The URL can be used to link to this page

27-04 Resolution RECORD OF RESOLUTIONS _____________ f?~yton Lega~~~!l_~:!~s_For~~Q~? --- ~ ---------...---.--------------- --------- .-------- - -- ..------- Resolution No, 27-04 (Amended) Passed .20_ - ------------- -------~- - ---- ----- - - ------...-----------.-------------..------------ - -- ___________m________._____..._________ AMENDING RESOLUTION 48-03 REQUIRING DEVELOPMENT IN A CONSERVATION DESIGN PATTERN IN APPROPRIATE AREAS OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN. WHEREAS, the City of Dublin encourages creative site planning and design flexibility to establish interesting and aesthetically pleasing residential environments, and housing should be provided in the most livable and design-sensitive manner possible; and WHEREAS, quality of life and sense of place are important economic assets to retain existing businesses and attract new economic development within the City of Dublin; and WHEREAS, procedures for Planned Development Districts are intended to provide variations from typical development standards and conventional subdivision design in order to create higher quality developments to enhance the City of Dublin; and WHEREAS, Planned Development District proposals must recognize that residential development is an important facet in the overall development and livability of the City of Dublin, and each proposal must function both within the confines of its own boundaries and within the context of the surrounding area; and WHEREAS, the decisions in the Dublin Community Plan were based in large part on the measurable impacts of development; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan recommends the protection and preservation of rural character in outlying areas in the northwest and elsewhere; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan recommends the preservation of natural features and open space; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan designates areas for lower-density residential development along the River Corridor and in outlying areas; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan encourages amassing a large Metro Park to create a greenbelt and a definitive City "edge" to avoid a mass of continuous development; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan recommends revising Dublin's ordinances to facilitate the preservation of rural character; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan recommends the use of cluster residential development adjacent to the Metro Park to preserve open space and rural character; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan includes a Land Use Map based on the "preferred scenario" from computer modeling of the impacts of development; and WHEREAS, many residential subdivisions have been developed in the City of Dublin that exhibit similar layout characteristics, with similar appearance, and provide similar housing stock; and WHEREAS, continuing this development pattern will create a repetitious environment for the City as a whole and limit the housing choices of the residents; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin desires to broaden the housing choices available to its residents, and remains committed to high quality in all housing options to serve existing and future residents; and RECORD OF RESOLUTIONS pay!~~ Leg~~~k~!n~~~orm N~~}?q~____ - ----- .-------- ----- ------ - ---- _._----_._~.------ - Resolution No. 27-04 (Amended) Passed Page 2 .20_ ----------- .. - -. - __on .. ____._____....__.._______.. _____n__.___ WHEREAS, the community desires to avoid repetition and to create a diverse and dynamic environment as the City continues to develop; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin desires to natural features of the land, the open vistas, and open space in general whenever possible; and WHEREAS, conservation design practices are based on the natural resources of the land being developed and provide for preservation of substantial open space; and WHEREAS, conservation design practices should be employed to further both the open space and housing goals of the City of Dublin; and WHEREAS, the Dublin City Council and its Planning and Zoning Commission have indicated support for such practices on a continuing basis; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Dublin, ~ of the elected members concurring, that: Section 1. New development shall provide a variety of housing styles and designs and preserve open space and natural features. New development proposals need to conform to the density ranges and impact recommendations in the adopted Community Plan based on a gross density calculation for the development. The upper limits of the density ranges should be considered only where public facilities support it, where important natural features are being preserved, and where not inconsistent with existing or future, neighboring land uses. The City will require all new residential proposals where a planned development district is requested to provide a layout based on conservation design practices, indicating at least fifty percent open space for evaluation. Section 2. Sites with woods, streams, river frontage, steep slopes, and other natural features or which otherwise provide significant open space will be considered as prime candidates for employing conservation design techniques. Additionally, conservation design techniques should be incorporated wherever possible for development sites located along the River Corridor, at the outskirts of the municipality or with proximity to the Glacier Ridge Metro Park. Section 3. Conservation layouts being submitted for evaluation should be based upon and adhere to design criteria for conservation design that calls for the clustering of available density onto smaller, grouped, individual building areas. Conservation layout should generally adhere to the following principles: . All conservation design projects should strive for at least 50 percent open space areas. . All conservation design projects should strive to have at least 75 percent of the dwelling units directly adjacent to open space areas. Dwelling units should be clustered in patterns that preserve sizeable open spaces and still disperse the dwelling units to permit a high percentage to be directly adjacent to the open space. . All conservation design projects should attempt to provide large setbacks from existing streets, especially designated scenic roads, and to create a separate area identity surrounded with open areas specifically preserved in the development of these projects. . Wherever possible the street system should have a curvilinear pattern that will minimize traffic speed, support the housing development pattern, and protect natural features. . Historic sites and their cultural landscapes may be included as part of the required preservation area. Cultural landscapes required to preserve an historic site's integrity shall be maintained. RECORD OF RESOLUTIONS Dayton Legal_l?l?n~,-'~~~form N~_~QQ45__________ - --------------------- - -~------------------ Resolution No. 27-04 (Amended) Passed Page 3 .20 --------- - -----~----- - ---------- ---- -. -------------~ ---~--------~-- ---- - - ---------"-- --- -- ------. --------- ---------- . Viewsheds of natural features need to be identified and preserved where possible. . Detention or retention areas and utility easements may be included as part of the common open space. Appropriate maintenance easements satisfactory to the Planning and Zoning Commission need to be established and may include arrangements with other governmental and private organizations. . Open space areas should include woodlands, meadows, wetlands, watercourses, wildlife sanctuaries or other similar conservation-oriented areas, parks, pedestrian or equestrian trails or defined recreational spaces, pasture lands, open field or lawn areas and should be developed to emphasize long-term natural vegetation without regular maintenance. . Preservation areas should be structured so as to preserve and protect significant natural features, cultural landscapes, and historic sites as well as to create new natural areas that will mature over time. . Land designated as preservation areas should contain no more than 75 percent of the preservation area in flood hazard districts, in wetland areas, or on steep slopes. . All preservation areas must be at least one acre and 75 feet in width, or have a ratio of the longest to shortest dimension not exceeding 4 to 1, unless there are exceptional circumstances. No structures or impervious surfaces shall be counted towards the preservation area requirements, except for historic farm buildings. . Utilize a hierarchy of streets with consideration of the transportation network into which they connect. Main entrances to the subdivision typically should not be of a larger scale than the connecting streets. Rights-of-way should maximize landscaping and minimize pavement sections to serve their purpose. . Curvilinear streets that take advantage of natural or created topographic changes should be employed whenever practical. . Traffic calming devices and visual relief techniques should be provided as necessary. . The most important elements of the project should be given prominence in the resulting lines of sight. . Cul-de-sacs should be landscaped and given a variety of shapes and sizes. . Gateways to projects should be should receive extra attention to design and VIews from the public approach, incorporating a scale and materials complementary to the overall project. . Projects incorporating or fronting special corridors should include features such as buffers, ponds, landscaping, mounding, setbacks, and screening techniques in keeping with the characteristics of the area and/or adopted policies and design criteria that relate to the area, as may be contained in various elements of the Community Plan. . Bikeways, trails and sidewalks should meet and exceed the intent of the Master Bike Plan to enhance the subject residential and adjacent properties. Where bikeways and trails cross residential lots, setbacks to residential uses should be increased. Section 4. Conservation projects should be developed by identifying potential conservation areas, locating housing sites that will fit into the conservation areas, designing streets and pedestrian trails to complement the housing layout, and subsequently, creating final lot lines and alignments. It is understood that conservation development should include one or more housing types, less conventional lot layouts, and diminished lot sizes. The overall design, architectural quality, and the buildings themselves may be factors in the Commission's evaluation. Graphic examples of conservation design as a comparison of typical Dublin subdivisions are indicated showing the same gross density (See Attachment A, Pages 1 and 2). RECORD OF RESOLUTIONS Dayton Legal Blank, Inc" Form No. 30045 ----..----- .......-- ----- 27-04 (Amended) Passed Page 4 .20_ Section 5. The Planning and Zoning Commission, in concert with the staff, and working pro actively with the development community, shall endeavor to incorporate conservation design practices in future residential developments in all appropriate locations. As part of all Planned Development District applications, the applicant shall be required to submit a conservation design layout as part of the Concept Plan stage. Staff shall make a determination whether the site and its context with the surrounding area is conducive to the application of conservation design principles. Should staff determine that this resolution should apply, the applicant may appeal that determination to the Planning and Zoning Commission. In those cases where staff believes that the characteristics of the site and its relationship to the surrounding area do not lend itself to the utilization of conservation design techniques, staff shall submit an administrative report of the determination to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Section 6. This resolution shall be take effect and be in force upon passage. Passed this ~ 1st day of ~ ,2004. ~~ Mayor - Presiding Officer ATTEST: ~CL~ Clerk of Council Sponsor: Division of Planning. I hereby certify that copIes of this Ordinance/Resolution were posted in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 731.25 of the Ohio Revised Code. RECORD OF RESOLUTIONS Dayton Legal Blank, Inc., Form No. _~qQ~?___ _____________________________ __ __ ____ --TT----- ----- - ---_----0.------- --------------------.--~--.---. ---- I I 27-04 (Amended) Page 5 : Resolution No, Passed . 20_ j __u_ ________ _=~=_=__=_=====_--=_::--_=_--_=_==.:_::_____=_~_--_=::~__=___.::_~:=====__=__===========_=__==_____===_____ ===-===-=-------------~:_~ ---- , ! I Resolution 27-04 (Amended) - Attachment A, Page 1 1 \ (i l it\ METROPARK ~'''',J . \ i I "Ifi"" I "n"T 1/ ' ,I i I I I I. \ ~ ~----L I I ----L- . _.....x-r _J FT~l r '=-~'J r- i I '.. l ~-t .. i I-L- -1~ ~._- I . .. - 1- j L_--I..__ ...,+...--.' i f....... j U."- i. LI'j_ trl........1. J,..I j-'.'. L1.---....1 --:=-- ; , ' I II ' , I '",_L I ~ ~_L~ I A.l.l - Conventional subdivision adjacent to regional parkland with typical single- family lots in grid pattern with frontage open space dedication. ____________ ._._._______n_._..... ____'n' '.n'___ A.I.2 - Conservation Design Layout including a range of single- family lot sizes, zero- lot line construction, and cluster homes preserving existing fencerow and providing substantial open space views and pedestrian connectivity into adjacent regional parkland. RECORD OF RESOLUTIONS _____ ~ayton L~gal Bla~~:..'