended a 3-member panel of design professionals to review staff decisions. Mr. Hart said the whole approach is way too restrictive. In laying out a subdivision, the planning process is more of an art than is reflected in the ordinance. We would like a much more flexible approach. In terms of laying out subdivisions, they think Dublin will not like the results and there will be some odd looking streetscapes. Charles Driscoll, Edwards Land Company, said this ordinance is fairly sweeping. His high end subdivisions, such as Coventry Woods, Llewellyn Farms, Amberleigh, and Bristol Commons, would not meet these rules. They would have to be redrawn. He said he is-the plan reviewer in Edwards subdivisions, and builders need immediate responses on whether a particular house can go on a specific lot. The process is going to be hard for Dublin to respond timely for these small builders. Big builders will have pre-programmed their product. Mr. Driscoll said the issue came up because of one-builder production subdivisions. This is to address the way those look. These rules will result in more production subdivisions, not less. Rich Danko of Duffy Homes said he couldn't understand why Dublin would want this. Every subdivision he builds in already has a developer approval process. It seems like you would be duplicating that same process. The consumer is going to feel the brunt of the ordinance. Mr. Danko said working with a family to put together a custom or semi-custom home takes weeks or months. Making changes to the facades all add to the house cost. Even for production builders, some of the requirements for the varied setbacks, etc. will lead to higher sale prices for the customer. The process is too subjective as well. Timing is a big issue. After going into contract, they draw the plans with our architect. That process takes about a month. Then we submit them to a municipality for building permit, and that process takes another four to seven weeks. The diversity decision is too late as proposed. Scott Shively of the Truberry Custom Homes said his company builds high-end custom homes. He thinks that natural competition and consumer demand will address many concerns. Truberry has 286 house plans, but they build many of the same 12 designs due to customer demand. Some homes are designed for rolling terrain, treed lots, etc., but this ordinance notes the building Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -August 10, 2000 Page 7 setback line artificially, without respect for the land. This denies the natural characteristics of the land. He said without knowing how this will be administered, this ordinance is quite scary. Joe Sullivan, with Sullivan and Bruck Architects, said they do a lot of custom single-family design and also production design. As an architect, he has concerns about the solution prescribed. Design cannot be a prescriptive process. He can come up with some terrible designs to fit any guidelines. A good design has good scale, and proportion, and design principals. Any design solution should start with its site, topography and vegetation. I think that we are going to get superficial solutions to houses that have nothing to do with good design. An architecture review process should involve trained professionals. Architects .would need to have experience in residential work. Without that, we are going to get some unhappy solutions. Mike Close said he represents the BIA, and he has a lot of experience in how cities develop. He was concerned the process was moving too fast, and the process is not deliberative. He said this is an over reaction due to a problem with one subdivision. He suggested the theory of unintended consequences would apply here. We need to look down the road to see what it does to other things that appear unrelated. He suggested a builder might have only six houses, and he would build each one an equal number of times. It might meet the Code, but it is so artificial that it looks ludicrous. We don't know what problems are being created here. He said a definition of "similar" is needed. There is far too much subjectivity. Mr. Close said the Commission is making a recommendation on a change in the law. The procedural process and the definitions should be included. The Planning staff is not equipped to administer this and appeals are costly and time-consuming. It will cost $1,000 in fees plus attorney's fees to petition the Board of Zoning Appeals. It is a very subjective ordinance and will cause many appeals. Prompt decisions and the cost of housing are concerns. Mr. Close said this needs to be tabled until the whole package is presented for consideration. City Council may be in a hurry, but not if a poor ordinance generates many complaints. Ms. Boring said the reason for this is to give guidelines. Mr. Hart said that parts of the ordinance ~'""" deals with laying out the lots of the subdivisions, not the diversity. A developer needs to meet the standard of general diversity as the Commission sees it. He said the commission does not approve things without a lot of scrutiny, and developers feel the process is regulatory enough. Mr. Hart said Sections 4, 5, and 6 lay out specific numbers and specific requirements without any regard to the land.. Ms. Boring agreed and said there is a waiver process in the ordinance. She said exact numbers can be less arbitrary, and Dublin has been criticized for arbitrary decision-making previously. Mr. Danko said they already have a developer review process, and this is a duplication of effort. He recommended having the developer do the review or use an architectural firm. Mr. Close said the staff is not homebuilders or developers. He said this is a government step intruding further in the lives of developers. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -August 10, 2000 Page 8 Ms. Boring said the community wants standards set and they want an overall planning guide. Mr. Close said that is not coming from the community. People keep coming in here because they like the way the community looks. Ms. Salay said that the BIA understands the purpose of this ordinance and they agree it is a good thing market wise. She asked for their suggestions to achieve these goals. Mr. Close said they have proposed amendments. Mr. Hart said the production builders can deal with the diversity process, but the custom builders cannot. He fears it is too arbitrary. Ms. Susong said they would have to establish an appeal process with the building permit. If desired, it could include review time frames. Ms. Clarke said the time expectation would be no longer than a week for a determination. She thought if it is determined that home buying is a weekend process, perhaps staff could be available on Monday morning for this. If it is an easy yes, it can be done immediately. If it requires more study there could be an answer by Friday or it might be combined with the Wednesday walk-through permits. Ms. Clarke said she is comfortable that they can come up with a process that is efficient, that has short turn around, and one that has standards that the industry and staff can agree on. She said if it requires employing the services of a residential architect for this purpose, that is a possibility. Mr. Lecklider said he is not fully aware of the meaning of when ISO certification is achieved, but he assumes it involves timing, customer service and quality. He said the City has demonstrated by achieving a certification that they have the ability to do unusual things. Ms. Susong said complete architectural diversity is being done in Hudson, a suburb of Cleveland. Ms. Clarke noted that New Albany has largely a developer process. Mr. Danko said they build in New Albany. The developer, New Albany Communities requires a certificate of appropriateness. There is a preliminary review and final review with the developer. Once you have that you have to attach the certificate to your building permit application or it will not be accepted. The review process with the .developer is supposed to take a week, but it normally takes minimum of a month. It involves two architects, two representatives of the developer and a homeowner representative. Mr. Hart said the goal in New Albany is not diversity it is architecture uniformity, and there is a different price point in the community. He said the goal of the architectural review is to make the houses more expensive. He said the bottom line is that it is a private company doing it by contract, different in his view from the government doing it by code. Mr. Sullivan said the difference in that process is that there is not a predetermined prescription. He favors some type of review process that works and generally is handled by developers. But, Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -August 10, 2000 Page 9 if you do have a process it should react to the specifics as opposed to some prescription. Ms. Susong said an appeal would have to be tied to the building permit process and possibly to the Boazd of Zoning Appeals, but staff will reseazch and address it. Mr. Fishman said City Council wants this passed. He would like to see it passed and move on to the other ordinance. He said the developers and the builders have made good points. He would like the ordinance passed with an exemption for subdivisions of 100 lots, with four or more builders with dispersed lots, and that one builder can not build on more than 35 percent of the lots. Mr. Fishman said the builders have said that the large builders can handle this, but the high-end builders have the problem. He said this exemption would encourage the high end builders. Ms. Clarke asked if there is a minimum representation. If a subdivision is exempt if there is a hundred houses and if you have two of those builders building two houses a piece. Mr. Fishman said it wouldn't work that way, no one builder can build over thirty-five houses in that subdivision. He said this is a minimum number. Mr. Fishman said in Muirfield the builder submits the plan, and they are told they will get the plan back in two weeks. If they don't get it back within 30 days, the plan is automatically approved, according to the deed restrictions. There is an informal appeal process where the applicant meets with the architect. There is a fee for this process and they work it out. Ms. Boring said Council is in favor of getting something done. She said they gave the planning staff a very big chore and this is a good solution. She said the average citizen cares and they let you know when you make a mistake. She said the City is spending millions of dollars to make it different. She is uncomfortable with passing an ordinance that says it is dependent on an ordinance. She is going to leave it up to Council. The builders and the BIA can come into Council and request to put the brakes on. It is time to move this one. Mr. Peplow said he appreciates the direction of Council. He is concerned that developments ' everyone likes would not fit this as written unless it went through the PUD. He said he is uncomfortable with what this does to the cost of housing in Dublin. He does want diversity, but the question is how aze they going to get it. He would prefer to move it forward and send it to Council. He does not think having an azchitect is going to solve the subjectivity. He said to think an architect is going to make the process automatic does not match his experiences as a Commissioner. He agrees with Ms. Boring and move it forward with the suggestion of Mr. Fishman in regards to section seven and see what happens in Council. Ms. Salay said she would defer to her senior colleagues, but she is reluctant without seeing the entire package of ordinances. She would hate to see the beginning price point in Dublin be $250,000. She said she has a problem with the inability to look at each individual piece of land with the natural features. She would favor tabling until they have all the pieces in place. She wants the building community to be more comfortable that it can work. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -August 10, 2000 Page 10 Mr. Sprague said central Ohio has excellent builders at various price points. He said the builders in Dublin have been providing better and .better products and responding to the market. City Council has expressed a clear preference for a well reviewed architectural ordinance in an expeditious manner. He said this is ready for council review. He said he would recommend sending this ordinance to council with a positive recommendation. Mr. Lecklider said he appreciated all of the comments and staff effort on this. He appreciated Mr. Fishman's involvement in meeting with the BIA. Mr. Lecklider agreed there are quality builders within the community. He said the intent behind changing the rules is to create a better product. They are confident that the builders can meet the challenge. He thinks these standards would have improved the subdivisions, and they would have still been built and even improved. He said he is confident in the ability of staff to respond. If there is not adequate staffing, the process will break down. Mr. Lecklider said there needs to be a fair appeals process that can respond in a speedy fashion with any appeal that is raised. Regarding an exemption, Ms. Susong suggested wording that this section shall not be applicable when four or more builders build in a subdivision and providing that no builder builds on more than 35 percent of the lots and that the builders shall be reasonably disbursed throughout the subdivision. There was consensus on these points. There was a discussion on the maximum size of a subdivision to qualify for these exemptions: 50 lots, 100 or 150. There was general agreement on a cap at 1501ots. Mr. Fishman made a motion to approve. this Code amendment because it is a step toward residential design standards to increase architectural diversity and enhance the viability of Dublin neighborhoods, and it codifies several policies typically negotiated during the rezoning and platting processes, with two conditions: 1) That Section 3 be revised to state that if locating these structures in the rear yard is not practical as determined by the City Engineer, then they shall be at least 25 feet behind the right-of--way; and 2) That both staff and the Law Director review and revise Section 7 to exempt a subdivision with four or more builders from the architectural diversity requirement if a subdivision: (a) Has no more than 1501ots; (b) No builder constructs on more than 35 percent of the lots within the subdivision; and (c) The different builders are reasonably dispersed throughout the subdivision, as approved by staff. Ms. Boring seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ms. Salay, no; Mr. Peplow, yes; Mr. Sprague, yes; Mr. Licklider, yes; Ms. Boring, yes; and Mr. Fishman, yes. (Approved 5-1.) Ms. Clarke said based upon what has been discussed she needs staff to work on an appeal Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -August 10, 2000 Page 11 process, better define the terminology such as "substantially similar", and to create graphics for "Similar "and "dis-similar". She said it is not fruitful to have the same hours debate in front of City Council that this Commission had. She said they would try to define those things better as they take this forward to City Council. Mr. Lecklider called for a fi "~ " 2. Final Development P This case was postpone ~a~ actiontaken. / re-mi to break at 9:25 p.m. T meeting resumed at 9:30 .m. 00-059FDP - McKitr' PUD - Killilea, Sectio ,Lots 58 - 80 for to issuance of the aff report. There was n iscussion and no 3. Final Plat 0-074FP = Belvedere S tion 1 Warren C bell said Section 1 of B vedere contains a 20.7-a e section located on,the west side of A ry Road, approximately 00 feet north of Brand ad. The zoning is PIS, Planned Low D sity Residential District, and this is a single-famil home subdivision of.38 lots with three cres of open space. f ~r. Campbell showed se~ral slides. An adjacen maintenance buildin /should have some landscaping to screen rt rom this site. He said re ding the three acres f open space the two front areas would incl de a bike path that will co ect with Shannon Gl / Mr. Campbells ' there are two issues th need to be addressed. He said there is not final agreement on a exact locations of the odways and 100-year ood line. Lot 7 is th only lot that can po ibly be affected. It mi t need to be reconfi red dependent upon he actual floodway nes. He said the hope is not have any flood li s go through that lot. e said staff would ' e to remove Condition 4 M Campbell said staff reco mends approval with el en remaining conditi s: 1) That the left to ane and widening alon Avery Road be desig d and installed to the satisfaction o e City Engineer; 2) That flood ain/floodway lines be signated on all future Tats, plans, and building 3) That t western property line Lot 7 be adjusted as o not fall within the 