HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-23-08 CDC MinutesCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OF
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL
Monday, June 23, 2008 - 7:30 p.m.
Minutes of Meeting
Ms. Salay, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in Council Chambers.
Committee Members present were Ms. Salay, Mr. Lecklider and Mr. Reiner.
Staff members present were: Mr. Langworthy, Ms. Readler, Brian Martin and Jeannie Martin.
Ms. Salay stated that the purpose of this meeting is the continued discussion of no build and no
disturb zones.
Mr. Langworthy stated that this subject was identified over a year ago as a topic that needed to
be revisited. Originally, the no build and no disturb zones effectively achieved their purpose,
but today, many issues are being created by them. Although the purpose for these zones may be
valid, a better way of addressing that purpose is needed. Consequently, staff is seeking direction
from Council regarding a revision of the Code language for no build and no disturb zones to
better meet today's needs. The presentation will be provided by staff members whose work
involves this Code requirement: Brian Martin, zoning and landscape inspector, and Jeannie
Martin, landscape architect.
There is also an interpretation issue regarding landscaping in side yards as they relate to the No
Build and No Disturb zones, specifically if the screening effect of the landscape is interpreted to
act as a fence.
Planning is requesting discussion on the following points and others as Council members wish.
• Have the No Build and/or No Disturb Zones fulfilled their original purposes?
No Build Zone: With the exception of open and uncovered porches being allowed to
encroach a minimum rear yard, has the combined effect of the Code revisions to fence
and accessory structures requirements negated the need for designating No Build Zones?
If so, could an established, consistent rear yard setback with appropriate accessory
structure restrictions be utilized in its place?
No Disturb Zone: Could the No Disturb Zone provide a greater level of protection for
existing natural features by implementing it on an as -need basis to allow more effective
enforcement? Should the definition be revised to create the ability to impose a
conservation easement as a more standardized method to protect natural features? Should
a more permanent and visible method of marking be used to identify the boundaries of a
No -Disturb Zone?
Landscape Fences: Should additional restrictions be added on the type, quantity and
location of plant material along property lines to prevent a "fencing" effect?
If the Committee gives direction to do so, staff will prepare Code language that will address the
issues and bring that back for additional discussion.
Community Development Committee Minutes
June 23, 2008
Page 2 of 15
Mr. Lecklider indicated that the Ziegler family is present regarding a situation related to
interpretation of the fence code. It is his understanding that the Committee will not be making a
recommendation regarding that specific matter.
Mr. Langworthy confirmed that is the expectation. The Committee is asked to provide policy
direction only, not a recommendation on a specific property matter.
Ms. Martin presented a PowerPoint. She stated that there is a long history associated with the no
build/no disturb zones. In addition, several issues have arisen regarding privacy landscaping as it
relates to those zones:
1. There tends to be a dual designation — no build and no disturb zones often overlap.
2. Improper conditions - an attempt is sometimes made to preserve things that should not be
preserved.
3. Lack of owner awareness of where these zones exist.
4. Indistinct boundaries that vary from property to property and street to street. As a result,
encroachments occur.
Mr. Langworthy noted that encroachments are occurring along the reserve areas behind the
homes.
5. Inconsistent applications. Varying depths and boundaries are applied, and tend to vary
lot by lot.
The original intent of no build zones was to protect the view sheds of the environmental corridor
from accessory structures, such as sheds or fences. Changes in the Code regarding permitted
locations for these accessory structures or fences have helped to achieve the original intent of the
no build zone.
To discuss the issues, it is important to identify the difference between setbacks and yards. This
can have a significant impact on the desired effect. A setback is an imaginary line that defines
an area on a plate. A yard is a space that is defined once the building is constructed. There is a
great difference between the yard, rear yard and the rear setback. Setback lines can be
established to create the effect of a no build zone. Early establishment of no build zones were
arbitrary lines on plats that varied in depth and location. Property owners had no way to locate
these zones on their property, nor an easy way to locate their property lines. In many cases, the
property line is established through boundaries of mowing and landscaping. As a result, the
perceived property line and no build zone often do not match the actual. Through the years, the
establishment of no build zones became commonplace on plats with little regard to the existing
conditions of the development. In areas where the developer wanted to provide additional
buffering to adjoining properties, landscape buffers were created. These landscape buffer zones
were identified as being "improved with landscaping while preserving existing vegetation." The
homeowner association is acknowledged as the party responsible for maintaining the buffers.
