HomeMy WebLinkAboutCom Dev Com Minutes - 1999 allDUBLIN CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
MEETING OF THE WHOLE
Monday, January 11, 1999, 7:00 p.m.
MEETING MINUTES
ATTENDANCE:
Council members present were: Mayor Kranstuber, Cathy Boring, John Reiner, Tom McCash,
Bob Adamck, Cindy Hide Pittahuga. Greg Peterson was excused due to illness.
City staff members: Kim Littleton, Lisa Fierce, Chris Hermann, Rick Helwig
Consultants: John Fernsler and David Rouse of Wallace, Roberts & Todd
The Dublin City Council Community Development Committee Meeting of the Whole met on
Monday, January 11, 1999 at the Justice Center for discussion of the Southwest Area Plan.
Mayor Kranstuber called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and turned the floor over to Kim
Littleton, Planning Division.
Mr. Littleton gave an overview of the subject. He explained that the Southwest Area Study will
encompass six months of work among staff, the community and consultants. The study has
evolved from the Community Plan and focuses on one of the last areas in Dublin in which future
development needs to be defined. He explained that tonight's meeting, the first public meeting
to address this study, will serve as a workshop to lay the foundation of the study. The intent is
to review the issues distilled from the local perspective interviews conducted by Wallace,
Roberts and Todd. Representatives from the community have offered useful information from
their perspective on the Southwest Area and, tonight, staff will summarize the consensus issues
and identify those on which there was community divergence. Copies of a summary of the
consultants' study of those issues were distributed. The list offered for discussion is not
conclusive at this point, and the community can continue to provide input. However, the time
frame for completion of the study is 6 months, so they want to work expeditiously through the
process.
Mr. Littleton introduced Mr. John Fernsler and Mr. David Rouse of Wallace, Roberts & Todd.
Mr. Fernsler explained that before he reviews the input received from the interviews, he wanted
to report on process, product and conclusions. He explained that this was a 3 -step process to get
to the point of adopting a Southwest Area Plan at the end of the 6 -month time frame:
P LCESS
I. Define precisely the nature of the challenge; define precisely the aspirations of the
community for improving the character development of the Southwest Area.
This was done two ways: by listening to individuals who represent the broad
constituency of the Southwest Area and the Dublin community (summaries of those
interviews provided tonight), and by staff analysis of physical conditions and trends as
reflected on the map displayed tonight.
2. Return to City staff in February with specific suggestions for technique; such as: how to
improve open space, traffic mitigation, raising development standards in the overlay
district, allowing the Council to give their direction based on the various suggestions for
improvement for what appears to work best for the City of Dublin in this area. Once they
have received staff's direction on choice of techniques, then:
3. Define the tools necessary to get the job done.
THE PRODUCT
Consider three categories as products of the Southwest Area Plan:
1. The land -use policies contained in the Community Plan, not only densities, but issues of
land use relationships.
2. The overlay district, which is a mechanism of specifying development standards design
guidelines.
3. Recommended prioritized investment in the Southwest Area: investments in open space,
in roadway improvement, and in community amenities, such as a town center or park.
Mr. Rouse summarized the areas of both community consensus and divergence. He noted that
there was agreement on many issues, including:
1. The need for future open space in the Southwest Area. There was discussion about City
acquisition of additional land, but also development proceeding in such a way as to allow
open space between lots. Open space surrounded by a cluster of houses could become an
organizing framework for development.
2. Concern about the future identity or image of the area -- something unique that residents
could be proud of. Many suggestions were offered.
3. Concern about the quality of development -- how to raise the bar and establish standards
to ensure that future development is what the residents desire.
4. Concern about the rapid growth in the area, specifically in the terms of traffic congestion
and impact of cut- through traffic in neighborhoods.
He added that issues of divergence were:
1. Future land uses and future density of land use. The Community Plan painted the
Southwest Area as one to two units of density per acre residential. Some agreed, some
disagreed; others suggested some areas could comply and perhaps other areas not.
2. Development quality and the effect of growth. How far do development standards go?
Do they mandate the materials to be used and the facades permissible for individual
houses? Or will there be general design standards with perhaps a design review process
to guide the appearance of development?
3. Traffic impact on particular roads, such as Wilcox.
Mr. Femsler added that their firm is committed to the future of the Southwest Area, based on not
only their observation of the opportunities that exist, but also on the degree of optimism of the
community about that area. It seems apparent that with the leadership that will begin to be input
tonight that the growth - related problems can be solved, the community character can be
enhanced, and the quality of life improved. The consultants provided examples of what
comparable communities have done to meet similar challenges.
Ms. Lisa Fierce directed discussion to the community consensus issues:
AI'i
Expectations are at least as high in the Southwest Area as anywhere else in the City. With all
future developments, acquisitions, investments, etc., there should be no shortcutting in aesthetics.
This applies to every type of facility -- public and private, without exception. With the
development coming in, consistent standards should be applied to development to ensure this.
Does Council concur that aesthetics are a high -level issue of importance?
Mayor Kranstuber responded that, of course, Council wants aesthetics to be as high or higher as
in any other area of the City.
Mr. McCash inquired if the reference was to building or landscaping aesthetics or both, and if
there were specific areas of concern that the residents have addressed.
Ms. Fierce responded that some of the community response concerned areas that the City has
annexed that had already been developed and were not developed to the same standards as the
rest of Dublin. The concern was that new development be up to standard, and perhaps that the
annexed development should be upgraded to better meet those standards.
Mr. Adamek commented that from a broad perspective he would agree, but he feels that when
discussion narrows to individual houses, perhaps not. For instance, he would prefer not to see
any more neotraditional housing, such as that in Kendall Ridge. It is not found anywhere else in
the community, and he does not favor experimenting with it in the Southwest where there is
minimal frontage yet high density. The boulevards are a desirable feature, however, and he
supports the concept of the site layout.
Mr. McCash also agreed that consistent standards for site layout are desirable, but for individual
building requirements, such as elevations, etc., it is difficult. He suggested accomplishing this
goal with overall architectural concepts. Emphasize aesthetic importance but allow design
freedom. Overly rigid standards stifle creation of aesthetic appeal and defeat the purpose.
Referring to the neotradional architecture, Mr. McCash commented that type of architecture will
not work until someone agrees to do not only the land planning component, but also the building
design component of it. He does not envision that design working in a suburban area.
Neotraditional is primarily for urban renewal development. He does not envision any
development in Dublin having features such as alleys, zero lot line type of housing, 60 -ft wide
lots, etc.
Mr. Reiner added that guidelines should address the current insensitivity of some developments
to major thoroughfares. The Community Plan did not address visual aspects related to the
Southwest Corridor. Flat elevations and uniform stucco walls are not aesthetically appealing;
however, architects can use mounding and berming to mitigate unattractive aspects.
Council agreed.
OPEN SPACE
Open area, open views of the landscape are a defining characteristic of the area. Assembling a
generous, linked, well - planned open space system is an important component of this effort. This
would be similar to what exists north of Post Road, even north of Brand Road. Apply the same
standards to the Southwest Area as exist in other areas of town.
Mr. McCash agreed that similar guidelines should be defined, taking advantage of stream
corridors and existing wooded areas, connecting them together. Perhaps creating a larger system
of connecting parks that border and buffer many areas. Link small one to two -acre plots with
connector paths.
Ms. Fierce asked if linking the open spaces, then, would be important to Council in the usage of
open space.
Mr. McCash responded that linking all of Dublin together is desirable as it ties the community
together and allows people to easily move from one area to another via the bikepath system. At
one time, there was discussion regarding creation of a large park in the Southwest Area. Since
then, a large Metro Park is being developed in the northwest area, but one is still needed in the
Southwest.
Mayor Kranstuber commented that his understanding was that the consultants were hired to
develop several cutting -edge ordinances to address issues in the land development standards for
all of Dublin. Tonight's meeting was to provide sufficient direction from the group on several
issues from which the consultants could then develop ordinances to be presented for public
hearing. To direct efficient discussion, he inquired what final product was anticipated from
tonight's meeting.
Ms. Fierce responded that staff's intent was to allow Council opportunity for input.
Mrs. Boring commented that she does not see the need to discuss issues that were agreed upon in
the Community Plan, which applies to the entire City. Discussion should address changes
necessary to fit the Southwest specifically.
Mayor Kranstuber asked Mr. Reiner to direct the discussion.
Mr. Reiner said that Council was all in agreement on:
1. The need forstesth -tic& They are interested in upgrading guidelines for this area.
2. They also agree on the need for ap_QjL 'Based on the bikepath system, Council
desires that residents are able to move from area to area, including the Southwest Area.
This is all addressed in the Community Plan, however.
3. A new nark in the Southwest
4. Ruml ch aracter. The community has expressed a desire for this, and guidelines need to
be established to assure this for the Southwest Area also.
Ms. Fierce directed attention from the list of consensus items to a second list of discussion items.
S IUACKS
The current standard for scenic roads is a 200 -ft. minimum setback. The Community Plan
defines most of the roads in the southwest as scenic roads. So when development comes in on
Woerner - Temple Road, Avery Road, Cosgray, etc., should 200 -ft. setbacks be enforced?
Mayor Kranstuber inquired what the legal impact would be. How much land would the City be
taking?
Ms. Fierce responded that would depend on whether the City would accept some of that setback
as open space or as designated parkland. This was an issue in other subdivisions, particularly
Brand Road. Sometimes full credit has been given, other times half credit, a few times no credit.
The City has not been consistent on that issue.
Mrs. Boring responded that she is an advocate for consistent setbacks with the intent to create an
integrated green look. A change in setbacks would create a jagged appearance.
Mr. Reiner explained that an architect can deal with irregular setbacks. This is the purpose for
which the professionals have been hired -- to provide guidance in developing a master plan. For
instance, they could say, "On the arterial roads, we recommend maintaining the 200 -ft setbacks;
on the other roads, we recommend a 150 or 175 -ft setback; in the commercially congested points,
we recommend moving the parking lot back, using mounding," etc.
Mr. Fernsler clarified that their mandate was to write a plan and an ordinance. The ordinance
would mandate development standards. The plan would talk about proactive issues such as,
where land should be purchased for parks and what should be in the parks.
Mayor Kranstuber asked if the plan would have the force of law. Would there be an ordinance
that says "see appendix A," which would be a Southwest Area map.
Mr. Fernsler responded that in the purchase and development of private property, it would have
the force of law. Where it addresses whether the City should invest in public rights -of -way, it
would not necessarily have the same effect.
Mayor Kranstubcr returned to setbacks and asked if it is possible to come yip with an ordinance
to cover what is permissible in setback variations.
Mr. Fernsler responded that the objective is to improve make the current view from the road.
That is resolved by determining the desired width and character of the setback. He indicated that
observations of other communities have led them to conclude that it is not the dimensions that
determine the view from the road. It is what is put in that setback space. Landscaping in 100 feet
can accomplish what 200 feet of setback does. Consequently, their recommendation is to focus
more on the landscape character of the setback Since part of that area will be in the public right -
of -way, the City will have an investment in that landscaping. In other areas, the setback and
landscaping can be mandated.
Mayor Kranstuber asked Mr. Fernsler what was needed to develop an ordinance addressing this
issue.
Mr. Fernsler said it was feasible to develop an ordinance that would help solve the problems for
both the developers and the Landowners.
Mr. Reiner suggested that the consultants write an ordinance and take the existing Southwest
Area Plan and do an overlay of that with recommendations for all the rights -of -way.
Mayor Kranstuber added that the City wants a product that will not be subject to alterations.
Ms. Fierce commented that if it was codified, it could not be, except by amendment.
Mr. McCash added that for it to have the force and effect of law, it has to be passed as an
ordinance, not a plan. Although the Community Plan was adopted, an advisory committee can
make changes as development happens. Of course, a new Council could also amend an
ordinance.
Ms. Fierce said that the Community Plan currently provides for a 200 -ft setback for all scenic
roads, and most of the major roads in Dublin are scenic. Although notification of that
requirement is provided to all developers who come into the City, the City cannot force them to
comply because it has not yet been made law.
Mr. McCash explained that Planning & Zoning Commission is currently asking for 200 -ft.
setbacks along Avery Road and Rt. 745. Is 200 feet the right number? Around Brand Road, it
has been 100 ft. Required setbacks for buildings from collector or through roads are typically
wider and further back. That is what needs to be codified:
Mr. Fernsler responded that there are communities where the mandated setback is 100 or 150 ft.,
but the mandate is also that within that setback there must be opaque landscaping, so the eye
cannot see beyond the 100 or 150 ft. However, that is not appropriate for all areas. There are
some areas where it is desirable to see through it. It is preferable to allow discretion in this area.
Mayor Kranstuber commented that when writing the ordinance, they should keep in mind that
the City wants legislation to raise the bar. A lot of money was spent on the Community Plan
expecting it to make a difference, but a plan was insufficient; legislature is necessary.
Mr. Fernsler responded.4-hat would be their direction. He inquired as to how the ordinance is to
be administered. Does Council want a precise ordinance, or is it to allow sonic degree of
reasonable concession? In their experience, it is very hard to legislate aesthetics and quality. It
is easier to state the characteristics the City wants and avoid dictating a uniform look.
Mr. McCash asked if their intent was to write a conformance -based ordinance as opposed to a
prescriptive -based ordinance.
Mr. Reiner responded that the ordinance should only state the parameters for deciding the
setback and setback characteristics. The example of mounding at Asherton shows how 200 to
300 ft. setbacks with mounding can camouflage high density.
Mayor Kranstuber asked the consultants if they had received enough guidance to write the
setback guidelines and ordinance.
Mr. Fernsler said they had. He stated that the guidelines will specify the use of the setback is
to block objectionable views with use of mounding and vegetation or to direct the view
toward a positive feature.
Mayor Kranstuber added that, if possible, it should assure the maximum amount of setback.
Mr. Fernsler commented that it could be reasonable at times to allow the discretion to the
developer. It may be easier for him to give up 200 feet than to provide very heavy and expensive
vegetation. That could be decided after discussion.
S r -FA YIILYS,111D1L1NESL
ra
Ms. Fierce inquired if Council preferred that an ordinance be included to address single - family
guidelines for the Southwest Area.
Mayor Kranstuber responded that they should address single - family guidelines not forjust the
Southwest Area, but for the whole City.
