Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/24/1999 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ~#~h~'~~~~h_h~_#h_h_#_h_h_h Mi!!El~Ei~ OL~#h~hh~h_hh__~_h_~~pecrarMeerm:gorcnyhC6tlnci1hhhh~~h~hhhhhh_~_hhh~hh~_hhhh_h~_hhh~'h'h'1TxgWf!:!i!:hKhhhhhhhhh#h_hhh DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 Helil MHy)4, 1999 19 Mayor Kranstuber called a Special Meeting of Dublin City Council to order on May 24, 1999 at 6:15 p.m. ~ Roll Call Council members present: Mayor Kranstuber, Mr. Adamek, Mr. McCash, Mr. Peterson, and Mr. Reiner. Ms. Hide Pittaluga arrived later. Vice Mayor Boring was not present. Staff members present: Steve Smith, Rick Helwig, Bobbie Clarke. Mayor Kranstuber moved to appoint Myra Caplinger as Acting Clerk of Council to serve in the event that the Clerk of Council and Assistant Clerks of Council are unavailable to perform Clerk of Council duties. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion - Mayor Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mr. Adamek, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Review of the property owner's request to construct a fence and to consider a motion to waive the provisions of the Trinity Park Subdivision Plat as it relates to fences for the property known as 5723 Dalymount Drive (Cherry property) in order to reasonably accommodate the needs of a disabled child. Steve Smith. City Law Director, explained that his office has reviewed the matter and it is the position of the City's legal staff that this falls under the Federal Housing Act, and as part of Ohio Civil Rights review, it is proper for the City to permit this reasonable accommodation under the law. r-" Mr. Kranstuber asked for public testimony regarding the issue. John Creighton. 5651 Anglesea Drive (comer of Rings Road and Anglesea), explained that he purchased his property a year ago (the builder's model home), and before he moved in he specifically inquired about erecting a fence, due to the proximity to Rings Road. The builder assured him that he could install a fence similar to the fences on properties across the street (6-foot privacy fences). He is not seeking to completely fence in his entire backyard; however; due to the traffic issues, he would like to install a fence on the side of his residence that borders Rings Road. He requests that, if consideration is given to the request to fence an entire yard, consideration also be made to fence a partial amount of yard. Mr. Smith responded that the issue before Council is the request for consideration of reasonable accommodation due to the particular needs of a disabled child. He explained that fencing is a plat restriction, but Mr. Creighton could submit an application for a variance to Planning & Zoning and BZA for their consideration. Mayor Kranstuber noted, however, that this particular request has come before Council due to an extraordinary medical situation. Normally, these requests cannot be approved as they would precipitate numerous similar requests. Also, these restrictions are usually imposed due to the stated preferences of the residents in that area. Mark Hutchins. 5826 Castleknock Road, president of the Trinity Park Association, stated that fences have been a major discussion topic. He requested that if this special consideration is granted by Council, that a condition be added that if in the future Mr. Cherry's daughter is no longer a resident at this property, the fence would then be removed in order to prevent subsequent discussion related to this fence. Mike Cherry, 5723 Dalymount Drive, explained the background for his request. His five- year-old daughter, Kelsea, is experiencing an autistic and mental retardation disorder. He and the professionals cognizant of her case are extremely concerned about her ability to remain safe in her own home without a fence encircling her backyard. Due to the reasonable accommodation provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act, they are requesting this variance. He explained that his daughter has pushed the screens from the windows of their home, has escaped the house on several occasions and run through the neighborhood and, on one occasion, reached the street, walked into the path of an oncoming --~- !:Mqll~'!lfl1i;jl}'!H1!W:}t), _"~u:lmM~jHi~tl!IH!; l'fHd:: - I~h-Nnji+ ~;!iil\t li-j I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS '~'#b~'~'~~'~#b~Q~~~Q$'N~#b_..Mj!l~ tE;~_2L_~U_M#b'#b~'_U~U~~QM~#_#bSDi'#$~~nvr~'#br#~d-rCit7'#ar-Nrr_N'm__U$~$#$_~__ p; ~eeting peCla ee mg 0 1 Y OunCl __#bN_~'N age" $~~$'''~'ff'##b#b$QM~~$Q~# DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO FORM NO 10148 Helil May 24, 1999 19 vehicle and was nearly killed. He distributed copies of the psychologist's assessment and a Franklin County occupational therapist's home assessment of the safety issue for his daughter. He further explained that their attempts over the last year to secure permission for .......-..... this fence have been met with resistance. They understand the rights of other residents, and if they did not have a daughter with this need, they would not be forced to pursue this course. In response to Mayor Kranstuber's inq\liry, Mr. Cherry explained that he has obtained estimates on a shadow-box style fence, smooth on the inside, of wood material stained cedar, dog-eared on the top, installed one foot within the property line. Mr. Smith suggested that should Council entertain a motion, it could incorporate the style of fence, materials, and the provision that the fence be removed should the daughter no longer reside at this property. Landscaping of the exterior of the fence was discussed. Mayor Kranstuber moved that, in view of the extraordinary legal circumstances in this case that have been enumerated both in testimony and records provided, and the opinion of the City's legal counsel, the request be granted to the owner to construct a fence, waiving the provisions of the Trinity Park subdivision plat as it relates to fences, with the following conditions: (1) the style of fence to be a six-foot shadowbox permitted to be smooth on the inside, of wood material stained cedar, dog-eared on the top; (2) the fence be removed when there is no longer a medical need, or the daughter permanently vacates the property; - and (3) the fence be kept in good repair. Ms. Hide Pittaluga seconded the motion. Vote on the motion - Mayor Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mr. Adamek, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Hide Pittaluga, yes. Mr. Adamek moved to adjourn the meeting, to be reconvened at 7:30. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. V ote on the motion - Mr. Adamek, yes; Mayor Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Hide Pittaluga, yes. Mayor Kranstuber adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m. Mayor Kranstuber reconvened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. Roll Call Council members present were: Mr. McCash, Mr. Adamek, Ms. Hide Pittaluga, Mayor Kranstuber, Mr. Reiner, Mr. Peterson, Mrs. Boring. Staff members present: Mr. Helwig, Ms. Clarke, Mr. Littleton and consultants Randall Arendt and John Fernsler. Mayor Kranstuber explained that this Special Meeting of Council will serve as a workshop for the purpose of reviewing the consultants' recommendations on the Southwest Area Plan and to provide direction to the consultants and City staff on the draft guidelines developed ~ thus far. c I Mayor Kranstuber noted that minutes otprevious meetings on the Southwest Area Plan record comments of the public to this point in time, and he requested that testimony focus on new information. Citizen Comments: Ben Hale explained that he attended the previous public meeting held at the Dublin Recreation Center and heard the consultants' for development of the Southwest Area. He expressed his support of the plan, noting that he was very impressed with the ideas presented. He believes they will work and give enduring value to that land in that area. S. Robert Davis explained that he represented the Southwest Area Group, and they are , , " '. ., - 1",1 1:};~W'/l'"~I"JI\lI"'ilt':IWJ1illl'."ffiI'iiHH'i:m::-: I'.! ;1, lIiilfIH1"lt+NII !i"-r1'jii~r RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ~~~~h~'~'~h~h"~~~~~h~~h~~h~Min'l!.te~-2L~h~~~~~h~ffh~ffhff~~~hh~~~'sr--ar~:r~~etr:i!forCiW~(_ffrum~~~_~~~~~~__h~~~ '"P1 ~eting peCIa ee mg 0 1 OunCl ~~ age' 'ffh_'~~ ff~~~~~_h~~hh_~. DAYT N LEGAL BLANK co. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn Ml'ly?4, 1 Q99 19 adamantly opposed to this plan. They believe it is ill-conceived and will not work. It will create small homes on small lots on large parcels of land, and the related effects will have an adverse impact on the City. ~ Mayor Kranstuber commented that much of the public concern expressed could be related to alleged deficiencies in the current Southwest Area Plan, which has argued for higher densities. The proposed revision to that plan, which is the topic of discussion tonight, does not address densities. Mr. Fernsler confirmed that their mandate was to assist in implementing the Community Plan adopted in 1997, which focuses on community growth and character, and stipulates that the Southwest Area should be developed in the range of one to two units per acre. Their plan is consistent with that density. Truman Greenwood requested clarification regarding the seeming incongruity of the last comment, which seemed to be that the plan has nothing to do with density, yet it is consistent with prescribed density. Mr. Fernsler responded that the Community Plan adopted in November 1997 stipulates a density of one to two units per acre in the Southwest Area, but did not specify the technique of zoning. The proposed revisions to the Southwest Area Plan do call for specific techniques that would meet the stated range of density. COUNCIL COMMENTS: ,........ Mr. Peterson noted that his continuing concern is that the predominant constituency represented in these public meetings is made up of property owners of large tracts of land in the Southwest Area, which will inevitably be sold to developers. Addressing the consultants, he inquired if they were the property owners in that area, would they, too, have a concern about the impact on the value of their property. Mr. Fernsler responded that they would, and that was addressed in their mandate to remain consistent with the Community Plan, but to also find mechanisms which would deal with the issues: retention of rural character, improve quality oflife, deal with urban sprawl -- in such a way as to not adversely affect the property owners in terms of property rights and values. He further commented that all the questions are valid and can be answered effectively by looking at what has already happened in the other communities that have used these concepts. The evidence shows that there is tremendous enhancement to property values and community values, as well. That is the reason that two of the major industry organizations that represent developers, the Urban Land Institute and the National Association of Homebuilders, have endorsed this concept as enhancing property values. They do not believe that these concepts compromise either marketability or property values. Mr. Peterson asked if this plan provides the optimal way to retain rural character at the same time as development proceeds. Mr. Fernsler said it depends on whether the policy in the Community Plan to retain rural ,........ community character in the Southwest Area is taken seriously. If it is, then the options are: (1) to buy land and maintain it as farmland and open space, or (2) study the market trends and find a way to retain open space and rural character which enhances property values simultaneously. Given the existing density of two units/acre, it is possible to build 12 acre lots, have nothing left as open space or build slightly smaller lots, and have a large proportion of open space as backyards for those homes. Just as backing up to a fairway adds value, backing up to a meadow or woodland adds value as well. In this type of development, the builder, by building slightly smaller lots, is also able to build shorter lengths of roads and utilities. Not only does the development cost decrease, but it has been demonstrated that the unit value of those lots increases when the land is adjacent to open space that will never be developed. Mr. Peterson inquired if implementation of higher architectural standards could be cost , ' "II' ,Ii: iii~i Ii i ,i iiii ii iiii: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Wd_=_~'~_*'_'__##_d_dd_d_=_#$=#~i!!!!!es=_2L=__~=__d_~$=-~---#sr=d--dllV!d~~'=-#5iCir$=C~'=-d--d~r=d----_d~~~d$-==----=,~~--PI1g~~~~ng peCla ee mg 0 1 Y ounCl # ~ =#_"_#=~d_=_#'d_' DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO FORM NO 10148 ReIn May: ?4, 1999 19 prohibitive, driving the developer's costs up and the market for those houses down at the same time. .~ Mr. Fernsler responded that he hoped that would not be the case, but these meetings have involved much discussion about mandating higher quality, which means more expensive materials. The architectural guidelines should be reasonably flexible, so as not to have a demonstrable effect on increasing development costs. Mr. Peterson asked for their response to the lingering public concern that this plan will cause property values to plummet. Mr. F ernsler responded that it is likely due to a lack of familiarity with the results of this type of development in other communities. He asked Mr. Arendt if he has seen this type of resistance as par for the course, and, if so, what examples, close to home, could be shared. Mr. Arendt explained that his experience is that this hesitancy is common for landowners, developers, and the general public who are unfamiliar with a different way of organizing development. This development is for tracts of land that are not large enough to have a golf course community, yet builds in the amenities of the golf-course community. He described a golf-course development in Tampa, known as Hunter's Green, where the developer has received as much value from the lots backing up to the wetlands as for those backing up to the greenway. In response to the request for examples, he mentioned again two communities described at a previous meeting -- Prairie Crossing and the Fields at Long Grove in Illinois -- which are very upscale communities incorporating expensive homes on r--- small lots overlooking picturesque open space. Mr. Arendt added that he has not found a conservation district subdivision in the Midwest that is not comprised of higher priced homes. It is a result of the value returned to the developer and then the community from not carving everything up into a lawn. The developer makes profit from the open space -- whether it's a nursery, equestrian facility, golf course, or farmland. He explained that the rural character in the Community Plan referred to an extensive interconnecting network of conservation lands. Some of the open space could be profit centers and still keep Dublin green. Mr. Arendt added that incomplete understanding of the plan would give the landowners concern about the future value of their land. He reiterated the previous statement of Mr. Fernsler: the national building organizations -- the Urban Land Institute, the National Association of Homebuilders -- have been advocating this for 35 years. Mr. Fernsler added that it is only common sense: for which would you pay more -- a 120- foot lot next to a dozen other 120-foot lots, or a 100-foot lot next to a meadow, open space, greenway or woodland? Mr. Peterson asked if there was an example that closely resembles the topography of the southwest area of Dublin. r--- Mr. Arendt responded that the two in the Midwest he has been impressed with are the Village of Long Grove in Lake County, Illinois (The Fields of Long Grove), and Lake Elmo, Minnesota north of St. Paul Prairie Crossing, where they have mandated this type of development for a number of years. The cover article in Land Development magazine showcases a development there called The Fields of St. Croix. The developer sold Phase I in less than a single building season. Prairie Crossing in Gray's Lake, Illinois (also in Lake County) is also similar. Mr. Peterson asked ifhe knew of any that were similar which had failed. Mr. Arendt responded that he did not. Mayor Kranstuber said that Council needs to give the consultants direction tonight about whether they buy into it or not. I. 1 q,l "., AdT.! :i .i;':,[.) j. ,[ 'ji ,ii, RECORD' OF PROCEEDINGS Wffm__._.,_~__m#_'m~~ff_mff_,~in1!te~,!_~m'~m'mffm~'__=__C":_m'm_~'1f~"-'_ff-^l""~4-~=~_m'l-#_'_ffm'~~m~_.- fl M~etinD' .,pecIal1Vleellllg 01 \.....hY \.....OunCl _~'m~______m'rag~' J_w__,,3?_,,_.m_,_mm DAYTON LE AL BLA.NK CO. FORM NO. 10148 Reln May 74, 1999 19 I I I Mr. Fernsler asked if they could crystallize the areas of discomfort to address either tonight or in writing. I ...... ...... "!i ! I --. Mr. McCash asked, if a latidowner has1 00 acres, 2 dwellings/acre = 200 dwelling units, and I. ." '. I. ...... ." the 200 dwellings are clustered on 60% or 60 acres, wouldn't the lots be about 50-feet wide?! · j. i I Mr. Fernsler explained tha~they wouldnotbe that small. They could be a minimum of 80, 100, or 120 feet in diameter, whatever the comfort level is for Council. Perception oflot size changes according to the adj acent open space. I '. I ..' Mr. McCash explained that the. c.o.n.cep. t of putting 200 homes on 60 acres means that the I . . lots will have to be that sm~ll. There is, a similar development in Genoa Township, Delaware County that fits tbis description -- 98 acres with 2 dwelling units/acre. Those lots are 50 feet wide. He does not see any possibility, other than clustering things together in such narrow spaces. The h6uses that vYould fit on a50-ft. lot are one-car wide. I., . I I ,... ...." I..' .... I, ". ..... . . . .' . . Mr. Fernsler responded that the only place they have suggested lots 50 feet WIde, or near that size, was Amlin, wher~ that has be'tm the pattern of the community. I " I Mr. Arendt responded that1asimilar pi~ture would be 100 lots on 30 acres, which means every lot is 30% of one acr.b. The lot w...oul. ',d be 12,500 to 13,.000 square feet, which also I ..". .... ..' allows area for streets. A 12,500-square-foot lot can be 80' x 150', 100' x 125', or 50' x 250'. I I I" _ Mr. McCash responded that it physical!y doesn't work.. He has served on Council for four years and is convinced that; none of the.:Council melllbers will like these houses. I I Mr. Arendt said that he coqld take Mr. 