. Form}'{~~ _______.~._..______."'~_____.__ -.______ ----- ---- -----~--_. -----~-----.------ 27-04 (Amended) Page 6 Resolution No, Passed . 20_ _____ __ - - - ______n______ _____ -------- ------------- - --- .----- ----- -- - --------------------- - ------------------ -------- ...------- - ---------- - - - ----- Resolution 27-04 (Amended) - Attachment A, Page 2 I I A.2.1 - Conventional subdivision layout with mix oflarge single-family lots and typical frontage open space and individual park spaces. I I Iii A.2.2 - Conservation Design Layout including a range of single-family lot sizes and cluster homes with a continuous open space system linked with pedestrian connectivity. Department of Development Division of Planning 5800 Shier-Rings Road. Dublin, Ohio 43016 CITY OF DUBLIN Phone: 614-410-4600 . Fax: 614-410-4747 Memo TO: Members of Dublin City Council FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manage~ 6. 0~ DATE: June 17,2004 INITIATED BY: Frank Ciarochi, Development Director~peputy City ManageJc,,--",,- Carson Combs, AICP, Senior PlanneI(_:C.....f..../ ~ RE: Resolution 27-04 (Amended) - Conservation Design Resolution Amendment (Case #04-058ADM) SUMMARY: Resolution 48-03 was passed by City Council on December 13, 2004, calling for developers to utilize conservation design for residential development within appropriate areas of the City. Following initial implementation of the resolution, the Planning and Zoning Commission noted concerns regarding details of the resolution and created a sub-committee to explore potential modifications. Resolution 27-04 was subsequently created by the subcommittee and was forwarded to City Council. Following discussion, the proposed modifications were referred to the Community Development Committee for additional review. On June 9, 2004, the Community Development Committee met with the subcommittee of the Planning and Zoning Commission to discuss the adopted resolution and proposed modifications. Resolution 27-04 (Amended) is the result of this collaborative effort and requires the utilization of conservation design for all new residential development within the City. As part of the Planned Development District process, staff will review proposed concept plans for adherence to the conservation design principles. In those cases where staff does not believe that the site and/or surrounding area physically lends itself to the parameters of the proposed resolution, an administrative report will be made to the Planning and Zoning Commission for consideration. The amended resolution is a blending of criteria from Resolution 48-03 and provides additional design direction to developers. RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Committee of City Council recommends adoption of this revised resolution to clearly indicate conservation design as the intended means of residential development and provide staff with clearer policy direction and tools to recommend and implement conservation subdivision design as part of the Planned Development District process. RECORD OF RESOLUTIONS ____ ___ __ _____,____,.___,_______.____.~t..on~I_~~_~,_!.Q~_'_Form_f\Jo. 309~_n__~__'~ --_.,'----,--,--,---,,------,,---------_.~--'--------~.,---,-",-~----,-----,--- --- --- -- --. -----.-T------------ .---.------ ---- --- --- - - -- --. ---- -- --- -.-----.-.---.--.------.-----r-- I =~=~= _~= ,_~""~"_""^=_~=c~:04~~D1~d~~ ==_ P"""I .~~__~- ~~ . _. --,l.o----c- +-= c 1 I AMENDING RESOLUTION 48-03, REQUIRING DEVELOPMENT IN A I I I CONSERVATION DESIGN PATTERN IN APPROPRIATE AREAS OF THE I CITY OF DUBLIN. I' WHEREAS. the City of Dublin encourages creative site planning and design flexibility ,! to establish interesting and aesthetically pleasing residential environments. and housing I' should be provided in the most livable and design-sensitive manner possible: and I' 'i !i WHEREAS. quality of life and sense of place are important economic assets to retain ,! existing businesses and attract new economic development within the City of Dublin: and WHEREAS. procedures for Planned Development Districts are intended to provide variations from typical development standards and conventional subdivision design in order to create higher quality developments to enhance the City of Dublin: and WHEREAS. Planned Development District proposals must recognize that residential development is an important facet in the overall development and livability of the City of Dublin, and each proposal must function both within the confines of its own boundaries and within the context of the surrounding area: and WHEREAS, the decisions in the Dublin Community Plan were based in large part on the measurable impacts of development; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan recommends the protection and preservation of rural character in outlying areas in the northwest and elsewhere; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan recommends the preservation of natural features and open space; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan designates areas for lower-density residential development along the River Corridor and in outlying areas; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan encourages amassing a large Metro Park to create a greenbelt and a definitive City "edge" to avoid a mass of continuous development; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan recommends revising Dublin's ordinances to facilitate the preservation of rural character; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan recommends the use of cluster residential development adjacent to the Metro Park to preserve open space and rural character; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan includes a Land Use Map based on the "preferred scenario" based on from computer modeling of the impacts of development; and WHEREAS, many residential subdivisions have been developed in the City of Dublin that exhibit similar layout characteristics, with similar appearance, and provide similar housing stock; and WHEREAS, continuing this development pattern will create a repetitious environment for the City as a whole and limit the housing choices of the residents; and WHERE....AS, the City of Dublin will require diverse housing products to meet the future needs of its residents; and RECORD OF RESOLUTIONS ------------- .____ __ ______.___~on L~~t~L~L~~Js.l~~_:.:_.F.2~f!l~~_~9_~______.___________________ ----------.------------------.-.---- ---------- -------_.----- --- -----...------------..--------.-..--------- ------------- ..----~---- -----_..------ ---------------------------- ---- ~--.________r.--- I, I I I Resolution No. Passed I .20_ : :=-.~=c::-:='C:-=:===.=.=#=.:=.==--==-===.=-:=-=--=:=:==::=:=:===::==:=.:==:=.==---'--------------'-- -'-'''4-== I WHEREAS, the City of Dublin desires to broaden the housing choices available to its I I residents. and remains committed to high quality in all housing options to serve existing I and future residents as their life eircumstances change; and i !i WHEREAS, the community desires to avoid repetition and to create a diverse and dynamic environment as the City continues to develop; and \\'HERE.AA8, the City of Dublin desires to have a larger variety of housing types and remains committed to housing options of high quality; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin desires to preserve and interconnect natural features of I the land, the open vistas, and open space in general whenever possible; and WHEREAS, conservation design practices are based on the natural resources of the land being developed and provide for preservation of substantial open space; and '''HEREA8, cOflser','ation design practices have been successful in locations across the United States and may provide for reduced private development costs; and WHEREAS, conservation design practices €aft should be employed to further both the open space and housing goals of the City of Dublin; and WHEREAS, the Dublin City Council and its Planning and Zoning Commission have indicated support for such practices on a continuing basis; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Dublin, - of the elected members concurring, that: Section 1. The City encourages New development shall te provide a variety of fef alternative housing styles and designs and te preserve open space and natural features. New development proposals need to conform to the density ranges and impact recommendations in the adopted Community Plan based on a gross density calculation for the development. The upper limits of the density ranges should be considered only where public facilities support it. where important natural features are being preserved. and where not inconsistent with existing or future. neighboring land uses. The City will require all new residential proposals where a planned development district is requested to include provide a layout based on conservation design practices, afld indicating at least fifty percent open space for evaluation. Section 2. Sites with woods, streams, river frontage, steep slopes, and other natural features or which otherwise provide significant open space will be considered as prime candidates for employing conservation design techniques. Additionally, conservation design techniques should be incorporated wherever possible for development sites located along the River Corridor, at the outskirts of the municipality or with proximity to the Glacier Ridge Metro Park. Section 3. Conservation layouts being submitted for evaluation should be based upon and adhere to design criteria for conservation design that calls for the clustering of - available density onto smaller, grouped, individual building areas. Conservation layout should generally adhere to the following principles: . All conservation design projects should strive for at least 50 percent open space areas. . All conservation design projects should strive to have at least 75 percent of the dwelling units directly adjacent to open space areas. Dwelling units should be clustered in patterns that preserve sizeable open spaces and still disperse the dwelling units to permit a high percentage to be directly adjacent to the open space. RECORD OF RESOLUTIONS ____ _____ __________._________p~~~_ Leg~I_~~~!l_k._l~,_f~rm No. 309~_____________._____ ------,--- ------- --..-------------------------------.----- .--. -- ----.:1.---..---.------.------------.-- ---- --.-...-..---..~---..-----------I~- Resolution No. Passed . 20 I _..--"=-__==-..==-..'-=_:==== ___..__.__.______________===:.::=::= c=:=_::==-.==-:=.:::=.:=-========---f==:: I I . All conservation design projects should attempt to provide large setbacks from ! existing streets, especially designated scenic roads, and to create a separate area I identity surrounded with open areas specifically preserved in the development of these projects. . Wherever possible the street system should have a curvilinear pattern that will ! minimize traffic speed, support the housing development pattern, and protect I natural features. ! . Historic sites and their cultural landscapes may be included as part of the ! required preservation area. Cultural landscapes required to preserve an historic site's integrity shall be maintained. . Viewsheds of natural features need to be identified and preserved where possible. . Detention or retention areas and utility easements may be included as part of the common open space. Appropriate maintenance easements satisfactory to the Planning and Zoning Commission need to be established and may include 1 arrangements with other governmental and private organizations. i . Open space areas should include woodlands, meadows, wetlands, watercourses, \ wildlife sanctuaries or other similar conservation-oriented areas, parks, I pedestrian or equestrian trails or defined recreational spaces, pasturelands, open I field or lawn areas and should be developed to emphasize long-term natural I vegetation without regular maintenance. I . Preservation areas should be structured so as to preserve and protect significant I natural features, cultural landscapes, and historic sites as well as to create new 1 natural areas that will mature over time. I . Land designated as preservation areas should contain no more than 75 percent of I the preservation area in flood hazard districts, in wetland areas, or on steep slopes. I . All preservation areas must be at least one acre and 75 feet in width, or have a \ ratio of the longest to shortest dimension not exceeding 4 to 1, unless there are exceptional circumstances. No structures or impervious surfaces shall be I counted towards the preservation area requirements, except for historic farm .. buildings. . Utilize a hierarchy of streets with consideration of the transportation network into which thev connect. Main entrances to the subdivision typically should not be of a larger scale than the connecting streets. Rights-of-way should maximize landscaping and minimize pavement sections to serve their purpose. . Curvilinear streets that take advantage of natural or created topographic changes should be employed whenever practical. . Traffic calming devices and visual relief techniques should be provided as necessary. . The most important elements of the proiect should be given prominence in the resulting lines of sight. . Cul-de-sacs should be landscaped and given a variety of shapes and sizes. . Gateways to proiects should be should receive extra attention to design and Views from the public approach, incorporating a scale and materials complementary to the overall proiect. . Proiects incorporating or fronting special corridors should include features such as buffers, ponds, landscaping, mounding, setbacks, and screening techniques in keeping with the characteristics of the area and/or adopted policies and design criteria that relate to the area. as mav be contained in various elements of the Community Plan. . Bikeways, trails and sidewalks should meet and exceed the intent of the Master Bike Plan to enhance the subiect residential and adiacent properties. Where bikeways and trails cross residential lots, setbacks to residential uses should be increased. RECORD OF RESOLUTIONS ____ _ q_ayton._~~aLB}ank,I~~,-f?!