The inclusion of an additional zone such as this only adds to the confusion of the homeowners
regarding what can or cannot be done in these areas. In some cases, a power line has been
placed within the landscape buffer zone.
Community Development Committee Minutes
June 23, 2008
Page 3 of 15
Mr. Martin stated that there are examples of these zones in Ballantrae. Typically, when a
developer creates a new development, new development is adjacent to existing development.
The buffer is installed between the two by the builder. The cost of maintenance of the buffer is
the responsibility of the HOA, not the individual homeowner.
Mr. Reiner stated that the intent was to provide screening to protect homeowners' property
values in the event a commercial development was to abut a residential zoning. For example,
trash cans behind a shopping center would not be visible from the residential property if proper
buffering is installed.
Mr. Langworthy responded that separation landscaping is not one of the issues that needs to be
addressed.
Ms. Martin stated that this landscape buffer zone is different from the property perimeter
requirements. It is unique to the development.
Mr. Reiner responded that if the function of the landscape row across the back of the properties
is not to preserve an existing hedge row of trees or to protect the perimeter, what is the need for
it?
Mr. Langworthy responded that this has been the issue. There are many situations in which there
has been an indiscriminate placement of these zones without defining what they were attempting
to protect.
Mr. Reiner noted that it may have been an attempt to screen the power line to make the
properties more saleable.
Mr. Martin stated that in the instance of Ballantrae, it was provided as a buffer between
Ballantrae and the existing residential development, Shier Lane Estates, which is not in Dublin.
At the request of the Shier Lane Estates, the developer supplemented the existing trees to provide
a more effective buffer.
Mr. Reiner stated that makes sense. This would eliminate some of the objections of the residents
so that the developer could have his zoning approved. It does eliminate that type of conflict.
Ms. Martin showed additional examples of varying buffer zones within the Tartan development.
Although the intent of early no build zones was to preserve natural features, the definition did
not prohibit over -lot grading, drainage facilities, utility lines and utility structures from being
located within the zones. That is evident within the Amberleigh North area. As a result, natural
features that were preserved during development stages could be impacted during construction.
While the intent of the zones is commendable, the location and identification of these zones is
challenging. The varying depths and locations can be used in conjunction with setback lines.
One resident's restrictions may be different from their neighbor's, which results in
encroachments and violations. In newer developments, no build zones were established adjacent
Community Development Committee Minutes
June 23, 2008
Page 4 of 15
to existing developments. In some developments, the no build zone and no disturb zones
overlap one another creating dual designations. Identification and designation within these zones
is very difficult, confusing what is permitted and what needs to be enforced.
No Disturb Zone
Mr. Martin addressed the field issues encountered. No disturb zones help designers and
contractors preserve trees during construction. In one incident, a 30 -foot zone was placed at the
rear of a lot to preserve existing trees — but it is a foot from the owner's home. On the first day
of construction, the no build zone was violated because it was necessary to bring in equipment to
dig the foundation and erect scaffolding to construct the house. The property owner also desires
to build a patio at the rear of his house, so he has requested a change in the no build zone. Over
the years, Planning staff has heard from many residents, builders, and real estate agents who are
dissatisfied with the restrictions of the no disturb zones. The standards require that the area is
not to be disturbed, but the intent of the zone was not to preserve noxious weeds or prohibit
responsible horticultural practices like removing dead branches. Every year, staff is contacted
with numerous requests for permission for encroachment into a no disturb zone. A common
practice known as "state parking" involves removing weeds without disturbing the trees. Some
residents request permission to do this; others do not. It is difficult for staff to either enforce no
disturb zones that were cleared out without City permission or grant permission to some to do so
and not others.
Mr. Reiner inquired the reason that zone was plotted on the property.
Mr. Langworthy responded that the reasons can vary. The clearest and best use of the no disturb
zone is in an area where there were areas of significant natural growth that should be preserved.
Even when there were small and separated groups of such growth, the zone was placed across
the rear of all the lots. In some situations, however, it must have been the perception that a no
disturb zone was required and it was placed in a bare area with nothing to preserve.
