Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-28-22 CDC MinutesDUBLIN CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Wednesday, November 28, 2022 — 5:00 p.m. 5555 Perimeter Drive Council Chamber Meeting Minutes Mr. Reiner called the September 28, 2022 Community Development Committee meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Members present: Ms. Amorose Groomes, Mr. Keeler, and Mr. Reiner Staff present: Ms. O’Callaghan, Ms. Rauch, Mr. Hounshell, Mr. Earman, Mr. Krawetzki Minutes of the September 28, 2022 Meeting Mr. Keeler moved to approve the minutes of the September 28, 2022 CDC meeting. Ms. Amorose Groomes seconded the motion. Vote: Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes Neighborhood Design Guidelines Ms. Rauch provided an update on residential development standards information gathered by Staff as directed by Council. In September 2022, staff presented draft guidelines to the Committee and received feedback. The guidelines are intended to clarify the City’s goal to achieve the desired neighborhood character. The guidelines are organized from the broad, foundational framework of the overall neighborhood, to the street network and streetscape design, then to specific details of individual lots. Ms. Rauch outlined specific areas of feedback received by the Committee and addressed by staff. - kRetention/detention. Feedback was received from the Committee that retention/detention is not to be included in open space calculations. Staff is working through how to include that in the guidelines and whether that requires a Code change. - Undeveloped residential areas. Staff has provided a map in the meeting packet illustrating undeveloped residential areas. It is mostly in the southwest part of the City. There is not a significant amount remaining but it is important. - Conservation Design. Staff has had conversations about conservation design, how it is implemented and how it relates to the housing study. Staff is recommending conservation design be handled as part of the Community Plan update because it is a policy discussion. Community Development Committee November 28, 2022 Page 2 - Front-loaded garages. Staff is discussing where they are permitted and how they are screened. The guidelines will be revised to address details such as orientation, placement, number, etc. - Street Tree Requirements. Staff has considered street tree requirements and the minimum number required to ensure the character of a neighborhood. We want to make sure enough are being provided and that all trees can thrive. - HVAC locations. The intent is to encourage moving HVAC units to the rear of lots and maintaining open spaces between lots. - Hedges. Staff discussed hedges and how they can separate the public and the private. Ms. Rauch stated that staff’s intent is to update the guidelines with all of the abovementioned feedback and take the updated document to Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) in December for feedback since they were a part of the conversation initially. Mr. Reiner confirmed with the Committee that staff needs to take this back to PZC. Some of the items are so straightforward. Ms. Rach stated that she would recommend going back to PZC in December and then the item could be in front of Council in the early part of next year. Mr. Reiner stated that part of this is training PZC. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that PZC members are the ones that have to deal with the Code. They will be the ones using the tool. She is supportive of Staff's recommendation. The charter also speaks about PZC being an integral part of code writing. Mr. Reiner stated that it will be interesting to see how this will all be worked back into Code. Ms. Rauch stated that they want flexibility and to make sure people are thoughtfully incorporating elements that create the character of the neighborhood. A lot of this comes from lessons learned. Mr. Keeler complemented staff on a fantastic job articulating the Committee’s feedback. Many properties will be redeveloped at some point; both residential and commercial. There are a lot of Washington Township properties dotted around the City. He asked who governs development of those parcels. Ms. Rauch responded that if it is in the Township, development would be handled by the Township. If a developer/property owner wants to annex into City for services, that would fall under the jurisdiction of the City of Dublin. Mr. Keeler reiterated that mapping parcels that could potential be residentially developed and working on these standards is an important exercise. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested that if amendments are made to the residential standards, there is consideration for conduit for fiber to make that infrastructure incumbent upon the developer. Ms. Rauch stated that staff has had some discussions regarding that. . Mr. Reiner stated that homeowners’ associations (HOA) have come back to the City asking for help paying for improvements. Every project that comes before the City must be financially stable enough to handle the maintenance of their features/amenities. Ms. Community Development Committee November 28, 2022 Page 3 Rauch stated that staff has been trying with recent developments to compel applicants to provide a pro forma so that individual homeowners are aware of the costs. West Bridge Street/161 Streetscape Enhancements/Shared Use Path Project Mr. Earman provided a project overview. This project is located on West Bridge Street in front of the Casto property by Kroger. It was initiated 5 years ago and is scheduled for construction in 2023. It is currently under conceptual design and would include a shared-use path connection, improve stormwater management and enhance landscaping. The shared-use portion would complete the pedestrian and bicycle network between Frantz Road and Historic Dublin. This is also noted in the Community Plan as one of the City’s top 5 priorities. He summarized the updates since the Committee’s previous meeting (September 28, 2022). Changes include the reinforced concrete retaining wall with natural stone veneer; the wall has been moved three feet closer to the parking lot to provide planting space. The length of the wall must to be increased. Evergreen shrubs will be placed between the retaining wall and the shared- use path. The stormwater collection channel will be graded to keep water away from the bae of the wall and lined with river rocks. Mr. Krawetzki stated that the wall has been moved back and plantings placed in front of it to reduce some landscape on the lower part of the wall. Staff determined not to raise the height of wall as it would have to be redesigned to be crash-worthy for the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT). Trees have been moved out of the limited access way closer to Casto’s property due to feedback from ODOT. The wall was lengthened west because as it moved down, more fill was required so it had to go further to reduce the slope. Staff has included a section indicating where plants have been added and how the drainage would work. Casto has seen the update and they have been supportive so far. Mr. Keeler asked about the proximity of the parking lot to the plantings. Mr. Krawetzki stated that there is room to adjust tree placement if necessary. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that it looks like it varies 4 to 5 feet. Mr. Krawetzki stated that they trim the edge to make it consistent. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked about the height of the exposed wall. Mr. Krawetzki responded that the height of the exposed section is around 30 inches. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that if the wall protrudes less than 9 inches above grade, there must be a woody plant or handrail. Mr. Keeler stated that it does not look like much of the wall is exposed. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated it is necessary in order to hold up the pedestrian path. Mr. Krawetzki stated that without the wall, the steep would be very steep. The slope could be decreased some. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she believes some sort of woody ornamental is necessary along high side of the wall. Mr. Krawetzki stated that those plans can be switched out. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she wants the City to live by our own rules and lead by example. Ms. Amorose Community Development Committee November 28, 2022 Page 4 Groomes stated that there is currently a lot of planting on the low side that could be an opportunity for some savings. Since the plan is to use a real stone product on the wall, it will not require much landscaping. It will be an attractive wall. In response to Ms. Amorose Groomes question about shade trees, Mr. Krawetzki stated that they cannot be used in that location because of power lines. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked about placing conduit under the multi-use path now so that it would not have to be torn up at a future date. Mr. Krawetzki stated that it is not currently included in the plans but can be added. He will work with Mr. Gable. Mr. Reiner asked about taking those power lines down. Ms. O’Callaghan stated that when that area is redeveloped, the City would leverage that. Mr. Reiner suggested some planting substitutes. Ms. Rauch stated there are some required plantings for Casto. Mr. Earman closed by stating that staff will take the updates to ODOT for further clarifications and Casto and work on whatever contributions they can make. Residential Development Along I-270 Ms. Rauch stated this has come up recently related to the Dublin Corporate Area Plan as well as some development plans that staff has received calling for residential development. Staff has done some initial analysis and provided the Committee with maps identifying parcels adjacent to I-270. Feedback from PZC and Council has been concern regarding residential development along I-270. Mr. Hounshell stated that the map identifies properties identified by staff and amounts to 66 properties and 13 zoning districts. This does not include the Willow Grove Planned Unit Development (PUD). Of the 13 districts, five permit residential development. There are seven districts where residential is not permitted nor recommended along the corridor. One district is zoned Office, Laboratory, and Research and the Future Land Use Plan does call out some residential for that area. There is no avenue for staff to support residential within the seven districts that do not permit residential development. Staff