~~o.3004~ ___ ____ ___ ______ _____ ___ ______~___m_____________________________O___~_________--- __ _ _ __ _ _ __u_________ ____ ___ __m_ ______ ___ _____ ~------- _________u________o____ I, ,I I Resolution No, Passed ~ 20_ _____________ ___ ___ ____ _____ ____ - _____________________._~______.___~___~_"_____U__ -- - --- ---- --- ---- -- -------------------------------------------------------------- -- Section 4. Conservation proiects should be developed by identifying potential conservation areas. locating housing sites that will fit into the conservation areas, designing streets and pedestrian trails to complement the housing layout. and subsequently. creating final lot lines and alignments. It is understood that conservation development should include one or more housing types, less conventional lot layouts, and diminished lot sizes. The overall design, architectural quality, and the buildings themselves may be factors in the Commission's evaluation. Graphic examples of conservation design as a comparison of typical Dublin subdivisions are indicated showing the same gross density (See Attachment A, Pages 1 and 2). 8eetiaR 4. The Planning and Zoning Commission, in coneert v;ith staff, shall evaluate nev; residential development proposals and shall determine '.vhethef an indi'.idual site is poorly situated f-or the use of conservation design. The Planning and ZOl'ling Commission shall indicate its reasons for considering other non conservation layouts or designs for development, in its reeords and reports to City Council. Section 5. The Planning and Zoning Commission, in concert with the staff, and working pro actively with the development community, shall endeavor to incorporate conservation design practices in future residential developments in all appropriate locations. As part of all Planned Development District applications. the applicant shall be required to submit a conservation design layout as part of the Concept Plan stage. Staff shall make a determination whether the site and its context with the surrounding area is conducive to the application of conservation design principles. Should staff determine that this resolution should apply. the applicant may appeal that determination to the Planning and Zoning Commission. In those cases where staff believes that the characteristics of the site and its relationship to the surrounding area do not lend itself to the utilization of conservation design techniques. staff shall submit an administrative report of the determination to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 8eetioR 6. The City '.,<,ill consider the adoption of specific regulations, and planning and development policies, related to conservation design as part of its continuing review of development controls and through the work of the Development Code Taskforce on the subdivision regulations. Section f &. This resolution shall be take effect and be in force upon passage. Passed this _ day of , 2003. Mayor - Presiding Officer ATTEST: Clerk of Council Sponsor: Division of Planning. RECORD OF RESOLUTIONS _ __ ___ ____n_ ____ ~tonLeg~~~-'~FormN~Q2~ - ___ ___ ____ ____ ___..___________~ ___.._______________________________________n______ ---- --- _ -- ,--,---- ---- --------.. ---- ---- ------- -- --- --- -- ------ ...-- - -,---_.,---- --_.----- ----'.--- -------_._-------_.------------- Resolution No. Passed . 20_ __,______.. ____ __ ____ _______________.________ .._ _____.____,_ ...__ ___ __. __ __ ____ .._____ __ _______n ...______..__....____..__.__ .._.__.~-_.__.-- ------ --- __ __ - - _____ - ..___",.__ __..u______..________ -------------.------ - - - - -- -- -- -- Resolution 27-04 (Amended) - Attachment A, Page 1 A.l.l - Conventional subdivision adjacent to regional parkland with typical single- family lots in grid pattern with frontage open space dedication. I \ l C- . - \. METROPARK i ....."--..,../..'...........~.. .. '-.... :: ". OJ] QjJ """-.~, ~. "../ ..;~=-.~;. .-r.- --~ _....1 \,'~ .- I }---- -i 'I r-- L " \ "-----, : /" -- \. /! ".-..J ifJ' " J !! -----..-.)", "X/....". !.- ........-...-.~ ,/ '// \ .' . '-.)/ i// -'- .,..;! \// /~' f f.- ..' '.' , " .'''T... <' '\ \. . . ,/ I ' 1 \\ , ,/ .' I \ \ \/ ',1.\ './ <Q ------------ --_.__.~-~_._.---- ._-~.. -- ..-.----....-.-....-- -----.- - _..--- A.l.2 - Conservation Design Layout including a range of single-family lot sizes, zero- lot line construction, and cluster homes preserving existing fencerow and providing substantial open space views and pedestrian connectivity into adjacent regional parkland. RECORD OF RESOLUTIONS ___P!Iyton_~~]9J~I~~!_lnc~9_~m No~~q045_ __ ________ __ ____ - -. -- --- ----. ..-.-. ...---.. ----.--.- -.--.- ..----.---. --- -.---- -- ..---- ....-----.--- .-- -- -., -.---- - -- -- - -- ---. - - ---- ---..----. -..-.--- - - - - -- -- -- - -- -- Resolution No, Passed .20 --- ------.....--.----..-- - ---.- --- ..---- .-----.. ---- ---....---.---.-----..--.--- - - --- -.- ----.. - --. -----. --- - --.--.,.--- ---.--. .---..-"-- .-.-------.-.--.--.----.-...-- ---...----. ---.- Resolution 27-04 (Amended) - Attachment A, Page 2 I A.2.1 _ Conventional subdivision layout with mix of large single- family lots and typical frontage open space and individual park spaces. 1 I i I I I I , I I A.2.2 - Conservation Design Layout including a range of single-family lot sizes and cluster homes with a continuous open space system linked with pedestrian connectivity. .. Volume 2, Issue 1 Summer 2002 R INSIDE THIS ISSUE: An Innovative Tool for Managing Rural An innovative Toolfor Cover Residential Development: Managing Rural A Look at Conservation Subdivisions Residential Development: A Look at Conservation Subdivisions by Anna Haines, Ph.D. What's New at the Center 2 This is the second of two articles addressing rural residential development. The Wisconsin Supreme Court 5 previous article provided a definition of four related management tools (large Ruling: Agricultural Use minimum lot size, purchase of and transfer of development rights, and Value Assessment conservation subdivisions), and explained briefly how each tool worked, its potential benefits and limitations, and provided a list of references. In this article, I Court of Appeals Upholds 5 will provide a more in-depth look at conservation subdivisions. Rules/or Private Onsite Wastewater Treatment The comprehensive planning law (or "Smart Growth" law) specifies nine elements impervious Surface-an 8 that must be in the comprehensive plan. Among them is the implementation element that needs to outline the types of plan implementation tools a community Environmental indicator will use to implement its plan. One primary goal of many communities is to Submissions iO balance residential development with agricultural needs, open space, and natural resources while trying to retain a sense of place. This kind of goal can make an important link between the housing, and agriculture, cultural and natural resources t t t t t t element of the comprehensive plan. Consideration of the goals and objectives within the comprehensive plan is necessary as the community considers the types t OUf web site has t of tools it will use to achieve its plan. One potentially useful tool to achieve the above goal is to describe conservation subdivisions as ajloating zoning district or a t moved! t conditional use in residential districts in the local zoning or land division code. www.uwsp.edulcnr/ A model conservation subdivision ordinance was prepared by UW Extension. t t Local governments are not required to adopt this ordinance (see Ohm 2000), but landcenterl may find it useful in crafting their own conservation subdivision ordinance. t t t t t t Conservation Subdivisions: A Definition Conservation subdivisions are characterized by common open space and clustered compact lots. The purpose of a conservation subdivision is to protect farmland and! This is the site for the or natural resources while allowing for the maximum number of residences under American Planning current community zoning and subdivision regulations. In some cases a greater Association. density (density bonus) may be offered in the local ordinance to encourage this " approach to residential development planning. Generally, this tool is used for parcels 40 acres and larger. .. ~. ~LLt. Development Density One interesting feature of conservation subdivisions is that they are density neutral www.planning.org (Continued on page 3) . The Land Use Tracker Page 3 (except where a density bonus is offered). What does density neutral mean? Many people assume that a conservation subdivision automatically implies a reduction in the number of lots allowed on a parcel of land. Actually, the same numbers of lots are built in a conservation subdivision as would be built in a conventional subdivision. Thus, a conservation subdivision maintains the same level of density as a conventional subdivision. Conventionallot-by-lot subdivisions spread development evenly throughout a parcel without consideration to environmental or cultural features (Ohm 2000). The primary difference between conservation subdivisions and conventional ones involves the location of the homes on one part of the parcel, i.e., the homes are clustered. Other changes involve management and ownership of the land that has been left for preservation. Figure 1: Conservation vs. Conventional Subdivision Layout CLUSTER DEVELOI'MENT .-'\ CONYEN11ONAL DEVELOPMENT . ..-t . SlUAM ,,"'....... AAM:1IO .. Loll: a pM f....-.d o....Ity.l~UrlIII'Acrw . "",,",-Latsa..:tJ2~ Cclrn_ ~ -..-:... I I I I Source: SEWRPC. 2002. "Model Zoning Ordinance For Rural Cluster Development" www.sewrpc.org/modeIordinances/default.htm Open Space Design, Use and Ownership Options Conservation subdivision ordinances generally require permanent dedication of 40% or more of the total development parcel as open space. Open space design requirements often include contiguity and connection to other open space or conservation areas. Open space uses may include agriculture, forestry or outdoor recreation and in some cases has included use for waste water disposal or sports facilities in urbanizing areas. There are a variety of ownership choices for the open space (individual residential lots are owned as in conventional subdivisions): The original landowner can retain ownership of the land and continue to use it as a farm, for example (usually agricultural use is limited; a confined animal feed lot is an inappropriate use, while a vegetable farm is appropriate); a homeowner's association could manage it, it can be held as individual outlots for each of the building lots, or a local government or a land trust can manage the property for conservation purposes or outdoor recreation. Consolidated infrastructure and reduced development costs Clustering homes reduces the amount of infrastructure. For example, the linear miles ofroad are reduced; thus, the associated costs of construction, operations and maintenance are also reduced. As well it is possible to share wells and septic systems in these clustered developments. However, placement of wells and septic systems must be carefully designed to prevent unwanted uptake of wastewater into private wells. Marketing amenities Conservation subdivisions are desirable from a developer/realtor perspective. They appeal to potential homeowners who want easy access to open space for the views and/or for a range of outdoor activities, i.e., a "golf course" development without the golf course. How it works One of the more popular methods is advocated by Randall Arendt who has outlined a four step process. The process begins with the community identifying the cultural and natural resources that are valued on a specific parcel earmarked for development. This communication results in (i) identifying primary and secondary conservation areas, (ii) designing open space to protect them, (iii) arranging houses outside of those protected areas, and (iv) finally laying out streets, lots and infrastructure. Often between 40% to 80% of the site is permanently set aside for open space (Arndt 1992, Minnesota Land Trust 2000, Natural Lands Trust). - Page 4 Volume 2, Issue 1 Potential Benefits Conservation development or subdivisions potentially can benefit a community in a variety of ways: .:. Achieves a community goal of preserving open space at the same density standard as is outlined in current ordinances. .:. Establishes an open space network, if done within the context of