Mr. Reiner inquired if that was a City requirement.
Ms. Salay responded that when she served on the Planning and Zoning Commission, in nearly all
cases a no build or no disturb zone was placed at the back of every lot. In some cases, it didn't
make sense. It was her understanding that the purpose was a tree protection fence during
construction work. That does not consider the long-term practical effect for the property owners.
In Ballantrae, some of the properties back up to Eiterman Road. Those property owners want to
plant trees and other landscaping to buffer their yards from Eiterman Road, but there is a no
disturb zone, which may contain poison ivy or left -over barbed wire.
Mr. Martin stated that the no disturb zone has provided an easier way to preserve the root zone of
existing trees, which can extend 15-25 feet. In the long term, when the construction fence is
removed, it creates a problem for the homeowners. They have built an expensive home and
expect to have noxious weeds or undesirable vegetation along their property removed.
Community Development Committee Minutes
June 23, 2008
Page 5 of 15
No Build Zones
Staff has received inquiries about the trend to install plants along the property lines. He
displayed a photo of a property where the homeowners have installed evergreen trees along the
property line to provide a buffer to enhance the privacy of the lots. The preservation of existing
tree rows between lots is encouraged to provide a buffer. However, the installation of plants in a
no build zone, which constitutes a hedge and serves the purpose of a buffer, is a violation. Per
the fence code, hedges are prohibited in no build zones and in other areas, such as drainage
easements. As indicated, these no build zones have been placed indiscriminately in the rear of
every lot. There is a need for the City to provide clearer direction to the residents and
landscapers regarding City spacing requirement for installation of plants. This will assist the
code enforcement officers in enforcing the fence code.
Ms. Salay stated that installation of plants along property lines is a common practice.
Mr. Martin responded that a contradiction exists. The Code requires the preservation of existing
trees along property lines as they serve as a buffer, yet the Code prohibits the installation of trees
along property lines to serve as a buffer. The latter limits many property owners opportunity to
have privacy and to increase their property value. There is, of course, still the need to avoid 6 -
foot high green walls along property lines. The City needs to more effectively communicate
landscape installation requirements regarding plant size and spacing requirements and where no
disturb, no build zones or drainage easements are located on their properties. The City does not
review residential landscape plans that either the builder or property owner may install.
Mr. Lecklider stated that the contradiction is that property owners are installing landscape that in
other areas naturally exists.
Mr. Reiner stated that one way to mitigate this problem is in the planning process and how the
lots are platted. When a developer submits a plan where he has squeezed too many lots onto a
plan, resulting in a square grid of homes, the City should reject the plan at submission. If a
cartwheel effect is utilized, less screening is needed. If a thorough inspection occurs during the
platting stage, less screening would be necessary. When houses are turned on the lots, less
screening is needed. Sometimes no side or rear buffers are needed. Addressing the problem
early in the process would be much easier for the property owners. Good landscape architecture
and urban planning would do much to address the problem. By allowing the current platting
practices to continue, the City is incurring additional expense for each homeowner who must
later attempt to address their privacy or buffer needs. There is also a time factor involved with
landscape life. If a more aggressive platting process occurred with the developers, many of these
issues would be resolved.
Mr. Langworthy responded that would be difficult for staff as they are restrained by certain legal
limitations as to denial of a plat. Earlier, during the design stage, many of the properties become
either rectangular or long and rectangular, and then it is difficult to achieve a creative layout.
Community Development Committee Minutes
June 23, 2008
Page 6 of 15
Mr. Reiner stated that is their excuse. The real problem is their efforts to squeeze an additional
house or two into the plan, and to do so, they reduce the plan to small boxes on grids. If the City
were to require residential developers to put in a cul de sac, orient the houses in different
directions, and address the quality of life issues for the neighborhood during the lot platting
stage, this situation would be greatly improved and many of these later problems eliminated. It
is something Council should strive for. Dublin would be a nicer looking community and it
would not be necessary for the homeowners to later fund their need for buffers.
Ms. Salay stated that the Planning staff could look into the opportunity to improve that part of
the process. At this point, the question is how to address the existing problems with residents
creating privacy buffers after development.
