HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-27-05 Study SessionSTUDY SESSION
Monday, June 27, 2005
7:00 p.m. -Council Chambers
Minutes of Meeting
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the meeting to order.
Present were Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, Vice Mayor Lecklider, Mrs. Boring, Mr. McCash,
Ms. Salay, Mr. Reiner and Mr. Keenan.
Staff members present included Ms. Brautigam, Mr. Smith and Mr. Bird, plus staff from
Land Use and Long Range Planning, and Planning Commissioners Zimmerman and
Jones.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that tonight's topic is discussion of Conservation
Subdivision Design. She invited Mr. Bird to comment and to introduce the consultant.
Mr. Bird introduced Chris Duerksen, Clarion Associates who will review the City's
current conservation design process and its effectiveness. He is a partner with Clarion
Associates of Denver, and an attorney with years of experience in the development
field. The handouts include the PowerPoint presentation and a report requested by
Council analyzing open space with conventional and conservation design. The
purpose of tonight's workshop is to examine the City's current conservation design
process and its effectiveness, ways to improve upon that in meeting community goals,
and to consider passible enhancements or equivalent alternatives. The review will
consist of best practices in various communities and their experiences, with the intent
of providing recommendations to Council.
• Potential Conservation Design Approaches
Chris Duerksen, Clarion Associates offered a definition of conservation design, which is
simply good site design, or another name for good site planning. It has been adopted
in some communities that did not have good site planning. There is a four-step
process involved, which should be observed in planning any site, anywhere.
Conservation design is normally a process that focuses on and gives the City a lot of
control over elements such as open space and protection of natural resources. It is
almost exclusively applied in a very rural setting to large tracts. With Randall Arendt,
they recently drafted a conservation design process that is mandatory in Loudon
County, Virginia. The western portion of Loudon County runs to the Blue Ridge
Mountains and is very rural. The goal was to preserve open space and protect natural
resources.
He emphasized that it is important not to think of conservation design as a
mathematical process. Good site planning cannot be done strictly by mathematical
formula. The best conservation designs are those where there is creativity and
flexibility in the process.
Dublin City Council Study Session
Monday, June 27, 2445
Page 2
He noted that his partner, Craig Dale, is working with Dublin on the comprehensive
plan. The Denver office also does planning and work on the regulatory subjects, such
as development codes, impact fees and land use plans across the United States. In
the City of Hudson, the building permit cap portion of their Cade was challenged, but
upheld in the Sixth Circuit Court. They work in many communities quite similar to
Dublin, with a historic, downtown core, and fast growing, suburban peripheral
development -cities like Overland Park, Kansas; Cary, North Carolina; and Franklin,
Tennessee. Clarion also has significant hands-on experience with conservation
design, most of which have been in rural areas -such as Loudon County, Virginia with
Randall Arendt. Randall generally is involved with presenting the concepts, and they
follow with drafting the standards in a workable fashion for administration by the
community to obtain the desired results. There are some communities more like
Dublin's situation of mixed rural/suburban situation -New Berlin, Milwaukee -where
the western portion of the county has a lot of wetlands and agricultural lands, and they
have adopted a hybrid, dual conservation design system -one kind in the suburban
area and a totally different one with different standards in the rural area. Another is
purely suburban, such as in Arvada, Colorado - a suburban of Denver with an old core.
This is a stand-alone community and they are trying to preserve some of the
agricultural, rural area as they grow. They are not trying to preserve large tracts of
viable agricultural land, but are trying to preserve rural character like Dublin. They
have a variety of experience in the field of conservation design and want to share this
information tonight as Council works on examining and fine-tuning the current
conservation design system in Dublin.
He spent time with staff today and toured the area. He has some general observations
about Dublin development, having read the comprehensive plan and reviewed the
zoning code and other documents provided by staff.
• It is important to keep in mind that Dublin is doing a great jab and is known for
its high quality residential and commercial development, with architectural
review standards, good sign controls and landscaping requirements. For items
not addressed in the Code, they are negotiated in the PUD process. In touring
other communities and developments in the area, Dublin is clearly doing a
pretty good job with development.
• Dublin does pretty good individual site layout. The Muirfield area is designed
nicely versus some of the other individual subdivisions viewed in other
communities.
• He noted that while Dublin is good at individual site layout, the connections
between subdivisions are lacking. A lot of subdivision planning is done and
less neighborhood or area planning. He was surprised to learn that Dublin has
adopted conservation design, but does not have an overall open space or parks
master plan for the community. An open space plan would be the armature on
which the conservation design would work; without such a plan, the open space
must be negotiated on a site-by-site basis.
Dublin City Council Study Session
Monday, June 27, 2005
Page 3
He reviewed the goals of conservation design in Dublin that he gleaned from staff and
from reading the current documents. After this, he would like to share with Council how
other communities are using similar and different approaches to conservation design.
Finally, he will make some recommendations on how Dublin could refine the
conservation design process to make it more workable and effective.
Goal 1. Protecting/providing ample blocks of contiguous open space
Goal 2. Preserving natural resources and environmentally sensitive areas
Goal 3. Providing a diversity of housing types/models of high quality
Goal 4. Avoiding cookie-cutter monotonous subdivisions
Goal 5. Protecting scenic views/rural character
He was surprised to learn that the 200-foot setback on scenic roads had not been
codified, but is implemented by negotiation. He will discuss later the dangers of this
approach and the need to have these kinds of things codified. He asked Council if he
had accurately summarized the goals of conservation design in Dublin.
Mr. Reiner responded that he had reiterated them accurately. The problem is with
obtaining diverse housing models of high quality. Dublin is being pressured by
developers who want to modify the standards so that their projects will be accepted in
Dublin. The developers refuse to hire new architects to produce new designs, such as
the patio homes found on the east coast or the Carolinas. They continue to bring the
same plans to Dublin. The problems Council is having with Goal 3 lead to the
problems of Goal 4. By passing this kind of legislation, Dublin hopes to induce a
creative planning approach by developers versus creating a legal situation. Dublin is
constantly in a battle with lawyers representing developers who want to bring in their
same old projects.