a comprehensive plan and these types of developments/subdivisions are purposefully linked together. Continuous open space (farmland, forest or other natural resources) allows for greater benefits for the environment, i.e., habitat preservation for wildlife, and for a local economy if dependent on agriculture andlor tourism. This open space network also can extend and join recreational trails. .:. None ofthe land is taken for public use unless the developer/owners want it to be. .:. Does not require public expenditure of funds. .:. Does not depend on landowner charity. .:. Does not involve complicated regulations for shifting rights to other parcels. .:. Does not depend upon the cooperation of two or more adjoining landowners to make it work. .:. Provides a quality residential and recreational environment. Source: Better Designs for Development in Michigan and Minnesota Land Trust and University of Minnesota 2001. Limitations While conservation subdivisions can achieve a variety of benefits, there are a number of limitations to consider: .:. Conservation subdivisions are not a panacea. Used alone they cannot fully accomplish goals related to establishing and preserving open space or managing residential development. .:. These subdivisions should connect to a broader network of conservation areas, if not a community will have a chopped up landscape. .:. Conservations subdivisions not attached to already developed areas and not connected to services can result in poor land use practices. .:. If one goal of your community is to create affordable housing, conservation subdivisions may not provide this housing option. Many conservation subdivisions are expensive, and are marketed to "high end consumers." On the other hand, there is no reason why these types of subdivisions cannot include more affordable housing. .:. If a goal of the community is to promote development that is less dependent on the automobile, conservation subdivisions may not help. .:. Technical assistance is important. Poorly designed conservation subdivisions may not achieve open space goals of the community. Guidelines for conservation subdivision development and design .:. Conservation design is not a panacea .:. Setting goals in the community's planning framework is critical .:. It is important to have good resource information .:. Think big and plan for a large open space network .:. Ordinances should create incentives and reduce barriers .:. Open space should be diligently designed, not just set aside .:. Water quality and quantity is paramount .:. The management of the protected areas is critical .:. Conservation development must be profitable .:. Many of the barriers to change are not technical, but institutional Source: Minnesota Land Trust, 2000. Is This Tool "Right" for Our Community? Each community should decide on the types of land management tools they want to use. Recognize that your community should choose a number of tools rather than rely on one exclusively. The reason to choose a group of tools is to bring strength where one tool is weak and to send consistent signals to the development community and property owners regarding appropriate and planned uses for particular parcels. It is reasonable, for example, to have a purchase of development rights program in place along with overlay zones and a conservation subdivision ordinance. Below is a list of criteria to consider when choosing plan implementation tools, including conservation subdivisions: (continued on page 7) .. The Land Use Tracker Page 7 Figure 2: Good vs. Poor Cluster Design POND ~518L! 10 ALL CUIO!NT5 PREFERRED CLUSTER DESIGN POOR CLUSTER DESIGN LARGeR CLUSTER GfD... HAS INTERIOC OI'!N SOl\CE VlSlBl.I ~1lllM ll11l1!ET GOOD PI8TANC! P'IPDM CW6TU tHOUJI'1OO LA" ",IIMmJt ll11lIlT INIl:ltlOR I.OT5 HAVE NO Y\!W OF LARGE OI"EH II'AC!. NOt DUtl!Cf ACe!." 1D If frW'EQIJATE IMTANa fROM NA.UOW SftIN or 0PeI6MC1!. rEllMEIlltSnUf KAR!l.Y au\'! A ueUUL PUU'OeE GOOP eErMATION HTWEEN CW6TER awup& Acru:180 AcrM:111J loti: 35 o.n.iIy: 1 ow.IlIng Unit II Acrw -.. Minimum Lot SIa: 1 AcN OInl&ty: 11)wi1111n1 unt/5 AcRI Common Open ap.ca: 71" MntmwI'I LoI_ 1 Acre Common ap. Sc*w: 72,. , " ---.,.- Ii EVERY LOr HM DIREc;f ACCEI& 10 ANt) VIEWS OF OI'EN SPACE Source: SEWRPC. 2002. "Model Zoning Ordinance For Rural Cluster Development" www.sewrpc.orglmodelordinances/default.htm .:. Does your community have an accepted plan that identifies rural residential development, open space, or sprawl as an issue? .:. Does the plan specify goals and objectives that address how your community will contend with rural residential development? .:. Will the tool accomplish any of your community's goals and objectives? .:. Is the tool politically acceptable? .:. Can the local government or some other organization administer the new tool given current personnel or is another position or committee necessary? .:. Are there any enforcement issues local government personnel would need to contend with? .:. To be effective, would the same tool need to be used by adjoining communities and/or is a cooperative effort possible? Answering the above questions will give you a better idea which tools are appropriate to use in your community. Avoid choosing any plan implementation tool before you have done your homework. Understand how that tool works and the implications for administering and enforcing it. Resources Arndt, Randall. "Open Space" Zoning: What it is & Why it Works: www.plannersweb.com/artic1es/are015.html (from Planning Commissioners Journal, Issue 5, July/August 1992, page 4) Countryside Program, The. Conservation Development Resource Manual: The Western Reserve RC & D, 1998. Foth and Van Dyke. "Conservation Design/Clustering To Preserve Environmental Features," www.foth.com/c1ient/nasewaupee/default.asp Michigan State University Extension. "Better Designs for Development in Michigan." www.msue.msu.edulmsue/aoe/landuse/landresource. html Minnesota Land Trust. 2000. "Preserving Minnesota Landscapes Through Creative Development: An Introduction." Conservation Design Portfolio. www.mnland.org/cdp-suml.pdf Minnesota Planning. 2000. "From policy to reality: model ordinances for sustainable development." www.mnplan.state.mn.us/Report.html? Id= 1927 Natural Lands Trust, Inc. "Growing Greener: Putting Conservation into Local Codes." www.natlands.org/planning/planning.html Ohm, Brian. 2000. "An Ordinance for a Conservation Subdivision." www.wisc.edu/urpl/people/ohm/projects/consub.pdf SEWRPC. 2002. "Model Zoning Ordinance For Rural Cluster Development" www.sewrpc.org/modelordinances/default.htm Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. "Position on 'Cluster Development." www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/es/science/landuse/tools/index. htm Alicia Acken contributed to an earlier draft of this article. DNR's Land Use Team, Michael Dresen, Gary Korb, Lynn Markham and Brian Ohm reviewed this article for form and content. Any errors, mistakes and omissions remain the responsibility of the author. , .::RECORD..OR ,RESOLUTIONS ,. O"'f1<'" l<'Q"t5"'..... _"'" ~ ~O<'""NO Jl:I'>''i -----------.- --.-------- --.-. - -- _.-----~_. - .-- . ---_.,--- - Rc.w)/urinIlNo. n~~-~l.___________ Pa.<;sed .20_ - . --~--_._-- - -.----.--- -,----- - -_._-~----- A RESOLUTION REQUIRING DEVELOPMENT IN A CONSERVATION DESIGN PATTERN IN APPROPRIATE AREAS OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN. WHEREAS, the decisions in the Dublin Community Plan were based in large part on the measurable impacts of development; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan recommends protection of rural character in outlying areas in the northwest and elsewhere; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan recommends the preservation of natural features and open space; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan designates areas for lower density development along the River Corridor and in outlying areas; and -. - WHEREAS, the Community Plllfl encourages amassing a large Metro Park to create a greenbelt and a definitive City "edge" to avoid a continuous mass of development; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan recommends revising Dublin's ordinances to facilitate the preservation of rural character; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan recommends the use of cluster residential development adjacent to the Metro Park to preserve open space and rural character; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan includes a Land Use Map based on the "preferred scenario" based on computer modeling of the impacts of development; and WHEREAS, many residential subdivisions have been developed in the City of Dublin that exhibit similar characteristics, with similar appearance, and provide similar housing stock; and WHEREAlS, continuing this development pattern will create a repetitious environment for the City as a whole and limit the housing choices of the residents; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin will require diverse housing proslucts to ~eet the future needs of its residents; and - WHEREAS, the City of Dublin desires to broaden the housing choices available to its residents as their life circumstances change; and \VHEREAS, the community desires to avoid repetition and to create a diverse and dynamic environment as the City continues to develop; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin desires to have a larger variety of housing types and remains committed to housing options of high quality; and - WHEREAS, the City of Dublin desires to preserve natural features of the land, the <?pen vistas, and open space in general whenever possible; and WHEREAS, conservation design practices are based on the natural resources of the land being developed and provide for preservation of substantial open space; and \VHEREAS, conservation design practices have been successful in locations across the United States and may provide for reduced private development costs; and WHEREAS, ~onservation desi~n practiee~ can be employed to further bot~ t~e ,ocr . _' . . space and housmg goals of the CIty of DublIn; and ;..s StJEl> tl\rn1E! alP COUi\I(ji~ ~117/0Y i\ii;;i~f!Nl~ fjr~flJM_ ... RECORD OF RESOLUTIONS Page 2 '..: #- O"yU)"leO".e~~'''''C f"~f.Io ~: _ _ _~ u_ .._u_ __ ___ _ ___u ----_.~--------------'-~_.._-_. ~, - - ._- --- -- _________~__.._~.__ _ ___u _ Re!>n(ul;OIl Nn. 4!8)3____________ _____ Pa!i'w.'d 20_ ._-------~ -_.-. . .- ----------- - -----.-.-----. .---------.- ~-------------_._- - ..----- ---~---~ ----- WHEREAS, the Dublin City Council and its Planning and Zoning Commission have indicated support for such practices on a continuing basis; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Dublin, 2- of the elected members concurring, that: Section 1. The City encourages new development to provide for alternative housing styles and designs and to preserve open space and natural features. New development proposals need to conform to the density and impact recommendations in the adopted Community Plan based on a gross density calculation for the development. The City will require all new residential proposals, where a planned district is requested, to include a layout based on conservation design practices, and indicating at least fifty percent open space, for evaluation. Section 2. Sites with woods, streams, river frontage, steep slopes, and other natural features will be considered as prime candidates for employing conservation design techniques. Additionally, conservation design techniques should be incorporated wherever possible for development sites located along the River Corridor, at the outskirts --.~ of the municipality or with proxit1\!ty to the Glacier RIdge Metro Park. Section 3. Conservation layouts being submitted for evaluation should be based upon and adhere to a design criteria for conservation design that calls for the clustering of available density onto smaller, grouped, individual building areas. Conservation layout should generally adhere to the following principles; . All conservation design projects should strive for at least 50 percent open space areas. . All conservation design projects should strive to have at least 75 percent of the dwelling units directly adjacent to open space areas. Dwelling units should be clustered in patterns that preserve sizeable open spaces and still disperse the dwelling units to permit a high percentage to be directly adjacent to the open space. . All conservation design projects should attempt to provide large setbacks from existing streets, especially designated scenic roads, and to create a separate area idet;ltity surrounded with open areas specifically preserved in the development of these projects. . Wherever possible the street system should have a curvilinear pattern that "vill minimize traffic speed, support the housing develepment pattern;' and protect natural features. . Projects located in sites with few natural attributes for preservation should design grading and landscape features that create desirable open spaces as these areas are created and mature. . Where residential development is on individual lots, minimum lot areas, setbacks and lot width will be determined in the PUD text for the project. . Historic sites and their cultural landscapes may be included as part of the required preservation area. Cultural landscapes required to preserve an historic site's integrity shall be maintained. . Natural areas or buffers will be required for all proposed developmen!. in accordance with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. . Viewsheds of natural features need to be identified and preserved where possible, . Detention or retention areas and utility easements may be included as part of the common open space. Appropriate maintenance easements satisfactory to the Planning and Zoning Commission need to be established and may include arrangements with other governmental and private organizations, . Each tract should contain a preservation area to be included in the common open space, . Preservation areas should include woodland, meadow, wetland, watercourse, wildlife sanctuary or similar conscrvation-oriented area, park, pedestrian or equestrian trails or outdoor recreation areas, pasturcland. open field or lawn and . RECORD OF RESOLUTIONS rage 3 #- ..