Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-28-22 - CDC MinutesDIBLIN CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Wednesday, September 28,.2022 — 5:00 p.m, 5555 Perimeter Drive Mr. Keeler called the September 28, 2022 Community Development Committee meeting to order at 5:09 p.m. Members present: Mr. Keeler and Ms. Amorose Groomes. Mr. Reiner arrived at 5:23 p.m. Staff present: Mr. Ranc, Mr. Earman, Ms. Goliver, Ms. Rauch, Ms. Willis, Mr. Krawetzki Minutes of the June 21, 2022 Meeting Ms. Amorose Groomes moved to approve the minutes of the June 21, 2022 CDC meeting. Mr. Keeler seconded the motion. West Bricicie Street/161 Streetscape Enhancements/Shared Use Path Project Mr. Earman provided an overview of the project including background. The project was initiated in 2017 from the Community Development Committee and is scheduled for construction in 2023 with a budgeted amount of $675,000. The shared use path on this section completes the pedestrian and bicycle network between Frantz Road and Historic Dublin. It provides connectivity on the western Bridge Street District. He shared design challenges. Most of the section is in the Ohio Department of Transportation's (ODOT) limited access right of way. Concept plans have been submitted to ODOT for preliminary review. It is a recessed stRter ditch system currently. It will encroach CASTO property to the south creating the need to work with that developer as well. CASTO is verbally supportive of the retaining wall needed to support the shared use path as long as the parking lot footprint and signage do not have to change. Final design will require approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC). The preliminary design is without review and approval from multiple entities. This is a concept design at this point. (Existing condition images were displayed). This area is in need of improvement and offers many challenges (slope, ditch, utility lines, vegetation). Mr. Krawetzki spoke about a preliminary landscape plan. Shared use paths are 8 feet wide. We want to bring those up to the level of the roadway. That brings in fill and IMMMIMITT #evetopment commirtF; September 28, 2022 Page 2 grading considerations. The entire parking lot area drains to the existing drain. That parking lot as well as the south lanes of Bridge Street drain down to that pipe so that stormwater will have to be managed some way. The project includes getting a wall built to support the path, dealing with stormwater, and making a structure that is safer than a pipe sticking out of hillside. The enhanced landscape is more of a replacement of what has to be removed in order to create the grading. Community Development Committee September 28, 2022 Page 3 path would be their financial responsibility. The fact that the City is willing to do it for them has to be a huge savings. The fact that they would now be compliant in terms of pedestrian connectivity when they are ready to redevelop should be a good bargaining chip. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested planting groundcover on the low side of wall. Mr. Krawetzki stated that the wall will likely be a limestone (natural stone facing). Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that cut limestone walls do not perform well for retaining. Sh envisioned a taller wall. Mr. Earman stated that staff understands the guidance and cai further refine. CASTO is interested in the project. The investment of City dollars to advance any project they would do is a great point. Mr. Krawetzki stated that they hav been very receptive on connectivity. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that it may be nice t have a stairway at some point in that wall. Mr. Krawetzki stated that closer to McDonald's the grades come up enough that a stairwell may not be necessary. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that eventually this will redevelop and all of the plantings on the low side would be lost. Mr. Reiner asked if redevelopment of the center has been discussed. Ms. Rauch responded that she is not aware of any movement on that. Staff does want the conditions set up so that it all seamlessly flts into the vision for Bridge Street. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that it is so wet where the plantings are indicated on the plans, the `fit' not think anything would grow well there. Salt runoff is also a concern along with the constant moisture. Mr. Earman stated that staff will continue conversations, further develop the plan, and 4ring it back to the Committee. Residential Develooment Standards Ms. Rauch provided an overview neighborhood design guidelines. The goal was to take information from conversations with City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission regarding single-family residential and come up with ways to help guide development projects as they come forward to the City and to help facilitate conversations with developers. Staff was before City Council in April to present the initial structure for the guidelines. Since that time, the project has been organized into this graphic design document. Ms. Rauch stated that the priority areas of concern. She stated that the biggest conversations have been regarding open space and how that is being accommodated. It should be intentional part of a neighborhood and not leftover space. They also looked at density and intensity of lots. ^' .f is a focused part of this including the orienting homes, how garage doors are addressed, diversity of architectural materials, etc. Individual lot standards covers conversations that have been had about side yards and rear yards and what the buildable area looks like. The goal of the guidelines is to provide a supplement to the Zoning Code and Conservation Design Standards to help promote high quality single-family residential development, The structure of the guidelines is a three-level hierarchy from broad to specific: public realm (macro), public realm (micro), and private realm. The draft r September 28, 2022 Page 4 each of the realms. Ms. Rauch shared that the guidelines state that Conservation Design principles shall be incorporated on appropriate sites - larger sites with significant natural features. As part of a Concept Plan, staff has the ability to work with the applicant to make a determination about how conservation design in incorporated. Mr. Reiner stated developers may skip over the conservation design because in rail din this, it is interesting but it is not really conservation design. Conservation design was proposed by the City in 1998. It was explained to developers as the least expensive w C to develop. He is not sure these guidelines encapsulate that idea. Conservation design is where there several acres of forest and houses are placed in pods around the forest protecting