Mr. Duerkson stated that they have heard this same mantra from developers
elsewhere, saying they can't possibly do something different as the market will not
accept it. Dublin is not the only city that is confronted with that objection. However,
Dublin has the advantage that Cary and Ft. Collins have - it is a highly desirable area
to locate. Dublin would have more leverage than some cities that feel compelled to
accept any development. Goals 3 and 4 are both challenging. The toughest issue for
Dublin will be Goal 3, diversity of housing of high quality -this is where Dublin will be
on the cutting edge.
Mr. Reiner stated that Goal 2 is sometimes misread by legal entities representing
developers -preserving natural resources and environmentally sensitive areas.
Because Dublin is, in general, flat ground, developers continue to submit standard
development plans for approval. What is needed is good, sound planning. After 50-
100 years, secondary tree growth will be in place, and the houses will be of greater
value because of being planned correctly. He believes that part of the problem Dublin
is having with conservation design is that instead of being in a creative world with land
Dublin City Council Study Session
Monday, June 27, 2445
Page 4
planners, Dublin is tied up in a legal world with lawyers pressing for their projects. The
mission is to create a more interesting community that will stand the test of time, and
this is accomplished through good planning.
Mr. Lecklider stated that, based on Council discussions over time, there has been
general acceptance of the concepts expressed here. The issue now is interpretation
and application. While there is a consensus on the concepts, when are they
appropriately applied -- in every instance?
Mr. Duerksen responded that it is his belief that if Council is going to impose these
types of standards, they should make the process as open and as predictable as
passible. There are several possible approaches to accomplish each goal. It is up to
Council to decide which of the approaches will work best in each context.
Mr. Lecklider added that he agrees that one of the greatest challenges is with the
diversity of housing types.
Mr. Reiner stated that Dublin has a wonderful opportunity to pursue Goal 1, blocks of
contiguous open space -- a Metro Park is in the north, and to the west is undeveloped
land. If the conservation design were used correctly, it would be possible to have
greenspace connecting from the north all the way south to Tuttle Road. It would
require some high tech, intelligent planning by the City and a strong structured
government, but it would result in a permanent amenity for all future generations.
When developers are amassing land and imposing their plans an the City, how can the
City defend its future against these constant onslaughts?
Mr. Duerksen responded that the City can do this and needs to do this. He will be
addressing this later tonight.
Mr. Keenan noted that he reviewed Dublin's conservation design language. Does it
vary much from other cities around the country? There seem to be a lot of issues for
Dublin in terms of application of the law.
Mr. Duerksen responded that with conservation design, authority must be given to the
City to obtain what it needs. Dublin's legislation is in resolution form, not an ordinance.
He strongly recommends an ordinance because of its legal force, and it should be
codified. On the other hand, Dublin's conservation design principles are applied as
requirements, and there are certain things in some of the numerical requirements that
frankly do not work.
Mr. Keenan stated that there is a difference in opinion between Council, staff and P&Z
in terms of the application and how it is to work. This is the essence of the problem. Is
there a mathematical formula or same method in which to determine what fits or does
not fit?
Mr. Duerksen responded that certain things have to be quantified and should be
applied quite rigidly. For example, it is best to select a percentage of open space that
should be mandatary - 54 percent is typical, although some are higher. But it is
Dublin City Council Study Session
Monday, June 27, 2445
Page 5
important to have some administrative flexibility for modifications, because a future
outstanding proposal could provide only 47 percent open space, which would then be
rejected if there were no flexibility. There are other standards, such as diversity of
housing, where if it is not specified, it will have to be negotiated each time. This
expectation should also be specific. Dublin has used certain numerical standards,
such as a 75°~ percent adjacent open space requirement, which can apply well in a
large development in a rural area, but it is not a good standard to apply in a suburban
context, as it can drive bad design. The community has applied some of those
standards fairly rigidly, and he recommends flexibility in those areas. There are 5-6
standards that should be codified and not open to negotiation, and with the others,
there should be a fair amount of flexibility.
Goal 1. Protectinglproviding ample blocks of contiguous open space.
For contiguity of open space, conservation design should always require a certain
percentage of open space, that it be contiguous, in large blocks, and protect certain
types of land. It is best not to use numbers, such as 75 feet wide, ar a 4 to 1
dimension, or require 75 percent to front onto open space, because the numbers then
drive the design. Inevitably, the design will not protect other things that the City may
want protected. It is best not to apply those kinds of numerical standards, but rather,
provide staff and the P&Z with sufficient authority to acquire the priority environmental
sites and to make sure it is contiguous. What is really important is the conservation
design that works best, based upon an adopted community open space plan. Such a
plan defines the connections between parks and open space. He has learned that
Dublin has never had a written open space plan, although staff is aware of the City's
expectations regarding open space. A plan would identify critical environmental areas,
parks that are important, park connections, and stream corridors to be protected. It
would not then have to be debated and negotiated at every turn. The key thing is to
have a written vision, and that document would guide the location of future open space.
Developers prefer to be aware of a city's expectations before beginning the
development process.
He noted that Mr. Arendt's work focuses primarily on communities with large blocks of
open space where farming and ranching are to be protected. In Dublin's case, the
desire is to protect open space for different reasons. Conservation design is generally
done in mostly rural areas where large land tracts provide more flexibility. In his
experience, there is often a density bonus offered to persuade people to use
conservation design.
Another important aspect of conservation design is what happens with the preserved
land into the future. A management plan for mowing and maintenance is needed for
the land, if it is not to be farmed or not to be operated as a ranch. Amore common
approach to open space protection is with zoning regulations. Their firm does not write
a Code at the present time where a community does not require a minimum percent of
open space for any subdivision. They don't label this as conservation design. It is part
Dublin City Council Study Session
Monday, June 27, 2005
Page 6
of the usual site planning process. A standard is then written regarding priorities for
what is to be protected in the site planning, i.e., wetlands, streams, slopes. They
require contiguity, and if the staff is not satisfied with the degree of contiguity achieved
by the developer, the applicant will receive a negative recommendation from staff. That
is the manner in which the majority of progressive jurisdictions have had open space
protection -with open space regulations requiring a minimum percentage, required
contiguity, and sometimes with a maintenance management plan.