'McCash to Muirfie1d Village and show him homes that are on 50-foot lots which arebeautlful. lIowever, as he and Mr. Ferns1er have stated, they are not advocating that, and it is misleading to state that they are proposing lots that width. He reiterated that hb stands by his figures and is willing to go to the drafting board and prove that it works. I" ... '" . ...... .1. Mr. Fernsler explained thaifor~iscus,si,ol1 purposes,tl1eystartedwith a recommendation for 12,000 square feet as a starldard lot. They were told by the developers they interviewed that they could work with a mi~imum Of 80' to 100 feet lot width. 12,000 square feet allows a lot 100-ft. wide by 120 ft. deep. However; maybe 14,000 square feet is a better number. Their intention is not for Dublin to builcl hou~es that are out of place in this market by putting them on postage-size lots. The intent i~ to make the subdivisions look more spacious, not I " ..... . ... '.' ... , cramped. ! I Mr. McCash asked what m.hndate nece~sitated. small.er lot s. ize... s. His understanding was that I . '. '.." ", the green vista was to be cr~ated by a greater setback from the roadway. I '11 Mr. Fernsler explained thei~ mandate ~a~ to do a number ofthings, including the retention of community open space and community character. In interviewing a number of - stakeholders in the area regarding enhancing the character of the land, the number one response was to preserve more open space. Mr. McCash commented that the proposed plan calls for narrow streets without curb and gutter, thereby dropping standards below what is typical in other subdivisions to make it less costly for the developer to build this. The consistent theme is to eliminate curbs and gutters. They are also not include boulevarded streets, which was always part of the vision, particularly with neighborhood collectors. If those were to be included with this plan, more acreage would be taken away. Mr. Fernsler explained that this responds to the intent of the Southwest Plan to, in this area, step down in density toward the agricultural area. The last zone is a type of residential area that reflects rural character at a very low density, as set in the Community Plan. Does it RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ""d""~'~~~"~~~~~H~"~H~"~~~"~~ u t~~ oL~~"~"~~~~"~~~~~~~_"H~s~"~~~"'~irMeerr~'~-icttv,,"C~~,~~:ti~~'~~"~~~"H~_~~H~HH~H_H~~~~~H_"1>"ro neetinJ3: peCla ee mg 0 1 Y ouncl g< ~~~"~H" HHHH~~~~"~~"~~H DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO., FORM NO 10148 HeM May 24, 1999 19 then make sense to require developers to put in the same level of investment in streets, sidewalk, curb and gutter in a rural area as in a suburban and urban area? They have suggested taking a look at the engineering standards that are mandated to see if they are r- really necessary in a low density area. Mr. McCash inquired about the responsibility for maintenance of the open space. Mr. Fernsler said there are many options. For instance, ifthere is a piece of open space that is part of an open-trail system that the City wants to have publicly available, it could be dedicated and become part of the City of Dublin greenway system. If it's active recreation to serve a neighborhood, it would be appropriate for a neighborhood association to take care of it. If it's actively farmed in some fashion, it could be a continuing source of revenue to the property owner. Mr. Arendt added that in a larger project, there can be all four types of open space ownership -- City, neighborhood association, land trust, private owner or commercial enterprise. The open space could include both neighborhood recreation areas and City recreational areas. Mr. McCash stated that this seems contrary to their concept of lawn-shrinking. If it's soccer field -- green grass cut on a weekly basis, what's wrong with leaving it as lawn for a private owner versus public ownership maintained as lawn? Mr. Arendt responded that nothing is wrong with that, but if everything is allocated in the Yz ......... acre lots, there is no option for a soccer field. The intent was to give them the possibility for both for a better quality of life for the neighborhood. Mr. McCash asked if they were aware of the 25% parkland dedication already required for neighborhoods, which already provides greenspace for the soccer fields, etc. Mr. Arendt said that is one of the menu options, public ownership of part of the open space. Mr. Arendt said that Dublin is known for both: its park system with interconnected greenways and for Muirfield, an area that shrinks lots to allow larger open space. They are trying to build on the best concepts used in Dublin over the past twenty-five years -- the flexibility of design in terms oflot size and the City's progressive stance in regard to public land and greenways. Mr. McCash noted that when it's owned by the City, the City has the maintenance cost and upkeep. If it's owned by the neighborhood association, they maintain it. But what would the association fees be? With the open space owned by neighborhood associations, are we trying to create exclusive communities? Mr. Arendt stated that they are responding to the community's desire for open space in the Southwest Area. They did discuss wholesale acquisition of public lands in the Southwest Area, and that is an alternative. However, the best scenario is if a developer can get all of - his lots out of a development, then donate a piece and receive a tax write-off for the dedication. Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding about the City's direction regarding open space. Mr. McCash inquired if the plan consistently maintains the 60-40 percentage of rural character in different commercial areas, and explained that he was referring to different areas along A very Road and throughout the rest of the Dublin community. Mr. Fernsler responded that they could be tailored to apply exclusively to the Southwest, or be applicable city-wide. The current assumption of the plan is that it applies only to the Southwest. Mr. McCash reiterated that in order to achieve overall preservation of the rural character, it , I I HI' 'Ii! .i!LIiI' >'!T!"'!'! !f i! 'Iii! RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ,~u"~,,,_>w~~_u"'>W>W~Q_>W>W"_~dM!!ll;1~~~_Qf__">W>W_>WQ"~'~~~"u___""~Q~-specratMeenng~orCily-comfcu--~~'~-"-'Q~-'~_>W'''~'~--~---'-Q-rrrg~~~~!~[~d"""~"Q'Q-' DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO.. FORM NO 10148 HeIrl Ml'Iy?4, 1 c)c)c) 19 would be necessary to apply the same formula for commercial development, as well. Mr. Fernsler clarified that, based on the City's recently approved Community Plan, there is /"""""'" very little commercial development slated for the Southwest Area. Consequently, it doesn't present an issue, and no contemplation has been made to apply conservation development standards for commercial development. Mr. McCash responded that the Community Plan does not indicate that preservation of the rural character is to be applied to the Southwest Area only. The plan's concepts are to be applicable city-wide, commercial as well as residential. Mr. Femsler responded that would be a policy direction to be made by Council. The City requested the consultants to develop a plan for the Southwest. They have no mandate to develop a plan for the entire City. Mr. Adamek noted that his main concern is that the plan maintain a minimum of a 80-foot frontage, so the final plan may need to increase the square footage from 12,000 square feet per lot to 13,000 or 14,000 square feet. His concern then goes to square footage of the house. If there is a small square footage lot, it necessitates a small square footage home. This concern was reinforced by information received which showed house plans ranging from 14,000 to 18,000 square feet. He would rather see 2500 sq. ft homes, a typical 4- bedroom home in this community. Mr. Femsler responded that they did hear the concern that 80 feet be the minimum lot -- width, and that is the reason they crafted 12,000 for initial discussion. 12,000 divided by 80 is 150, and 80' x 150' has been indicated by the City as a reasonable lot size. If a more comfortable lot size is specified as something between 13,000 to 15,000 sq. ft., and the preferred ratio is 70/30 or SO/50, those are discussion issues. The plan draft proposes the ratio; Council can give policy direction as they wish. Mr. Adamek indicated that he would be more comfortable if the final plan mandated the minimum square footage of the house itself. Mr. Fernsler agreed that could also be done. Mr. Adamek asked if architectural standards have been developed. Mr. Femsler responded that those are in the process of development. Mr. Adamek noted that the four options for open space ownership -- public, land trust, commercial facility, private, he does not see as a mandate for the consultants. Those need separate Council review and revision. However, he is curious about other areas where they have designated commercial farming as the open space. What effect would that have on a neighborhood of this type? Mr. Femsler responded that the idea is to gradually blend from a suburban development to r housing intermingled with agricultural, then there must be a type of agricultural operation I friendly to its neighbors -- no spraying of pesticides, fertilizers, or other objectional I activities. Mr. Adamek stated he has concerns with the proposal for the rural conservation area, which eliminates curb cuts to decrease the cost of development. In the future, residents will be come before Council requesting curbs; that should be reconsidered now. Mr. Reiner commented that some of the nicest subdivisions in Muirfield are much tighter in density than this plan proposes -- Weatherstone, the Mews, and they border on open green space. Also, Muirfield does not have curbs and gutters. He added that there are problems related to minimal setbacks -- road widening infringement, light pollution on homeowners' properties, so if the City demands a larger portion of the ground and goes to a cluster I I i!1 ,.eeI d ; ,~, IiI ,I: ili,:i 1 :i. :1.'1,: ;':f:U,h],'::~i':~:'1Fil'<:I<r"rNJ;;1I'tfi"~Hlh1nr' ':'1 jT'lnilljH'l""W'!YiW~hWj!'lrl' '11~",,,'mI'I"'t"'!~,','i, l: ,j RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ",#~~,m~m,.,~#m#m~.m#m~~m~~.J!iin!!tes it~~~m~~m_~m_~m~pecmtNreetihg~OrCi~UifCi1-m'm--._,~~,m~~m_,.~'~~~ttrrg~~t!!!g~~m~mm~'~ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO FORM NO 10148 Rein May?4) 1999 19 housing pattern, setbacks should be provided which will alleviate setback-related problems. He referred to materials provided to Council members, which included photos of the oldest similar project done, in the 1920's, in New England. Although original pictures of the ........ project resembled Kansas, 70 years later it is a very attractive neighborhood with second- growth forest behind the houses. This type of development would increase the value of homes. He added that it may not be the perfect scenario, but it is the best option presented to Dublin so far, to both create high quality housing and preserve the land. He thanked them for following the mandate of the $lM study, involving 200 people and two years of time and effort. Mrs. Boring clarified that the consultants are seeking direction from Council on the amount of green space to be set aside and the desired lot sizes. Mr. Fernsler agreed they should discuss the percentage of open space, minimum lot size, and a more flexible approach to density. Mrs. Boring stated that the Community Plan provides a density of 2 houses/acre maximum. Now, that appears to be considered the minimum. Also, the cluster housing in Muirfield appears to be mixed -- not all of it in one place. Mr. Fernsler agreed. While 12,000 sq. ft. is an average lot, there could be a range of sizes. Mr. Arendt agreed that Muirfield is striking because not one size fits all. There are many options. ~ Mrs. Boring added that she disagrees with Mr. Adamek regarding a mandated house size. She prefers mixed use. She shares Mr.,McCash's concerns about the lot size. Mayor Kranstuber commented that perhaps the original mandate has been a little vague. Council members met with a consultant or representative initially and shared their desires for results of the plan. Personally, he sought only: (1) architectural diversity, (2) boulevarded streets, and (3) amassing of parkland. He thinks it is important to put effort into wise planning in order to avoid situations such as the traffic problem which has resulted on Wilcox Road. He asked if this plan is subject to exceptions and modifications. If a developer comes along later with a fantastic plan, is Council legally bound to this conservation plan? Mr. Ferns1er responded that a plan which increases the quality and maintains the green space couldn't be diametrically opposed to what has been proposed. Mayor Kranstuber said he is having difficulty supporting this because the experts he knows and trusts in this area are giving opposing advice. Mayor Kranstuber asked the opinions of staff regarding this plan. ~ Mrs. Clarke said that she is well aware of the preferences of this community, and would not I support any plan that required lots 50 feet wide. She does not believe this plan proposes that, and has confidence it will work. Mayor Kranstuber asked how many 80- ft. lots can be achieved on 100 acres. Mr. Arendt said that 40% open space and a density of 2 lots/acres, would normally cover the 100 acres with Y2 acre lots. If the Y2 acre lot size, which is 20,000 square feet, is reduced to 12,000 sq. ft. (80' x 150'),40% open space remains. An acre lot is 43,560 square feet. If 10% is taken out for road circulation (as an average figure), 40,000 square feet remains that is not needed for roads. Of that 40,000 square feet, only 24,000 square feet (two 12,000 square feet) is used for house lots. 40,000 minus 24,000 = 16,000 square feet of open space, or 40%. It is necessary to start with a vision first for the open space which , I I i ill ,,',IUIii'hl.,;; 11 Ii 'ill I 1'" ! " 'i} i'!,~ "~if:''I>I'M'h'~!tI'.,',II.;IJI0l~>1if.HH1m., ! 'j'" ~f>.1!fli'!''t'ft'1;11!!H~mW".i.lll~,:.t;JH':1 i 1~\\ifn k ,I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS WQ~~N~~~~Q~_'_"~N_U__,,~,,_~_~inY1~N~,~L~,,~uum_____Nm~~~~u_ Spec1aT1VIeenngmCrrY~COUnCli~N~m_'__~mu_m_~-~u_,-m--~P"ag~f~N!!l[,_~",~u_'m_ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO. FORM NO 10148 Hekl M::Iy)4, 1999 19 prohibits it from being fragmented. There is no "one size fits all" that is a good solution for community. It is desirable to swing around an average minimum lot size of 80-90 ft., which will allow decreasing the lot width for people who are downsizing and increasing for - families needing larger homes. Mr. Fernsler said that although there is interest in the concept, there is discomfort with the application. They could come back with proposed refmements to the numbers to make it more flexible or hierarchy that relates percentage of open space to density. It will not work unless supported, including that of the development community. It needs to be tailored to fit the Dublin situation. Mr. Helwig pointed that Mr. Littleton had conducted a study of the amount of open space typically set aside in the subdivisions, and found it was from 15- 20%. He suggested that a number a little less than 40% would still provide a significant improvement in amount of open space. Mr. Littleton said the new development, Belvedere, has achieved 20% open space by eliminating a couple of cuI de sacs, looping streets, and by more efficient use of the open space. When lot widths are shrunk, there is less street frontage, and it is possible to pick up larger blocks of open space. Larger lot sizes give a more grid-like appearance, and loosening up the open space allows a more creative development. Mr. F ernsler said that the key is in the crafting of the open space to create an illusion of rural areas. ~ Ms. Hide Pittaluga said she is concerned about the gap in communication. It could be that Council and some others lack the visual experience of the consultants. The consultants' vast experience, success, and high commendation from the experts in their field, and the extensive amount oftime they've expended assessing Dublin's situation relative to this plan -- all point to a plan that will work. They are successful because they give sound advice. She suggested that it may be helpful for Council to have a visual session, looking at similar types of land area coverage and comparing it to what is being done now. She suggested the session could also include discussion about incorporating the architecture guidelines. Mr. Arendt agreed that the combination of showing visual examples of the results tied in with the specifics of that particular community -- their minimum lot size, criteria for percentage of open space would be a good exercise. Ms. Hide Pittaluga said she is prepared to support this tonight because she has confidence in the consultants. However, the diversity in feedback is a concern which needs to be addressed. Mrs. Boring asked Ms. Clarke if Wedgwood Hills is zoned at the same density as Campden Lakes. Ms. Clarke said that it is essentially the same. ~ i i Mrs. Boring noted that is a good example of the difference in subdivision layout. At ! Campden Lakes, there is the impression. of space; at Wedgewood Hills, there is a crowded feeling. Mrs. Clarke explained that the open space is clustered. Mayor Kranstuber asked for a comparison with Waterford Village. Mrs. Clarke explained that what happened in Waterford Village is common in subdivisions. The City has certain requirements, which the developer will meet. If the calculations state that what is required on the site is 19% open space, or in a specific case, 7.35 acres, then that is exactly what will be seen in the open space and no more. Any additional ground is I I :11 I" ::,JI I if!!.' 