100-year flo plain as determined by City Engineer; 4) Tat the entry feature sign eet Code for place nt outside of public right-of--way, ign face materials, and 1' ting, subject to staff proval; 5) That the replacement t es (Belvedere East Re acement Plan) be installed by June 30, 2001; That protective t e fencing be instal d and maintained during all phases of construction, an that any protected, alifying trees which die within five years be replaced by th developer; 7) That all bike aths within the reserv areas be installed at the time of road construction; EXISTING CODE Section 152.018 Dublin -Land Usage 52.018 PRELIMINARY PLAT CONTENTS. (A) This section is not applicable for PUD zoned areas. (B) Preliminary plats shall include ali of the following: (1) A vicinity map showing the general location of the subdivision. (2) The name under which the proposed subdivision is to be recorded and the names and addresses of the subdivider, the owners, and of the registered engineer or registered surveyor, platting the tract. The proposed name of the subdivision shall not duplicate the name of any other subdivision already in use in Franklin County. (3) The location of present property, section and Congressional Township Lines, U.S. Survey and lines of incorporated areas, streets, buildings, watercourses, sinkholes, tree masses and other similar existing features within the area to be subdivided and how these relate to the overall area. (4) The names and boundaries of all adjoining subdivisions and the names of the record owners of adjoining parcels of unsubdivided land. (5) The zoning district or districts that affect the property to be subdivided. (6) North point, scale and date. (7) Existing contours with intervals of five feet where the slope is greater than 10% and not more than one foot where the slope is less than 10%. Elevations shall be based upon sea level datum. The location of bench marks and their elevation, and all other monuments shall also be shown. (8) The proposed location, name and dimensions of streets, alleys, lots, building lines and easements and the approximate area of lots in square feet. Streets that are obviously in alignment with others already existing and named, shall bear the names of the existing streets. Street names shall not be duplicated within the county. (9) The location, invert elevation, and size of existing sanitary storm sewers, water mains, culverts, street lights and other utilities and underground structures within the tract or immediately adjacent thereto. (10) Parcels of land intended to be dedicated to or temporarily .reserved for public use, or reserved by deed covenant shall be clearly indicated and the conditions proposed for such covenants and for the dedications shall be shown on or attached to the preliminary plat. (11) The subdivider may be required to continue certain adjoining streets through the area being ibdivided when necessary to provide for legal vehicular movement or to enable adjoining property to ,.e properly subdivided. ww 00-071ADM Subdivision Regulations Amendment 84 EXISTING CODE. Subdivisioa Regulations Section 152.018 (C) The following information shall be supplied in addition to the requirements in division (B): (1) Statement of proposed use of lots, giving type and number of dwelling units and type of business or industry, if known. (2) Location and approximate dimensions of all existing buildings. (3) For commercial and industrial development, the location, dimensions and approximate grade of proposed parking and loading areas, alleys, pedestrian walks, streets and the points of vehicular ingress and egress to the development. (4) In a letter accompanying the request for approval of the preliminary plat, the subdivider shall state the type of sewage disposal he proposes to use if public facilities are not available. If other than a treatment plant, it shall be accompanied by a letter from the County Health Department and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency stating what type of sewage disposal will be approved for the soil conditions encountered in the area of the proposed subdivision. At least one percolation test shall be made for each lot area being platted, and each test shall be located in close proximity to the proposed individual sewage disposal unit, be numbered and its location shown on the preliminary plat. All percolation tests shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the County Board of Health.. If a central plant is to be used it shall be accompanied by a letter from the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency stating what type of sewage disposal will. be approved. ('80 Code, § 1103.05) (Ord. 27-74, passed 5-6-74; Am. Ord. 81-79, passed 9-17-79) Penalty, see § 152.999 (5~ See Insert -Tree Preservatiozz Ordinmzce No. 95-96 (Amended) § 152.019 MINIMUM DIMENSIONS. (Follows Page 263) (A) Scope. This section shall be applicable to PUD zoned areas only where specified. (B) Streets. (1) The width of streets shall conform to the width designated on the thoroughfareplan and any subsequent amendments thereto. (2) Streets shall have the following minimum right-of--way widths: Boulevard 100 feet Arterial 80 feet Collector 60 feet Local 60 feet Cul-de-sac 60 feet Minor 50 feet Right-of--way widths in PUD zoned areas shall be subject to the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission and shall not be less than 50 feet in width. An additional ten feet shall be required where parking is provided on both sides of the street except for minor streets. 