Many communities require that a certain percentage of open space be dedicated to the
public. His understanding is that Dublin has a formula, in addition to the conservation
design resolution, that requires a dedication of two percent of the gross acreage of the
site, plus .03 acres for every dwelling unit, up to a 25 percent maximum. Many
communities throughout the country have an open space requirement or fee in lieu of
dedication.
Another effective tool is development rights or transfers where a community, such as
Montgomery County, Maryland - afast-growing, high-end suburb of Washington, DC
with older areas close to Washington. DC and extending out to the Potomac - has a lot
of viable agricultural land. They have accomplished this through transferable
development rights. There is an area where they have downzoned to one unit per 30
acres in order to maintain it as farming. In certain infill areas in Montgomery County,
the only way that approval can be obtained to develop is to buy the development rights
from a farmer and transfer the density into an infill development area. It has worked in
that location because the transfers are within one jurisdiction and because there are
areas where the county is willing to accept more density. This is just another tool
available to accomplish the protection of open space.
Mr. Duerksen pointed out that of all the tools available, zoning regulations are the most
prevalent - specifying a percentage of open space, specifying contiguity, and using a
number of the principles that Dublin terms "conservation design."
Goal 2. Preserving natural resources and environmentally sensitive areas.
In Dublin, the primary tool to accomplish this is conservation design. In Laudon
County, the requirements are to take the density, cluster it on smaller lots, and
preserve 50 to 75 percent in open space. The priority in Loudon County is preservation
of environmentally sensitive areas. Again, in Loudon County it is mandatary in rural
areas and a minimum of 40 acres is required to cluster - it is not permitted to do
conservation subdivision on 5 to 10 acres, as only one house would be allowed. With
more than 40 acres, three units are allowed on those 40 acres. There is a big incentive
to do conservation subdivision in the rural areas, but they don't allow it on less than 40
acres. It is difficult to do detailed open space planning on less than 40 acres in a
conservation design process.
Mr. Lecklider asked what type of housing product is included in the example of
conservation design he has referenced.
Dublin City Council Study Session
Monday, June 27, 2005
Page 7
Mr. Duerksen responded that most conservation design is done on very large tracts on
septic system, which requires a minimum of three acres. Development standards are
used far more frequently to protect sensitive environmental areas than is conservation
design. In Salt Lake County, Utah where they are preparing for the Olympics, the
development was infringing upon the steep slopes and sensitive canyon areas nearby.
In Cincinnati, Ohio the development was taking place on steep slopes where the
buildings were sliding down the slopes. These jurisdictions did not permit
development in areas where these problems would result. It is not negotiable. Another
development standard seen frequently is a 100-foot setback on either side of a stream
-this has been done in Franklin, Tennessee. This is a fairly well accepted standard
and is not negotiable with every development. Credit toward the open space
requirement is provided with the 100-foot setback, but this is standard and not
negotiated with each application. The development community will not bring design in
to a city unless it meets the standards. Hudson, Ohio has a requirement for setback
from wetlands. They are restricting development due to pollution coming into the wells
from recharge areas of the wetlands. There is no negotiation on this paint.
One important thing he has experienced is that after a period of time, communities feel
that the standards are rigorous, too black and white, and preclude good design.
Keeping development away from the streams pushed it up into the hardwood forest
uplands. What is now being included in development standards is an administrative
modification or equivalent compliance standard. In Ft. Collins, Colorado, many
standards are in place and the staff has the ability to modify any standards by 20
percent, based upon a finding that the modification would achieve the intent of the
ordinance and that there was a good reason to do so, e.g., it would result in more
protection on the site. The Ft. Collins 100-foot setback could push development into a
sagebrush area, so planning by numbers must include some flexibility. For example,
the requirement of 75 percent of houses being adjacent to open space should not be
applied rigidly - an administrative modification process would bring desired results.
Major issues can then be handled by staff, not by Council or Planning Commission,
assuming staff makes a finding that they will achieve that which is intended. Such
flexibility allows for creative design.
Mr. Duerkson stated that a third tool to protect natural resources is impact fees for
environmental resources. It is being used in Las Vegas Valley, NV to protect the desert
tortoise. Every house built is required to pay $500 toward the habitat protection fund.
The money is used to purchase large tracts of open space to protect the desert tortoise
- a threatened species. Many communities believe natural resource protection can be
done through regulations, but what is really needed is a steady stream of land
acquisition. Baltimore County, Maryland and Dade County, WI are featured in his
recent book as two successful nature friendly communities because they have steady
streams of funding for land acquisition, in addition to having strong regulations. He has
been told that Dublin City Council does not have a dedicated source of funding, but that
Dublin's City Council has always supported purchase of land for an important purpose.
Dublin City Council Study Session
Monday, June 27, 2445
Page 8
Ms. Brautigam pointed out that Dublin actually does have a dedicated source of funding
for land acquisition through the inside millage.
Mr. Reiner stated that Dublin has not applied that to land planning uses, but instead to
immediate opportunities. Cleveland has a greenspace called an "emerald necklace."
The monies have not been utilized toward the City's future acquisition of greenspace.
Developers bring in a plan fora 544-acre area of land and ask Dublin to approve it.
Dublin does not initiate the planning.
Mr. Duerksen stated that Baltimore County consists of both a very urbanized section
and a very rural section. They did a detailed parks and open space plan and identified
the land they wanted to acquire. After 20 years, they are at the halfway point. The
underpinning was having a plan and not just reacting to what was brought to them.
Instead of a site-by-site negotiation, it became part of a bigger overall vision for the
community.
