HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-09-04 CDC MinutesDublin City Council
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Wednesday, June 9, 2004 — 7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
Minutes of Meeting
ATTENDANCE:
City Council:
Mr. Reiner, Chair
Mr. Lecklider
Ms. Salay (arrived late)
Mrs. Boring
Planning & Zoning Commission:
Mr. Gerber
Mr. Zimmerman
Ms. Reiss
Staff:
Gary Gunderman
Jennifer Readler
Frank Ciarochi
Carson Combs
Mr. Reiner called the meeting to order, noting that Ms. Salay will arrive at approximately 8 p.m.
Mr. Gerber will arrive shortly.
He asked Mr. Combs to provide a brief synopsis of the conservation design resolution.
Mr. Combs noted that there are a few major issues involved with conservation design:
preserving natural or historic features on the site; createing a common open space system;
putting together clustered residential lots or a mix of housing lot types; and looking at density
within a neutral framework. Conservation design calls for a different process, with the primary
enphasis on looking at the unique features of the site, determining their location, then looking at
secondary features or other amenities which may need to be preserved. At that point, a
determination is made of the developable area of the parcel under consideration. Then, a
developer implements a road system to accommodate that developable area and begin to look at
pedestrian systems and linking open space. The final plan provides a comprehensive greenway
system and clustered lots that provide more open space and common ownership. He showed two
development options for a parcel — one with the traditional development and one with
conservation design techniques employed.
One example in the City looked at was the Conine property on Summitview. The desntiy was at
two units per acre and it was reviewed in terms of conservation design under the same density. It
is a matter of shrinking lots sizes, providing different housing types, creating a comprehensive
greenway systems and paths.
In reviewing Resolutioin 48-03, he picked out the major elements that were key, one of which
was providing managed growth and creating a unique edge. As discussed previously, staff tried
to map out particular areas of the City where larger tracts of land were available. Most of these
occur on the western edge of the City where the City is expanding into agricultural areas.
The second major element of the resolution was protecting rural character, views and vistas and
cites the community plan. Preservating other natural features and creaeting new ones. For open
space, looking at the long-term use of the land and its potential for the future when vegetation
matures. In particular, agricultural ponds, existing woodlands, existing stream corridors are
Community Development Committee
June 9, 2004
Page 2
those primary elements, but it also involves taking open space out of farm fields and creating
them into something more unique and better.
Look at variety of housing and lot types and have more diversity throughout the subdivision.
Not only the size of the lot, but how the buildings are oriented, the scale with the street,
providing for additional open space. Some examples of this are Moors at Muirfield, Villas of
Ballantrae, Shannon Village for duplex units which mimic a single family house.
The other major element was to provide comprehensive public open space and a comprehensive
pedestrian bike system. In terms of Coffman Park, the stream corridor is to be linked up to the
Metro Park. Open space aeras should link to a comprehensive opepn system, with trails and
amenities needed.
Finally, protection of historic structures and sites. As the City moves westward, this will become
more critical, due to the variety of farmsteads and agrictulral buildings t the western fringes.
Mr. Combs noted that there are a few thingis to be looked at tonight in terms of policy. The
revised resolution looked at it not just in conservation design, but also included and other good
design options. Where and to what extent should conservation design be applied; how should it
be applied; what is the expected character or management expectations of open space? The
general expectation in development process is that open space should be manicured — mowed as
a golf course. Consensus is needed on what is really wlanted in this regard, whether a mix of
naturalized areas can be provided in addition to strategically located park amenities for
recreation.
Another question is how should conservation design be integrated into the development process.
This created some concern for P&Z in terms of the submittals by developers to staff. Recently,
the planned district ordinance was adopted, and that may be something that could be looked at in
terms of a concept stage review. Further direction is needed on this.
Another issue discussed at length was the issue of some parcels being within the City in areas
that conservation design might be expected, but because of the shape or scale or size of the lot,
they may not be particularly suited to conservation design. An example is a township property
along Hyland -Croy which he demonstrated.
In terms of surrounding development, such as areas where there is a mix of office, institutional
and/or industrial/light warehouse uses. A question is whether an alternative to conservation
design should be looked at in such areas.
There may be a strangely shaped parcel not suitable for conservation design. Should such a
parcel be looked at as part of a larger tract?
There are some basic elements of conservation design in both resolutions, the one adopted by
Council and the one recommended by P&Z.
Mr. Reiner invited the Committee members to pose any questions.
Mrs. Boring asked if he has any examples of areas which would be perfect for conservation
design. He has shown examples of ones that are not suitable, when looked at individually.
Perhaps those need to be combined into larger tracts.
Community Development Committee
June 9, 2004
Page 3
Mr. Combs stated that it goes back to looking at an individual parcel versus looking at land in a
larger framework. Any of the future annexation areas to the west could be handled in this
manner. In the resolution, there is reference to areas which are mostly wooded —those would
provide for a more limited scale implementation of that process in order to preserve trees.
Mrs. Boring asked him to show the slide containing the various points of the intent of Resolution
48-03.
Mr. Combs responded that for the slide preparation, he pulled out information from the
"Whereas" portions and general purpose statements.
Mrs. Boring asked if the second bullet point reflects the community goal of protecting the outer
fringe of the community.