Mr. Martin stated that staff has dealt with two cases in which the homeowner had installed a row
of evergreens along the property line to separate the two premises. Staff asked the property
owner to move every fifth plant further into the property to break up the row, eliminating the
solid hedge along the property line. One of the challenges of enforcing the fence code is the
interpretation of the separation of premises.
Ms. Salay inquired if the City's involvement was complaint driven or the result of staffs
observations.
Mr. Martin responded that a complaint was made.
Ms. Salay inquired about other similar cases that are occurring, where the neighbors do not
object.
Mr. Langworthy responded that is part of the problem with complaint -driven enforcement. One
complaint typically leads to others.
Mr. Reiner stated that a high percentage of the homeowners are probably violating the Code due
to efforts to establish privacy along their side or rear yards.
Mr. Langworthy agreed.
Ms. Salay stated that quite often the City requires the developer to plant trees in the no disturb no
build zone to buffer a property.
Mr. Langworthy responded that there is a real difference in how a natural group of vegetation or
a created group of vegetation is considered. The City would penalize an individual removing
natural vegetation but will not allow it to be installed. Although a tree row is not found on every
lot, tree rows down the ends of the lots are common. Yet, all lots are treated the same. This has
created the dilemma.
Mr. Martin stated that the calculation of opacity is also challenging. This often involves an
annual inspection. Compliance with Code involves removing some of the trees or pruning others
to open views. Staff plans to provide better education through graphics to help guide installation
of plants.
Community Development Committee Minutes
June 23, 2008
Page 7 of 15
Mr. Martin displayed a photo of a hedge installation along a property line that is adjacent to
Emerald Parkway, a four -lane thoroughfare. There should be special consideration given when a
residential lot is adjacent to a City right-of-way or a bikepath is located along a resident's side
yard. This will be addressed in the Code revision.
Discussion:
• Have the No Build and/or No Disturb Zones fulfilled their original purposes
successfully?
Mr. Langworthy inquired if the some of the previous Code revisions, particularly outlying fences
along property lines and locations of accessory structures in rear yards eliminated the need for
the no build zone designation. Could the no disturb zone be implemented instead on an as -
needed basis for more effective enforcement? It probably would not be called a "no disturb
zone." Staff will present some alternative methods to protect natural features that are more
effective than this type of "blanket" treatment.
Mr. Lecklider inquired if the no build zones with respect to fences and accessory structures have
addressed the building of sheds in rear yards.
Mr. Langworthy responded that the regulations regarding fencing and accessory structures
effectively address the issue. Consequently, the no build zones are no longer needed. The
setbacks have already been established. When the regulations are written they can specify what
may occur in a rear yard or a rear yard setback. This accomplishes the same as a no build zone
and applies to every lot equally. When the developer comes in to plat the lot, they already know
what the setbacks are. They can describe the building outlook through the setbacks on the plat.
The property owner will be aware of what can/cannot be done within the yard.
Mr. Lecklider inquired if that would be an effective way to address some of the view shed issues
that have arisen in recent years.
Mr. Langworthy responded that they would accommodate that issue. That has less to do with a
no build zone than a setback.
Public Comment
Steve Ziegler, 6294 Wismer Circle stated that he believes the fence code is very important. One
of the reasons they selected their neighborhood was the no build zones, which would preserve
the open space feel of the neighborhood. No fences are permitted there, but a wall or fence of
trees can have the same effect as an eight -foot privacy fence. Mr. Martin stated the intent to
preserve naturally occurring breaks. However, many of the trees that have been planted around
perimeters do not have naturally occurring breaks. It is now their understanding that the Code
prohibits such a wall of trees. That does not mean the homeowner cannot install vegetation to
provide screening, but the screening cannot be so dense as to comprise a fence. They believe
that is correct. The 50% opacity factor allows a reasonable amount of vegetation to be installed.
Community Development Committee Minutes
June 23, 2008
Page 8 of 15
Mr. Lecklider requested clarification of his understanding regarding permitted fences.
Mr. Ziegler responded that his understanding is that fences are not permitted in the no build
zones, but can be installed within the yard. In his neighborhood, there are also deed restrictions
on the type of fencing permitted — split rail, not privacy fencing.