Goal 3. Providing a diversity of housing types/models of high quality
He noted that this is an unusual issue to be dealt with in a conservation design. It is
causing much consternation around the country. In most conservation design
processes, the developer automatically is allowed to have smaller lots. The whole
concept of conservation design is to maintain the base density and to have more open
space. There are only two ways to achieve this: to have smaller lots or to allow higher
density forms of housing, such as apartments, patio homes, etc. As he understands it,
Dublin currently has appearance regulations for residential design. In their experience,
this is fairly typical.
Mr. McCash asked if they have reviewed how those standards relate to generating a lot
size or width. For example, Dublin has requirements about percentage of the front of
the house that can be garage door. With a standard two-car garage, it will result in a
minimum lot width that must be met to meet that standard in the architectural diversity
ordinance. How does that impact any type of conservation subdivision design
requirements, when under conservation subdivision design, smaller lots are needed to
achieve the density standards?
Mr. Duerksen responded that he did review this but has not tested them. It struck him
that some of those appearance-type standards may make conservation design more
difficult. It comes back to an issue of flexibility. Currently, the lot sizes would be
decreased and yet the house size would not. Given the appearance regulations, it is
not permissible to dominate the front facade with the garage. That is why some
flexibility is needed in the standards.
In Ft. Collins Colorado, they were seeing many single-family developments on fairly
large lots - at most, three units to the acre. They projected through modeling that it
would totally break down their transportation system in the future and would lead to the
imposition by the EPA of air pollution penalties. The only way to address this was to
have a minimum of five units per acre in the development. A nice housing mix is
coming in, with open space set aside. Part of the development may be one or two units
Dublin City Council Study Session
Monday, June 27, 2445
Page 9
per acre, but other forms of housing will also be included, such as patio homes or
townhouses. Their goals relate to transportation and air pollution, but this is how they
have addressed the issue of housing mix.
Erie, Colorado is another fast growing suburb of Denver and they were experiencing a
lot of townhouse development. They now require different footprints of units in the
apartments. The point is that communities are beginning to address this product mix
issue. Dublin has the ability to require a housing mix. It is important that the
requirement be codified, rather than exist as a policy that must be negotiated with each
development. He is aware that Dublin already has some anti-monotony standards or
appearance standards - it seems to be producing some results for Dublin at this point.
Hudson, Ohio had a landmark case where their anti-monotony and similarity standards
were challenged and upheld in federal circuit court. Many communities are going
beyond what Dublin requires and calling for a mix of use types in office parks.
Colorado Springs has a new mixed-use development district in which no one use can
exceed 74 percent of the Hoar area. In a large office park, 74°~ could be offices, but
the remainder would have to be retail or residential use to avoid creating traffic
problems. Dublin would be on the cutting edge to specify an exact mix, although there
are others doing the same across the country. Given the way Dublin is currently doing
conservation design, absent specifying a mix, the result would be large houses on
small lots.
Goal 4: Avoiding cookie-cutter monotonous subdivisions
Similar to other areas, Dublin is frustrated with the influx of cookie cutter subdivisions
and has adopted conservation subdivision design to address the issue. Other
communities faced with this issue, such as Franklin, Tennessee and Ft. Collins,
Colorado, use development standards with administrative site plan review. The
standards are very detailed. It is not negotiated through conservation design, but is
done with adapted development standards.
Mrs. Boring asked about the timeline needed to develop such standards.
Mr. Duerksen responded that the examples he provided took approximately a year to
develop. Some of these standards are already in place in Dublin, and are applied
within the PUD process. In reviewing Dublin's zoning code and the development that
exists in the City today, it is obvious that the development standards were negotiated
case by case. Dublin negotiates the anti-monotony provision by requiring a diversity
matrix, but it is not a law. It would be better to codify that and to inform people of the
rules versus negotiation each time. This is what Franklin, Tennessee has done.
Clayton, Missouri, ahigh-end suburb of St. Louis, has a high corporate population -
more jobs than residents. They negotiate all of their development. The neighborhoods
came to the City and complained that it is never certain what will come in with the next
development because of the negotiation process. Clayton then developed design
districts with tailored design standards for various areas of the city. Instead of a wide-
open PUD process, communities are developing design standards and codifying them.
They can still be modified through an administrative process, but the rules are black
and white. Good site planning can be a successful tool instead of conservation design.
Dublin City Council Study Session
Monday, June 27, 2005
Page 10
There is a point scoring system existing in Hudson Ohio and Pitikin County, Colorado -
Aspen, which allows so many units per year to be developed. There is a competition
process where the development community competes an the basis of open space,
energy efficiency, and the best environmental design. Those with the highest scores
receive the permits. It is likely the most sophisticated system in the country, and he is
not recommending that here. Upon their recommendation, Hudson eventually moved to
a lottery system to allocate building permits in Hudson -yet another way to have
creative site planning. He believes that site planning is a better approach
Mr. Reiner asked about a point scoring system relating to landowners. How would the
transition occur from the landowners to the person who builds on the property?
Mr. Duerksen responded that if Dublin decided to have only 500 units per year built
based upon water and sewer and infrastructure needs, a method for allocation would
be needed, by lottery or another method. All of the landowners would compete and be
scored by staff. The one with the highest score would receive the number of units he
wants. This system was upheld in Hudson, Ohio, which had several deficits, including
sewer problems, road problems, school problems, etc.
Goal 5. Protecting scenic viewslrural character
He observed that a 200-foot setback from scenic roads is impressive. He learned that
this regulation is not in the City's zoning code but stems from a map in the Community
Plan. It would be better if that map and accompanying regulations were included in the
zoning ordinance to give it some "teeth." He understands that it is negotiated as part of
PUD's, but it is important that these fundamentals be included as standards in the
conservation design regulations or in the zoning code.
Ms. Salay asked if the regulations were codified, would credit have to be given for the
open space? That has not been the past practice - it is all negotiated.
Mr. Duerksen responded that is it possible that partial credit would be given for that.