Mr. Adamek agreed. Although the discussion focused on the Southwest Area, he preferred to see
many parts of the plan applied to the whole City. The plan should be developed with that long -
range intent in mind.
Mr. Fernsler said that he understands the residential guidelines are more for the placement of
structures on the ground than the architectural design of the facade, with the exception of things
to avoid -- blank walls, repetition of the same facade, etc.
Mayor Kranstuber said that would not meet the need. It must be more aggressive than that.
Mr. Fernsler questioned how far Council would like the consultants to go. If it is not simply
avoiding the objectionable, what else?
Mayor Kranstuber answered that he would like direction to be given for materials, the whole
gamut. He prefers it be written similar to the Muirfield PUD.
Mr. Fernsler said the next step would be to state the preferred materials; the most aggressive
direction would be to require the materials. The question of degree can be determined later;
obviously, there would be cost implications.
Mr. McCash asked to what extent he envisions the single - family guidelines directing the
setbacks and the layouts of the subdivision, or is there intent to merely deal with the building in
relationship to the site. Looking at areas where there are houses with backs facing out to through
streets or collector streets, those setbacks for those neighborhoods should be greater, providing
more of a buffer for children to play in. Whether addressed by density or by setbacks, those
elements need to be included in the guidelines.
Mr. Fernsler said it would be included
Mayor Kranstuber added that he considers this more important than density. As he had indicated
to Mr. Fernsler earlier, after these go to P &Z and Council and an area is platted as to where the
bikepaths go, size of lots, lot layout, etc., Council does not follow the project and does not know
who the builder is or what the home will look like. He indicated that he had asked Mr. Fernsler
to look at affordable neighborhoods where there is great diversity of architecture and materials
and higher -range neighborhoods where there is not. The intent was to develop some legislation
to address this problem.
Mr. Reiner explained that, currently, the developer comes in with three models, and those homes
are replicated throughout the subdivision without any effort to modify the facades. Even in a
subdivision with expensive homes, sometimes no imagination or palette is displayed. There
should be a mandate to the developer to provide variety.
Mr. Adamek added that on the other hand, there have been times when a higher density has been
7
granted to a developer because he utilized different builders providing diversity. Later, the
developer has pulled out of the project and sold it to someone else who then builds "rubber
stamps."
Mayor Kranstuber added that it is possible for one builder to build with sufficient diversity. His
neighborhood of 32 different homes was built by one builder.
Mr. Fernsler suggested there are three parallel sub - issues:
I. What is it the City is looking for? Variety in materials, form and details, and avoiding
objectionable conditions, one of which is repetition.
2. The degree of specificity. Is it the intention to specify a certain percent of every facade
shall be a certain material, or encourage the use of such?
3. Who determines and when? Is it to be written so tightly that a developer knows that if be
meets the 60 percent rule, or whatever, of selected materials, details, etc., he's approved;
or is it at administrative discretion; or is a set of general guidelines given to P & Z to
allow them to use their discretion in determining compliance?
Mrs. Boring asked that they consider specifying lot coverage requirements in subdivisions -- the
size of the lot in relationship to the home to be built.
Mr. McCash said the lot requirements should extend to cover materials. Currently, there is
nothing that prohibits covering the entire lot with concrete.
Mrs. Boring said that houses should be placed in proportion to one another to maintain adequate
green space view -- sideyards, setbacks, etc.
Mr. Adamek noted that, on the issue of aesthetics, aerial photographs reveal Dublin has winding,
curvy streets, but in the southwest area, grids are developing, going back to the ncotraditional
design. He prefers to see winding, curvy streets back in the southwest area again.
Mr. Fernsler commented that the City already has control over the platting of the area.
Ms. Fierce responded that policy direction from Council would be helpful. Currently, the
Southwest Plan indicates that something new could be tried. But, if that is not what Council
wants, they need to give new direction.
Mayor Kranstuber noted that Waterford has affordable housing on very small lots, less than 60
ft., but there are winding roads, bridges, which give a more pleasing look.
Mr. Reiner explained that feature is called an arch and tangent system design, which allows
streets to lend a more interesting look to a community.
Council all agreed on the need for streets that are not grid designed.
Mr. McCash commented attention should be given to housing not fronted on streets with
curbcuts or collector streets. House on minor collectors, like Tara Hill, are faced with traffic and
safety issues for the children. The desire is to avoid any repeats of that situation.
Ms. Fierce added that they also do not want to repeat the setbacks, curbcuts and driveways
allowed on Rings Road for Trinity Park and Balgriffin
Mr. McCash agreed, but reminded Council that Rings Road was an area in the Southwest that
was planned to be downgraded, even dead- ended, and traffic directed to Emerald Parkway.
Trinity, Brighton and those areas went through the planning process under that assumption.
Those commitments were later changed, and the problem resulted for those neighborhoods. It is
not advisable to renege on commitments that people have relied upon.
Ms. Fierce commented that those housing developments were attempts to create similar lots
along those roads such as those on Wilcox. The question now is does the City want to do that
again west of Avery with curbcuts onto that road, or make them internal to the subdivision?
Mr. Adamek, Mr. McCash, Mayor Kranstuber, Mrs. Boring were in consensus to make
them internal to the subdivision.
Mayor Kranstuber commented that if it is not done right, it can be worse that curbcuts.
Brandonway is functionally similar to Carnoustie, but there is not enough setback on
Brandonway.
Mr. McCash commented that the Yoder house and the houses on the west side of Wilcox sit a
considerable distance back from Wilcox compared to the single - family neighborhoods of Trinity
and Brighton Park. The current issue with curbcuts in those neighborhoods could have been
avoided with setbacks.
Ms. Fierce added that the lot size is a factor, as well
Mr. McCash agreed but said that with the required setbacks, some of those lot sizes would
probably have been addressed in the planning process. When there is a road, an 8 -foot bikepath
and a 25 -ft building setback, if that bikepath is being used, the people in the house are well aware
of who is using it.
Ms. Fierce commented that with the improvement of Nom Street, the hope is that Rings Road
will be downgraded as a residential street .
Mayor Kranstuber asked if the consultants had sufficient direction to proceed on the Single -
Family Guidelines /Ordinances.
Mr. Fernsler responded that the next step is to come back with alternatives. Based on tonight's
comments, there will be a need to specify who determines compliance -- staff or P &Z, and
to determine mathematical specificity. More direction will be required on those issues.
Mayor Kranstuber inquired about legislation to prevent the repetition of houses in the same
subdivision.
Mr. Fernsler stated there are two ways. It can be mandated that, "No facade shall be repeated
more often than every fifth home," or that, "Variety in facade treatment is encouraged and P & Z
will determine if that individual has met or not met the requirements."
Ms. Fierce brought up an issue that has come up at Planning Commission. In certain areas there
are MI homes -- perhaps 500 lots. They have previewed 30 different elevations with different
names and indicated individual variety by virtue of very minor changes -- change of shutters, etc.
These have been presented as different models. This issue is going back to Planning
Commission next month to clarify what meets the requirement for variety. A definition of
diversity is needed.
Mayor I- ranstuber said that P &Z review identified the problem in this case, but there have been
many other subdivisions where, after the preliminary platting, builders were free to do as they
wished.
Ms. Fierce said that the difference is because Council has begun to request proof of diversity
when the plat comes before Council.
Mayor Kranstuber said that the issue is how to prevent this duplication of homes.
Ms. Fierce answered that P &Z will continue to impose it via conditions until there is codified
language that requires it.
Mr. McCash suggested that when the housing subdivisions go through the rezoning process, that
one of the requirements would be to specifically have provisions in the zoning text that deal with
the architecture, style and diversity. It may be as simple as one elevation in every five cannot be
the same, or simply that every house shall be different. How that is addressed as far as materials
or architecture can be part of the rezoning process. Thereby, if one developer rezones it and then
sells it to another, the text provisions stay in place.
Ms. Fierce commented that legislation will be needed to require it. Presently, the PUD does not
require it.
Mr. McCash agreed. The City does not have that right, it would need to be changed as part of
the PUD /PCD process -- the architecture issue and the development standards. This will prevent
the City having to deal with it at the preliminary plat or final plat stages.
Mr. Femsler said they can define "variety" to accomplish this, but nothing can replace the
discretion of the P &Z review. No formula can give Council what they want simply by meeting
the letter of the law. Someone has to determine compliance, whether it's staff or P &Z.
Mayor Kranstuber added that he knows the diversity can be enforced because he's seen it done in
New Albany. There is an MI neighborhood there that actually has diversity.
Mr. Fernsler advised Council to avoid a formulated approach because, ultimately, every project
will look alike. Describe the type of development the City wants -- an encouragement of natural
materials, a great feel of variety, and individuality -- that means a modification of architectural
features, i.e., porches, materials, slopes of roof, color, etc. With that definition, reasonable
people should be able to look at that and say that as a condition of approval the variety test has
not been met, as opposed to stipulating a certain percent of certain features be provided.
Mr. Reiner said that it's the difference between packaged communities that are being seen all
to
over and Clintonville, where there is architectural integrity, yet one builder could have built them
all. General guidelines could empower the City to enforce them.
Mr. Adamek asked for a consensus on P &Z, staff or another board to have final review.
Mr. Fernsler responded that this does not have to be decided now. There will be many meetings
ahead.
Mrs. Boring asked if final review means a review of each house as the permit conies in
Ms. Fierce answered that currently Planning reviews all the elevations as they come in, as a plat
or a rezoning.
Mr. Fernsler asked if that meant that facades could be reviewed before subdivision approval is
given.
Mrs. Boring said that the developer sells them to the builders, and the developer is out of the
picture.
Mr. Fernsler clarified that a building permit would not be issued for that unit until they
demonstrated compliance.
Ms. Fierce agreed. They have to confirm their lot location and Planning checks to see that their
plan conforms with the building formula, for instance, not to repeat the same elevation within
every five lots.
Mayor Kranstuber said that part of what they're describing could be done by prescription. Much
can be done by P &Z or staff.
Mr. Fernsler commented that review of an individual single- family house should be a staff
function. The concept would be approved by P &Z.
Mr. Adamek said that P &Z could approve 30 footprints, and staff would review them
individually.
Mr. McCash commented that he does not envision P &Z becoming involved in approving
footprints, per se, but rather review of diversity criteria that must be met in the rezoning text for
the PUD rezoning. Currently, the City is addressing the diversity issue with housing elevations.
However, if MI sells that land to someone else, the City has lost those elevations, because there
isn't anything in the text that addresses the diversity issue.
Mr. Adamek added that staff needs to be cognizant of the fact that the builders borrow footprints
from each other, so that one might be called the Glendale and another the Glenridge, but they
might be the same footprint.
Mrs. Boring asked if Council was prepared to hire another staff member to handle the additional
work.
Mr. Adamek responded that can be considered with next year's budget process
Mr. McCash inquired if they would consider outsourcing that function.
Mr. Reiner commented that Muirfield already has that kind of review within its own subdivision.
It is effective within the comnumity.
Mr. Adamek added that Muirfield also reviews home improvement projects. If the City holds the
developer to these standards, the homeowners association should hold the homeowners to those
same standards -- perhaps through deed restrictions.
Mr. Reiner said that more bureaucracy was not needed. This legislation should accomplish it.
Mr. Fernsler said he believes he has what is needed to develop the ordinance. The intent is not
to extract the most expense from the developers, but to use the appropriate treatment to get
the desired results in a variety of interesting individuality.
Mayor Kranstuber responded that he was still a little skeptical with too much power being left in
staff's hands. Some staff members may be here in 3 to 5 years, but many will not. He is more
comfortable with a systematic approach. These developers know how to pull the strings.
Mr. Fernsler suggested an architectural review committee -- a subcommittee of P &Z.
Mr. McCash commented that if the formula is too rigid, too mathematically precise, creativity is
stifled. The developers all do the same thing in order to be approved. The innovative, cutting -
edge design is blocked resulting in a homogenous - looking community. Creativity should still be
encouraged. Criteria should be developed so that when it does come before P &Z as rezoning, the
criteria is a performance standard which must be met for approval.
LAND tisrs IN SOUTt11WtsT
Mr. Adamek asked if Council envisions the area as all residential. The plan calls for residential
development.
Mr. Littleton pointed out that it is an area predominantly industrial now, but the Community Plan
shows it all being single family residential. The question is: did the City really intend to
establish this low density?
Mayor Kranstuber suggested that they discuss land use density for the Southwest as a whole, not
just north of Shier Rings. He prefers not to discuss again what the Community Plan has already
designated.
Mr. Reiner said Council is in general agreement on the density issue, yet there can be
adjustments to the density depending on how the subdivisions come in. When the houses are
clustered, higher density can be permitted if the architecture is good and there is green space.
Encourage development in open areas, not in forested areas.
Mayor Kranstuber asked if there is a need to discuss altering land uses
12
Mr. Adamek suggested a brief discussion. He supports turning it over to the land planners for
another quick look.
Mr. Reiner agreed that it would be a good idea to let them look at the total picture. Let them take
the Community Plan and see if the current conditions still fit the plan or if anything needs a
slight modification. There is nothing objectionable with having professional land planners
review the plan periodically; any suggestions for modification can be adopted or rejected.
Mr. Fernsler commented that there might not be any suggested modification, but rather
interpretation of what the one to two units an acre can mean. One possible interpretation is that it
is a reflection of the average density throughout the Southwest area. For instance, if the policy is
to encourage further development of Amlin as a Village Center, slightly higher density
surrounding that center could be permitted. Although the greenway system would take land out
of play, an average density of 1 to 2 units /acre is maintained. The adjustment might be made to
allow density to increase in an area if green space is set aside.
Mr. Reiner commented that a key tic to density is traffic impact. Morally, the City has no right to
"steal" significant time from people for travel from home to work in Dublin. He wants the
density to correlate with the road system. He does not want what Columbus has with Smoky
Row -- a two -lane country road with high density. Ensure that the land use makes sense with the
road system so that motorists can travel through town in a reasonable amount of time. He would
like the plan to address that.
Ms. Fierce said the reason the Community Plan has designated single family in the area north of
Shier Rings is because traffic studies show that anything other than residential use will seriously
hamper traffic flow. This is an attempt to "turn down the volume."
Mrs. Boring asked about light intensity industrial use. She believes that the City needs to revisit
densities, because it appears that residential development is taking place in areas where it was
intended to have income- producing property.