Mr. Reiner stated that Mr. Ziegler's objection appears to be to a linear type of barrier, not to a
subtlety in the design.
Mr. Ziegler responded that simply moving every fifth plant, though, is not sufficient subtlety. It
is still a wall or fence effect. What would work are islands of plantings with greenspace
preserved between.
Mr. Reiner stated that would be a pod type of design.
Mr. Ziegler concurred.
Mr. Reiner noted that would be achieved by the design of the landscape architect.
George Gyurko, 6301 Wvnford Drive stated that it was his property which prompted the issues
cited by Mr. Ziegler. He went through the permit process, which was daunting, and believed he
had placed installations correctly. It appears that was not the case. The way he planted his trees,
he actually "lost" yard. If the City had told him he was limited to so many feet or a row, he
would have done that. What is the definition of a row — how many hedges constitute a row?
Ms. Salay inquired what instructions he was given. He is permitted to fence the buildable area of
his lot, so was he allowed to plant trees around the perimeter of the buildable area on his lot, and
essentially fence it with green material?
Mr. Martin stated that the fence code prohibits hedges within no build zones, and a large portion
of Mr. Gyurko's back yard is a no build zone. It was indiscriminately placed with no specific
parameters, and it was difficult to determine the lines of the no build zone. Outside of the no
build zone, in the buildable area, hedges are permitted.
Ms. Salay inquired the definition of a hedge.
Mr. Martin responded that it s a row of closely spaced plants -- either vines, shrubs, or trees.
Mr. Lecklider stated if the homeowner planted arbor vitae within the buildable area, it could be
three -sided.
Ms. Salay inquired what instructions he received.
Mr. Gyurko stated that he submitted the design to Ms. Chope. The design provided for a tree
every 8-10 feet around the perimeter with trees along the side and flat across the back He
indicated to her he would come at least 10 feet inside the property line to permit growth that
would not interfere with the neighbors' property. Ms. Chope contacted him within a couple of
days and indicated that she has discussed his plan with someone in Planning. She told him this
Community Development Committee Minutes
June 23, 2008
Page 9 of 15
plan was OK, and he took that on good faith. If he received different instructions, he would have
followed them.
Mr. Reiner stated that it is difficult for the homeowner to learn where those lines are. It could
cost them $1,200 — $1,400 for a quick survey.
Ms. Martin stated that in many cases, it was an arbitrary lane with no way to define those lines
while in the field.
Mr. Reiner stated that it should be defined on the plat.
Ms. Martin stated that she is not certain if that occurred with earlier subdivisions. They tended
to define these zones with random lines with no purpose. Recent plats are more definitive,
specifying the number of feet from the property line. She does not believe that information is
included with a mortgage survey.
Mr. Reiner responded that it should be provided; it is important information about the property.
Ms. Salay noted that many people are aware of the City's fence code and would not consider
building a fence or deck without City approval. They would probably assume, however, that
they could install trees as they wish on their property. Prior to her service with the City, it would
never have occurred to her to seek permission to plant trees on her property.
Mr. Lecklider stated that he has observed trees along rear property lines that are being set as far
back as possible to preserve a larger play area. The homeowners are not aware of a need to
consider a no build, no disturb zone.
Ms. Salay stated that residents want to have the maximum usable area of their lot.
Mary Ziegler, 6294 Wismer Circle stated that she called the Forester regarding the issue
occurring behind their property. Their neighbors indicated they were planting a line of trees and
that they had obtained City approval. They anticipated 3-4 trees. When installed, there were
approximately 30 trees on each side along the property line. Ms. Ziegler requested an
explanation, stating that this appeared to be a violation of City Code. The Forester was stunned
at the number of trees that were installed. There appears to a miscommunication occurring.
Perhaps some incorrect information was provided. They contacted Mr. Martin to determine if
the City could remedy the situation. They also offered to invest in some screening at the rear of
their property to assist in providing appropriate screening that would create a wall. She
suggested that the Committee members visit a property which contains a wall of spruce trees and
then picture that wall on three sides of the property. A straight wall of spruce trees grown
together will change the character of that yard completely. They are not at all opposed to
screening, but object to the idea of a 50 -foot enclosure around the back of their yard. They
would be happy to work with anyone regarding screening.