has identified some concerns regarding residential development along the I-270 corridor. They include reservation of highway frontage for employment land uses, preservation of community aesthetic, and quality of life for residential along this corridor. Staff is looking for feedback from the Committee about design considerations that staff could look into about how this could be implemented into Zoning Code or Community Plan. Mr. Hounshell stated that also up for discussion is how design considerations could be handled, such as design overlays or special area plan updates. Mr. Keeler confirmed that permitted means Zoning Code allows it and recommended means the Community Plan recommends it. Mr. Hounshell stated that in the case of OLR, someone cannot come forward and pursue a development application for residential; they would have to rezone to align with the recommendations in the Community Development Committee November 28, 2022 Page 5 Community Plan. Mr. Keeler stated that one of Council’s goals is to reserve the frontage in M for commercial. Ms. Rauch stated that with the current zoning in that area, some residential is permitted. Most people that come forward want to exceed the density requirements so they would have to rezone that which would then need to follow the Future Land Use plan. The biggest risks are districts A, B, and C because residential development is permitted. There are design characteristics and intent statements that would have to be overcome. There potentially could still be residential within proximity. There is one proposal where the applicant is proposing to do a parking garage in front of residential but staff has had applications that showed residential along the corridor. Mr. Hounshell stated that A,B, and C are in Bridge Street and the Future Land Use Plan calls for an urban core along the edge of I-270 which is a mix of residential, commercial, and office. There has been a lot of dialogue about how to do this. Staff is looking for what direction is best to take. If it is determined that residential is not appropriate, changes will need to be made to either the Zoning Code or the Community Plan. Ms. Rauch stated that there are design considerations that can be talked though. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that development along the I-270 corridor has to be occupied space between the residential building(s) and any limited access road. If there is an office building, it should exceed the height of any residential. The first thing to do is update language in guiding documents because that is low hanging fruit. The intention is to protect residential properties from any negative aspects. Rather than redo land use maps, she suggested adding an asterisk to them addressing residential development visible from any limited access road. The City has never experienced pressure for multi-family housing like we are now. It is not ideal to address it parcel by parcel. Mr. Reiner stated that he is supportive of changing the Community Plan. Developers may try to spot zone otherwise. This is valuable real estate visually. He would like to see future developments have a sense of community that values quality of life. Mr. Keeler stated that he agrees with the other Committee Members. He would rather tell developers no from the beginning that Dublin does not want residential by a limited access road. We cannot address applicants that have already begun the process but we can address future development so that it can be stopped and save developers a lot of time and money. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated if we document it like a footnote and there is redevelopment, we do not have to change the zoning on an existing building. Mr. Keeler stated that there needs to be some specificity and it may be time to revisit the Community Plan. Ms. Rauch stated that staff is kicking off the Community Plan review. This direction will be incorporated in larger fashion but this interim feedback is helpful. Staff will continue to push these goals as much as possible. Community Development Committee November 28, 2022 Page 6 Other Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that the next thing of interest for her would be to talk about building standards. Any building over four stories needs to be slab on deck construction. That requirement will offset a lot of the residential construction and force builders to build high quality buildings that can be repurposed. Redevelopment starting with really well built buildings begets get high-quality redevelopment. That building is worth more money long-term. She thinks we should adopt a policy that any building over four stores has to be slab on deck. Mr. Keeler stated thinks it would be cool if there were green roofs. He stated that maybe it is not required but strongly encouraged. It is unique, interesting and sustainable. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that the greenest buildings over the lifespan of the buildings are slab on deck. The concept can be sold in such a way that if it is going to be an office building, it will be a slab building anyway. The only ones using stick construction over four stories are purely residential. There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 6:07 p.m. Scie Clerk of Council