Ms. Fierce responded that fiscal studies are a part of the land use study, and the projection is
satisfactory.
Mr. Fernsler commented that it is a policy trade -off question: what kind of residential is
inevitable if it is surrounded by commercial? Lower -end residential? Would it be better to have
light industrial that might be more consistent with the surroundings?
Mr. Reiner says that City landscape guidelines stipulate that if residential abuts to light
industrial, there must be 100% opacity of mounding, planting or fencing. However, a contained,
light industrial with requirements for its appearance can still solve the traffic issue.
Mr. Fernsler noted that they are not re- winning the City's traffic model.
Ms. Fierce said it was difficult to make these kinds of changes to the Community Plan without
making it invalid.
Mr. Reiner said he preferred to make modifications that are better for the citizenry, whenever
13
possible.
Mayor Kranstnber asked if the consultants had enough direction on this issue to proceed
Mr. Fernsler summarized that Council's direction is to review the land use to determine the
appropriateness of land use at this particular location.
Mr. McCash said that when the Community Plan was adopted, there were outstanding issues that
remained to be tweaked or adjusted. One was the density issue. If the land north of Shier Rings
remains residential, it would be an unreasonable expectation that it would be developed at I -2
dwelling units /acre. The land is not so valuable that someone will want to build a $300,000
house next to 33/161. If such an area is to remain residential, higher density will have to be
permitted. In another area of the Southwest, that may not be necessary, but it would still fit the
averaging of I to 2 units /acre, which would address the traffic planning issue. There are also
areas where of existing industrial where it is necessary to provide buffering of uses. This can
only be done by adjusting density.
Mr. McCash added that another problem to be addressed is the fact that Dublin's southern border
is coterminous with the City of Columbus. The lack of planning standards in Columbus affects
that border, as seen with the Sawmill Road area, and now a serious traffic situation exists at
Tuttle Crossing with the mall. Columbus will continue to build very high - density big box and
high - density apartment emits there, which will create considerable traffic problems for Dublin in
that area.
Mayor Kranstuber asked if they can tweak some of the land uses in reviewing these situations.
Mr. Fernsler agreed, and asked Council to took at the map on the wall. He pointed out that the
pale green area is the land in play for residential or commercial development. Almost that entire
area is now designated in the Community Plan for I to 2 units /acre. At the rate at which Dublin
is building residential, that is 20 to 40 years worth of growth potential. The question is: within
that enormous swath of land that is now designated 1 to 2 units /acre, is the goal to keep it
uniform, or is it preferable to say that since development in the area outside that (for example on
the other side of the railroad) is probably 10 to 20 years away, perhaps it is easier to hold down
the density outside to a maximum of 1 unit per acre, and inside the area 2 units /acre could be
allowed. Perhaps the City would prefer to distinguish where development should be guided in
view of the many decades of development potential, as opposed to being rigid with a precise
number,
Mr. Reiner said that such factors as having a border where the neighbor does not control zoning
resulting in heavy traffic indicate where pockets of lighter density should be developed to reduce
the traffic. A map will indicate what should be done, density -wise, with the land uses.
Internally, perhaps different densities can be allowed because Dublin has a better road network,
but there are other areas where is no choice but to lighten it up.
Mr. Fernsler noted that one concept would be to distinguish the areas of the Southwest area that
should have a suburban character -- largely residential with an occasional cluster of
neighborhood - serving retail -- versus a rural, residential character toward the outer edge, where
there is the same density of perhaps 1 unit per acre, with a mandated lot size of .5 acre. Fifty
14
percent of every subdivision would be open space -- agriculture or other undivided open space.
This would mandate that along the fringe there could be residential, but there would also be a
permanent rural condition of 50% open space.
Mr. Adamek responded that he likes that concept, in view of the Farmland Preservation Act
recently adopted by the state. This would protect the City 30 -40 years into the future.
Mayor Kranstuber agreed. He pointed out that there is a lot of green area which is not currently
in Dublin's jurisdiction. Should the City attempt to aggressively annex, not for the purpose of
development, but for the purpose of non - development?
Mr. Fernsler said, yes, and that will also be addressed in the plan.
Mayor Kranstuber also asked if there is something in the Ohio Revised Code about
extraterritorial platting jurisdiction, whereby the City can actually exert influence to affect
platting 3 miles out from its borders.
Ms. Fierce commented that has been nullified by case law.
Mayor Kranstuber responded that annexation is the answer in a phased -in type of development.
Ms. Fierce responded that this brings up the question of annexation and timing. This was
something in the Community Plan that Council wanted to amend.
Mr. Adamek said that his understanding was that after the Community Plan, the annexation
policy was going to be re- visited. He inquired where staff was on amending the annexation
policy. Is it being pursued, or has it been at a lower priority?
Mr. Helwig responded that it is really the latter. The last verbal policy direction from Council
was that if there is no control over the area, annexation should not be forced. The intent is to
avoid having Avery or Tuttle become another Sawmill. There is another annexation coming
through the process right now. Although the City has not solicited it, staff will give Council a
positive recommendation. The Metro Park has speeded up development in the north and west; a
major sorting out is going on. This is what the Community Plan predicted would happen first in
the Southwest. This is forcing the City to look at land uses and annexations.
Mr. Adamek added that another factor driving some of the development in that corridor is the
one year moratorium on development in the Southwest. With 18 months to 2 years of no
development permitted in the Southwest, developers are looking at that area around the Metro
Park. That's why it is necessary to know how far out the City will annex -- is it just to the
current service area for water and sewer with Columbus?
Mayor Kranstuber responded that current Council policy is to responsibly annex areas so that the
City can control them.
Mrs. Boring said the problem is that eventually there has to be a line, a border, that cannot be
controlled. There are several different school districts involved. While it makes sense to bring
areas that are already in Dublin's school system into the City, annexing areas outside that can
15
have a negative fiscal impact. Part of the fiscal analysis of single family housing was the cost of
services. Council's intention was to revisit this policy. At what point does the Council decide
that the City has grown too big or that it is impossible to provide the same level of services to
everyone, and that the boundary of the school system should be at that point?
Mr. Reiner said that as long as the City is able to continue this process, it has control over its
destiny -- the direction it takes and the quality it can expect.
Mr. Fernsler agreed with Mayor Kranstuber, stating that the purpose of annexing territory is to
overlay it with a better quality of development.
Mr. McCash agreed that there will always be a border where that control ends. Perhaps that is
where the current western boundary is, but if there are areas the City can annex and thereby
control development, it is possible to minimize the impact of the border transition between
Columbus and Dublin.
Mrs. Boring commented that in certain areas already in Dublin, the City refuses to do certain
things because of the fiscal impact of all the single family homes. Why would the City want to
annex in single family homes in this area?
Ms. Fierce explained that in these areas where single family has been designated the appropriate
land use, the fiscal studies have been done, and results indicate that it will work.
Mayor Kranstuber said that Tartan Fields is the best example of the reason to annex. When there
is the same school, mutual aid, and the traffic already exists, it only makes sense to control the
quality and density of development of the area by annexation.
.•
Mr. Adamek inquired about the direction for development for this area and what type of density
is desired. This area shares a co- border with Columbus. It is impossible to control what happens
on the south side unless the City does some other things. There has been informal discussion
regarding realigning the Tuttle Crossing North extension up into the City's exclusive area so that
it is not a co- border, thereby avoiding another Sawmill Road situation.
Ms. Fierce said that the goal is to have Tuttle extended to Avery. After crossing Avery, the City
will have all of future Dublin and can annex that. Houchard Road is the other co- border. The
City is trying to annex only over to Houchard, so west of Houchard could be similar to east of
Sawmill.
Mr. McCash expressed a similar concern as Mr. Adamek regarding the effects of the
development on the south side of Tuttle, with WalMart, etc.. The land is highly developable for
large format retail -type uses but is outside the City's control. The original intent for Tuttle
Grossing was for it to bend north and align with Rings Road so that both sides of Tuttle Crossing
as it moved this direction would be within the corporate boundaries of Dublin. However, its
route was later changed to travel straight through that area, and now there will be an increasing
problem dealing with what happens on the south side.
16
Mr. Reiner asked if Council wants to realign the road up to Rings Road
Mr. Helwig said that extension is not in the 5 -year CIP. It is not even on the drawing board,
although the issue is being studied. However, if Council wants to revise the extension
alignment of Tuttle, that should be an outcome of this planning process. In the meantime, there
is a zoning moratorium and developers are being turned away from this area.
Mr. Reiner said if the consensus is to realign the road, it should be done.
Mr. Adamek said he wanted to look at the broader issue. With what is already in place and what
is planned (some of those things outside the City's control), there will be a lot of pressure to
continue with similar development on the north side of the street. There is a need to be sensitive
to these issues as they come forward, as already seen with the multi - family extension in that area.
The consultants need to provide guidance in how to direct the development of this area to
maintain the desired character.
Mr. McCash suggested that the consultants look at this in conjunction with staff. He brought up
some of the issues in a previous meeting on the Southwest, not just Tuttle, but also Wilcox Road,
where it bends behind Brighton Park and connects with Emerald Parkway, etc. His opinion is
that the City should delay addressing this until completion of the Southwest Area study. When
Windmiller comes before Council, there will be some tough decisions to make. In the
Windmiller case, the intent is to rezone the land completely different from the original plan
because of the amendment to the Thoroughfare Plan that calls for wider rights -of -way for Tuttle
Crossing extending straight through. If it is realigned northward, that may alter how the City
addresses the Windmiller parcel.
Mayor Kranstuber said it is not necessary to give them all that information, just enough to
address the practical issues -- regarding density, land uses, and an overlay district for design.
Mr. Femsler said that one of the issues is traffic congestion. His understanding of the traffic
model was that, where possible, it is desirable to minimize the additional traffic generated in the
Southwest area, particularly extending into the residential area. Further extensions of major
traffic generators along that corridor should be avoided, such as non -local retail.
Mr. Reiner said that it seems desirable to realign the road to give Dublin control of both sides of
the road.
Mrs. Boring said that there is not enough cost information on that proposal. What Columbus will
likely do is dump all their traffic on Dublin's road, and the City will be responsible for both the
cost of building it and the cost of maintenance.
Mr. McCash said that Dublin will have more traffic, but if the road is re- directed north, the land
in Columbus becomes second -tier, less - defined retail use. If frontage is offered along Tuttle
Crossing, any retail developer will be attracted to the site..
Mr. Adamek agrees with realignment.
Ms. Fierce said that if the decision is made to do so, they need to consider what the impact will
17
be on the west side of Avery Road. Currently, the objective is to make Rings Road more of a
local traffic route than the last Southwest area study. Consider what happens to Amlin if the
traffic routes that direction.
Mr. McCash said that would not affect Amlin. If Tuttle is realigned to the north, it can be
connected to Rings Road, and another bend can be put in Rings Road either north or south of
Amlin. That remains open land, so it can be done different ways. The GIS map indicates
various things that can be done on a small scale. As part of this plan, either the City's own
engineering department, or another traffic consultant, or these particular consultants could study
the issue to determine if this is feasible or not.
Mrs. Boring said that at this point she is unconvinced of the advisability of this proposal. No
maps, financial studies, etc. have been provided.
Mayor Kranstuber said that since four members of Council want to provisionally go ahead
with looking at that option, Ire will give the consultants direction to study the issue.
►_
Should the City change the zoning on any existing less desirable development (i.e. heavy
industrial)?
Mr. Reiner suggested that the consultants look at the overview and see if the current zoning
works.
Mayor Kranstuber agreed. No changes are obvious, but if the road is realigned, that might make
some changes obvious to the consultants. Also, they may look at a substandard road network,
determine the density is inconsistent with Columbus next door, and they may recommend
rezoning some acres at a higher density. Taking into consideration the Community Plan, they
may still recommend some minor modifications on a couple of sites only.
Ms. Fierce agreed, noting that, for instance, there is an area on Avery Road that has a general
industrial zoning classification. It could even be a Washington Twp. classification, but it is in
Dublin and can be zoned however Council desires.
Mayor Kranstuber said that just because there are existing land uses, that doesn't mean that as
the value of land changes, it shouldn't be reviewed. He noted that some of the land use there is
out of sync with the actual value of the land in that area. Some of the industrial sites are going to
change; they aren't going to remain a low -grade industrial site. A fresh look at this may suggest
a better plan.
Ms. Fierce responded that this is contrary to previous direction. For instance, the direction of
the Community Plan is that if nothing's wrong, move around it. The suggestion tonight seems to
be not simply moving around it, but changing it.
Mr. Fernsler responded that this is not a regulatory issue. The process does not allow eradication
of heavy industrial by down - zoning. It has to be proactively redeveloped. The question is to
determine if those uses are, in fact, objectionable, or livable.
18
Ms. Hide Pittaluga responded that they ar_Q regulatory issues, though, if it is possible to change
the zoning and make something more amenable to the surrounding area. The City should take
that initiative.
Mr. Fernsler responded that you can't zone an existing use out of existence.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga said that wasn't the intent.
Mayor Kranstuber responded that it's part of the whole marriage of a community. They are not
traffic generators, they bring good personal property taxes to the schools.
Mr. McCash said that if someone comes in with a request to rezone a general industrial piece of
land as office -- a better aesthetic use of the land for that area - -he would be willing to consider
that.
Mr. Adamek clarified that the discussion is not regarding existing industrial use.
[Yes, on development but not on exisling use.]
LEVEL OF MUNICIPAL. PARTICIPATION
Is the City willing to make the necessary economic investment (i.e., site acquisition, civic
presence, etc.)?
Ms. Fierce asked if City funds should be committed to this.
Mr. Fernsler commented that this would go beyond an ordinance; it is proactive. This is an
investment in a park in the Southwest, a civic center, a town center, which would raise the value
of development in that area.
Ms. Fierce pointed out that it would continue as a yearly commitment, say 2% of the income tax
to the Southwest area in this fashion.
Mr. Adamek responded that the general consensus of Council is that they would like to see
something like that in this area and would maintain it as they do any other municipal
amenity. He would also entertain ideas of development assistance -- perhaps a developer coming
in and building a public golf course. An amenity coming into that area would create some land
use diversity, but it would also take a percentage of that acreage out as residential development,
thereby improving the City's economic equation for land development and uses. With all factors
unknown, however, he is not willing to commit any percentage of the City budget at this point in
time.