Mr. Lecklider stated that staff provided examples of two views — an obstructed view and an open
view. During his previous service on the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Fence Code was
Community Development Committee Minutes
June 23, 2008
Page 10 of 15
adopted. There was a significant focus on fencing issues at that time. He recalls that the effort
was more on preserving the view shed than privacy screening. However, if he were asked to
choose between the open view and the obstructed view, he would choose the obstructed view.
Ms. Salay stated that she would as well. When a beautiful, $400,000 home is built on a
property, that owner wants to have a usable back yard with some screening from their neighbor.
Ms. Salay inquired if Mr. Reiner remembered the intent of Council when the Fence Code was
passed.
Mr. Reiner responded that the purpose focused more on preserving common greenspace and also
landscape privacy. The problem with the current issue is the homeowner may have inadvertently
violated the no build zone. He also apparently sought and received permission for that plan.
Finally, there is a problem with the plan, which is lacking in design. It is a solid line of one
species. There may have been some poor design with no variation in materials.
Ms. Salay stated that she does not know how the local government can regulate that issue or
require property owners to "mix up" their species. This could create a problem for Planning
staff.
Mr. Langworthy stated that Planning does not review individual, single family home landscape
plans. Even if that did occur early in the Planning process, there is no guarantee something
would not alter it.
Mr. Reiner responded that he does not believe the City wants to go that direction. In America,
the individual's property is their domain. He believes the City acted in good faith in creating no
build zones to preserve trees, etc. There is a need to be more careful in the platting process.
Ms. Salay stated that could certainly be done. She will now be more careful in her review of the
plats when they come in, and the Planning and Zoning Commission will be instructed regarding
this need as well. Regarding the discussion question, her response is that she does believe they
fulfilled their original purpose.
Mr. Reiner inquired what improvements staff believes should occur. Although the zones may
not have been enacted perfectly, that would be the result of poor planning, which could be
addressed going forward.
Mr. Langworthy responded that staff believes the no build zone is no longer necessary. The
greater issue is with the no disturb zone. If Council could devise a better enforcement plan that
would be applied where it really should be applied, that would be helpful.
Ms. Salay inquired where staff would recommend portions of the Code be amended?
Mr. Langworthy stated that staff recommends the following be provided:
• Site preservation requirements. Currently, there are no provisions in the Code prohibiting
someone from clear cutting their property. The Code needs to address this.
Mr. Reiner inquired if this could also be designed to protect the view shed. For example, Avery-
Muirfield Drive was attractive when it was young and lined with pine, spruce and deciduous
Community Development Committee Minutes
June 23, 2008
Page 11 of 15
shrubs. The original concept for Dublin was to create a community that was always green and
beautiful. Now, the trees have aged, they've been "limbed up" and the view is not attractive.
Most homeowners have not taken the responsibility to maintain that green screen.
Ms. Salay inquired if he is suggesting that the homeowner or the homeowner association be
required to maintain the original buffers.
Mr. Reiner responded that the question is how can site preservation requirements be improved to
include the maintenance of the buffers so they are not "limbed up," and whose responsibility
would it be — the City's or the homeowner's.
Mr. Langworthy stated that the requirement to maintain buffers is already in the Code, although
the quality thereof is not really addressed. Staff could work on language to address that in the
Code.
Mr. Reiner stated that these issues are effectively addressed only in the planning stage. Trying to
achieve the buffer with vegetation with a limited lifespan is a problem. When the vegetation
dies, the view is altered. There is a need to advance the City's planning to a point where this
problem is mitigated. The only permanent resolution is to push the houses back. This would
necessitate reducing the number of houses, then constructing earth berms and planting them.
Mr. Langworthy stated that staff would give this consideration as well. The site preservation
refers to an undeveloped site for which no application has been submitted —that is the one they
want to protect.
Improve plan submittal requirements to better identify natural features. A more precise
description and plan should be submitted for what actually exists on a property.
Presently, the only detail provided is a tree inventory for the tree waivers.
Have a natural feature setback for those features identified as valuable. That would be
more than a protection for the tree root zones. It would also be protection of water bodies
and features they don't normally provide protection for.