00-071ADM 85 Subdivision Regulations EXISTING CODE Section 152.019 Dublin -Land Usage (3) The minimum diameter of the right-of--way of a turnaround for a cul-de-sac street with a length of 300 feet or less shall be 110 feet. The minimum diameter of the right-of-way of a turnaround for a cul-de-sac street with a length of over 300 feet shall be 120 feet. Cure-sac streets with lengths greater than 500 feet shall have an additional ten feet of right-of--way for sidewalks or an additional 15 feet for right-of-way for bikepaths unless otherwise specified by the Municipal Engineer. (4) Whenever any subdivision or resubdivisionprovides lots in the interior of existing blocks, such lots shall front upon, or have proper access to a permanently dedicated street which connects with one of the streets bounding the block. (5) Whenever there exists a dedicated or platted portion of a street adjacent to the tract to be subdivided, the remaining portion of the street shall be platted or dedicated to provide a minimum right- of-way of 60 feet or that shown on the thoroughfare plan. (6) Rights-of-way at a street intersection shall be connected with a straight line connecting the points of tangency of an arc circumscribed between the intersecting right-of-way lines. The minimum radius of the arc shall be 25 feet unless otherwise specified by the Municipal Engineer. This section shall not affect the location of setback lines. (C) Blocks and lots. (1) No block shall be longer than 1,500 feet between street lines (2) Where blocks are over 750 feet in length, the Planning and Zoning Commission may require a crosswalk near the center of the block. The right-of--way for any such walks shall not be less than ten feet in width and such walk space shall be improved with at least afour-foot wide walk. (3) All side lines of lots shall be at right angles to straight street lines, or radial to curved street lines, unless a variation to this rule will give a better street and lot plan. Lots with double frontage should be avoided if possible. (4) Corner lots shall have extra width to permit the maintenance of building lines on both front and side streets, as required by the zoning ordinance. (5) The minimum area and width of all lots shall conform to the area regulations of the zoning district in which the lot is located. (D) Easeme~its. Easements shall be provided where required and necessary. . ('80 Code, § 1103.06) (Ord. 27-74, passed 5-6-74; Am. Ord. 76-93, passed 10-4-93) Penalty, see § 152.999 00-071ADM Subdivision Regulations Amendment 86 EXISTING CODE 152.045 Dublin -Land Usage 5 _~~.045 MAINTENANCE AFTER AP>~ROVAL. This section is n~t applicable to PU1P zoned areas. ( For a period of o e year from the d to munici ality, the subdivid shall make such p ~"'lgine r to bring.all impro meets within the s a all fu ish the municipalit a bond or other sur 3~tbdivis on bond for such p rpose. Such bond improve ents until all mainte ance items have be ('80 Cod , § 1105.16) (Ord. 7-79, passed 5-21- § 152.046 ANCE BST MUNICIP the constructed i rovements were airs or replacemen~ as determined by ndards required by ese regulations. ty acceptable to Cou cil in the amount hall be effective fro the date of acc performed and acce ted by the Munn 9) Penalty, see § 15 .999 rted by the Municipal subdivider 10 ~ of the ince of the .l Engineer. The M icipal Engineer steal ,upon written requ st by the owner of the land upon which e street has been c structed check the construction and i the Engineer finds hat such street h s been constructed i accordance with th specifications set f rth on the approved p at, and that such treet is in good repai ,then such finding, ndorsed on the app oved plat, shall const ute an acceptanc of the street for publ c use by the municip lity provided such treet has been thereto ore duly dedicate . ('80 Code, § 1 05.17) (Ord. 27-74, passed 5-6-74) § 152.047 (A) Streets s~ pavements, concri ,end inlets. Streets unicipality in § yeas shall be dete § 153.056. (' 80 i CONSTRU be graded to full curbs and gutters all be constructed in :.070. The width of lined in accordance ie, § 1105.09) N; STREET SI idth of the right-of--~ 'th the underdrain a ccordance with the rading and the requ ith the provisions (B) The munici reimburse the munic § 153.056(G)(3)(w). (Ord. 27-74, passed 5 lity shall install st~ ality for the cost of ' 80 Code, § 1105.13 6-74) Penalty, see § § 152.048 SIDEWALKS. y and fully constru ed with all-weat er porous backfill, and roper storm drai s Destruction material s ecifications of th ements for curb and g ter in PUD zone the aforementioned § 52.070 and with signs in standa subdivisions. The bdivider shall :t signs. Signs fo PUD zoned areas are covered under 52.999 Sidewalks or bike paths shall be constructed on both sides of all streets except as waived by Council. The .Municipal Engineer shall determine whether sidewalks or bike paths shall be constructed. ~0 Code, § 1105.18) (Ord. 76-93, passed 10-4-93) 00-071ADM Subdivision Regulations Amendment 92 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -July 20, 2000 Page 15 4. Subdivision Regulations Amendment 00-071ADM Holly Susong said City Council has set a priority goal to adopt design quality and diversity in residential azeas. Staff has examined the various azeas of oversight. Both the house architecture and subdivision design are involved. She said this is the first ordinance, and it covers adjustments to the subdivision regulations. Some of these involve non-codified "policies" that are applied routinely through the negotiation process with developers. Ms. Susong said increasing setbacks where there is a front bikepath, using concrete for front bikepaths, and placing utility boxes out of view are included in this ordinance. These will be required during the preliminary plat, and they will not need to be negotiated in the, future. Ms. Susong showed a slide of varied setbacks, vazied lot width, and minimum building areas. The minimum lot width and setbacks aze determined by the underlying zoning. As proposed, no more than two lots could employ the same setback, the third would need to be offset. This will create a more interesting streetscape. The lot width will be treated similarly.