Other communities are using conservation design. Jackson, Wyoming, a tourist, high-
end community with major development immediately outside the city, wanted to protect
its meadows. They achieved that through the conservation design process. Other
communities use a more straightforward approach. Austin, Texas has the Capital of
Texas Highway. Along that highway, there are strict regulations - 100-foot setbacks,
controlled signage, and tree preservation, which are not achieved by negotiation. That
would be equivalent to Dublin's 200-ft. setback, if it were codified.
Other communities use site planning with development standards. Norman, OK, just
outside Oklahoma City, has a population twice the size of Dublin in an area ten times
the size of Dublin. They share a large rural border with 5-6 other communities, which
are encircling the city. They have achieved community separation by requiring a 400-
ft. setback on the key, peripheral roads.
Dublin City Council Study Session
Monday, June 27, 2445
Page 11
There are a number of other very effective alternatives to conservation design. The
key is to adopt standards and codify them, whether it is through PUD, site plan or
conservation. It is important, however, that the citizens are aware of the City's
requirements ahead of time. The process works much mare smoothly.
Based on the experiences of other communities, he believes Dublin's conservation
design process could be made more effective and easier to administrate. The City has
a very effective PUD process. However, there are some shortcomings with that
process, which is the reason Dublin has also adopted a conservation design process.
He recommends that Dublin utilize the negotiated PUD process, calling it a negotiated
conservation design PUD. However, he would suggest some changes in haw a PUD
for conservation design purposes is handled.
Recommendations:
(1 } It is essential that the City adopt a Citywide open space plan.
(2} Codify the City's open space requirements
(3} Codify contiguity requirements without specified formulas {eliminate
percentages, dimensions and feet). Mathematical standards do not result in
creative design, but will drive the design process and produce subdivisions that
are not workable. They may be good principles but should not be enforced as
regulations. It is best to require contiguity, and give staff the ability to negotiate
the rest.
(4} Adopt anti-monotony standards
(5} Adopt housing diversity standards
(6} Adopt scenic road setback requirements
(7} Require a buffer between conservation design subdivisions and public parks.
On his tour of Dublin's subdivisions, he observed that homes in Bishop Run
were being built up against Glacier Ridge parkland, with no buffer.
(8} Critical Recommendation: Have an administrative modification process
providing the ability to allow flexibility/equivalent compliance based upon
findings of fact. However, modifications could only be made within a range,
perhaps up to 24°l0, and to make the modification, staff or the Planning
Commission would have to make a finding of fact that by modifying the standard,
they were improving design, protecting open space, or other. He stated that
principles should not be applied as numerical requirements. However, there are
some regulations that should use hard numbers and not be subject to
negotiation.
Mr. Duerkson stated that the recommendations he has made are not that different from
Dublin's current process. He believes that the experience of several other communities
indicates that the conservation design PUD process would serve Dublin well.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired at what stage of development the other cities
mentioned by Mr. Duerkson were when they started their conservation design process.
Dublin City Council Study Session
Monday, June 27, 2445
Page 12
Mr. Duerkson responded that they were all very similar to Dublin, particularly Franklin,
Tenn. Although it does have a greater historic and downtown area, the outlying area is
very similar. They have much more detailed site design standards than Dublin, but
Dublin's PUD process achieves the same outcome.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired when other communities went through this process,
did the developers in those areas change accordingly?
Mr. Duerkson stated that in Franklin, the developers had initially said that they could
not meet the new development standards and be profitable. Later, they admitted that
they were achieving the city's standards and making more money than before. It may
not work that way everywhere. However, Dublin is in a favorable position - it has
already created a quality community; there is a good market; people want to locate
here. Franklin had the same advantage, ranking as the highest quality suburb in the
nation. Now, Franklin is enforcing even stricter standards, and the developers have
agreed. In Ft. Collins, the developers were building 3 units/acre. The city adopted
new standards for a minimum of five units/acre, and the developers argued that the
homebuyers would not want the homes. Today, they are doing fine with the additional
density. They began to do more creative site planning in order to accommodate
condominiums next to single family residential. The homes are selling, and Ft. Collins
is experiencing a lively market. Many communities are looking for a different product
for empty nesters.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher agreed that there is a need for diversity in housing. Dublin
has lost some residents to outside communities because it didn't offer enough of some
types of housing. Council has not required diverse housing, however.
Mr. Duerkson responded that even if it is not made mandatory, it should be
communicated that the City is interested in other types of housing. Some developer will
produce it. What made conservation design work in Milwaukee was one developer who
built 6 major conservation design subdivisions in that area -Dublin may want to bring
him in here. This developer has made a very large amount of money with conservation
design subdivisions.
Ms. Boring stated that he had mentioned mixed design, with a retail element. How
does a residential developer incorporate a retail element?
Mr. Duerkson responded that in Ft. Collins, newly developing areas are all called mixed
use zones in order to ensure that small retail is included in the development. A
residential developer must partner with a commercial developer for the retail element
before the development is approved.
Ms. Brautigam noted that the city she previously worked with experienced a problem
with this type of development. The homes were built and the spaces designated for
retail remained empty.
Dublin City Council Study Session
Monday, June 27, 2005
Page 13
Mr. Duerkson responded that in Ft. Collins that is being controlled by phasing in the
development - only a designated amount of residential is permitted until the retail has
occurred.
Mr. Reiner stated that in this area, large-scale developers acquire a large tract of land
and hire an urban planner to design what the developer wants. Then the developer
sells off the remaining land to a group of single-family developers. In essence, the
secondary "cookie cutter" housing is disguised within the developer's master plan for a
different development.
Mr. Keenan stated that he did real estate appraisals for years. In Clintonville, there is a
diversity of housing, which was built in the 1920's and 1930's. It is a homogenous,
well-maintained community. Is that mix of housing within one neighborhood occurring
anywhere today? Is it marketable?