- - .. ~-"~~'?"'~~~~~.~~~~--~-:-..:... --- ~- -.:=..===...-===---.:.----..:....--.------ - ----- Rl'''.'{~li~~'~~__~,-:c." -~c-1-~;3 ___d Passed ,20--:-==.. should be developed only to support long term natural vegetation without regular maintenance. . Preservation areas should be structured so as to preserve and protect the significant natural features, cultural landscapes, and historic sites or create new natural areas that will mature over time. . Land designated as preservation area should contain no more than 75 percent of the preservation area in flood hazard district, wetlands, or steep slopes. . All preservation areas must be at least one acre and 75 feet in width, or have a ratio of the longest to shortest dimension not exceeding 4 to 1, unless there are exceptional circumstances. No structures or impervious surfaces shall be counted towards the preservation area requirements, except for historic farm buildings. . There shall be a maximum of four noncontiguous preservation areas in any project. . Conservation project should be developed in the following manner; 1. Identify all Potential Conservation Areas. 2. Locate the housing sites that can fit into the conservation area and .. .. features defined ~ step 1. 3. Design a street allgnment and other. pedestrian trails that complement the housing layout. 4. Develop the property lines. It is understood that such layouts can include one or more housing types, less conventional lot layouts and diminished lot sizes. The overall design, architectural quality and the buildings themselves may be factors in the Commission's evaluation. Graphic examples of conservation design are attached as a comparison of typical Dublin Subdivisions and conservation design applied to the same location and density. (See attaclunent A pages 1,2 and 3) Section 4. The Planning and Zoning Commission, in concert with the staff, shall evaluate new residential development proposals and shall determine whether an individual site is poorly situated for the use of conservation design. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall indicate its reasons for considering other non-conservation layouts or designs for development, in its records and reports to City Council. 1 Section 5. The Planning and Zoning Commission, in concert with the staff, and working proactively with the development community, shall endeavor to incorporate conservation design practices in future residential developments in all appro-priate locat..ions. Section 6. The City will consider the adoption of specific regulations, and planning and development policies, related to conservation design as part of its continuing review of development controls and through the work of the Development Code Taskforce on the subdivision regulations. Section 7. This resolution shall be take effect and be in force upon passage. day.of 1Y.{"t'J>J?~ 2003. / ATTEST: I hereby certify that caples of th,s ~ C-~ Ordinance/Resolution were posted In the . City of Dublin In accordance \\'llh Section Clerk of Council 731.25 of the Ohio Revised Code Sponsor: Division of Planning. _ . J!.~ ~orcouncil, Dublin, Olllo ..~ , RECORD OF RESOLUTIONS Page 4 ~~ ,.. 0..1'IO^ t~.~~~_~.?'.....:-""" NQ.;m.'j _. . - ,__.u_.___ Re.mfutimr No. 48-03 Pas.ud ,20_ 0" __..____._+ - -"'- ----- -- ---- ._--,------------------_._~- . .-- ._._--_.-_._--_..._---_.~_._----- ------------------------ --- Resolution 48-03 Attachment A page 1 --.- Typical Dublin Single Family Development "- -- >> - >< ,,- J~ ,,- " .- S1 -"- .. -- < '-'--'-'- -,--.--.-,'-.- ~ - "__.___ .._.._ ...___..__f(\1).':t'2..--(.f.ll:{ ~Ot-O__. -~__..__..__.._.._._' Resolution 48-03 Typical Conservation Design Single Family - RECORD OF RESOLUTIONS Page 5 ,- .O"yl~~(''''''~'~~~ ~~~_)OOoI"'_._ __-=~:-_-::=--~-=:-.=::.=....:.-=---=_--========~--_-~ --- _____ --- R{'S"IIl~~/~~_7"_"_ -C.-- .48~L Pasud 20_ Resolution 48-03 Attachment A page 2 . Typical Conservation Design Attached Condo r::. Resolution 48-03 Typical Dublin Single Family Development . 1 -..: RECORDOFHESOLUTIONS Pagc6 ,.. _ ~~l~~'.~~~~~~~?_~~__"____.___ ___ ____;_____.. ._----~. ----------.- ---.----. ---------------- ------ ,_ '._ _ o_::._~~n~'~~"N~=:,_-_'_-4-8.:.03 Paned ,20===__ Resolution 48.03 Attachment A page 3 I i Typical Conservation Design Single Family \ I Typical Conservation Design Condo project CONSERV ATION DESIGN RESOLUTION HISTORY Case #03-034ADM / Resolution 48-03 Case #04-058ADM/ Resolution 27-04 & 27-04 (Amended) NOTE: This history includes draft Council Proceedings regarding the discussion of the proposed Resolution 27-04 on May 17, 2004, where Council referred the resolution to the Community Development Committee. Not included are minutes from the Community Development Committee meeting held on June 9, 2004 where the adopted resolution and proposed changes were modified to create Resolution 27-04 (Amended). DRAFT Dublin City Council May 17, 2004 Page 10 Mr, McCash ted that a vacancy ex' s on the Community S Ices Advisory Commission nd a previous candidate, bin Campbell, was contact and is willin~ serve in a ree-year term on the Com sion, Vote 0 he Resolution: Mrs, Bori ,yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuer er, yes; Mr, Leckli r, yes; r, Keenan, yes; Mr. McCas ,yes; Ms, Salay, yes; Mr, Re' r, yes, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES Resolution 27-04 Adopting a Resolution Superseding Resolution 48-03, Establishing Residential Development Principles in Planned Development Districts. Ms, Salay introduced the resolution, Ms, Brautigam noted that Mr, Harvey would address this matter, Mr, Harvey noted that he has distributed tonight a red lined version comparing the current Resolution 48-03 with the proposed Resolution 27-04 as submitted by the Planning Commission, He then provided background on what has prompted Resolution 27-04, Resolution 48-03, which focused on conservation design, was adopted in late 2003, It was adopted after substantial discussion of the benefits and principles of conservation design, Subsequent to its adoption, Avondale Woods was the first residential planned district proposal to be subject to its requirements, The experience of the Planning Commission with that case indicated potential ramifications from Resolution 48-03 that were not anticipated. The Planning Commission questioned whether conservation design was the best approach to take in all cases, Conservation design may not always represent the overall Community Plan objectives, This led to confusion among staff and the applicant regarding how designs should be submitted and what the applications should include, The Commission suggested the formation of a subcommittee of Planning Commission to review the content of the resolution as well as the procedures outlined, The Subcommittee held several meetings and arrived at several conclusions: . Conservation design is an excellent type of development, but it is not necessarily the only type of desirable development for residential planned districts, As originally conceived, conservation design applied to farmland preservation, prairie preservation, natural features preservation, and was typically associated with very large developments with very large open spaces, When those same principles are applied to all types of residential development, it can be contradictory or confusing, If the location is ignored or the size of the project, a number of conservation design principles become contradictory, . The Committee- concluded that in reference to densities, the Community Plan is probably a better control, considering low-density development versus having a certain percentage of open space always required, The merits of a proposal ought to indicate whether the upper or lower ranges of density proposed in the Community Plan should be accepted, . There were some characteristics of residential development that were always deemed desirable, whether it was a true consetVation design or not. All planned development districts should significantly exceed minimum standards and enhance overall quality of development. He then outlined the specific differences between Resolution 48-03 and Resolution 27-04: Adopted Resolution 48-03: . Identifies conservation design not only as a highly desirable approach but as the only approach, The key control is for low-density development, trying to realize the objective of 50% open space, As a result, development proposals are forced into looking at smaller lots, or condominium lots. regardless of the site or its location within the City, . Includes, a number of very good and appropriate conservation design principles, but focuse\> on conservation design without looking at the other objectives of the Community Plan, . Forces the applicant to submit a conservation design for the site and requires the Planning Commission to determine if it is appropriate for the site, When it is not the appropriate design, it results in wasting time for the applicant, staff, Planning Commission and Council to review such proposals, Proposed Resolution 27-04: . Reiterates conservation design as a good design -- it does not exclude it, but it also elaborates on other types of residential development objectives, DRAFT Dublin City Council May 17,2004 Page 11 . Recognizes that planned districts should have enhanced standards, not minimum standards . Recognizes when conservation design is most appropriate, . Includes a number of other residential design objectives that are appropriate, whether it is a true conservation design proposal or not. In that respect, it provides more objectives and greater flexibility for the Planning Commission to look at the merits and demerits of any particular site, . The key control for encouraging low-density residential development would be in the density of the land use plan in the Community Plan, rather than forcing a particular percentage of open space, . Encourages creative planning and alternative layouts as opposed to the traditional design, . Recognizes Dublin's unique sense of place and residential character, . Recognizes that providing quality and diverse housing types aids economic development, as it encourages the retention, expansion and attraction of new jobs. . Looking beyond the site itself, recognizes the desired connectivity of the new project, both functionally and visually, to its surroundings, . Elaboration of several design elements, specifically looking at open space and natural features. rather than looking only at the quantity of space. It emphasizes the effectiveness of the use of natural features, . Recognizes that other types of coordinated landscaping may be desired, as conservation development in its traditional sense would not have street trees every 25-35 feet. . Recognizes that, in terms of architecture residential appearance standards, the standards are minimum, and planned districts are to exceed the standards, . Extracts several elements from the Community Plan for convenience sake. such as: recognizing the hierarchy of street sizes; providing visual relief to street patterns; introducing suggestions for traffic calming; and if a grid street system is being considered, considering the visual impact and traffic flow impact. . Reiterates connections of bike paths and pedestrian trails and connections of open space, . Reiterates diversity in lot sizes and setbacks, and considers the orientation of the house upon the lot, . Retains the emphasis on open space, preservation of natural features and effective utilization of such features. as is contained in Resolution 48-03, . Reiterates diverse housing types, suggests creative lot layouts, indicates that clustering of housing and reduced lot size is appropriate, provided off,setting benefits are included in the proposal. . Reiterates curvilinear streets are desirable and elaborates on screening, buffering and setbacks that might be associated with special corridors. . Reiterates that City Council, Planning Commission and staff must work together with the applicant to obtain the best solution for any site, Resolution 48-03 has a series of graphics associated with it to help explain what conservation design is. Those graphics are still appropriate and could also be retained in the proposed Resolution 27-04, if Council desires, There are additional graphics that staff intended to provide to applicants. Those could also be included, However, with the proposed Resolution 27-04, graphics within the Resolution probably are not necessary, and could be provided as additional guidelines, The Planning Commission reviewed the