Mrs. Boring said consideration must be given to available parkland and to who would be served
in the area selected.
Mayor Kranstuber asked if everyone agreed on the addition of boulevarded streets in all areas
possible. Mr. Adamek clarified that would include major streets where Council has said they
don't want to see curbcuts. Mayor Kranstuber added that this is probably not something the
19
consultants need to address. It's more a direction to the City Engineer to add green space in
street designs. Council members concurred.
S waL D�ss ue:
How does the City develop the partnership needed with the Hilliard School District to maximize
outcomes/resources (share facilities, locate schools, etc.)
Ms. Fierce said that the boundaries are not coterminous, and neither school district is willing to
take steps to make it happen. The question is what it would take to establish a working
partnership with Hilliard Schools. Perhaps someone already on staff or a committee could meet
with Hilliard weekly, biweekly or monthly with the goal of pooling resources. Perhaps they
could be encouraged to site their next school next to the Southwest area park.
Mr. Adamek commented that the problem is that there are two different school systems with two
different philosophies. Dublin school system has a neighborhood elementary type of philosophy;
Hilliard School does not. Hilliard tends to draw things into the center of the city. He expressed
hope that as Hilliard continues to grow, they will see some benefit to having neighborhood
schools. It may take someone from staff or Council to try to nurture this idea and open up the
dialogue that would further a mutually beneficial land use system, such as that which Dublin has
with Dublin Schools, an example of which is a municipal pool and a school occupying the same
general site.
Ms. Fierce responded that staff does deal with Hilliard occasionally regarding area planning
issues, but no day -to -day dialogue exists, however.
Mr. Adamek said they also need to work towards altering some of the school district boundaries
when they are bringing developments in. He knows there are legal considerations.
Mrs. Boring said that is where she has a problem. Why is it necessary to annex land into the
Dublin School District that is in the Hilliard School District? She does not see the need to annex
something that belongs to Hilliard.
Mr. Adamek responded that the justification is so the City can control the development that
impacts our City.
Mrs. Boring answered that by controlling the development many more students are being
crowded into the Dublin school system, the cost of services and the need for more people to
provide them are being increased, and a border will still exist that Dublin cannot control.
Mr. Adamek agreed that it a case of where to define that border.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga commented that both views have good points that need to be hashed out
thoroughly -- perhaps at goal setting.
RURAUSUBURnAN EDGE:
Should development in the outlying area (west of Avery) be more rural than suburban in
0
character?
Ms. Fierce said that does seem to be the route of consensus. [No discussion.]
r-ak' �, i«iw n
Should the City take steps to control the pace of development? What actions should the City
take to mitigate impacts?
Ms. Fierce asked if Council wants to pursue that, either through ordinance or some other action.
Mayor Kranstuber said the annexation policy addresses that.
Mr. Fernsler said it does not address the pace, but rather the manner in which it proceeds
geographically.
Mr. Adamek asked if Council wants to manage growth geographically, i.e., east of Avery as
opposed to west?
Mr. Fernsler explained that could also mean regulating how much development, managing the
impact of growth to stage development over time. They are not recommending this, merely
asking Council's preference. They have worked with other communities by drawing up rate of
growth ordinances, which stated that in a given neighborhood they would accept only a
specifically stated amount of development annually to keep traffic under control. Another
method would be to establish tiers within an area according to the expectation of when
infrastructure would be available, and with an associated density.
Mr. McCash responded that regarding infrastructure, typically, the developer pays to put in the
sewer, water and road to service that area. The City needs to look at rate of growth type issues
and determine to what direction, to what extent, and how fast it will move. For instance, Avery -
Muirfield and the bridge over 161/33 -- if this were done perhaps ten years ago, the City would
have put a maximum number of housing units north of 161 /33 until the bridge was constructed.
Mr. Fernsler answered that communities with rapid growth face a concurrency problem. Even
though there is zoning, if development would cause the surrounding streets to exceed the level of
service, either building must wait until the roadway program is in place or the City will have to
contribute to the acceleration of that program.
Mr. Reiner said it is worth consideration. Perhaps it would be possible to move money around in
the City's 5 -year plan. Many of these areas do not have the money to put the infrastructure in
yet.
Mr. Fernsler responded that to protect the public's interest, the City is already mandating
development to provide the infrastructure. The public purpose would be managing the traffic
congestion related to development -- a timing issue. He suggested not denying development
approval indefinitely, but for the next year or such time as the necessary roadwork is completed.
He added that it was unnecessary for them to develop an ordinance; all the City would need is a
traffic impact ordinance. Their plan should give conceptual guidance in how to address in
21
addressing the problem.
Mr. McCash said the City would have to look at the legal aspects of this
Mayor Kranstuber said that if the consultants were not going to actually develop the ordinance,
he would be skeptical of it. So much has gone on in the last 2 or 3 years. If this isn't something
that can be accomplished in the near future, he does not support spending time on it.
Mr. Fernsler responded that a necessary part of their work was a legal study of the various
growth management tools available. It was the conclusion of their legal experts that some form
of traffic impact mitigation regulation in the corridor development is conceivable.
Mayor Kranstuber asked if the majority of Council agreed to extend the consultants' mandate to
include a traffic impact ordinance, is it something they can include.
Mr. Fernsler responded that creation of a traffic impact ordinance was not part of their scope.
That is something they prefer to give the City direction on how to approach. That is not part of
the overlay district.
Mayor Kranstuber asked if more funds were allocated and the City enlarged the scope, would
they be able to write it.
Mr. Fernsler said yes, but there are lawyers who are capable of doing that. Their scope is to
create a Southwest area plan, an overlay district that deals with the form, quality and character
and how to handle development. It does not regulate the timing of development. However,
should the City determine it advisable to add that to the original scope, they will also do that.
Mr. Adamek said that it is probably necessary to achieve any degree of success. Mayor
Kranstuber commented that there is not that much undeveloped land remaining.
Mrs. Boring said that standards would have to be applied consistently no matter the type of
development — industrial, residential, etc. If they are not applied consistently, perhaps to
prohibit a certain type of development from coming in, there is an element of jeopardy.
Mr. Fernsler agreed that there are many legal manifestations . He advised caution because of
those legal pitfalls.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga said she thought this type of traffic analysis was done in the Community Plan.
She inquired if the direction is being given to the consultants to do something much more
extensive in scope in respect to some kind of traffic analysis. She does not favor that.
Mr. Fernsler clarified the issue, stating that they are addressing the question of whether a planned
roadway system can support the planned module to build -out. Build -out might be 30 years away,
so the question is what to do in the meantime. Their task is to provide a mechanism to make sure
that, incrementally, situations are not created that cause traffic problems.
Mr. Reiner said that Bethel Road would be a good example. It takes 45 minutes to traverse that
road to an arterial into downtown Columbus, and it took one full year of revenues for the City of
22
Columbus to fix that zoning debacle. We want to avoid that.
Mayor Kranstuber asked if this could be kept as a parallel issue.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga asked if they were looking for a timeline.
Mr. Fernsler asked if they were in agreement that it is a regulatory timing issue.
Mr. McCash said he would proceed cautiously in addressing that. His concern is to avoid a
situation where the easiest solution is taken to make the developer pay for the roads and
infrastrucure, but ultimately, especially if this is 1 - 2 dwelling units /acre, the cost is passed on
to the homeowners.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga asked if they were suggesting rate of growth ordinances in tiers.
Mr. Fernsler said three examples of possible ordinances are: (1) the rate of growth, no more than
100 units per year; (2) drawing lines and reducing density based on those lines; and (3) for
development approval, there must be demonstration that a short -term traffic problem will not be
created.
Mr. Reiner said that sounds like the direction they want to go.
Mrs. Boring said that sounds appropriate for housing developments, but what about commercial
and economic developments?
Mr. Reiner added that they are not doing an entire master plan, just proposing an ordinance for
the City to consider as a way to manage future problems.
Mr. Fernsler agreed to come back with a conceptual approach of what the ordinance could do for
the City along with the legal aspects.
Mr. Adamek suggested keeping it a parallel issue but not to focus too much energy on it.
Mr. Reiner requested some cost information be provided.
W—ILC -O ROAD
The assumption is that Wilcox Road will remain a through street, but not widened. Is this a valid
assumption?
Results of the interviews with residents reveal a desire to see it closed and traffic re- routed.
Does Council want to investigate that issue? The area has been tested and results say the road
should stay open.
Mr. Adamek said that when Council touched on this earlier, a lot of dollars were focused on the
Woerner- Temple extension and to put Norn Street in. The idea was to de- emphasis Wilcox as
the north -south connector. Recently, Council has put the focus on getting the grid established for
Emerald Parkway over 161/33. The situation will improve once those improvements are made in
23
this immediate area. A lot of that traffic coming off of Tuttle Crossing will start to utilize
Emerald Parkway, and the traffic going west to Avery will use Woerner Temple. Three years
from now, Wilcox Road is not anticipated to be that much of an issue.
Ms. Fierce said the traffic models show that traffic would actually be diverted to Innovation
Drive, the Heather Glen and Heather Glen Blvd.
Mr. McCash added that an issue that needs to be looked at is that there was a lot of commitment
that Wilcox Road was to be terminated /deadended when this land was annexed as part of Tuttle
Crossing. In the original Southwest Area Plan, Wilcox Road south of Brighton Road was to be
diverted so that northbound traffic on Wilcox Road would be forced onto Emerald Parkway
making that part of the north -belt collector road. That diversion south of Brighton Park seems to
have gone away. In the Southwest Area Plan, traffic load on Wilcox Road north of that diverter
was approximately 6,800 cars a day. Under the Community Plan, traffic studies project 17,000
cars a day without that connector -- a big difference in numbers. It may not be necessary to
deadend Wilcox now that the other changes are being made, but the City should look at the prior
commitment to divert north -south traffic to Emerald Parkway.
Ms. Fierce said the number was actually much smaller than 17,000 -- that's why it came out of
the Community Plan. Although the City has the right -of -way for the diverter, would be a very
expensive item.
Mr. McCash said that perhaps there would be a developer in that Southwest area who would be
willing to contribute part of that.
Citizeii- omments Commented that much of the discussion is about what will make the quality
of life better in the future. When they built on Wilcox Road, they were told that section would
be de- emphasized. As far as future quality of life, they moved to Dublin to have their quality of
life improved, and it is greatly diminished by the amount of traffic, noise, diesel fumes, and
exhaust on what they were assured would not be a through road. As far as the 500 homes going
in on Kendallwood, those residents will travel to 270 by coming down Woerner- Temple, turning
right on Wilcox Road, and going right on Tuttle Crossing, because of the bottleneck at Sterling
Software. On Friday night, traffic backs up on Rings Road from Avery Road past the Post
Office. Often it backs from Rings Road to Heather Glen. This is just the beginning, with the
development that is coming in. There are dump trucks trying to pass each other on Wilcox.
Parents cannot let their children play on the bikepath that was installed there for the residents
because it is not safe. The residents petition Council to address this in the near future.
Citiz,-Qu: Asked when the traffic studies were done for the Community Plan
Ms. Fierce responded they were completed in 1995 - 1996.
Citizen: Commented that at that time the only subdivisions in the area were Brighton off of
Rings and Heather Glen, Phase 1. Trinity Park was not there. If the traffic count was accurate
then, all the development now has multiplied that number to 12,000.
Ms. Fierce explained that it was not a traffic count, but a traffic model. They used a number
based on the toll development of approved land uses, including Trinity Park.
24
Mayor Kranstuber said that an attempt is being made to look at the global issue for that area, then
to put this on a fast track and try to do some things in the public's interest. A plan is needed to
address the specific problems on Wilcox Road, but it is only a side issue of the whole topic being
addressed tonight.
Mrs. Boring said the Thoroughfare Plan for the Southwest Area needs to be revisited.
Mayor Kranstuber said a lot of money has been paid to Doyle Clear to do that.
Mr. Fernsler said that from that company's traffic engineering point of view, their primary focus
was to make the traffic flow, not necessarily to mitigate the traffic impact on particular
neighborhoods. His company, however, does not have a traffic engineering focus. From their
perspective, they have observed the impact of the traffic on that neighborhood right now. The
completion of the planned roadway improvements would mitigate that to some extent. It's
clearly debatable whether the planned improvements will fully relieve the situation. It does not
seem definitive one way or another, at this point. It is appropriate, however, for the plan to say
that area may need traffic calming measures to restore a quality of life to those residents.
Whether that should be resolved by dead- ending the street, diverting traffic, or something else
would be the City's decision.
Mayor Kranstuber directed the meeting back to the purpose of obtaining direction for the
consultants in relationship to architectural standards, density issues, setback and land use issues,
buying parkland -- those things that in 50 years will make a difference to the City.
Mr. McCash said that as part of that study, when it becomes a land fronting use and an aesthetic
issue, they need to look at the road analysis. The prettiest road can provide the worst quality of
life for the residents. Memorial Drive connects Rt. 745 and Muirfield, but no houses front on it.
There are some areas of Wilcox Road where it appears feasible to include some curves or
readjustments to make it no longer a straight shot to the north; through traffic will select a
straighter shot. The consultants can look at it; a charge can be made to staff to look at those
things in the whole picture of the Southwest; or staff can look at the engineering, while the
consultants look at the aesthetics, architecture and the overlay.
Mr. Fernsler said that could tell them now that the concept of diverting traffic from Wilcox to
Emerald Parkway in some manner would be an appropriate move.
Mr. McCash moved to direct staff to study the Wilcox Road issue and determine which of these
things are really going to resolve the problem.
Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga suggested that instead of theorizing, the road could be closed for 30 days to
observe the effect of that action.
Mr. McCash said that action would be impossible at present; there is no place to send the traffic
The residents requested that staff include residential input in their review of the road.
25
Mayor Kranstuber asked about implementation or completion of the plan.
Mr. Fernsler said the intention is to come back in mid- February with a progress report on how
these concepts and tools are shaping up. There will be examples of what architectural guidelines
and the concepts for streets, roads and a town center might look like. There will be 2 -3 more
meetings before there is a final product; and if there are no problems, this should be completed in
6 months.
Mayor Kranstuber shared that his concern is that too much will be attempted with one ordinance.
Will there be more than one ordinance?