- The third lot needs to be at least ten feet wider, with not more than half of the lots being platted at the minimum lot width. Also 15 percent need to be at least 20 feet wider than the minimum. She assumed that the minimum lot width will be 80 feet as previously discussed. This provides for a better mix of house types, gazage size and orientation. Ms. Susong the general diversity standard that the Commission has negotiated on recent subdivisions was incorporated. A specific "model" cannot be repeated more than every third lot on the same side of the street and cannot be repeated on the three closest lots across the street. No model could be repeated on any opposite corner or along the bulb of a cul de sac. This is a bit stricter, and these standards are proposed for codification. A matrix would be submitted with the preliminary plat application. The standazds include establishing a 65-foot "buildable depth" for every lot. This is a new standazd to ensure that there is room on the lot for the house and accessory structures. Several definitions are being added to the Code. She said staff thinks this is more straightforward and will make the expectations for approval cleazer. This will make the process more predictable. She said staff recommends approval. Mr. Peplow asked for examples of "more important streets." Ms. Susong said Tullymore Drive. Ms. Clarke said any street leading to a major building, school, church, and park. She said it corresponds to the expected level of pedestrian use. She noted wider sidewalks were required through the negotiation process on Hazd Road neaz Scioto High School, for example. Mr. Peplow asked if this fits with recent plans. Ms. Susong said for architectural diversity, the biggest difference is on the cul de sacs. The buildable area was based on existing plans that work, and most are at least 65 feet deep. The sideyard setbacks aze based on Donegal Cliffs. Mr. Peplow liked the staggered setbacks. He was concerned that requiring 15 percent of the lots to be 20 feet greater (100 feet) might make the price too high. Ms. Susong said staff based the example on a Dublin plan, and only two lots were lost. Mr. Peplow asked if a diversity in cost was wanted. Ms. Clarke said the goal is diversity in the front azchitecture, and one way to do that is to include houses with aside-load garage. This cannot be done on an 80-foot lot. 00-071ADM Subdivision Regulations n..,,....a~__~ r Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -July 20, 2000 Page 16 Mr. Fishman said one of the problems is that all of Dublin's subdivisions were developed within a couple of years, not over decades with varying trends. The neighborhoods do not have mature trees. Mr. Fishman said the draft ordinance was an excellent job, and it will promote diversity. Mr. Eastep asked about not having more than two adjacent lots with the same setback line (Section 4). He preferred requiring the offset on every lot and using five-foot differences instead of the ten-foot offsets as proposed. That would give a variation of three setbacks at 25, 30 and 35 feet instead of 25 feet and 25 feet in a standard subdivision. Ms. Susong said this might set up a repetitious five-foot back and forth situation. Ms. Clarke said staff did not think that five feet would provide enough visual difference. Mr. Eastep suggested that 33 percent of the lots be required at each five-foot interval. Mr. Eastep asked about the minimum lot width variation of ten feet. He said most subdivisions are developed of like-sized products. They do not group 100-foot rural lots with 60-foot patio homes. He was not sure this would be good. He wanted enough flexibility in the ordinance to permit a patio home retirement community, for instance. Mr. Eastep said the 50 percent maximum on minimum width lots will raise costs. He wants diversity, nice communities, and natural materials, but not to price Dublin out of the market Ms. Clarke asked if the Commission would accept lots less than 80 feet in width. There was formerly full agreement ~ that 80 feet would be the minimum width. Mr. Eastep said yes, but for patio homes, and it depends totally on the product. Ms. Clarke said the goal of codification is to get rid of "it depends." Mr. Eastep said it makes everyone's job easier if there is less ambiguity. He said he would like to see 60-foot lots for diversity using Wow! elements which will provide more density. Weatherstone looks great with narrower lots. Under this ordinance, cluster and patio homes will be prohibited. Mr. Eastep said there may be enforcement issues regarding the no-build zones for swing sets and "'^". play structures throughout Dublin. Ms. Susong said there is inconsistency in no-build zone definitions. Some plats prohibit play structures, and others permit them. The staff goal is to use a consistent standard citywide. Mr. Eastep said it needs to be clear on the plats. He wants to suggest to Council that more Code Enforcement officers be hired. He said the zoning code cannot be enforced by a single individual. Ms. Clarke said staffing is a different issue. Dublin has had for 15 years, complaint- driven code enforcement, and she had not heard that the policy was changed. Complaints are pursued, but if no one complains about this type of activity, no one investigates. Mr. Eastep said there were too many unaddressed violations existing. Mr. Sprague suggested consideration of additional staffing for code enforcement, with a timely recommendation to the Commission on the issue. Ms. Clarke agreed. Ms. Clarke said it is extremely difficult to enforce any Code measure after 20 years of ignoring it. She said Dublin's code enforcement could be more aggressive than it is. She said Dublin is at the point where another Code Enforcement officer should be added. 