subcommittee's recommendations, made some additional changes, and recommends that Council consider ~esolution 27-04 as a replacement for Resolution 48-03 ' not because it is completely different, but because it has a great number of elaborations that may be confusing, if Resolution 48-03 were to merely be amended, Mr, Reiner stated \hat he was unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting at which this legislation was proposed, He believes this is a more "watered-down" effort, negatively impacting the excellence that this City Council and staff want to achieve, It would probably be necessary to adopt a new concept to stop the building of non-creative, non cutting' edge subdivisions that are currently proliferating Dublin's neighborhoods, unfortunately reflecting other neighborhoods throughout areas outside of Dublin - cities which do not have the creative staff Dublin has nor the restrictive zoning and desire for excellence, In the 7-8 years he has served on Council, he has heard previous City Council members indicate their support for these standards, In his business, he has observed that developers produce footprints most conducive to profit making, They have a standard set DRAFT Dublin City Council May 17, 2004 Page 12 of footprints that are reproduced throughout the area, The Columbus Dispatch reports that conservationism has yet to come to Ohio, although it has been embraced everywhere else, No Ohio City has been smart and bold enough to motivate developers to submit such development footprints, It behooves Dublin to be that courageous body that forces the developers to do something different. Otherwise, Dublin will end up with the usual pattern of streets with the standard subdivisions built throughout the area by numerous builders, Dublin deserves better. Financially, it will not benefit the City to approve these subdivisions, which are coming in very quickly and will soon fill the City, Due to the low interest rates in recent years, the developers want to produce these houses as quickly as possible, They will pressure the City to be permitted to do so, With the threat of imbalance between commercial and residential development, the City is concerned about the erosion of its financial base. However, Council has the power to impact the City's position in this respect by embracing the conservation residential development design or better, Only another Muirfield or Ballantrae would be better than a conservation design, Two years and a million dollars were spent on the Community Plan, developed to respond to the community's clearly stated desires for standards to protect the community, Therefore, Council should not only live up to those standards, but should also create neighborhoods that set examples for other Ohio communities, That is the City's mission, Council should refuse to let it happen - a City soon to be filled with little more than standard subdivisions, Council needs to give Planning staff a tool with which to put pressure on developers to propose new footprints for conservation design neighborhoods, That design has been very successful elsewhere, The City is now running out of land, and it will soon be too late to achieve anything better. Now is the time to act. Council should aim for the highest goal possible. There is nothing more important to the City than land use - the visual, physical aspect of the City, When he drives around the City, he is very disappointed in the housing stock that is proliferating - it is not creative, not interesting. and will not likely meet the future demographics of the City, He would rather see the City communicate that the City has new goals. and while it considers how best to achieve those goals, delay further development. He added that it behooves Council to honor the desires of its residents for a green environment. That is why Columbus residents came to Dublin, He represents his constituents, is ready to try something new, and hopes his colleagues feel the same about this endeavor, Mayor Chinnici,Zuercher inquired if Mr, Reiner believes that Resolution 27-04 is a step backward from Resolution 48-03, Mr, Reiner responded that is correct, and he will not support the proposed Resolution, Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that because the new legislation is substantially different, it would be appropriate to refer it to the Community Development Committee for further study, Mr, Keenan stated that Mrs, Boring made a comment, as noted in the April 15 Planning Commission minutes, that she was concerned about the process - that Council had not directed the Planning Commission to undertake this, He asked her to eiaborate, Mrs, Boring responded that when the Planning Commission set up a subcommittee to study the issue, she did not anticipate that such significant changes would be proposed, She was not sure that was Councii's direction, She would have been more comfortable if the Planning Commission had clarified Council's direction regarding the subcommittee's task, Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she believes this came about as a result of discussion at the Developrrlent Code Revision Task Force's last meeting, This task force membership included two Commission members, The last meeting discussion centered primarily on conservation design, Mr, Gerber evidently believed that because he participated in 'that conversation, he should take the subject to the Commission for additional discussion, That was his personal decision; it was not a direction from the Task Force or from Council, Therefore. if Council has any interest in substantively changing the legislation Council previously passed, the issue should be referred to the Community Development Committee for review, Will the newly proposed Resolution achieve Council's goals when they passed the original Resolution? Mr. McCash stated that Mr, Harvey noted that graphics were part of the original resolution, He does not recall them being a part of the Resolution, or being referenced in the Resolution, He cannot vote on a Resolution that incorporates and adopts graphics not D;r~ 'T . .' nt!'~. wi). Dublin City Council May 17, 2004 Page 13 part of the review of Council. In addition. architectural standards were addressed in the residential appearance standards legislation, The intent of the present effort was to address land planning, Therefore. this resolution should relate to land planning, However, Resolution 27-04 states that "residential appearance standards should be considered minimal standards and should be exceeded by the proposal..," or even "are to be exceeded," as stated in the presentation, He is concerned with that expectation, If Council does not expect that everything in the Code be exceeded, why would Council expect these standards to be exceeded? In addition, planned developments are in essence a deviation from the standards, If it is silent to the standard, then the standard applies, He cannot recall a residential development in Dublin that is not a planned development. Therefore, what this document does, in essence, is nullify the residential appearance standards by saying that it is expected that all applications should go above and beyond those standards. The issue is that architecture is very subjective, He understands the concern about the monotony of the same footprint - no architect would want that. However, most of the homes in the subdivisions are not designed by architects -- that is also part of the problem. If Council intends that all proposals exceed those standards, it places the burden on the Planning Commission to write an architectural appearance code for each and every planned development. The present Planning Commission does not include an architect. Mr, Harvey stated that it was not his intention to state that the architectural appearance code must be exceeded by all planned development. He meant to state that those are the minimum standards that should be exceeded, not that they must. The Resolution states objectives that should be strived for, but does not state that they are absolute req uirements, Mr. McCash suggested that the line concerning architecture be deleted from the Resolution, and that it be treated solely as land use, or as conservation subdivision design legislation, The architectural guidelines have already been addressed in the earlier legislation, It is preferable to adjust those in a separate document than to combine them into other legislation, Mr, Harvey agreed that the reference could be deleted, Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that this legislation is substantially different from the one previously approved by Council. If Council has any interest in considering these changes, it should be referred to the Community Development Committee, If the Committee scrutinizes the proposed changes, and subsequently determines that some of those changes are warranted. it can make that recommendation to Council. Because the Development Committee did the original work, it is appropriate that it conduct a review of any proposed changes, Ms, Salay stated that the graphics referred to in the original resolution are the drawings comparing existing approved subdivisions with the same subdivision done as a conservation design, The conservation design showed' much more open space, but did show lot dimensions, She questioned the size of the lots, By scale, they would appear to be 50 feet wide, and a tract builder would build very small houses on those lots, A situation such as that did occur, Shortly after Council passed Resolution 48-03, the Avondale project came before Planning Commission with 50-foot lots, The subdivision designed in the conservation style did achieve more open space, but the homes were of a much lower price point. She requested Mrs, Boring's corroboration of those facts, Mrs, Boring stated that the conservation design subdivision did not fit the Avondale project. What the Planning Commission desired to conserve was the large section of woods in the nprthwest corner of the site, The site did not lend itself to conservation design, Ms, Salay stated that the Planning Commission could not decide how to make the design work within the site, and staff was not prepared to redesign the project. The applicant pointed out that the plan was the result of meeting the conservation design requirements, She reported that Mr. Gerber contacted her and indicated that the Commission was having difficulty implementing the Resolution, The Commission decided to form a P&Z subcommittee, propose changes to the resolution and forward those changes to Council. She added that acquiring more open space at the expense of significantly reduced lot size was not Council's intent. ~n l\ }:' T Dublin City Council May 17, 2004 Page 14 Mr, Reiner stated that issue was brought up in many of the Task Force's discussions, If the yard frontage is reduced, the house is elongated to the back. Every existing house in the Mews is set up with that configuration, The houses, valued at $,5 million. are quite large on deep, but narrow lots, There is a huge amount of open space, including a golf course, The City's planners are creative and well trained, When such a project comes in, based on Council's direction, they can instruct the applicant to discard his standard footprints and design something that will work, Developers are quite capable of providing a high quality home in a new style to accommodate these requirements, And if the requirement temporarily stalls residential development, that is acceptable, Residential development in general only increases the tax burden on the schools, Mrs, Boring stated that when Council first discussed conservation design, the issue was brought up that the lots would be narrower in a conservation design district, It was also recognized that there are some sites, such as Avondale that are not appropriate for that type of development. In those cases, this type of design should not be forced on them, The proposed resolution may have some suggestions worth keeping, but it does not at all meet Council's goals with conservation design developments, She would still support the preservation of 50% open space. She agrees with the suggestion to forward the proposed resolution to the Community Development Committee. Ms, Salay requested Mr, Harvey's opinion, comparing the two resolutions toward the goal of conservation development. Mr. Harvey stated that the Section 2 of proposed Resolution 27-04 looks at conservation development, It states that when the developer is "pursuing reduced lot size, pursuing clustering of homes, when there are natural features, when there is something to preserve," that this is what the City wants the developer to do, It eliminates the absolute requirement for conservation design, but reiterates conservation design as a good approach, when appropriate, Section 3 states that all residential developments should include a multiple of other design objectives, which would also apply to conservation design, Conservation design is not eliminated, but it is suggested that it is not the only desirable type of development. Conservation design, when taken in concert with all the other requirements, forces a cluster approach on smaller lots or a condominium approach in order to achieve 50% open space, Sometimes that is appropriate, but not always, Mr. Reiner stated that he agrees that it may not always be possible. However, he believes