it. Dublin proposed that there is no curbs. There are cost savings in t developing in this manner that entices developers. It provides more interesting projec This document is missing conservation design. Ms. Rauch stated that conservation design is not applicable in every instance. Staff is proposing looking at open space framework and how to provide a larger framework of open space so it is not just leftover land. Mr. Reiner stated that this needs to include why someone would do this. Ms. Rauch stated that the goal is when a development comes forward, they are providing the open to framework. The prioritization of natural historic features and making sure open spaces are distributed equitably throughout neighborhood is an additional goal. Mr. Reiner stated that conservation design removes the tree replacement cycle as well. Ms. Rauch stated that the topic of stormwater was one raised by Council. Retention basins should be amenities and how/whether they are counted toward open space requirements still needs decided. Mr. Keeler stated that developers want to pack as many houses into a neighborhood as possible and they want to do with the cheapest materials. They might be surprised at return on investment if they used better materials and laid it out in a more creative way. They could then charge more. We need to decide what we want instead of developers deciding what they want. Mr. Keeler stated that he does not necessarily want any additional single family housing in Dublin because it does not generate income to support the services required. He would rather push for larger lot sizes, more creative design, and more green space. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked what the problem is that we are trying to solve. She as if this came out of the work session with boards and commissions. Ms. Rauch answere affirmatively and stated that much of this was sparked from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) having concerns about seeing variances on individual lots being maxed out. There was a lot of discussion about how to make ensure the character and quality are what Dublin wants. Staff is considering how to influence this in a meaningful way. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that when we try to manage by code, we end up I September 28, 2022 Page 5 Mr. Reiner stated that when we originally came up with the conservation zone, the idea was that it would be mandated. Developers were invited into a room and introduced to the idea. They did not want to do it and did not understand it. They understood traditional developments. Is it staff's job to educate developers regarding the desired formats? Mr. Keeler stated that he does not understand why we could not create conservatio zones. It seems reasonable to him. It seemed like no one was enamored with the Hyland Croy development. We have a code, developments fit in the code, but we di not like the result so it seems like something has to change. From a developer's standpoint, other communities have told them that they can not do certain things because it is not in the Code. Things we want or do not want should be codified. W i basins are not an amenity but they serve utilitarian purpose. When we created the matching grant, the idea was to make it work, not make it pretty. He agrees with M Amorose Groomes in that he does not mind pushing back. He does disagree with thl- one comment regarding forcing a developer to allocate other usable property versu floodplain. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that it is about location. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked staff for their input. Ms. Rauch responded that is where what we are trying to accomplish with this process. When an applicant comes forward with a planned unit development, that is a more negotiable process. Developers are ............. ............. September 28, 2022 Page 6 September 28, 2022 Page 7 ITIr. Reiner summarized that staff will locate parcels that are left for conservation design, offer developers the parts of conservation design. The Committee offered consensus that retention/detention areas are not to be considered part of open space. Ms. Rauch stated that staff will map opportunities for conservation design. Community Development Committee September 28, 2022 Page 8 met. Mr. Reiner asked how fast can the amendments can come back to Council. Ms. Rauch stated that staff would need to identify some of the larger pieces and have some more comprehensive discussion. Mr. Reiner stated that those could be codified really quick. He would love to see that come forward in the next 30, 60, 90 days. Ms. Rauch stated that she does not want to make these changes in a vacuum. Mr. Reiner stated that street tree planting and garage doors are fixed items. Mr. Keeler stated we are talking single-family tonight. We need to talk about multi- family as soon as possible. Ms. Rauch stated that is largely handled within area plans. Staff is working on that. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked about exposure points along the interstate. Ms. Rauch stated that staff is close to having what is needed. Discussions need to be held with how we execute (Code, area plan, etc.). Mr. Keeler stated that a Commission member stated that we need to decide what we want on multi -family. So much was brought to us from developers and we reacted. The fear is that is going to happen in Metro Center. Mr. Keeler stated that the City traditionally does not buy land for residential development. If we could do that, the idea would be that we would be driving the bus and developers could throw their hat in the ring if they wanted to participate. We could design the neighborhoods we want, where we want them. It would be a streamlined planning process. A developer would just tell us whether they can make it work. Mr. Keeler stated that he does not know the logistics of making that work. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that it would definitely be a policy update but it is not a bad idea. When the City ends up being the land holder, we end up contributing the value of the land to make the public private partnership work. In her opinion, it works better with a privately held company. Mr. Reiner shared slideshow of zoning improvements he would suggest. The design he suggested is not a grid neighborhood but radial design. Mr. Keeler stated that stakeholders do not want cul-de-sacs. Mr. Reiner stated that the radial housing is more interesting than what we are currently getting. He stated that all of the street tree/buffers will die at the same time. Mr. Ranc stated that we have all trees in the right of way inventoried. Mr. Reiner stated that we have to be tough on builders. There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 6:52 p.m. Community erk of Council