00-071ADM Subdivision Regulations Amendment Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -July 20, 2000 Page 17 Ms. Boring was glad that utility boxes must be in the rear yards. Ms. Susong said they must be at least 25 feet behind the right-of--way line (Section 3). Mr. Eastep said there are times when it cannot be in the rear. Ms. Susong said no-disturb zones prohibit them. The view from the next property should be considered. Ms. Boring asked to add "if at all possible." Mr. Eastep suggested that it read "...must be placed in the rear yard where practical, and if not, at least 25 feet behind the right-of-way." Ms. Boring asked how to accommodate a cluster home neighborhood if that is desired. Ms. Clarke said it could be done in the PUD District which provides for design uniqueness, creativity, etc. 1VIr. Sprague said the Commissioners received a letter from Mr. Hardt of the Building Industry Association (BIA). David Haid said he is a custom home builder, developer, and Dublin resident, and the 2000 President of the BIA. He said the BIA opposes this diversity ordinance and requests a meeting with the staff, Commissioners and Council members to review it and to outline their objections. He said because the ordinance will have a dramatic impact on home building and consumer choice. The input of design professions could be received at such a meeting. Mr. Haid said the ordinance does not promote builder and developer diversity. In fact, only the largest building companies can satisfy it. They need answers to many questions, such as treatment ofcluster/patio homes and rear lot utilities. Tom Hardt, BIA, is concerned about the operation of the ordinance. They think it is vague, particularly in what constitutes "a specific model type or substantially similar model." The current diversity practice in Dublin makes them worry about any vagueness in interpretation. He said it will be hard for the independent developer to coordinate different builders to do this. Some models are similar between builders, and it is not clear how this would be coordinated. He requested a meeting with the Commission and staff. Mr. Eastep agreed that this ordinance was not yet ready for the Commission's vote and that meetings should be set. He said professional input is needed. Ben W. Hale, Jr. said M/I Homes had dealt with diversity issues successfully.. He expected that they could comply easily with the ordinance, but smaller builders/developers could not. He said if custom builders are required to meet the diversity on lots sold on the weekend, they may lose the sale before staff reviews them. Ms. Clarke said if a developer takes the responsibility to mix house styles, and there is agreement on that, when the permits come in, staff can issue them because they are already mixed. Mr. Hale said it may take six to eight weeks for a building permit, and this may be three months. after a contract is made. Staff could determine that the house does not work after .final design, financing, etc. are complete. This is too late in the process and will the smaller builders. Ms. Clarke did not agree there would be a problem. Mr. Fishman said this has been worked on for eight years, and. this is the first piece of the puzzle. He will attend any meetings of staff and the BIA to address issues and come to a compromise. 00-071ADM Subdivision Regulations ~, Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -July 20, 2000 Page 18 He made a motion to table this ordinance with the condition that it be returned to the Commission no later than September 7. He said the Commission valued the BIA's opinion. There was additional discussion about the timing. Ms. Boring reiterated that Council had put pressure on staff to move this project forward. The Community Plan is the guide, and the desire is to raise the bar in this community. Mr. Eastep wanted this to be coordinated with the Road to Wow! Ms. Clarke said City Council has set this as the next priority. She was unaware of any conflict with the Wow! project. Mr. Peplow seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ms. Boring, yes; Mr. Sprague, yes; Mr. Eastep, yes; Mr. Peplow, yes; and Mr. Fishman, yes. (Approved 5-0.) 00-071ADM Subdivision Regulations Amendment WILES, BOYLE, BURKHOLDER Fs BRINGARDNER CO.. L.P.A. DANIEL G. WB.FS JAY B. EGCSPUFNLER" ATTORNEYS AT LAW LAMES W. WHEELER JOHN T. KELLY ARTHUR m. V7B.ES 1t~1989J JAMES M. WILES WLL1lAM B. BENSON !15 WEST MAIN STREET DOUC7IER THOMAS E BOYLE SAMUEL M. PIPIINO"' SU1TE !00 J90B•~9Q MICHAEL L CLOSE' G WQ.IlM( KIAUSMAN COLUMBUS OHIO 43215-5067 ~AD1'~~fED 1N O1°O nND fl'OR'DA RICHARD D. BRINGARDNER MARK C. ME1JCO . ADAQfTm W OHIO. NEB TOR[ DAN1ELEaRINCARDNFR TELEPHONE 614 / 221-5216 AND nnDrsrwcrorcowJ.uln DOUGLAS K BROWEI.L"- OF COUNSEL '~ADAQfTm QI OHIO AND BRUCE H. BURKHOLDJA STANLEY K VAN BUREN FACSIMILE 614 / 221-5692 eENNSttivAwA September 12, 2000 The Honorable Charles Kranstuber Dublin City Council 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 Dear Chuck: At the September 18 meeting of City Council, you