• A vegetation strip requirement for natural bodies of water that aren't in a stream corridor
protection zone, rather than permitting mowing to the stream edge. This would improve
the water quality and reduce run-off.
Mr. Reiner stated that is a riparian corridor zoning. Previous attempts have been made to provide
this for Dublin with a concept from the state of Virginia. The language is already written. They
made an attempt to implement it a few years ago, and received a negative response from the
development community. This would probably be a good method of protecting the water shed.
Mr. Langworthy stated that due to the popular "green" programs today, it might be a good time
to resurrect this effort.
Mr. Reiner agreed. Today, there is more advanced awareness of water quality issues. There is a
need for a green shed between the water and the edge.
Community Development Committee Minutes
June 23, 2008
Page 12 of 15
Mr. Langworthy responded that he has written a number of watershed protection measures, and
this one is basic to any watershed protection measure.
Mr. Reiner stated that he concurs. It is time for this to happen.
Ms. Salay expressed concurrence.
• Conservation easements. Staff believes that is a more effective method than a no disturb
zone to preserve areas with natural features large enough to warrant it.
Ms. Salay inquired if this would apply strictly to new development.
Mr. Langworthy responded that for the most part it would apply to new development. In some
existing neighborhoods, it might be possible to retroactively add a natural feature setback and a
vegetation strip requirement, perhaps with an amended final development plan in the vicinity of
those features.
Mr. Langworthy stated that he has not yet prepared the language for the recommended Code
changes. They first are seeking general policy direction regarding staff s proposal, which is
essentially a question of whether it is possible to effectively protect what is now a no build zone
through other means that are more enforceable and easy to administer.
Ms. Salay responded that she would support that idea. As a Council member, she has
experienced frustration with no build and no disturb zones issues. Ballantrae, in particular,
comes to mind. There is a forest with poison ivy, their yards back up to Eiterman Road, and
there is barbed wire at the rear of their properties.
Ms. Salay asked how staff would revise the language if directed to do so by Council.
Mr. Langworthy responded that he agrees with Mr. Reiner in that this subject should be
addressed in the initial stage. Had these provisions been in place, it would have given staff a
much better idea of where these things need to be addressed. In addition, there should be
something better in terms of tree preservation than what exists today. However, writing better
regulations may not make the enforcement work easier for staff. Some regulations may become
more difficult to administer, but they would be easier for the homeowner to deal with.
Mr. Lecklider stated that he agrees with the need to be consistent with homeowner expectations.
He referred to question #4 -- should privacy landscape fencing be permitted in a no build no
disturb zone. If Council members as a whole concur that: (1) adequate Code sections are in
place; (2) there is no longer a need to rely on a no build zone; and (3) the no disturb zone would
be used when warranted, then he would support some allowance be made for some amount of
privacy landscape fencing in the no disturb zone. It is a homeowner expectation. If some plant
materials are defined as fencing, yet are not allowed beyond the building setback, he does not
believe that meets homeowner expectation.
Community Development Committee Minutes
June 23, 2008
Page 13 of 15
Mr. Reiner summarized that if Mr. Lecklider is stating that it should be possible for homeowners
to augment existing areas of vegetation or create them, he considers that fair. Homeowners
would expect that.
Ms. Salay stated that she agrees. Typically, homeowners want to do additional landscaping and
enhance their privacy. Although some homeowners want to keep their yard open and their view
unobstructed, the majority of homeowners prefer privacy in their back yard and they want to
maximize the ability to use their yard as they desire.
Mr. Lecklider clarified that his suggestion does not, however, include a hedge.
Mr. Langworthy noted that the opacity requirement is still in place.
Ms. Salay inquired if a hedge is not permitted, what plants would be permitted.
Mr. Langworthy responded that staff would develop this information and provide it for the next
discussion. As Mr. Reiner indicated, although staff cannot specify a design, it is possible to
require that some things do NOT occur.
Mr. Reiner noted that would include the use of one single element to define the space.
Ms. Salay stated that, in effect, Dublin will not have privet hedges.
Mr. Reiner responded that at one time, those hedges once defined many lovely Victorian houses.
They were popular.
Ms. Salay concurred.
Mr. Langworthy noted that they were only recently required in the Tartan Ridge development.