Mr. Duerkson responded that the issue is production builders -- they have changed the
dynamics of the housing industry. It will be necessary to "take the bull by the horns" or
Dublin will not get the desired diversity in housing. A few communities are making an
effort to do so. Ft. Collins has a city plan that specifies certain areas for commercial
development and other areas for diverse housing development. Some believe it has
been successful; others do not. They are grappling with the same issues as Dublin,
however, and it would be beneficial for Dublin to visit and talk with some of those
communities. He summarized his recommendations: {1) Dublin refine its open
negotiating system for conservation design, and {2) Dublin create/adopt an open space
plan.
Ms. Brautigam stated that as a result of organizational changes late last year, the City
now has a Parks and Open Spaces Division. Staff has discussed the lack of an open
space master plan. Her intent is to challenge PRAC and the Parks and Recreation
Department to adopt a parks and open space master plan by the end of 2006. It will be
a major effort. It is hoped that by September, staff and PRAC will have developed a
recommendation to present to Council for direction.
• Review Of Dublin's Conventional Subdivision Design
Mr. Bird stated that staff conducted an analysis of the Bishop's Run subdivision for
available open space with a conventional conservation design, and then, with a
conservation design. He reviewed comparisons of the two designs.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the goal tonight was to receive clarification on
conservation design subdivisions and strategies that could be used to achieve that type
of residential development in Dublin's remaining space. There have been concerns
about monotonous residential development. Council has received information on what
Dublin City Council Study Session
Monday, June 27, 2005
Page 14
needs to be improved and recommendations on how to achieve that. She is concerned
what land will remain in 2006 when the community plan is completed. There is a
difference between having a community plan and assertively executing it. Dublin has,
heretofore, been a respondent community, waiting for and responding to opportunities.
With the limited amount of land remaining, however, Council desires to "be in the
driver's seat." Effecting changes by modifying standards takes a long time to produce
the desired results, and during the process, applicants already in the development
pipeline are exempted from new standards. The less land remaining, the less land
Dublin has control over. She requested Council input.
Mrs. Boring stated that, to her, the appeal of conservation design is the elimination of
50 percent of the total hard surface. However, she has concerns about how to move
into the driver's seat in the shortest amount of time so that Council is driving the design
of the community. Would it be expedient to engage a consultant to create the open
space plan? Staff is currently committed to working on the community plan. How
should pending projects be handled? Should Council consider a moratorium?
Mr. Lecklider inquired who typically assumes the responsibility of maintaining the open
space areas with a conservation design subdivision -the City or the homeowners?
Mr. Duerkson responded that he was very interested to learn that Dublin requires
developers to dedicate open space to the City and then requires homeowner
associations to maintain public lands -that is a remarkable achievement.
Ms. Salay responded that the City has not been completely successful with that policy.
In those cases where there are only a few homes in a development, it is not possible to
require the homeowner associations to assume the full burden for maintenance.
Mr. Reiner stated that the Muirfield Homeowners Association, one of the City's largest
subdivisions, initiated the practice. It assesses its homeowners for the maintenance of
amenities based on a percentage of valuation for the homes.
Mr. Duerkson responded that he is not criticizing the practice, but he finds it surprising
that the market will bear that.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that a conservation design project would have more
green space to maintain. It would be cost prohibitive for any homeowner association
to assume that burden.
Mr. Reiner inquired if the common areas in these subdivisions could go fallow and the
residents participate in maintaining them.
Mr. Duerkson responded that on the public side, most jurisdictions are now very
selective on the property they take due to the cost of maintenance. This is the reason it
Dublin City Council Study Session
Monday, June 27, 2445
Page 15
is important for Dublin to clarify its open space priorities - to obtain open space
strategically. If such a plan were in place, it is possible the City would not continue to
accept some land it presently does. Although the past policy has been to place the
open space maintenance responsibility on homeowners, that works only if the
subdivision has a sufficient number of higher-end housing, or sufficient base and
wealth, to assume that responsibility. Although maintenance of its open spaces would
not be a problem for Muirfield, it would be too great a responsibility for other
subdivisions. In Milwaukee, one development company retains ownership of the open
spaces in the subdivisions it develops and continues the maintenance of that land. In
some cases, they have simply permitted the land to "grow back"; in other locations, that
is not appropriate for the environment, and the company has included upfront the
anticipated cost of long-term mowing of those spaces.
Mr. Keenan noted that most developers would object to maintaining any responsibility
for a development after it is completed.
Mr. Duerkson agreed. Although it has been done successfully in Milwaukee, it is not a
common practice.
Mr. Lecklider inquired if, using the example of a subdivision consisting of 32 acres with
56 units and 23 acres of open space {7.75 private and 16 common), is it realistic to
assume those homeowners can maintain that open space?
Mr. Duerkson responded that it should be required, as part of the development
approval process, that the applicant include in his application a management plan
addressing both the environmental and economic aspects that prospective
homeowners would reasonably be able to implement. This is the reason most cities do
not use conservation design on smaller parcels -the small number of homeowners
would not be able to maintain the open space. It is better to design those subdivisions
differently, perhaps requiring a fee in lieu of sa that the City can buy parkland in a
contiguous block elsewhere. He is concerned that Dublin appears to be applying
conservation design to infill sites. Conservation design is intended for large-scale
developments. Perhaps conservation design of a small-scale development could work
if the open space is acquired and maintained by the City, perhaps on the basis that it
achieves the goals of the City's open space plan. Otherwise, it is better not to apply
conservation design, to accept money in lieu of, and perhaps buy parkland adjacent to
Glacier Ridge Metro Park or along the river that is in sync with the overall open space
plan.
Ms. Salay responded that in Dublin almost every neighborhood has its own park, but
they are not private spaces. They are public spaces available to the entire community,
and as part of the overall public park system, are a community value. The City's
present policy is to require forced and funded homeowner associations. In the future,
when the subdivisions are older, what would happen if those homeowner associations
should become unable to enforce that financial responsibility upon their homeowners?
Would the City need to assume an enforcement responsibility?
Dublin City Council Study Session
Monday, June 27, 2445
Page 16
Mrs. Boring stated that the City must address the challenge of an open space
management plan. The City should not discontinue acquisition of open space for the
public good. An overall open space plan, including open space management, is
achievable, although it can't be defined tonight.