Mr. Fernsler responded that the overlay district ordinance will incorporate development
standards, which will be relatively straightforward. That is the most important piece and can be
adopted at the end of 6 months. However, unrelated to the development standards, the plan
document, which makes suggestions for investing in the open space system, etc. could take
longer.
Mrs. Boring requested that at the next meeting a large map be provided with the roads more
defined.
Mayor Kranstuber said that although tonight was designed as a work session, there will be other
public hearings for the residents to offer more comments.
Mr. Reiner adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
Anne Clarke
Clerk of Council
26 TACOMNtrr "rGACOMOBvASOUri- IwS']'.JAN
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL COMMUNI'T'Y DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Monday, February 8, 1999, 7:00 p.m.
MEETING MINUTES
ATTF.N DA N CZ;
Council members: John Reiner, Tom McCash, Mayor Kranstuber, Greg Peterson, Cathy Boring,
Cindy Hide - Pittaluga (arrived later)
City staff members: Rick Helwig, Balbir Kindra, Chuck Petty, Lisa Fierce, Marsha Grigsby
Camp Dresser & McKee: Christopher T. Calpin, R. Russell Neff, Steve Sedgwick
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey: Steve Grassbaugh
Mr. Reiner, Committee chair, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., and turned the floor over to
Balbir Kindra. Mr. Kindra explained that the purpose of tonight's meeting was to hear financing
recommendations for the City stormwater project prepared by the engineering firm, Camp Dresser
& McKee. He introduced Mr. Sedgwick.
Mr. Sedgwick reviewed the background on the stormwater master plan to date and explained that the
direction from Council to CDM was to evaluate financing options for the operation, maintenance
and expansion of the proposed stormwater system.
He noted that the projected cost of the stormwater program is $3,361,000 in future capital
expenditures. He added that the City is currently paying $130,000 /year for operational expenses;
that is projected at a future cost of $1,000,000 /year.
He turned the floor over to Mr. Grassbaugh.
Mr. Grassbaugh explained that his task was to outline the legal framework for financing options. He
noted that currently the City is paying for all stormwater costs from taxes -- capital improvements
from the capital improvement fund, and the rest from the general fund. He reviewed several
different types of financing mechanisms.
Tax increment financing. This would only affect new development, the basis being that the
new development is causing the improvement to be made. The disadvantage of this type is
that it is for capital improvements only. The capital improvement cost of this project is $3.3
million, while the ongoing costs are projected to be $1 M /year. Tax increment financing
cannot finance the second amount. Tax increment financing requires a relationship between
the development and the capital improvement. There are some areas in the City where there
would be no relation between the improvements that are indicated and future development.
♦ Impact fees. Again, the development is necessitating the improvement, and a relationship
must exist between the two. Another disadvantage is that the fees would fluctuate wildly, a
different fee for a different project.
♦ Voted taxes: (1) an increase in income tax, which could be dedicated to the stormwater
project; (2) a bond levy for specific capital improvements, such as the schools use; (3) or a
tax levy for operation maintenance. (The disadvantage is all of those have to be voted on.
The advantage is everyone is sharing the tax burden.)
Community Development - 2/8/99 Page 2
♦ Special assessments, which fund only capital improvements, and the property assessed has to
benefit from the improvement.
♦ Stormwater system charge. This is a service charge to users, and the income can be used for
both capital improvements and operation and maintenance costs. There is now a
methodology for determining how much stormwater is generated from a piece of property.
This is determined by looking at the amount of permeable space that is on that property,
knowing that a sidewalk or parking lot is going to generate more stormwater than another
type of surface. There is also a connection fee for new users only, which can be used only
for capital improvements.
He also commented that the jurisdiction is limited to the City of Dublin; however, some of
the stormwater comes from outside the City limits, where it is impossible to legislate or
control the situation.
Mr. Sedgwick explained that following the initial direction of the City, coupled with the information
Mr. Grassbaugh has shared this evening, they have segregated their analysis into two major points:
(2) what type of service area boundaries or geographic limitations exist relative to implementing an
assessment, charge or funding option; (2) what are the cost allocation categories that would be most
appropriate to the City of Dublin's citizens.
Mr. Sedgwick highlighted the critical points for consideration:
They evaluated the entire master plan study area including all annexations as of December 14, 1998,
a total of approximately 25 - 30 square miles. They looked at the watershed, that is everything that
would flow stormwater into and through the community. Between those two areas, there exists an
area that is called exclusive expansion area, where the City does have the capability to provide
services. Then there is the area that has not been negotiated yet with the City of Columbus or
surrounding entities. They looked at all 4 areas to determine the largest watershed possible to
identify the City's needs and how the City's system would function. The smallest area is that area
within the existing City limits. They tried to identify what the impact of charges would be on the
people within the two service areas, i.e., the existing City limits and the entire study area. Then,
looking at all 4 geographical areas, they evaluated: (1) the impact of what they could do with future
development and land use only, and (2)what they could do with all development, existing and future.
They compared the impact of charges on future land use /new development only within the existing
City limit compared to charges extended to the negotiated service area. The cost per acre /year
would decrease by approximately 50% if it was decided to negotiate service into the larger area.
Similarly, looking at the capital need for new development only, the cost would have to be around
$1400 /acre developed within the existing City limits to cover the total of $3,361,000 funding over a
10 -year period, which would make it $336,000 /year. However, including the entire negotiated
service area would cut the cost by half to approximately $744 /acre.
Next, they considered the impervious area. They took the same parameters and evaluated assessing
charges to the developer only for the development for the impervious coverage, the amount of
ground covered by the development. That is what generates the runoff. A similar ratio in numbers
of 50% exists between the two discussion areas (City limits vs. negotiated service area). The charge
per acre would be higher if applying it to the impervious area only.
Communitv Development - 2/8/99 Page 3
The charge of Council was evaluation for future land use only. However, based on Mr.
Grassbaugh's recommendations on what is legally upheld in the State of Ohio, they also evacuated
the scenario of existing development plus new development. Using the same parameters, the cost
dropped to $277 /acre within City limits and to $176 /acre for total negotiated area.
Doing the same analysis for only impervious coverage, the cost increases, but again, the charge is
only for the impervious area. The cost would range from $920 for capital within the City limits to
$610 /acre taking in the entire negotiated service area.
Their first recommendation is for a total system charge to all existing plus new development using a
fee for impervious coverage, which would be $1.75 /month per equivalent residential unit (ERU),
with no connection fee. All non - residential properties would be charged according to how many
multiples of that residential unit they would have at $1.75 /ERU. This charge would generate a
steady revenue source to finance the goal of $3.3M capital and $1M annual operation and
maintenance cost.
The second recommendation uses a connector fee to make the new developer pay a little more of the
capital cost. Using the same analysis, they came up with a monthly charge of $1.31 /month per ERU,
including a connection fee of $3,000 per impervious acre of land to take care of that potion of the
capital that is segregated out as being impacted by new development. This method would generate a
variable revenue source for capital improvement projects; the revenue would be dependent on the
rate of growth.
Mr. Sedgwick provided a chart of 13 other communities in the State of Ohio who have a stormwater
management utility with charges to generate the total means for capital and operating and
maintenance, i.e. their entire system cost and the various adopted fees.
Mrs. Boring inquired if those communities were as economically healthy as Dublin.
Mr. Sedgwick responded that Hudson and Mason appeared similar to Dublin. They are financially
stable, are in the process of moving forward in many areas, and have decided to make their
stormwater systems a project paid for by all the users. He pointed out that the recommended $1.75
is near the bottom of the range of fees adopted in the State of Ohio.
Mr. Reiner inquired how this would be paid if adopted.
Mr. Sedgwick responded that there are two different rate structures for the Council to consider. In
either case, he suggests that the Council authorize further evaluation of how the system would work
for Dublin. The first analysis would take approximately 6 months to allow for the present billing
system of the City of Columbus for its customers to be amended, through an agreement with them,
to take the Dublin customers in. Their billing system has a mechanism which allows a line item to
be added on the bill for Dublin stormwater usage. In preliminary discussions, Mr. Reiner has found
the City of Columbus receptive to negotiating a service fee. Along with that, they recommend
discussing policy issues, such as when do you start to charge the developer. Can the City of
Columbus start that charge at 40% of construction? 80 %?
Another issue is when or how properties are charged which have no occupants, no water bill, yet
have significant impervious area. Should a legal fee be paid to have a civil action taken on that
Communitv Development - 2/8/99 Page 4
property, or would it be more appropriate to wait until new development comes in, and charge it for
back fees or just from date of service? Another issue considered in Mason and Hudson is, if the
owner provides some type of benefit -- perhaps the City does not have to provide the maintenance or
provide as big a pipe -- should they receive a reduction in charge because they are reducing the cost
to the City of Dublin?
They presented a brief summary of projected outlay of cash. With Mr. Kindra's assistance, they
have tried to quantify for Council consideration how this budget would impact the City. The
numbers need to be refined to assure that the program can be phased in to be consistent with
everything else the City is doing to satisfy new development. There are other options: charging
every single - family detached structure as a base unit, or averaging all the residential properties
together. Those options can be brought back to Council for consideration. Should Council decide
one of those is the preferred direction, it would then take approximately six months to finalize the
billing system with the City of Columbus.
Mayor Kranstuber inquired if the cities included on the chart were representative, or the only cities
in the State of Ohio who have done this.
Mr. Grassbaugh responded that those cities are the only ones. He added that the City of Wooster
was the first. At that time, it was taken to the Supreme Court when challenged, and the ruling
favored the City.
Mayor Kranstuber commented that Dublin then would be the 6th city in Ohio to establish such a
system or the 13th, if the others on the chart are completed first. He pointed out that Toledo and
Sheffield Lake have a large body of water next to them and problems associated with that. Newark
has the Buckeye Lake dam problem. Hudson, Kent and Cincinnati also have the proximity of water.
Upper Arlington has no tax base, so it is forced to charge a fee. The only town demographically
similar is Mason. Does Dublin have such a terrific problem that they want to be one of the first
cities in Ohio to implement such a tax on its residents.
Mr. Sedgwick pointed out that there are 325 such systems operating in the United States, and four
other Ohio communities considering it. The idea is rapidly growing as a way to more fairly charge
for the stormwater needs of a community.
Mayor Kranstuber suggested that most of those systems are located in cities flanked by large bodies
of water. Dublin is flat land and has a great tax base.
Mr. Grassbaugh responded that most of these systems have come about because of EPA regulations
and having to find a source of funds to pay for stormwater system improvements. Fifteen years ago,
this theory was unheard of; it has taken hold quickly.
Mr. Kranstuber inquired about the suggested assessment for new development according to the
value of the impact they have on the community -- how does that fit with the fact that they are not
supposed to impact the community with excessive water flowing off the development?
Mr. Sedgwick agreed that has been made the mandate to new development, however the City's
initial design did not size downstream facilities adequate to carry existing flow. The City has
grown so rapidly, the need could not be anticipated. Even though new development will keep the
Community Development - 2/8/99 Page 5
How the same, the natural flow is too much for the downstream components.
Mr. Grassbaugh noted that the developers are not charged from the aspect of impact on stormwater
runoff, but for the purpose of recapturing some of the capital costs of the system.
Mayor Kranstuber would like to see a study comparing Dublin's problem with other communities,
as to degree of seriousness. There are a couple of areas where a problem exists, but not that many.
Mr. Sedgwick said that Mr. Calpin could give a technical analysis, but the quickest comparison
could be made by examining the proposed fee. The $1.75 recommended for Dublin is much less
than the national average of $2.92 /month per unit in a comparable analysis because its needs are that
much less.
Mayor Kranstuber said that he would assume the lesser fee indicates that Dublin has less that
average stormwater problems.
Mrs. Boring commented that Dublin already has a significant surcharge for water and sewer and
additional tap fees. This could be a case of "enough is enough." Perhaps some of this surcharge
could be rolled off into the utility fund.
Mr. Kindra responded that Dublin's stormwater system is a fairly good one. The $3.3M is for the
capital cost to upgrade the existing system and could be paid over ten years. The major ongoing
expense which is currently not funded is operational and maintenance costs. Right now, those costs
are small because they have focused on containment of the problem, and not been geared to bringing
the system up to speed. The $1M operation and maintenance cost is a projected future need; with the
present system, the present cost is less. The attempt has been made to look at the future cost and
provide options to address that. Regarding connection fees and charges, those are dedicated funds
and the City cannot tap into those. That is the reason for researching other options.
Mr. Helwig commented that two - thirds of the capital need, $2.2M, is already programmed into the
adopted 5 -year CIP, and Council could include the additional cost in the CIP.
Mayor Kranstuber inquired if this is an overkill. Dublin is spending more than most cities on this
because the money is available, and so the City has a better system than most. Therefore, if the City
does not have a major problem, why would it want to be one of the first cities in Ohio to add a
surcharge for its stormwater system?
Mr. Helwig answered that this is an array of options in response to the adopted stormwater plan.
The capital cost can continue to be budgeted. As the City grows larger and there is more buildout,
the operation and maintenance budget which is now $300,000 will be insufficient. But, these are
only options.
Mr. Calpin said that one underlying premise for these options being presented, and one reason many
other communities are adopting the stormwater management system, is that it is a more uniform way
to assess the charge to the source of the problem. Impervious coverage is really what stormwater is
based upon, not the value of the property, or the income.
Mayor Kranstuber said that there appear to be two issues to address: (1) how bad is the problem, and
Community Develooment - 2/8/99 Page 6
(2) if a decision is made to assess some of the costs to someone, should it be put on the backs of the
developers or the income taxpayers? If the answer is no to both of these, there is no need to pursue
that option further.
Mr. McCash asked if the proposed charge of $1.31 /month per month per unit covers not only the
$3.3M in upgrade, but the future operation and maintenance.
Mr. Sedgwick responded that the number was based only on the operation and maintenance cost,
and the other $3,000 fee for impervious area for new development was for capital.
Mr. McCash asked if this was set up to be uniform on a per unit basis for corporate residential units
for commercial properties.
Mr. Sedgwick answered that the commercial would be charged by dividing their impervious area by
the equivalent residential unit.
Mr. McCash said that the $3.3M is to bring the existing system up to speed. If the General Fund
monies are allocated for operation and maintenance, could the $3,000 connector fee go toward that
expense?