'i ;i'. H "HHJ",.. !;!!jIIMil!l11ll 'ill ,',~\ W',,-'lr'!fI"'f,1F'!f,;,,:,<~ti;;W!\1lI1:'IfIlmJ!'~tt:~mt ,U :' ':'1t"'IJI!'i~'t;.n.': NIl''''';'M'l~: If :,: U",,~~'I', "(: :,:~.,;} j; I', ',I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS WQ~wmm~m~WQmmmQmWQQm#~_WQ_m~Mintlt~~mJ?L_w~mQm~m~~m_u_~m~~-Specrat1VfeeUng~orCifY~CounciT~~m_mmWQ~-~-~~~-nge~WQe:!!m!!SWQmmWQm~m~QmWQ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO. FORM NO 10146 Held M::!y)4, 1999 19 put into less efficient subdivision layouts. Mr. Arendt added that the efficiency of the designs they are suggesting is that the open - space is not all hidden. The space is scenic from the roadway. There are tricks of design, for instance the best placement of open space on the outside of the turn, in view of the drivers in both directions. It is the configuration of the open space as well as the quantity of open space that makes the difference. Mr. Reiner agreed that there are many architects and engineers who do land planning without any real expertise. Dublin has now hired professionals who will ensure quality. The bottom line is the overall value of everyone's property in the Southwest will increase. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Ben Hale, addressed Council again. He noted that he is hearing something different than what he heard at the meeting at the Rec. He pointed out that Wyndham has 80' x 130' lots with 20% open space. It is impossible to have 40% open space with 80- ft lots. He is working on a subdivision in another township where the lots are smaller, 65 feet wide, resulting in more open space. He suggested that if Council wants a visual of this plan, take the last subdivision approved, and ask them to redesign it. He added that he worked on Muirfield, and he knows the Southwest area well. Consequently, he feels qualified to say it will be impossible to come near replicating Muirfield in the Southwest. However, it is possible to go with the open space conservation plan, with succession tiers, quality materials and unique architecture and develop an attractive area. The builders will re-design - their houses to meet those requirements. But it needs to be done in an economically sound way. He personally doesn't believe that it is possible to take Belvedere, do 80-ft lots and get 2 units/acre, but he does believe there is an economically viable way to do this that would be acceptable in the building community. The 40% open space is achievable with succession tiers, but not with 80-ft. lots; however, that is not necessary to create a quality community. He suggested that with the Epcon model, where the average homeowner is 62 years old with .004 children, the developer plans for 5 units/acre. There is a market for that, and Dublin needs it. It is possible to do part of a subdivision with that density, the rest in larger lots, and still achieve open space. There is some prejudice against those types of units, but the fact is, it is a good thing for Dublin economically. Chris Cline said that the mythical 80' x 150' lot and 25' of right-of-way will just exactly fit into 40%, but in the real world, it is impossible to achieve that efficiency. The only way to obtain that efficiency is by downsizing the house. Also, this size lot does not encourage people to build expensive houses; they will build what is typically built on a 65' lot. The City will end up lowering its standards if it pursues that efficiency, eliminating cuI de sacs and curving streets and settling for grid streets. To make those numbers work, it is necessary to become very boring, rigid, and grid-like, and consequently, sacrifice quality. S. Robert Davis agreed with Mr. Cline. He supports having more open space, but obviously the math doesn't work. He also agrees with Mr. Reiner that farmland or any area with a concentration of herbicides, insecticides and pesticides is not compatible with a residential ,..--. subdivision. The other aspect of the plan that troubles him, which has not been addressed, f is the down-zoning that appears to exist in the plan. The plan takes lots that are industrial, I I and with the plan itself, rezones them as office. It is illegal to do a blanket rezoning of all the properties, i.e. properties along A very Road. Mr. Arendt responded that, to their knowledge, the plan they've presented to Council is consistent with the land use provisions of the Community Plan. Their understanding of that plan is that the residential densities were one to two units per acre, clearly indicating that there could be a one unit per acre designation. They are aware of no non-residential down- zomng. Mayor Kranstuber clarified that this was a reference to the Community Plan. I I iI,1 ii' I iiii: , '.1!' ... RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ~""~"U$.~m"_"'$$'~~$~_$$_Min~tes $.2t_~$U$~'~~~$'~'-$--SPeciaT1vfeenrrgOrcitY~Cou:ncil $'$'~~"$~~"~"""'U~'.__H_U~--'Yage~.~!!.!