the language in the new resolution does not achieve Council's goal. It should state, "The developer is encourag-ed to do a conservation design or better." That allows for an executive housing development or for Dublin Village Center to be replaced with a New Urbanism development. The objective is to force developers to come up with new footprints for homes, If that goal is accomplished, Dublin achieves what no other Ohio city government has achieved - to require conservation design unless a better design is proposed, It behooves Dublin to save what forests it can and to achieve open spaces adjacent to its homes, That will secure value for the homes in Dublin in the future, The conservation design would also allow bike trails connecting from the shopping center, through the subdivisions, to Glacier Ridge Metro Park, That is one of the greatest gifts Council can give its residents, It adds quality of life for the community, but also a greater financial benefit to individual homeowners, Mr. Harvey stated that the suggested language of "conservation design or better" leaves the question of w~at is "better?" In a manner of speaking, the proposed resolution does say the same thing, but in Section 3, it also answers the question, by suggesting ways in which to make the development better than standard, Mayor Chinnici-Zu~rcher summarized that there are three choices before Council tonight: (1) approve Resolution 27-04 as presented; (2) not approve it; or (3) refer it to the Community Development Committee for review and recommendation to Council. Mr, Lecklider stated that there are merits in everyone's comments, However, he is concerned that one type of "cookie cutter" development is being exchanged for another, He is not comfortable with limiting the development in this way, He appreciates the fact that Mr, Reiner's view is that this could allow other types, He is also unsure if a fixed amount of open space is always possible, Recent Planning Commission minutes on the DRAFT Dublin City Council May 17, 2004 Page 15 topic seem to indicate that there are not always natural features. such as streams or woods, to preserve. Mr, Lecklider moved to refer Resolution 27-04 to the Community Development Committee, He suggested that the Planning Commission subcommittee that addressed this issue also join the Committee in the discussion, Ms, Salay seconded the motion, Vote on the motion: Mrs, Boring, yes; Mr, Keenan, yes; Mr, Reiner, no; Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms, Salay, yes, Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, on behalf of Council, wished Mr, Harvey well in his future endeavors as Director of Planning in Blacksburg, Virginia, OTHER . Ratification of Chai erson for Tara Hill Traffic Task F. rce Ms, Brautigam noted t t the Task Force met last wee : Council had indicated at the time of establishmen of the Task Force that Counci hould ratify the Chair and Vie Chair, The Task ~ ce is recommending Mary Bear en as Chair. and Randy Luikart s Vice Chair of the oup. Mr, McCash m'ed to ratify the Chair and Vice and Randy L art, respectively, Mr. Reiner conded the motion, Vote on emotion: Mr. McCash. yes; Mr einer, yes; Ms, Salay, yes; Mrs Mr, Le lider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ma r Chinnici-Zuercher, yes, Discussion re Council Study Session Mrs, Boring stated that she as CI the Clerk to provide backgrou from the files regarding previous decisions of Counc' related to water and sewer ser e extensions, Based on this background informa' n, Mrs, Boring has compo, d two draft motions for consideration tonight, (S distributed a copy of the motio to Council.) She commented rustrated with the format of the s dy session, as it did not provide ful discussion among Council m mbers about the issues, Mrs, Boring mov that, based upon the petition 9 mitted by the residents on Mar 25, 2002 indicatin heir desire for water and sewer ervices, and based upon the si ificant ety issues identified for this are , she moved to authorize staff t proceed with the d Ign and construction of the main ewer and water lines to the India Run Drive area, wi In the framework recommende by the staff of project design n 2004 and constr tion in 2005, with the provision at this decision in no way set precedent in ter of future policy for the entire Ity, but is based upon current alth, safety and w are issues associated with this ighborhood and further, upon t economic viability the City at the present time, Mr, Keenan seconded the moti Mr, , IS only comment is that he does not believe that th' should be the policy for every ther area, In reviewing the statistics and number from the survey, he believes r sidents who do not want t services should not forced to have them, Govern ent should not impose its wi on people who do no:t ant the services, He believes th the situations should be add ssed based on health, fety and welfare issues and tha risis situations demand actio rf"ed, noting that in this area, th services, e poli~y decisions need to take t desires of the residents into onsideration, They als need to consider cases where t re are health and safety co ems and tap,in should e required, Mr eenan stated that he heard fr m many residents who wer not interested in the rvices, based on the costs to ta n, In particular, Indian Run really are in need of the servic The out of pocket costs r them is $15-25,000 per property, and in many cases, ople were not willing to pay e costs of hooking up to the services, Council's priority public officials is to protect health, safety and welfare of the residents, Department of Development 5800 Shier-Rings Road · Dublin, OH 43016 Memo Phone: 614-410-4600. Fax: 614-41O~4747 CITY OF DUBLIN - TO: Members of Dublin City Council FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City ManagU~6. 0~ DATE: May 12, 2004 I INITIATED BY: Gary P. Gunderman, Assistant Planning Direcd- j.3cLf:.- Brandol Harvey, AIA,AICP, Senior Planner RE: Resolution 27-04 - A Resolution Superseding Rural Conservation Design Resolution 48-03 and Establishing Residential Development Principles in Planned Development Districts (Case No. 04-058ADM) SUMMARY: The Planning Commission and City Council previously studied new ruralism and conservation design and adopted Resolution 48-03, entitled "Requiring Development in a Conservation Design Pattern in Appropriate Areas of the City of Dublin". The fundamental objectives were to achieve low gross density residential development in planned districts by requiring a certain level of open space, to obtain a higher quality product, to provide greater diversity in housing stock, and to preserve or provide natural features along with open space. As adopted and administered, it required every proposal to provide a conservation design, regardless of location in the City or characteristics of the project and project site. After initial application of the requirements on the "Avondale Woods" project, the Planning and Zoning Commission determined the strict requirements of Resolution 48-03 and conservation design principles were not always appropriate nor always desirable. The Planning and Zoning Commission created a Sub-Committee to review the matter and make recommendations. SUB-COMMITTEE FINDINGS: . The Sub-Committee met Tuesday March 9 and agreed to several revisions to the original resolution. The discussion was fairly broad and not all topics discussed were necessarily reflected in the original resolution or the revisions. The basic findings were: 0 "Conservation Design" per se was not the only type of development that should be considered and the phrase carried a misleading connotation. 0 References to varying densities per the Community Plan were more appropriate than certain percentages of open space. 0 Some design characteristics were desirable regardless of type of development. 0 We shouldn't require multiple plans to be submitted for comparison 0 We expect higher quality development in Planned Development Districts. Memorandum to Members of Dublin City Council Re: Rural Conservation Resolution XX-04 May 12, 2004 - Page Two . On March 19 the Sub-Committee considered revisions to "Whereas" bullet points and expanded the content of the resolution to address the findings. While most of the original wording of the Resolution regarding "Conservation Development" was retained, a significant number of objectives were extracted from the Community Plan and additional objectives were added. The expanded resolution includes principles for preservation of natural features where appropriate, creation or retention of open space, provision of landscape treatments, street layouts, and other design objectives. These are considered desirable regardless of whether the project is a true conservation development or other residential development. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended on April 15 that City Council consider the expanded purposes and content of the attached resolution. Because of the significant elaboration and to avoid confusion with varying editions of the same resolution, the recommendation is also made that the expanded new resolution supersede the prior one, rather than amend it. An annotated version of the original resolution is included in this packet which shows the changes between these resolutions. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION APRIL 15, 2004 CITY OF DUBLlN.. Division of Planning 5800 Shier-Rings Rood Iblin, Ohio 43016-1236 . .le/TDD: 614-410-4600 Fox: 614-761-6566 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: ,. 2. Administrative Request 04-058ADM - Rural Conservation Design Resolution Amendment Request: Review of proposed amendments to the Rural Conservation Design Resolution to expand the content to address all types of residential proposals in planned districts and to retitle it. Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Staff Contact: Brandol Harvey, AlA, AICP, Senior Planner. MOTION: To approve this resolution to supercede Resolution 48-03. VOTE: 5-1. RESUL T: This administrative request was approved. It will be forwarded to City Council with a positive recommendation. NOTE: The Commission feels this is a beginning. It is not the intent or nor does the Commission have the authority to adopt this resolution. It is a well-intended effort to address a perceived problem found by the Development Code Taskforce and through the Commission's experience with recent applications. It is the Commission's hope that City Council will further refine this resolution as necessary, and take the appropriate action. STAFF CERTIFICATION -, J f.-.A---R- r;, ~~,--a.::.' Frank A. Ciarochi Acting Planning Director Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission .Staff Report - April 15, 2004 Page 6 2. Administrative Request 04-058ADM - Rural Conservation Design Resolution Amendment Request: Review of proposed amendments to the Rural Conservation Design Resolution to expand the content to address all types of residential proposals in planned districts and to retitle it. Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200. Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Staff Contact: Brandol Harvey, AlA, AICP, Senior Planner. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission and City Council previously studied new rural ism and conservation design and adopted Resolution 48-03, entitled "Requiring Development in a Conservation Design Pattern in Appropriate Areas of the City of Dublin". The fundamental objective was to facilitate residential development in planned districts to be of a higher quality, low gross density, and preserve or provide natural features and open space. As adopted and administered, it required every proposal to provide a conservation design, regardless of location in the City or characteristics of the project and project site. After initial application of the requirements on Avondale Woods (See Record of Action, Informal Case 03- I 391), it became apparent the strict requirement of the Resolution and conservation design principles were not always appropriate. The Planning Commission, with the agreement of City Council, created a Subcommittee to reVl ew the matter and make recommendations. CONSIDERA TIONS: Subcommittee Findings: . The Subcommittee met Tuesday March 9 and agreed to several revisions to the original resolution. The discussion was fairly broad and not all topics discussed were necessarily reflected in the original resolution or the revisions. The basic findings were: 0 "Conservation Design" per se was not the only type of development that should be considered and the phrase carried a misleading connotation. 0 References to varying densities per the Community Plan were more appropriate than certain percentages of open space. 0 Some design characteristics were desirable regardless of type of development. 