Mr. Grassbaugh responded that the legal theory is that the connection fee be used for recovering
capital improvement expenditures.
Mr. McCash added that they could if the City could recapture only up to the $3.3M, then it would
have to drop off from there. He added that the City does not assess residents for roadway
maintenance, which is also $1 M per year. He has a concern with adding a monthly charge to
residents in view of the high level of income tax the City receives. How would the residents feel
about being charged $1.31 /month for their unit plus whatever Columbus charges to do the billing.
Mr. Sedgwick said the cost would probably be between 6 cents and 45 cents /per bill.
Mr. McCash responded they would probably need more staff to administer it, so there could be more
administrative costs added to bring it back to a zero net loss to the City. So that would bring the fee
up to $2.50 per unit.
Mr. Sedgwick said that the City budget is presently $100,000 to $130,000 /year in operating costs.
The $1.31 takes it to $1M. In reality, a slow move would be made towards that number. It would
not need to be the initial charge, but a good number as the system builds up.
Mr. Peterson said that the $1M projected operating cost is for build -out of the City. He inquired if
the amount needed could be received solely through connection fees required of new development
without allocating some monthly fee for existing development.
Mr. Grassbaugh said that there needs to be a relationship between the development and the need for
improvement. In Dublin, much of the improvement needed is in areas no development will occur.
He reviewed the list of recommended capital costs by watershed.
Mr. McCash asked if there is zero capital cost for fixing the stormwater system in one's
Community Development - 2/8/99 Page 7
neighborhood, how is a charge of $1.75 /month justified ($1.31 being o/m costs)?
Mr. Peterson asked if you can charge a connection fee without the O &M fee. What if the
improvements being done in a subdivision run around $72,000, and there are more homes built than
anticipated and the income from the connector fee exceeds the $72,000? Can the rest of the money
be used elsewhere in the City for capital improvements?
Mr. Grassbaugh responded that would be acceptable. The justification for the connector fee is
simply for the use of a million dollar+ system, not for a specific amount of capital costs.
Mr. McCash asked if there needs to be any sort of a rationale between the connector fee and reality.
Columbus has both a tap fee and a capacity fee.
Mr. Grassbaugh commented that the City already has two - thirds of the capital costs of the system
covered; what is unresolved is covering the cost of O /M.
Mrs. Boring asked about the developable areas listed on the watershed list.
Mr. Sedgcwick explained that areas that have already been committed by the City for development
are not listed on this list; it includes areas still open for development. The reason is that it was
questionable whether it would be legal to charge them the fees, since they already went through the
approval process with the present regulations and standards in place.
Mr. Reiner commented that whether Dublin decides to adopt fees or not, this study is a sign of how
progressive Dublin is. Many other cities are beginning to move toward this as a way of recouping
costs. The EPA water quality, including stormwater, is a big issue. It is also the fairest way of
allocating the cost and keeping up with the cost of continued development. However, it can be
considered another form of taxation and that may be difficult to justify, for a wealthy city. It is a fair
tax against a real expense. His view is that the financial condition of the City is healthy enough to
bypass the additional tax.
Mr. Reiner thanked CDM for an excellent presentation and Mr. Grassbaugh from Squire, Sanders &
Dempsey.
Mayor Kranstuber also thanked the consultants for putting everything in a 30- minute presentation
yet being clearly understandable.
[As the consultants cleared their presentation materials, Council roundtable ensued.]
Mayor Kranstuber commented that his overall impression was that there is no pressure at the
moment to adopt utility fees. The City is enjoying tremendous success in economic development, so
he would have a difficult time endorsing a tax. The citizen bears the burden in terms of traffic
congestion from all the business coming in; they also ought to have the benefit. In terms of fairness,
it is not fair to the citizen who has no stormwater difficulties and never will. The only fee he could
consider is the connection fee for new builds, but at this point in time he does not favor either
option.
Mr. Reiner said that he agrees. However, with all the road projects being completed in the next few
Community Development - 2/8/99 Page 8
years, how much will be needed to maintain those? They may need to revisit this option then.
Mrs. Boring commented that it was wise of the City to hire CDM to do this study; consequently,
Council and staff are now cognizant of the whole picture. Her view, at this point in time, centers
around what services the City should provide its citizens and at what cost. There are basic services
she feels should be provided -- trash collecting, streets cleared and also stormwater maintenance --
free of charge. Regarding connection fees for new builds, she is undecided. The northeast corner of
Dublin probably should have been zoned differently. All the creeks there will continue to present a
problem. Why should they charge new builds when Council is responsible for allowing that zoning
go in there. Make them pay for Council's mistake? She would need more information to justify it.
At the present time, her opinion is that it should be a basic service provided by the City, especially in
view of the other utilties.
Mr. Reiner commented that it could be considered fair that those who move in later share in an
obligation to pay for an existing system.
Mayor Kranstuber responded that the citizen pays his fair share when forced to sit in ever - increasing
traffic from commercial development.
Mr. Reiner said that the impervious area fits with the environmental focus of Dublin.
Mrs. Boring added that the trend seems to penalize the new homebuilder, penalize them if they want
to build on a treed lot, penalize them if they're over 50 and they want to build a ranch instead of a
two -story (by charging for more impervious water area). Does the City want to attract people
who'll love their neighborhoods, or is the focus only on getting all the fees permissible? Let's give
them a break.
Mr. McCash said they have gone through all the impact analysis and the City does have a $3.3M
problem. In relation to other communities, that may not be all that bad, but how is that addressed?
The City is already allocating money in the CIP for a large portion of that, and probably could fund
the remainder the same way. The second issue is how to pay for operation and maintenance of the
system. EPA is adding stormwater quality regulations now for cities of a certain size. There may be
a future time when Council will want to consider allocating this cost to the citizens. However, the
City does not do this for park or roadway maintenance, and it seems inappropriate to tax the citizens
when options and resources exist to deal with it another way. The issue regarding charging new
development can be addressed later. Presently, the City has a stormwater ordinance, and
requirements assuring clean water and that post development discharge be no greater than pre -
development.
Mr. Peterson commented that expectations are important. People expect the City to pay for these
type of costs. He does not favor monthly management fees. However, if a developer coming into
the neighborhood is aware of the fees, then their expectation is different. He does not favor
additional fees for those whose homes are already built. If the cost of stormwater management does
escalate in the future, then the City can revisit the subject and make a different financial
arrangement, if necessary. In summary, he does not favor maintenance fees for existing homes, but
he would consider connection fees for new development.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga commented that they have recognized the issue and addressed the problem; that,
Community Development - 2/8/99 Page 9
in itself; made the exercise worthwhile. The City has a generous budget and there is an expectation
from residents that with those resources and good management policies, the City should be able to
deal with the problem. She does believe the fees are equitable as a tax situation, but does favor
dealing with the storinwater issue immediately. A delay would deteriorate the situation more.
Either take it on as a capital expenditure or take it out of the general funds. A tax would not be
welcomed by the citizens at this time in view of the fact that the City raised the Rec Center fees this
year. Justification of stormwater management fees would be hindered also by the economic
incentives the City is considering for Cardinal Health. It can be difficult to understand providing
$2.5 million to Cardinal, albeit long -term there will be a return, and then nickel and dime the
citizens in this way. There is a need for the City to reconcile these things in the citizens' minds. She
encouraged the City to deal with the issue immediately. If it is taken out of the General Fund,
inform the community what is going on. That way, if other issues come up, the City can remind the
public that the fast priority is to take care of the more serious needs of the citizens including the
stormwater system maintenance. She is willing to look at fees for new builds.
Mr. Reiner summarized that four Council members are willing to consider the connection fee for
new builds at a later time. He favors it, primarily because Mr. Kindra has made him aware that the
system is going to need a lot of attention soon, and there is no funding for it. The consensus is not to
proceed with implementing fees at this ti
Mr. Kindra pointed out that not only single - family homes will be affected with the stormwater
problem, but also commercial development, like Cardinal Health.
Mr. McCash inquired if the connection fee could be done on a watershed basis. It makes sense for
those watersheds with the worst problems to carry a higher connection charge. If it slows down
development in those watersheds, that may be a good thing.
Mr. Kindra responded that this was discussed with the consultant at great length. The $3,000 is
based on the entire system. The City currently has not differentiated among watersheds. It would
be an administrative nightmare to charge different rates for different watersheds. It is better to
simplify the situation.
Mr. Reiner suggested putting the maintenance costs in the CIP.
Mayor Kranstuber moved to adjourn and enter into executive session for the purpose of City
Manager evaluation and contract discussion. Mr. McCash seconded the motion. Vote on the motion
- Mr. Reiner - yes, Mr. McCash - yes, Ms. Hide - Pittaluga - yes, Mrs. Boring - yes, Mr. Peterson -
yes; Mayor Kranstuber - yes.
Mr. Reiner adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
Anne Clarke
Clerk of Council
ecom W .mnitcAco.ndmvA2899x&
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
MEETING OF THE WHOLE
Monday, March 8, 1999, 6:00 p.m.
MEETING MINUTES
ATTENDANCE
Council members present were: Mayor Kranstuber, Cathy Boring, John Reiner, Tom McCash, Bob
Adamek, Greg Peterson (Cindy Hide Pittaluga excused)
City staff members: Kim Littleton, Lisa Fierce, John'ralentino, Rick Helwig, Balbir Kindra, Steve Smith
Consultants: John Fernsler and David Rouse of Wallace, Roberts & Todd; Randall G. Arendt, National
Lands Trust.
The Dublin City Council Community Development Committee Meeting of the Whole met Monday, March
8, 1999, in Council Chambers for discussion of the Southwest Area Plan. Mayor Kranstuber called the
meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. He noted that a report on the recent meeting with Bill Yoder, Steve Basil,
Doyle Clear of Barton Aschmann, and City Planner, Kim Littleton, will be provided to Council in both
written form and at the 3/15/99 Council meeting. He asked that someone from the Planning Department
meet with Mr. Yoder and Mr. Basil and help determine the format of the report. He noted that references to
that discussion may come up in tonight's meeting. He turned the floor over to Mr. Littleton.
Mr. Littleton gave an overview of the subject. He noted that the purpose of the previous meeting on
January 11, 1999 was for the consultants to receive Council direction on several issues relative to the
planning and development of the southwest area of Dublin. A summary of those issues was forwarded to
Council and is available to interested parties. In accordance with the direction received from Council, the
consultants have developed a concept plan, which is the basis of the report submitted to Council last week.
He explained that the consultants will highlight key items in that report with a slide presentation.
Discussion will follow. FIe introduced John Fernsler and David Rouse of Wallace, Roberts & Todd and
Randall G. Arendt, National Lands Trust, an organization that promotes conservation design and
development.
Mr. Fernsler explained that they are now at the midway point in the planning process for the Southwest
Area. They began by looking at what was happening in the Southwest Area -- development is happening
rapidly, and by listening to the community. The consensus of those interviewed was: (1) a need for
higher development standards; (2) the desire for a unique focus in the Southwest; (3) the importance of
open space; (4) the need to address the problems related to rapid growth, especially traffic congestion.
He added that direction from Council at the January 11, 1999 meeting was that the Southwest plan:
(1) provide guidelines to raise the bar of expectations of development quality. This can be done in two
ways: first, by precluding the undesirable conditions -- repetitive, monotonous conditions, absence
of adequate landscape setback; and secondly, by encouraging desirable characteristics --
architectural diversity, use of natural materials and native landscaping.
(2) provide for an interconnected open space to retain the rural character of the Southwest;
(3) do not revisit future land uses established in the Community Plan, except to recommend minor
modifications where appropriate;
(4) articulate the residential density in greater detail
Since that meeting, they have developed a concept plan which consists of five elements:
(1) a hierarchy of scenic roadway character, which creates the image of the Southwest;
(2) the retention of open space woven into the community fabric as opposed to being set aside in
parks;
(3) a land use hierarchy, which would step down the density moving outward from Dublin, step up the
proportion of open space as it nears the agricultural area, and move against the higher density
development outside the jurisdiction of Dublin;
(4) an overlay zoning ordinance setting higher standards for development quality;
(5) the creation of an activity center.
He summarized the 3 -step process in development of the plan:
(1) Define the specific nature of the town. This was done by looking at the pattern of development,
the way it is changing; talking to citizen representatives -- stakeholders in the community; studying
the Community Plan; consideration of the legal limitations; and finally, Council's vision for the
Southwest area.
(2) Development of the plan concepts, which they will present tonight.
(2) Articulating those concepts as a plan document and an ordinance which will be brought back to
Council in May to go through a series of public hearings leading to a final adoption of the
legislation in July, in time to meet the Council's requested time frame.
IIe introduced David Rouse to review the existing characteristics.
Mr. David Rouse commented that as a part of the first phase of the work they mapped and analyzed
existing land use patterns, development trends, natural resources and elements of community character in
the Southwest. He pointed out the high intensity employment corridor along I -270 tansitioning to
residential areas mixed with older industrial down the Avery Road corridor. Moving to the west, it is more
rural, agricultural. There is a real transition of land use. There is newer office use along Emerald Parkway
and newer residential subdivision, all mixing with older industrial. The issue is how can all those land
uses work together. Additionally, there is the rural, agricultural landscape to retain.
He showed a map of current development activity in the area. It shows approved subdivisions -- under
construction, about to built, or pending. The momentum for growth is moving to the west along the Avery
Road corridor with the indication of moving past it into the agricultural area. These are the areas where
change is happening or imminent.
He showed a map of the future thoroughfare plan for the area contained in the Community Plan. Two
issues involved are: (1) much of the road system needs to be built to support future development and the
timing of those roadway improvements to keep pace with development (to avoid problems such as Wilcox
Road and cut - through traffic); (2) the character of the roadway development, i.e. Emerald Parkway vs. the
rural character of Shier -Rings Road.
He commented on natural and cultural resources. What is special in the Southwest area that is desirable to
preserve in the future? Historic farmhouses, woodlands, hedgerows, and the stream corridor are desirable
to maintain the community character.
He pointed out the existing and committed development along I -270. To the west of that is the established
suburban pattern. Right now, there is in essence a line between the existing development and the rural
landscape. An area in transition and ripe for change is south of the 270 corridor, Tuttle Road, and the
northwest corner at 33 and 161 and Amlin -- a cluster of homes in the rural, agricultural area. What they
see is a sharp contrast between what the Southwest Area has been and a rapid change in image and growth.