}.g~~'~"H'_""" ON LE AL BLANK CO.. FORM NO. 10148 Held May 7.4, 1 999 19 Mr. Reiner commented on the "missing land" reference. In Muirfield, the width of the lot may have shrunk some, depending on architecture; however, the real source is the depth of the lot. Because of the common ground behind the backyards, the backyards are not as ,.............. deep. Yet, there is still the sense of openness and space. Mr. Fernsler confirmed this. He explained that with an 80-foot wide lot that backs up to 300 feet of meadow, it doesn't make much difference whether the depth of the back yard is 100 or 150 feet. They have heard from developers on an acceptable depth oflots, if they abut common space. This is where a compromise can be made without appearing to have cramped the lot. He expressed a desire to get past the math debate and focus on the concept, suggesting that if it means decreasing the open space to 35% or 30% and establishing criteria about how the open space can be used, they'll do that. The implication that they are insisting on a 60%-40% is incorrect; it is only a starting point for discussion. Mr. Arendt added that the developers have also confirmed that there can be more flexibility in the lot width than a specified 80 feet for all. If Muirfield was lot width specific, Mr. Nicklaus would have walked away. If there is flexibility in whether the open space is 30- 35-or 40%, the width also may vary according to the houses being built. An empty nester or retiree may desire less green space to maintain. Ms. Hide Pittaluga said that works well in Muirfield, one huge, total over-all development. In the Southwest, there are different landowners, different interests, etc. She inquired how those differing owner interests could be married. ~ Mr. Fernsler said that one of the products of their work is a conceptual master plan for all of the Southwest Area. They will suggest how one piece of open space connects to a neighboring parcel so that eventually, at build-out, there will be a continuous green network. Advanced planning on the part of the City can help ensure that connectivity. Ms. Hide Pittaluga asked if the consultants could provide visuals of actual, similar communities, not just aerial, but ground photos of other communities where this has been done and is successful. Mr. Fernsler said they could do so. Mrs. Boring said she does not benefit as much from visuals as the others may, finding it difficult to fit it into the total picture. However, she is interested in Mr. Hale's challenge and believes they can do it. She would like to see a subdivision in existence now, reconfigured with the same number of lots showing more greenspace. Mr. Arendt responded that enjoy doing so. He asked if they could give them some plans, preferably a subdivision with under 100 lots. Mayor Kranstuber said before that next meeting at which they will review the visuals and reconfiguration, there is a need to clarify remaining issues. ...--, Mr. Fernsler summarized that the consultants have proposed an average lot size of 12,000 square feet, which allows lots of80' x 150', 70' x 180', or other. He inquired if that would afford the developers sufficient flexibility, or do they need to go to 14,000 square feet? They do want to maintain the flexibilit)' and curvy streets. If there is discomfort with the lot size, he asked Council to indicate what size the average lot needs to be. Mr. Reiner stated that he prefers not to stipulate anything different. A good builder with quality materials and design can do what needs to be done with that lot size. Mayor Kranstuber asked Ms. Clarke to comment on a couple of areas in the Community Plan that were to be given further consideration. Mrs. Clarke said there were concerns about the industrial uses along A very Road in terms of : . I .1. d l Ii: ,cj i:11 id.j.; ; :1. 11. Ii. 1~""iljtb,t::1iiIi"\: 1'1 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS "m$~_mhM~__h_'_Mm_m~d,m$_,_mMlnE~te~_~J~m~~~$,m_~'$~_M~h$~peclat"Meefing 6rcrrymCounclr~'Mm_~m~m~M_mM~'_h$m~~m_~~m1>a"ge,~~tiE,gM_hh_~mm'hM_m DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn May 24, 1999 19 traffic. It was for other reasons, including aesthetics, that preferred land uses were switched from industrial to office. She added that there is a an existing land use map and a preferred land use map. The fact that the preferred land use map does not mesh perfectly with reality ~ is acceptable, in her view. Nothing in the Community Plan down-zoned anyone's property. Mrs. Boring moved that Council give the consultants plans of Belvedere or a recent development to re-design it with the same number and width of lots incorporating the concepts as proposed. Ms. Hide Pittaluga seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Peterson, yes; Mr. Adamek, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Kranstuber, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Hide Pittaluga, yes. Ms. Hide Pittaluga moved that the consultants also do a second re-design of Belvedere with no parameters other than existing City code. Mr. Arendt suggested that they return with two or three versions with different lot sizes and visual examples of each from other communities. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mayor Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Hide Pittaluga, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mr. Adamek, yes. Mr. Peterson moved that the consultants also return with suggested guidelines on ,......... architectural design standards. Ms. Hide Pittaluga seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Adamek, yes; Ms. Hide Pittaluga, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mayor Kranstuber, yes. Mr. Reiner moved that staff draft an ordinance to extend the southwest moratorium three additional months. Ms. Hide Pittaluga seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Hide Pittaluga, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mr. Adamek, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. Mr. McCash asked to see copies of the renditions before the next meeting. The next meeting was scheduled for June 28, at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Reiner moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Peterson seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Hide Pittaluga, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mr. Adamek, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. tuber adjourned the meeting at 9:46 p.m. ,..-., ~ tlr' ~ A ~k.OfCO il ~ s:\ ATA\COUNCIL\MIN99\MIN99.M24