Ms. Salay stated that, personally, she does not object to a homeowner planting any tree, privet
hedge or arbor vitae on their property to protect their view shed. In her opinion, if someone
wants to plant trees on their property, they should be permitted to do so. She does not have a
problem with any green, living fence.
Mr. Lecklider concurred. There may be developments where the City would still want the
opportunity to utilize a privet hedge. It wouldn't be desirable to disallow that element.
Mr. Reiner stated that discussion about design is a subject similar to art -- hard to define. He
does not believe the City can regulate the elements used, unless the City is doing review of
individual plans. That review would create a significant burden on homeowners. Government
becomes onerous when it attempts to regulate residents' lives to that extent.
Ms. Salay responded that the City's fence code was designed to regulate the type of fence, where
it could be located, and to maintain a view shed in the neighborhood. That has been
accomplished with those regulations. She is less concerned about the appearance and view shed
of a green, living fence.
Mr. Lecklider stated that Mr. Reiner has pointed out that unless the City requires professionally
designed landscape and a review and approval process, it is not possible for the City to control
Community Development Committee Minutes
June 23, 2008
Page 14 of 15
the plant elements. How, then, would staff's proposed plan be implemented? How will residents
be aware of what is permitted and what is not?
Mr. Langworthy responded that no specifics have been drafted, but a big component of the plan
will be education. Staff has done a good job communicating the regulations to the community,
but if a change in direction is made, a more in depth educational effort will be needed, including
use of the City's website and working with civic associations.
Mr. Reiner stated that he agrees with everything else discussed, but will withhold judgment on
this portion. Attempting to regulate what constitutes good screening and good landscaping for
others is difficult. Homeowners do not have professionals to help them decide their view shed.
Mr. Langworthy stated that it may simply be a case of "less is better."
Ms. Salay that the situation for one resident can differ in many ways from that of another. It is
preferable for the City not to attempt to regulate so many individual situations. She agrees with
the wisdom of less is more. For future development, some direction could be provided with deed
restrictions. People can choose to buy in neighborhoods where privet fences or iron fences are
the expectation, or they can select another environment in which they might feel more
comfortable.
Mr. Lecklider stated that deed restrictions tend to ally some homeowners against other
homeowners, an unpleasant situation.
Mr. Langworthy noted that a deed restriction is, however, a means of notification. It is education
more than it is enforcement.
Ms. Salay noted that the full Council and the general public will be interested in the development
of this plan.
Mr. Langworthy inquired the Committee's direction in proceeding.
Mr. Reiner stated that the green initiatives discussed tonight are valid and should be included.
Also, the new focus should move from the marketing aspect of the land to an emphasis on the
preservation of that which is good and viable for the community.
Mr. Lecklider suggested that Planning staff develop a draft plan for review by the Community
Development Committee.
Ms. Salay concurred. Council will have the benefit of these minutes in the interim, and when a
draft is ready for Committee review, other Council members can attend the meeting, if they
desire. A study session would be an excellent forum, but there are only two more study sessions
remaining this year. August and November are reserved for budget review. What is staff s
anticipated timeframe?
Community Development Committee Minutes
June 23, 2008
Page 15 of 15
Mr. Langworthy stated that this will take some time to develop. It will involve a great deal of
detail. Staff will inform the Committee when it is ready. It is of great interest to staff, and they
will keep it moving forward.
Mr. Lecklider summarized that the other Council Members should review the minutes of this
meeting, but it may be some period of time before the topic comes back to the Committee.
When the next meeting is scheduled, all Council members will be welcome to attend that
discussion.
The committee thanked staff for the time and effort devoted to this preparation.
Mr. Reiner inquired if the landscape architecture staff is involved with the day to day review of
the plans submitted. Although he understands the desire of the developers to maximize their
profit, the City would do better to deny approval of some of these bad layouts of tract homes at
the onset -- with the goal of improving and protecting the quality of life of its citizens. The
developers will object, but it is necessary if any upgrade of the process is to be made.
Ms. Martin responded that is the task of the design development team, which includes Mr.
Gunderman, Mr. Phillabaum and herself. They try to meet with the developers prior to
submission of an application. They work with them to develop a layout that meets the City's
requirements.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Deputy Clerk of Council