The emerging plan concept contains these elements: articulating the land use plan that was originally
developed in the community plan; articulating the green network; developing a roadway system that is not
just a means of moving people from one area to another, but also as a way of viewing the character of the
Southwest; raising the standard for residential, subdivision design; and creating a community activity
center.
The Community Plan called for the development of land in the Southwest area to be in an homogenous
category of 1 to 2 units per acre (with some vague indication of a community activity center) in contrast to
the higher density development outside the jurisdiction of the City of Dublin.
One consideration in evaluating desired development is soil conditions. A soil conservation survey
revealed that moving from east to west, from Amlin Village to the west, there is a predominance of
Kokomo silty clay loam, a soil type characterized by a high seasonal water table and poor drainage. This
soil is the reason for reported drainage problems in that area. The soil in the remainder of the area is the
darker, more suitable soil for development. It is possible to build on Kokomo soil, but there will be issues
of drainage and flooding. The less suitable soil for development could lead to a preference for maintaining
the open space characteristic in the Southwest.
Moving from the intense development of the I -270 corridor west to Avery, Ilouchard and beyond proposes
a decrease in density in tiers. In the undeveloped area west of the Avery Road, they propose a suburban
conservation district, where density would be at a moderate 2 units per acre, existing in areas of open
space. This is in line with the upper level of density proposed in the Community Plan for this area.
Moving further out into the area of the questionable soil, they propose a rural conservation district with a
lower density of one unit per acre, also consistent with the Community Plan, providing significant areas of
open space, which will maintain the rural character of the Southwest. Consistent with Council's direction
at the. January meeting, they suggest consideration of a hierarchy of land use that steps down in density and
steps up in open space as a green belt surrounding the western edge of the City. They propose refinement
of the future land use plan in the Community Plan, which indicates all the area as 1- 2 units /acre. They
suggest part of it as 2 and the rest as 1, with both areas incorporating mandatory open space dedication.
OPEN SPACE
Mr. Rouse introduced Randall Arendt to discuss the use of open space in housing developments.
Mr. Arendt commented that many communities adopt community plans, but do not follow through with the
nessary tools to execute them. No community would plan to take a rural area and turn it into wall -to -wall
subdivision. However, conventional development delivers nothing more than lawns and cul -de -sacs
because most conventional zoning asks nothing more.
He pointed out that there are two types of potential conservation areas, primary and secondary. Primary
conservation areas make up ten percent of the land. In this community (as well as many others), 90% of
the land is suitable for development, but developing it to that extent would make it resemble New Jersey or
Long Island. They have looked at Dublin's resources. Although this is a community of many landowners
and many developers, it could be developed as a planned community. Communities that are concerned
with the outcome have master planning concepts incorporated in a master zoning ordinance. There could
be 20 landowners, but each piece of land is valued as to potential development area, potential conservation
area. hn no instance does the landowner end up having less density than he would normally have overall.
Land would be developed more densely in some areas than others.
Mr. Arendt showed slides with examples of this time of planning:
(1) A subdivision in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, in which 50% of the buildable land was preserved
in addition to the wet woods, which was unbuildable. Over the last five years, other subdividers
have copied this developer's example because it was so successful. In a single community, there
are 500 acres of prime farmland preserved at no cost to the community and no sacrifice to the
developer -- land with a cash value of $2.5M. All the density was built into half of the land; the
other half left as open space.
(2) A subdivision in Lake Elmo, Minnesota (Washington County). Along the highway there is a
farmland preservation area -- the homes are set way back from the road, so the developer is able to
get more value out of the building lots. There is also a village green, playfields, and hedgerows
along an ingress and egress. It retains the rural character and indigenous wildlife. There are
bikeways and jogging trails.
(3) An upscale community in Lake County, Illinois (north of Chicago), where a 50 -acre cornfield was
turned into a community of lovely homes. Part of the fields were left in agriculture use to serve as
a buffer from the road; there are a series of ponds, landscape elements which also serve as
stormwater areas and wildlife areas. There are large homes built on small lots surrounded by open
space. The distance between the back yards, however, is large because of the open space. The
value of these lots is similar to those bordering golf courses. The developer did not have to spend
$GM creating view. It was already present; he just built around it.
(4) Grays Lake, Illinois, a small prairie crossing, with homes built around a village green, a lake,
fields, trails, a lot of wildlife.
(5) Hawks Nest, Wisconsin, which has a 15 -acre village green, homes back up to a wildflower
meadow.
(6) A subdivsion in which single family homes were mixed with 3 -unit dwellings (designed to look
like single - family). There is a higher density, but not the feel of it. He noted that Dublin should
create a vision for people of all ages, a place to live the entire lifetime.
IIe concluded that his objective was to open the vistas of Council's imagination as to the type of creative
housing developments that could fit into the Southwest Area.
ROADWAY SYSTEM
Mr. Fernsler commented that Dublin has different types of roadways which should have different types of
landscape treatment, both in the public right of way and how private development happens next to it. It
also has special character roads, such as Avery Road, that need a unified landscape treatment. Suburban
character roadways with a suburban conservation district are likely to have a tighter, more ornamental
landscape in keeping with the density. Moving to the west, the rural character roadways will be more
informal, naturalistic, with indigenous plantings, open spaces and views.
He showed samples of possible landscapes, both a rural treatment, and one that is more typical for current
Dublin, a combination of berming and ornamental planting. Both could have their place in different parts
of the Southwest Area.
RFSIDFNTIAI D S1 GN
Referring to Council's direction from the previous meeting to raise the standard of residential design, Mr.
Fernsler suggested a two- pronged approach to accomplish this: precluding the bad and monotonous, and
encouraging the desirable features. He further suggested that this is best accomplished by encouraging use
of a variety of natural materials, and building on the indigenous character of the community.
COMM I INI'I'Y ACTIVITY C
This is an idea from the Community Plan, a good one, but there is a need to be very specific about its
purpose. They propose four program elements: (1) A combination of open space, recreation and civic
activities. Through the open space network, which would converge at this center, kids can ride their bikes
to school, church, library or the community center. (2) Neighborhood commercial; (3) Higher - density
housing to allow 24 -hour activity that is appropriate for a village center; (4) A special character for the
area might be re- created here, such as in Old Dublin. If there is going to be an identifiable focus in the
southwest, an icon or such, it should be located here.
Implementation options for the community activity center: 1. By zoning designation, (2) flexibly
responding to developer initiatives through the overlay district, or (3) by site acquisition, maintaining
development control.
DISCUSSION:
Mayor Kranstuber thanked the consultants for their presentation and inquired if the primary purpose of
tonight's meeting was to serve as a mid- course correction.
Mr. Fernsler responded that it was to present the ideas in one sitting, and to "push the envelope" of
Council's expectations, giving Council the opportunity to pull them back or give additional guidance.
Mr. Reiner commented that he liked the logic behind the grouping of units. If they implement much of
what was shown tonight, they will need some very progressive developers. The idea of multi- family units
with the appearance of single family is attractive, along with the use of greenspace. However, he believes
that Council was expecting more specific direction from the consultants. Since this is in the preliminary
stage, perhaps more specific guidelines are coming. He inquired about the rationale for heavy density on
the site plan (Fig. 5, Future Land Use), as indicated in orange.
Mr. Fernsler responded that the Community Plan identifies it as such; it does not reflect their
recommendation. He noted that it is outside Dublin's jurisdiction. However, consideration of that was
what led them to recommend the accompanying land use as they did. The recommended suburban land
use is a transition from the heavy density of that area. Moving to the west, the density decreases. They
recommended land use inside the exclusive annexation area, but they did not attempt to do so for those
areas outside the Dublin border.
Mr. Reiner said there appeared to be a possibility that it will be 5 units /acre. He requested that they bring
back several suggestions for each area at the next meeting -- a plan of action. He favors the one plan Mr.
Arendt presented. It would have the higher density Dublin needs, incorporate some novel ideas, create a
positive environment, and preserve the rural character,
Mr. Fernsler responded to the comment about progressive developers. In their initial stakeholder
interviews, developers were positive. Where they see a product that can help them make a better profit,
they are open to new ideas.
He added that in response to the request for specific architectural guidelines, they have suggested the two -
pronged approach: be specific about the kinds of conditions not allowed (monotony, blank facade, change
in materials, absence of adequate setback and bufferings); then encourage conditions desired -- the use of
natural materials, etc. They do not recommend mandating them in any quantifiable fashion because there
is a difference between what is legally tolerable for a private developer to require on his own development
vs. what a municipality can mandate. Compliance would be based on a design review, which will allow
continued creativity. They will provide sample visuals at the next meeting.
He elaborated on the idea for open space development. They strongly suggest that the incorporation of
open space, as Mr. Arendt depicted, is what would truly make the Southwest special. Although
architectural standards are necessary, they are not sufficient to make the area special. Ile added that they
have Council's direction on architectural and landscaping standards, but they need an endorsement of the
open space concept. If received, they will provide specifics at the next meeting
Mayor Kranstuber inquired if the consultants will be providing a specific ordinance to mandate that P & Z
conducts the architectural review.
Mr. Fernsler said that they would provide an ordinance that in essence says that P & Z shall use this
"bible" in the review of aesthetics for subdivision development. Those standards could be part of the
ordinance or attached to the ordinance.
Mayor Kranstuber clarified that it would then allow every home to undergo a review process. He wants a
change from the current process.
Mr. Fernsler said that they will come back to the next meeting with the contents of the guidelines. There
are some things that probably should be reviewed administratively; other things should be reviewed by
P & Z and appealed to Council, if necessary. The next step will be to determine the threshholds.
Mayor Kranstuber clarified that the legislation that will be drafted will not be designed for the Southwest
only, but for the entire City.
Mr. Fernsler responded that their direction had been to draft legislation for the Southwest Area. If the
direction now is to encompass it to the entire City, it will change the nature of their work.
Mayor Kranstuber requested that the characteristics of it should allow it to be applied City-wide, if desired.
Mr. Fernsler also noted that the original direction was for a single ordinance, but they are now preparing
multiple things: refinement of underlying land use categories, suggesting an overlay pertaining to roadway
corridors and architectural design. Is this one or separate ordinances?
Mayor Kranstuber said that although he has now been reassured by their presentations, his earlier response
to reading the plan concept report was that it was too general or esoteric. He assumes this is intended as
only the starting point. At the end of the process, he does not want another book that just sits on the shelf.
Mr. Fernsler responded that they have no interest in doing another academic document. Their intent is to
change the way the Southwest Area is going to look with tools that will work.
Mr. Rouse added that their focus from this point on will be more specific; they needed to get direction
from Council before proceeding.
Mayor Kranstuber commented that they have not used the word "neotraditional," but there are several
references that are similar, such as clustering houses, then opening the area from there. He added that in
the past there has been a problem with developers providing models of what they will build, then building
only the cheapest one and leaving out the ones that would make the subdivision attractive.
Mr. Arendt said that in the past he has been called in to help correct some projects that were failing. To
correct the problems, he generally laid it out following the natural features -- the landscape. Architects are
not trained to think of landscape. There is a need to identify architectural designs that will fit on lots that
are 60', 70', or 80' wide. Ile can provide a book with samples of ideas, but not a prescription.
Mayor Kranstuber asked if there would be an ordinance addressing this.
Mr. Arendt said there would be both a subdivision ordinance and a zoning ordinance
Mayor Kranstuber commented that the samples shown on the slides seemed to rely more on creative
landscaping that is present in Dublin.
Mr. Arendt responded that they relied on the natural landscape. In the Southwest Area, with good
landscaping standards, this would be lush. The kokomo soils with the high water table would need very
little irrigation in the summer -- they can smash the drainage tiles and bring hydrology back. Sycamores
and Red Maples should grow well.
Mr. Fernsler commented regarding neotraditional, that suburban conservation districts share some
characteristics, such as compact development to retain open space. However, the motivation of
neotraditional is to import an inappropriate sense of urbanism. What they are attempting is quite the
contrary -- to retain an indigenous sense of the rural.
Mr. McCash asked about their concept of protection of the rural areas -- where are they In townships,
country areas, or incorporated areas?
Mr. Fernsler said it depended on what state it was. In Ohio, it means incorporated.
Mr. McCash said the typical town village concept keeps those open as farm area. FIow do they address
those still being viable farms with their size and being within an incorporated area? Usually, farmers do
not want their farms to become part of an incorporated area because they don't want to pay income taxes.
Mr. Arendt responded that fanning is changing rapidly. Cows, pigs, poultry are no longer part of the
scene; it is instead metro farming with high value crops like strawberries or raspberries. The farmland
could also be given to a land trust and leased to farmers, an equestrian facility, or a boarding stable, or it
could be converted to nursery or horticultural operations. At worst, it goes back to a prairie or a
conservation meadow. Although it is not as productive financially, it is productive in terms of maintaining
quality of life, property values and ecology. The open space is typically owned by one of four entitities:
(1) Non - common space which the original farmer continues to own, or a country estate where a person
buys 15 acres and builds a home and stables, or a wholesale nursery;
(2) Common space would be owned by the homeowners association;
(3) Land bust;
(4) Municipality.
Ordinances would give Council the discretion of giving small density credit in exchange for endowment
monies to a land trust.
In a large subdivision, there may be a combination of 2 or 3 of these different landowners. There would
have to be a conservation easement on the property to assure that the open space isn't later developed.
Mr. McCash inquired if the ownership were held by a homeowners association, what would annual
maintenance costs be? Any comparative costs?
Mr. Arendt said that would depend largely on the type of facilities provided. If it is simply a few trails
through the woods, or a conservation meadow, it would be minimal. If there is a clubhouse, swimming
pool, or golf course, it will increase significantly -- anywhere from $100 /year to $1000 /year.
Mr. McCash asked about raw land cost per acre in areas where these have been built and how those areas
compared to cost per acre in Dublin. Is it realistic, considering cost?
Mr. Arendt says this sells to a more sophisticated, metropolitan market. It doesn't sell in a removed, rural
area. Buyers would understand that they're getting more in purchasing a half acre lot in a one -acre zone
with 30 acres of open space versus buying a one -acre lot in a one -acre zone.