Mr. Lecklider stated that he does not want to imply that the City should not continue to
obtain additional open space. Conservation subdivision design is much more
appealing than the traditional subdivision design. His concern is the impact on future
generations. The City's Service Department will have limitations as to the amount of
open space maintenance it can perpetuate.
Mr. Reiner stated that with a forced and funded homeowner association, when a home
is purchased in a new subdivision, the developer or the homeowner association
requires the buyer to sign a warranty deed agreeing to pay the assessment. If that
assessment is not paid, a lien is placed on the property. Upon the future sale of that
property, the delinquent monies would be paid to the homeowner association.
Mr. Duerkson responded that he has had the previous experience of serving as a
homeowner association president, a position with much responsibility and very little
power. They did place liens upon properties with unpaid assessments for future
reimbursement of the assessments, but in the meantime, it was necessary to increase
the fees for all of the homeowners to meet the immediate maintenance needs of the
subdivision. It is important to be very selective in what the City takes as open space, in
view of the potential impact on future generations. In the example used tonight, he
would have suggested a bigger greenspace buffer next to the existing metro park. In
Loudon County, there is a Code requirement that open space should be contiguous
with what is adjacent. If the City had an open space plan, the areas would be identified
where open space should be juxtaposed to achieve the community-wide network of
open space. Otherwise, land would be acquired on a site-by-site basis.
Mr. Reiner stated that atone of the Appearance Code Committee meetings last year, a
Metro Parks representative discussed this topic. At that time, he indicated that if the
City had a large enough swath of open space contiguous to Metro Park property, that
Metro Parks would mow the City's green space. That could be accomplished on the
basis that the additional access would be a benefit to the Metro Parks system. The
question is should Council take steps to ensure the quality of the remaining residential
development in Dublin by declaring a moratorium until an effective plan and legislation
is in place to accomplish that? Or will they permit the continued piecemeal
development of the remainder of the City? This is the grand finale for Dublin, before it
is encapsulated by neighboring municipalities.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if any Council member has a recommendation to
suggest regarding a next step.
Dublin City Council Study Session
Monday, June 27, 2445
Page 17
Mrs. Boring stated that it appears that there is a need to move expeditiously, so that the
City does not continue to be in the position of reacting. What have other communities
in a similar position done?
Mr. Duerkson responded that if he were in this Council's position, he would:
• Work with staff to accelerate an open space plan an quickly as possible
• Moratoriums are political dynamite. An alternative would be to enact immediate
interim development regulations, which, although not perfect, would protect the
City's interests in the interim. This action was necessary in Hudson, Ohia.
Because building cap regulations took a year to develop, interim development
regulations were drafted and adopted in 6 weeks, which accomplished
approximately 94% of their purpose until the final regulations were in place.
Other communities have adopted a comprehensive plan and used that as a
regulatory document until the more specific zoning regulations were written and
adopted. An interim policy is usually more palatable to the development
community than a more aggressive moratorium, and for the City, preferable to
allowing the continued state of development. There are limited options.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired how the interim development regulations would be
developed.
Mr. Duerkson responded that either Council would give direction to staff to write the
regulations, or hire an outside resource to revamp or write interim conservation design
regulations.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired the City Manager's response to that
recommendation.
Ms. Brautigam responded that it is desirable to turn the conservation design resolution
into law. As a resolution, it should not be difficult to tweak into an ordinance. However,
writing interim regulations would be impossible for staff to do at this time. All of
Planning's available resources are committed to current planning and the
comprehensive plan.
Mrs. Boring inquired if it would be passible to borrow other communities' guidelines to
blend into an interim plan.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that what the City Manager is indicating is that it is
possible to do that, but without City staff. So, it would appear that it would be
necessary to hire a consultant to use the 5-6 principles Mr. Duerkson has identified to
improve the existing development regulations.
Mr. Reiner inquired clarification of the recommendation for interim action.
Ms. Brautigam stated that the request is for unknown interim regulations. Other than
the present conservation design resolution, staff does not know what Council has in
mind.
Dublin City Council Study Session
Monday, June 27, 2445
Page 18
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that her suggestion was to simply take the few
principles Mr. Duerkson has identified, which have been the critical elements noted by
staff, Planning Commission and Council, and incorporate those into interim regulations.
Ms. Brautigam responded that she perceives that as the first step. Those steps can be
achieved by modifying the existing conservation design resolution and adopting it by
ordinance. That can be achieved quickly. However, appearance regulations or a
diversity matrix that must be interwoven into the zoning code cannot be quickly
accomplished.
Ms. Salay stated that modifying the existing conservation design regulation into an
ordinance and codifying it does not seem difficult. Other suggestions for an open
space plan with a management plan and a percentage minimum; anti-monotony
standards; housing diversity; scenic roads setbacks; minimum buffers with public open
space -all these have been somewhat addressed already. A special task force
recently addressed most of these concerns and passed legislation. What construction
has occurred since that legislation was passed that can be used to verify what
does/does not work?
Ms. Brautigam responded that no subdivisions have been planned since that legislation
was passed, although some have been approved which were already "in the planning
pipeline." So the new appearance code has not been tested.
Mr. Reiner stated that he would support modifying the current conservation design
resolution to incorporate Mr. Duerkson's regulations into an ordinance to be approved
by Council.
Mr. Keenan inquired Council's reaction to Mr. Duerksan's recommendation for staff
flexibility in reviewing the plans.
Ms. Salay inquired if the 75°~ requirement could be abandoned.
Mr. Keenan stated that this is where there is a disconnect among staff, P&Z and
Council.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that there would be a process that defines that
flexibility and the plan that P&Z would ultimately be able to approve.
Mr. Keenan inquired if that is different than what is currently in place.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that it is, but it would provide the necessary
checks and balance.
Mr. Reiner responded that he would agree with an interim review process that would
permit perhaps 14°~ flexibility.