will be considering what has become known as the "Dublin Architectural Diversity Ordinance." The BIA has attempted to work closely with staff in the development of this ordinance, but has been frustrated to some extent by what we perceive to be sections that appear to be counterproductive to each other and with some vagueness. With that in mind, on behalf of the BIA, we would propose the following amendments: In the definition section for "no-build zones," the words "parkway" and "driveway" should be deleted. EXPLANATION: This would appear to make Sections 5 and 6 more compatible because it appears that one section encourages side-load garages and the other "~' prohibits them. section 4 should be deleted in its entice and real, aced with the following / "Within all re~dential subdivisions, including those within planned unit development districts, the minimum front setback will be determined for each street by the zoning district in which the development is located. The setback should be varied among adjacent lots by at least five feet (5'). .,,~ No more than one-third~1/3) of the lots ma e~pioy the ' um setback line." ~ fi -~ ~~ ~,i~crxs~'~l j ,~- .~-~/ 0 L..c~~ o~ r-~ y-~%r,~,,ti~ RATIONAL: In many subdivisions, the placement of lots should be determined by professional planners that allow .issues to be addressed with some flexibility to make best use of the ground. As each piece of ground is different and calls for a different solution, we feel that the improved flexibility of this amendment will be d+' . Dublin City Council September 12, 2000 Page 2 to the benefit of the subdivision. In addition, a set requirement of ten feet (10'), is too rigid and will end up in a result that leads to a staggered appearance which is exactly what this ordinance is intended to combat. In addition, when combined with the bike path requirements, lots simply will not layout efficiently in every case. Section 5 should be amended and the following language inserted in the second- v to-last sentence: ~; ~~ "...except that the minimum buildable d~th restriction shall operate to accommodate side-load garages, driveways, and parking areas." EXPLANATION: See the definition section that preceded these comments. Section 6 should be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following language: "In order to encourage variation in lot widths, at least fifteen ~perc nt (15%) of all tots shall be one hundred feet (100') in v,,~~x ter th in all subdivisio annerCotoward is theoupercentage computed in any m requirements. The Planning Commissip has the discretion to waive or modify this requirement~~El PUD-zoned areas, provided it determines such action is warranted to maintain a desired developmental style or design." EXPLANATION: The Section, as written, is simply too complex and too restrictive to work well with all ground. This amendment will allow the flexibility needed to effectively and efficiently layout subdivisions, particularly in wooded and tropic- graphically interesting sites. Section 7 should be amended to include the following language: "When a model is submitted to the City by a builder, developer or home buyer for diversity determination, such determination shall be made by the City within three (3) business days. If such determination is not made within three (3) business days, then the model shall be deemed to comply with the requirements of this Section, and shall be approved for construction on the lot as submitted. "In order to reject a model submitted for diversity determination under this Section, the City must demonstrate that at least eight (8) of the elements listed in the definition section of the Ordinance are identical or substantially similar to contiguous houses. The model shall be deemed approved Dublin City Council September 12, 2000 Page 3 and appropriate under this Section unless a demonstration can be made. "In making diversity determinations, the City shall employ licensed design professionals. ~ "Recognizing that a prolonged appeal by its very nature is ~, inequitable, when Staff has rejected a submission for diversity determination reasons under this Section, the applicant may file a written appeal with the Development Department. Within seven (7) calendar days after the filing of that appeal, a panel shat) be convened to consider that appeal. They shall render their decision within a period of three (3) additional calendar days. The City shall maintain a list of licensed design professionals not employed by the City, who, on a random basis, shall compose the panels hearing such appeals. In the event the appeal is successful, the cost of the design professionals shall be borne by the City. In the event the appeal is unsuccessful, the cost of the design professionals shall be borne by the applicant. The decision of the appeal panel shall be final." RATIONAL: BIA remains very concerned about an arbitrary process that has no criteria and will be cited by people in many circumstances who have no particular expertise in the area. The goal of this amendment is to provide objective criteria and institute an appeal process which is quick, efficient, and requires the loser to pay. ~, In sharing these thoughts, it is the BIA's intention to give some room for working discussions of what may be feasible to make this ordinance (and its companions to ~,,,, follow), more workable, fair to ati, and which would remove the subjective nature of the present proposal. While I will be out of town in the time leading up to the meeting on September 18, I will be in attendance on the 18~" and address these proposed amendments and their ramifications. sincerely i" e o M LC:Cjy /15550 v1