Mr. Fernsler said they are still maintaining the densities prescribed by the Community Plan. All they are
doing is assigning that density to slightly smaller lots. Essentially, they will be reducing the developer's
costs because he's putting in less infrastructure. In return, the developers get a premium in the sale of a
smaller lot because the open space will be available in perpetuity.
Mr. Arendt said this is typically done on expensive land. There are the same number of houses, but
differently arranged.
Mr. McCash said the key would be allowing smaller lot sizes.
Mr. Fernsler added that if a property owner /developer doesn't want to do conservation /open space
development but prefers to subdivide the entire piece of property, their suggestion is not to preclude that,
but to set a very low density for that sort of development. For instance, in the conservation suburban area
that is now designated two units /acre, if someone wants to divide an entire 100 -acre property, then set a
phased density of 2 -acre lots or 5 -acre lots. If they want to get 2 units per acre, they will build on 3/4 acre
lots and that will retain a certain percentage of open space.
Mr. Reiner asked if that would meet the requirement of the law that mandates fair value for property.
Mr. Arendt said it would because they are given a buy -right option with maximum density.
Mr. Reiner indicated lie would like to review such an ordinance at the next Southwest meeting. This area
is located a couple of miles away from the biggest mall in the community. He indicated interest in the
subdivision with the multi- family. Dublin has a lot of corporate clients, and has run out of corporate
housing. The executives would like to live closer. This new type of subdivision would meet the need and
would fit Dublin.
Mr. McCash said the Community Plan specifies one to two dwelling units per acre. In creating this town
center and components, is this a realistic density? Also, consideration of condominiums and multi - family
seems to be contrary to the direction from the community.
Mr. Fernsler said that if a 100 -acre piece of property is taken, 50% of it retained as open space, and 2 units
designated per acre, there is a potential of 200 units. That is building at a net density of 4 /UA. That meets
the direction of the Community Plan not to exceed 2 UA on a gross basis. With a community activity
center, the bulls of the land is being set aside for open space, institutional uses, library, school, churches,
etc. If a small piece of that is developed at 5 UA, it's still within the base density in the plan -- the gross
density for the area remains the same.
Mr. McCash asked if the ordinances would include a mandate or requirement for a certain amount of
landscaping for that development or a certain number of trees for each lot.
Mr. Arendt said the landscape plan was for the open space. The most important part of a subdivision's
appearance is the streetseape. Where trees are planted 4 feet back from the curb, or deciduous trees are
planted every 30 feet, in a few years that street will look great regardless of the architecture. In the
interim, foundation plantings and front yard landscaping will work.
Mr. Fernsler said that it is the green image that will set the Southwest Area apart, not necessarily the
impact of the buildings. With a generous street treatment and generous open space in a natural form set
aside, the number of trees in the yards becomes less important. The view from the road will still be green.
Mr. Reiner said that foundation landscape lasts 6 to 12 years, possibly 18 years. Planners now believe
shade trees should be mandated because they have 20 to 30 years coverage.
Mr. Rouse said the idea of a certain number of shade trees per lot would lock in a vertical element.
Mr. Adamek asked about the conservation yield compared to current standards of parkland dedication and
setbacks.
Mr. Arendt said that open space dedication requirements in most communities are low double digits,
typically ten percent of the land. In the western part of the Southwest Area where the density is one unit
per acre, potentially, there is a 70 percent open space.
Mr. Fernsler asked how much open space was required of developers to retain.
Ms. Fierce said 10 to 20 percent for single family development, not to exceed 25 percent.
Mr. Fernsler indicated this plan provides for substantially more than that.
Mr. Adamek asked if an incentive could be given to developers to encourage them to build so as to blend
the suburban and suburban conservation areas.
Mr. Arendt said by requiring that part of the open space be along the road. The real density is not visible
from the road.
Mr. Fernsler said that there are three different categories of development in the Southwest Area:
conventional suburban - 2 UA with 25 % of open space; suburban conservation - 2 UA, with at least 40%
open space with guidelines to locate it along major roadways transitioning to the west; and in the west,
where there is 1 UA with 60% open space. A gradual transition visually between those areas is already set.
Mrs. Boring asked how they propose to define the objectionable.
Mr. Fernsler responded by what the community has indicated. The word objectionable will not be used.
Mrs. Boring asked when talking about the civic center for this area, how does that fit with the overall
community plan which provides for a central civic center? How much area -- 50 acres, 100 acres? What
is the purpose of the facility?
Mr. Fernsler said the Community Plan specified some type of civic activity center on 150 acres. The
consultants are suggesting that it be in this area, and that it be comprised of a cluster of whatever civic
uses the City wants there. The park would probably be 30 -50 acres and 20 -30 acres for institutional uses.
The consultants are suggesting that Council also consider adding as a public /private venture some cluster
of community retail and perhaps some cluster of higher density housing. They are trying to take the idea
described very generally in the Community Plan, and suggest how it could be done. Does Council want to
respond to a developer initiative to create it or direct the development internally? He requested feedback
from Council.
Mrs. Boring said that it is made difficult by the fact that there are two different school districts involved.
As a community gathering, which community?
Mr. Fernsler said the Southwest Area is going to be building out in the next 20 -30 years. They can't
recommend what all should be put there -- library, church, school, -- it will be built over a long period of
time. What they do recommend is to make sure land area is available in the right location now to avoid
later regret. Obtain control of a piece of property and landbank it. They seek direction from Council on
the activity center; they have had no explicit guidance on this.
Mrs. Boring suggested that there is a need to set more land aside for future schools, two or maybe three.
She found the subdivision possibilities interesting, but wondered about the affordability.
Mr. Arendt said the cost of the homes would be related to the number of units the developer is able to build
per acre. The land cost determines the cost of the home, so if the land is expensive, the developer will
have to build an expensive home. Ile has heard expressed a concern for quality construction -- i.e., an
affordable home cannot be built with all - natural materials. What they've heard so far, though, is the desire
for quality materials and high value; they have not heard direction to provide affordable housing.
Mr. McCash inquired about a potential zoning issue.
Mr. Fernsler said this is only one area in the whole township.
Mr. McCash asked if these ordinances are applied to the whole community, how then will affordable
housing be achieved in any other areas.
Mr. Fernsler responded that for this reason they would preclude objectional conditions and encourage
desirable conditions, yet not require them. When the proposals come before P &Z, staff can collectively
interpret that guideline.
Mr. McCash said that at the time Muirfield was developed, land was $2,000 to $5,000 /acre. Land in the
Southwest Area is much more. Based on developing 100 acres in the Southwest, the cost of a home may
be $350,000 to $400,000 per home at a minimum. Dublin is already providing unaffordable housing. If
Dublin is to be home for the young and the old as stated earlier, where do the young buy a home?
Mr. Fernsler responded that it is an issue of balance and they will take direction from Council. Previously,
the message was consistent to raise the level of quality for housing. If homes are required to be of a
certain material and type and have certain features, that would increase the cost. However, there should be
no significant cost impact in simply precluding conditions. As far as desirable conditions, they are
suggesting those be encouraged, not required. If the public purpose is also to provide affordable housing,
then that factor would be taken into consideration in the approval process. The open space conditions
described tonight maintain the present density on smaller lots, which means a smaller footprint of road and
sewer, which could in fact reduce the cost of housing. Although the additional open space may
inadvertently increase the value of the housing, they have not assessed additional cost to the developer.
Mr. McCash said that requiring all natural materials does raise the cost of the home. Perhaps it is better to
require a certain percentage of them. The issue is diversity as well as natural materials. The Wedgewood
development is all natural materials, and no diversity from that.
Mr. Fernsler said it is his opinion that the City should encourage a creative combination of materials, and
that requiring a formula, such as 60 % -40 %, does not guarantee quality. On the other hand, a developer can
creatively design an all -wood house. Varying the details, color and placement on the site can produce a
very high quality, all- one - material type of development. That should not be precluded. They would prefer
to err in favor of flexibility and creativity, but with clear depiction of the desired end result, allowing City
review to balance aesthetics and affordability.
Mrs. Boring said that her concern is that Council has indicated in these meetings that they want to raise the
10
bar for quality by use of housing materials, but she has not heard that direction from the community. She
does not want to proceed too far and have it not meet the needs of Dublin. What Dublin is now calling
affordable housing is, in her opinion, unaffordable housing for the young executive coming to town.
Mr. McCash said that the presentation seems indicate that use of all natural materials will be mandated.
Mr. Fernsler said that their guidelines would not preclude vinyl homes in Dublin, but would have to be
seamless and have a high quality appearance. Natural materials would be strongly encouraged. Mr.
Fernsler said the challenge appears to be to provide high quality housing with affordability.
Mr. Reiner questioned why they would not mandate all natural materials. In his opinion there has been a
lot of trouble with vinyl. This Council has been largely opposed to it. They do not want the standard
subdivision, they want high quality which would endure and maintain its value forever. Guidelines are
needed to assure that.
Mayor Kranstuber said monotony of materials can be a good thing if a certain look to a neighborhood is
desired. He will trust the consultants to develop appropriate guidelines. What he is hearing is that staff
will draw up the guidelines for a particular neighborhood, and determine how that neigborhood
would /should look and guide developers. '
Mr. Fernsler cautioned that if they develop guidelines which make it very clear what the developer must do
to get approval and avoid design review, the result would be a more expensive form of monotony. The
solution is discretion on the part of P &Z and Council for aesthetics with a flexible guideline of what is
desired for the community.
Mr. Peterson asked how developers have responded to this in other communities.
Mr. Arendt said the response has varied, based on their education and experience. There is no master
degree available in development. Most developers do not do business outside their county or state. They
have no source of new ideas, and they build the same way they've always built. In many cases, the
communities have had to bring the developers in from North Carolina. However, developers who have
travelled, who have a network outside the community, are usually open to these ideas. In some areas, the
developers have encouraged the conservation district, because they have done their homework and found
more money would be made from that development.
Mr. Peterson referred to Diagram 4 - suburban development versus suburban conservation district, rural
conservation district. With decreasing density and increasing greenspace, the benefit would seem to be to
the outlying areas. Is there any assurance that all this greenspace will also be a benefit to the already
developed part of the town?
Mr. Arendt responded that would be through the bikeways which Dublin already has in place, and through
corridor planning.
Mr. Peterson inquired if there would be specific linkages to those areas.
Mr. Fernsler explained that this would be at the discretion of staff, P &Z and Council. During the
application process, staff can determine how much and where green space will go; part of that criteria will
be linkage to the adjacent open space and continuation of the path or trail through his property. It will be
crafted incrementally.
Mr. Peterson addressed retail development. Do they anticipate recommending any other commercial
development?
11
Mr. Fernsler responded that they do not intend to recommend any, other than that around the community
activity center. They are waiting for Council's direction on whether or not it should be incorporated into
that center; if not; it will have to happen somewhere.
Mr. Rouse clarified that is with the exception of those areas in the Future Land Use Plan already
designated retail development. They are not suggesting that those be changed.
Mr. Peterson added that a crucial part of the plan would be the roadway system. He believes the roadway
plan and the southwest plan would be so intertwined, that one could not succeed separate from the other.
He considers it critical to address the roadway system.
Mayor Kranstuber said the discussion tonight does not preclude the results of the earlier discussion
regarding boulevarded streets, etc. They are building on that discussion.
Mayor Kranstuber commented that much of this plan is implicit upon Dublin annexing the land. He asked
if Dublin is already too far developed to make this work.
Mr. Fernsler responded that only a small fraction of the total Southwest Area is developed. There is still a
lot of area to work with.
Mayor Kranstuber asked if this plan will work if someone purchases 50 acres; doesn't the plan require
huge expanses assembled?
Mr. Fernsler said that if there is a master plan for a community, there is enough consistency for the plan to
stay intact.
Mayor Kranstuber asked if they need further direction from Council to continue with the plan.
Mr. Fernsler said further direction is needed regarded the community activity center. This is not
something Council has to act on, as it is not part of the ordinance. Their recommendation is that the City
determine where and what they want this to be. That would give the City some control over the outcome.
Mayor Kranstuber asked about the options for its location.
Mr. Fernsler said that if they suggested exactly where, that would make acquisition problematic.
Mayor Kranstuber suggested that the consultants meet with the City's legal and planning staff before the
next workshop and put together some ideas. At the beginning of the next Southwest meeting, Council can
adjourn to executive session and discuss the options.
Mr. Fernsler said that based on current direction, they will put together a preliminary draft of their report
including a recommendation and guidelines. The plan is to provide that by May. They can continue to
develop the ordinance and guidelines without that specific direction.
Mayor Kranstuber inquired if Council was comfortable with the plan. It is a new idea for Dublin, and he
wants to assure Council buy -in.
Mr. Fernsler commented that this is not really a new idea. Mr. Arendt has written a best - selling book on
the design ideas. If Council is interested in more evidence of what this has done for other communities,
the library would have the books, "Rural By Design," or "Conservation Design in Subdivisions."
Mayor Kranstuber said Council needs to go on record as to whether they support the direction
12
Mrs. Boring indicated she would like more time to consider it.
Mayor Kranstuber said one further consideration is if the plan concepts would be applied to other areas of
the city.
Mr. Reiner said he secs no other choice for Dublin. It is not really a new idea; it's been proposed before as
a greenway system, or as housing clusters. If Council wants something better for the Southwest and
intends to follow the Community Plan, this seems the best choice.
Mr. Peterson said the problem will only worsen. It needs to be addressed now. He supports the direction.
Mr. Adamek supports the idea and wants to proceed.
Mayor Kranstuber said this will require a new paradigm for Council. Council is accustomed to thinking of
lot requirements, etc. The goal will be higher quality but with a different way of pursuing it.
Mr. Arendt said they were not precluding 85 -ft lots or 100 -ft lots. They would be mixed with smaller lot
widths along the streetscape. The emphasis will be on variety. A town that gradually came into being
would reflect variations of the periods of growth; some of that is worth replicating.
Mr. McCash said it will be necessary to provide incentives to encourage this concept. Part of the goal of
the Southwest Plan was to put some predictabilty in the process, but many of these ideas are subjective and
left to staff or Planning & Zoning to deal with on a case -by -case basis.
Mr. Reiner said he believes the guidelines will assist the process and assure quality development.
Mayor Kranstuber adjourned the meeting at 9 p.m..
Anne Clarke
Clerk of Council
13 1 ACOMM ITTEACOM DEVASOUI1MYMAR