Mr. McCash noted that it would be necessary to look at the other standards that have
been adopted and are being enforced -standards pertaining to garages, subdivision
design requirements regarding varying setbacks. It is not possible to approve zero lot
line homes without suspending some of the existing regulations.
Dublin City Council Study Session
Monday, June 27, 2005
Page 19
Ms. Brautigam responded that is where the administrative flexibility would come into
play.
Mr. Reiner stated that in a mixed-use concept, that would not be a problem.
Mr. McCash pointed out that if staff is permitted 20% flexibility, with a large subdivision
that would be met almost immediately.
Mrs. Boring inquired if that problem could be sidestepped with a PUD or with a theme
area.
Mr. McCash stated that it would be necessary to communicate to P&Z that it is
permissible to vary that in a PUD. Currently, P&Z is requiring varying setbacks
throughout a subdivision. There is a similar problem with density requirements if
single-family and multifamily development are integrated.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired what it would take to have the review and
consistency applied so that they can be integrated and support each other.
Ms. Brautigam responded that task would probably require the services of an outside
consultant.
Mr. Bird responded that Planning could work with the Law Director's office to modify the
current resolution into an ordinance. However, achieving the consistency goal with the
interim regulations would require the assistance of a consultant. Although provisions
for an open space plan are being addressed in the Community Plan, the City Manager
is envisioning something more comprehensive.
Ms. Brautigam stated that a Parks and Open Space Master Plan is a major document,
which, in her opinion, would not be part of the Community Plan. It would be a separate
document that would require visioning by Council, PRAC, and the community. She
would challenge staff to achieve this by the end of 2006, but that could be an ambitious
timeline. However, she does not foresee a risk of losing potential open space within
the next 18 months. Council has expressed its interest concerning open space and
staff has an understanding of Council's intent. Planning staff has been very effective in
ensuring that developers comply with the defined vision. Although there is no written
master plan, that should not present a major obstacle in the next 18 months. The
conservation design law, however, could be ready for adoption within two months.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher requested aschedule/calendar for achieving those goals -
open space master plan, open space management plan, and preparation of a
conservation design ordinance.
Ms. Salay inquired what modifications were to be made in the present conservation
design guidelines. Mr. Duerkson has indicated that use of a mathematical formula, or
hard numbers, is counter productive. Eliminating that requirement would constitute a
significant change in present procedures.
Mr. Duerkson stated that the formulas could be retained as guidelines. Actually, the
present language says to "strive" for that formula.
Dublin City Council Study Session
Monday, June 27, 2005
Page 20
Ms. Salay responded that therein is the problem. Dublin has not merely required
"striving" to meet the guidelines. The developer must achieve the numbers. In one
case, a developer submitted such a conservation design plan to the Planning
Commission, and the Commission did not like it. So, they directed the developer to re-
design the area in the conventional manner. It has already been verified that hard
numbers are counter productive to a satisfying design. If conservation design is
codified, it will be necessary to effectively communicate to staff and the Planning
Commission that it is a "wish list" to strive for. All the numbers may not be met.
Mr. Reiner stated that the areas in which variance would be acceptable would have to
be clarified. As Mr. Duerkson has pointed out, there are some areas in which there
could not be variance.
Mr. Duerkson stated that any variances would have to be reviewed by the
administrative modification process.
Ms. Salay stated the open space would no longer be negotiated. The Code indicates
intent to give the City approximately 20% parkland of each development; however,
recently negotiated subdivisions have provided the City with 35-42°~ parkland. Would
it be better to define the number - 40% or 50°~, with no negotiations necessary? The
same would be true with 200-ft. setbacks. Again, if mathematical formulas will be the
guidelines, it will be necessary to clarify for staff which part of the formula may be
altered.
Mr. Lecklider stated that the primary issues appear to be with:
(1 } Adjacency - (and he has made it clear where he stands on that issue)
(2} Amount of open space -- he has heard that a number should be selected, and
dependent upon the project, some deviation from the number would be
acceptable.
Ms. Salay stated that would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis. If a
developer had 5 acres that were wooded, Council would not turn that down.
(3} A minimum threshold of acres per application. Recently, the City received 2
applications, one far 12 acres, another for 15 acres, and conservation design did
not work for them. One map used in these discussions indicated that the vast
majority of the land still available for residential development is on the western
boundary of the City, and there is a greater likelihood of being able to apply
conservation design principles in that larger, undeveloped area.
Mr. McCash suggested that the percentage of open space vary based on location
within the City. On infill areas, it would not be necessary to require 50%.
Mr. Reiner suggested that funds be allocated for Mr. Duerkson to assist staff in
expediting this legislation. Mr. Duerkson is already familiar with Dublin's standards and
the goal, and he could recommend the percentages of open space that would help the
City achieve its overall goal of conservation design.
Dublin City Council Study Session
Monday, June 27, 2445
Page 21
Mr. Brautigam stated that Mr. Duerkson could be of great assistance to staff with this
effort, however, his schedule may not permit his immediate time allocation to this
deadline.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that tonight, at a minimum, a commitment can be
made to a calendar for these efforts. That calendar would permit a discussion with Mr.
Duerkson concerning his availability to provide consultant assistance. If he is not
available, the City could do an RFP for those services. Through discussions with a
consultant, the issues of percentages of open space and other conservation design
issues can be addressed. Those issues cannot be addressed tonight. Council desires
a deliberative process to avoid the need to go through this a year from now. Within
several weeks, Council should have an ordinance to vote upon. She requested that
staff provide a calendar to Council at the August 1 Council meeting.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher thanked Mr. Duerkson far the valuable information; she
personally learned much tonight. His recommendations are particularly valuable in
giving Council a direction in which to proceed. The examples of procedures used in
other communities to ensure quality development have also been beneficial. Dublin's
Planning staff has the difficult task of working with developers whose vested interests
are not always consistent with the community's best interests. While the City's ultimate
goal remains the same, how best to achieve it is the challenge. She appreciates Mr.
Duerkson's recognition of the wonderful attributes of Dublin.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:44 p.m.
Clerk of Council