Mr. Combs responds that it refers to the character in the Plan. A specific goal of the plan was to
protect rural character, to make sure that when development takes place, views and vistas are
protected to maintain the rural feel. In addition, maintaining the elements that help to create that,
such as agricultural buildings.
Mr. Zimmerman asked if views and vistas relates to the 200 -yard setback along scenic roadways.
Mr. Combs stated that scenic road setbacks is one element i4n the Plan, but within the
framework of conservation design, it would not necessarily have to be a 200 -foot setback. It
could be a portion of the open space system that provides a long view into the middle of the
subdivision. It means creating particular views, wherever they may be.
Mr. Zimmerman noted that the Conine subdivision density is actually at 1.25 units per acre..
Mr. Reiner noted that the slide shows the linkage to the Metro Park using conservation design,
allowing access to the Metro Park However, he has heard comments from people that this
possibility does not still exist.
Mr. Combs responded that in general, staff has tried to obtain a consistent corridor. What has
helped to achieve that is that there is an existing water system - the Indian Run - and usually the
developer cannot build on this area anyway, and so this has been obtained as donated parkland.
In 1 ooking at conservation design, it does not necessarily have to be a water or woodland feature
— it can be a flat, open area as long as it provides connection to other greenspace areas.
Mr. Reiner stated that he anticipates that the conservation design will be more of a planning
division issue — how does this piece of land work, how does it fit into the overall systems of
greenspace. If done right, conservation design areas will abut larger conservation design areas in
the end. Given a strong planning department that says how the parcel should be treated in order
to arrive at a product of open space, there is a lot of foresight needed to assemble the remaining
land into something great.
Mr. Lecklider noted that this is what he has gleaned from the P&Z draft — interconnectivity. One
of the questions that staff has posed is whether individual parcels should be considered along, or
with an eye toward the future development of surrounding parcels. He would agree that in most
Community Development Committee
June 9, 2004
Page 4
instances, a parcel should be considered not by itself, but within the context of undeveloped
parcels around it. With the Conine property, there is development around it and some lack of
interconnectivity — it is not possible to achieve connectivity where parcels have developed areas
around them.
Mr. Reiner stated that the destiny of the City for every parcel is in the hands of professional
urban planners and is no longer a legal issue. As a planner, this is what they are paid to do —
bring high qualityi projects that really work versus maximizing the personal use of the property.
It is for the greater good of the community.
Ms. Reiss stated that she agrees. This takes the view similar to that of a traffic engineer, who
must look at not only one parcellll's traffic, but as part of a network. There is a master plan so it
is known what is desired. The City needs to consider the larger picture and come up with the
best plan for that parcel in its context overall. The Commission removed the term "conservation
de6velopment" fro6m the resolution, because people have preconceived notions and different
interpretations of that. Instead, the resolution describes the features that should be preserved,
that they wanted to see in development proposed.
Mrs. Boring stated that the problem with that is that in reviewing the first resolution, it tells of
the difference in the conservation approach. It is a process for design. It should be used at the
outset to review every parcel. First, it must be decided what is to be saved. With a flat piece of
land, efforts should be made to make it interesting by using the conservation design approach.
On the Conine property, she believed it would not work because there were several
developments already built around it. Now, however, she now believes it would have worked
well. Her concern is that unless developers are told that this is the process to follow —that they
identify the main natural features to be preserved, look at the secondary features, determine the
developable area out of the site, and from that, to then look at the road layout and alignment and
a pedestrian system, refine it, and arrive at afinal design.
Mrs. Boring stated that this is not how the process works now, so unless the developers are
instructed to do this, the product will not be what is desired.
Mr. Lecklider asked in regard to the Conine property — where are the natural features to be
preserved on that site?
Mr. Zimmerman responded that for that parcel, the interesting feature is the natural pond at the
front along Summitview. The swales and topography are beautiful, which is quite different than
the other areas in Dublin. There is an orginal barn on the site.
Mr. Lecklider asked where are the inconsistencies between the existing resolution and what is
being proposed by P&Z.
Mr. Reineri responded that the original resolution was approved by Council 7-0, and perhaps it
can be modified to somehow include the recommendations from the P&Z version. He suggested
taking the original resolution 48-03 and reviewing it section by section to see what may be
missing.
Community Development Committee
June 9, 2004
Page 5
Mr. Lecklider stated that he appreciates Mr. Reiner's viewpoint, but he wants to hear the
rationale behind what P&Z is proposing. He wants to understand their viewpoint — whether or
not the existing resolution is modified as a result of tonight's discussion.
Mr. Reiner clarified that there is an assumption that this method does not have value for flat land.
The original projects done with conservation design in 1917 were similar to Dublin — flat what
fields. They now look like Dublin, with large forests. The mission tonight is not to obtain
consensus on some kind of legislation, but rather to create a model City for the next 200 years.
While the land at the western edge is wheat fields and farms, it can be transformed with
conservation design principles, increasing the value of everyone's property over the next 100
years. Council should not be shortsighted to be bullied by pressures from special interest groups.
Flat land has more value in the future when developed with conservation design principles.
Mr. Lecklider stated that he had some of the same concerns as Mr. Reiner about flat, open land.
But upon reading the P&Z minutes closely, he understands that they did see potential in flat land
Mr. Zimmerman asked if the
Mrs. Boring