0 We should not require multiple plans to be submitted for comparison. . On March 19 the Subcommittee considered two revised resolutions. The first incorporated the amendments to the original "Whereas" and bullet points as discussed at the prior meeting. The second expanded the content of the resolution to address that we expect higher quality development in Planned Development Districts and elaborated on principles. It includes principles for preservation of natural features where appropriate, open space, landscape treatments, street layouts, and other design objectives. These are considered Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report - April 15, 2004 Page 7 desirable regardless of whether the project is a true conservation development or other residential development. RECOMMENDATIONS: Attached is a red-lined version of the recommended amendments to the Resolution. The Subcommittee recommends it for discussion and possible action at the April 15th Commission meeting. (For those who prefer a clean final proposal without the red-line, such a copy is attached.) Revised illustrations for "Attachment A" to the Resolution are being prepared and should be available for the April 15th meeting. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission 'Staff R'eport - April 15, 2004 Page 8 ORIGINAL RESOLUTION 48-03: AS RECOMMENDED BY THE P&Z SUBCOMMITTEE TO THE COMMISSION ON MARCH 19, 2004 Resolution XX-04 A RESOLUTION SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION 48-03 AND EST ABLISHING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES IN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS WHEREAS, the City of Dublin encourages creative site planning and design flexibility to establish interesting and aesthetically pleasing residential environments and housing should be provided in the most livable and design-sensitive manner possible; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin's quality of life and sense of place are important economic assets to retain existing businesses and to attract new businesses; and WHEREAS, the Planned Development District procedures are intended to be utilized to provide variations from typical development standards and traditional developments in order to provide higher quality development to enhance the City of Dublin; and WHEREAS, Planned Development District proposals that include residential uses must recognize that residential development is an important facet in the overall development and liveability of the City of Dublin, and each proposal must function both within the confines of its own boundaries and within the context of its neighbors; and WHEREAS, the decisions in the Dublin Community Plan were based in large part on the measurable impacts of development; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan recommends protection of rural character; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan recommends the preservation of natural features and open space; and \VHEREAS, the Community Plan designates areas for lower density residential development along the River Corridor and in outlying areas; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan encourages amassing a large Metro Park to create a b'Teenbelt and a definitive City "edge" to avoid a continuous mass of development; and WIlERE,'\S, the Community Plan recommends the use of c1w;ter re:;idential development Jdj~l\.:ent to the Metw PJrL to pre:;erve open :;pace and ruml character; and Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report - April 15, 2004 Page 9 WHEREAS, the Community Plan includes a Land Use Map based on the "preferred scenario" based on from computer modeling of the impacts of development; and WHEREAS, many residential subdivisions have been developed in the City of Dublin that exhibit similar characteristics layout characteristics, with similar appearance, and provide similar housing stock; and WHEREAS, continuing this development pattern will create a repetitious environment for the City as a whole and limit the housing choices of the residents; and \VHERE,\S, the City of Dublin '",ill require diverse housing products to meet the future needs of its residents; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin desires to broaden the housing choices available to its residents as their life circumstances change; and remains committed to high quality in all housing options to serve existing and future residents; and WHEREAS, the community desires to avoid repetition and to create a diverse and dynamic environment as the City continues to develop; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin desires to have a larger variety of housing types and remains committed to housing options of high quality; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin desires to preserve and interconnect natural features of the land, the open vistas, and open space in general whenever possible; and WHEREAS, conservation design practices are based on the natural resources of the land being developed and provide for preservation of substantial open space; and WHERE,\S, conservation design practices have been successful in locations across the United St:ltes and may provide for reduced private development costs; and WHEREAS, conservation design practices can be employed to further both the open space and housing goals of the City of Dublin; and WHEREAS, the Dublin City Council and its Planning and Zoning Commission have indicated support for such practices on a continuing basis; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Dublin, _ of the elected members concurring, that: Section 1. The City encourages new development to provide for a variety of alternative housing styles and designs, a varietv of densities and the preservation of open space and natural features. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report - April 15, 2004 Page 10 New development proposals need to conform to the density ranges and impact recommendations in the adopted Community Plan based on a gross density calculation for the development. The upper limits of the density ranges should be considered only where public facilities support it, where important natural features are being preserved and where not inconsistent with existing or future neighboring land uses. The City will require all new residential proposals, where a planned development district is requested, to conservation design practices adhere to these principles. Section 2. Sites with woods, streams, river frontage, steep slopes, and other natural features or which" otherwise provide significant open space will be considered as prime candidates for design techniques that cluster available density onto smaller, grouped, individual building areas and varying building types. Such layout should generally adhere to the following principles; . Maximize preservation of natural features and open space areas both in terms of effectiveness and quantity. . Landscaping in public rights of way should be designed to complement the natural features of a site and maximize viewsheds. . Dwelling units should be clustered in patterns that preserve sizeable open spaces and still disperse the dwelling units to permit a high percentage to be directly adjacent to the open space. Section 3. All residential components of a planned development district, regardless of existence of natural features should adhere to the following principles: . Each phase of residential development should contain open space, community amenities, recreational facilities and other supportive uses so as to stand alone. . Projects located in sites with few natural attributes for preservation should design grading and landscape features that create desirable open spaces and site amenities as these areas are created and mature. . Where residcntial devclopment is on individual lots, minimum lot areas, setbacks and lot width will be detem1ined in the PUD text for the project. . Historic sites and their cultural landscapes may be included as part of the required preservation area. Cultural landscapes required to preserve an historic site's inte;rity shall be maintained. . Natural areas or buffers will be required for all proposed development in accordancc with the requirements of the zonin; ordinance. . Viewsheds of n:.ltural fe:.ltures need to be identi tied and preserved where possiblc. . Detention or retention ure:.lS and utility casements may be included as part of the common \+j~~;lce, ,\pprl1pri;lte maintcnance ea~~cments ~;ati~;bctory to the Pbnnin.s and Zonin~ Cuml11is.;iun need to be e~;tablished and may include ill"!'a n ~ el11 en t; with other ~o\'emmental and private or;anizations. . Each tract ~;hould contain a presen'ation arca to be included in the common open space. . rrc~;cl"\'ation Open space areas should include woodland, meadow, wetland, watercourse, wild Ii fe sanctuary or similar characteristics, park, pedestrian or equestrian trails or outdoor recreation areas, pastureland, open field or lawn. and should be dcvcloped only to ~;upp0l11on~ tCl1n natural vc~etation without re~ular maintenance. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission -Staff Report - April 15, 2004 Page 11 . Preservation areas should be structured so as to preserve and protect the significant natural features, cultural landscapes, and historic sites or create new natural areas that will mature over time. . Land designated as preservation area should contain no more than 75 percent of the preservation area in flood hazard district, wetlands, or steep slopes. . ,'\11 preservation areas must be at least one acre and 75 feet in width, or have a ratio of the longest to shortest dimension not exceeding 1 to 1, unless there are exceptional circumstances. No structures or impervious surfaces shall be counted to'Nards the preservation area requirements, except for historic farm buildings. . There shall be a maximum of four noncontiguous preservation areas in any project. . Conservation project should be developed in the follo'~'ing manner; 1. ldc:1tify all Potential Cmlscrmtio:l Areas. 2. Locate the housing sites that can fit into the conservation area and features defined in step I. 3. Design a street alignment and other pedestrian trails that complement the housing layout. 1. Develop the property lines. . The Residential Appearance Standards (Section 153.190) should be considered minimum standards and should be exceeded by the proposal. . Utilize a hierarchy of streets with consideration of the transportation network into which they connect. Main entries to the subdivision typically should not be of a larger scale than the connecting streets. Rights-of-way should maximize landscaping and minimize pavement sections to serve their purpose. . Curvilinear streets that take advantage of natural or created topographic 'changes should be employed whenever practical. . When site limitations force the use of gridded street patterns, they should include traffic controlling devices such as round-abouts to slow traffic and provide visual relief. . The most important elements of the project should be given prominence in the resulting lines of sight. . Cul-de-sacs should be landscaped and given a variety of shapes and sizes. . Gateways to projects should receive extra attention to design and views from the public's approach, incorporating a scale and materials complementary to the overall project. . Projects incorporating or fronting special corridors should incorporate buffers, ponds. landscaping, mounding, setbacks and screening techniques in keeping with the characteristics of the area and/or adopted policies and design criteria that relate to the area, as may be contained in various elements of the Community Plan. . Bikeways, trails and sidewalks should meet the intent of the Master Bike Plan and go beyond it to enhance the subject residential and adjacent properties. Where bikeways and trails cross residential lots, setbacks to residential uses should be increased. . Diversity should be accomplished through a number of tools: oVary lot shapes so that rectangular lots do not predominate and that lots are not predominately perpendicular or radial to the street axis. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission .staff Report - April 15, 2004 Page 12 o In addition to providing a diversity in lot widths and front building setbacks, vary the orientations of structures on the lots. . Screen dwelling units from heavily traveled rights-of-way. Section 4. It is understood that in order to accomplish these principles, planned development district proposals can include one or more housing types, less conventional lot layouts and diminished lot sizes. The overall design, architectural quality and the buildings themselves may be factors in the Commission's evaluation. Graphic examples of designs are attached as a comparison of typical Dublin Subdivisions and open space design principles applied to the same location and density. (See attachment A ) Section 4. The Planning and Zoning Commission, in concert with the staff, shall evaluate new residential development proposals and shall determine \.vhether an individual site is poorly situated for the use of conservation design. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall indicate its reasons for considering other non conservation layouts or designs for development, in its records and reports to City Council. Section 5. The Planning and Zoning Commission, in concert with the staff, and working proactively with the development community, shall endeavor to incorporate conservation these design practices in future residential developments in all appropriate locations. Section 6. The City will consider the adoption of specific regulations, and planning and development policies, related to conservation design as part of its continuing review of development controls and through the work of the Development Code Taskforce on the subdivision regulations. Section {i. This resolution shall be take effect and be in force upon passage. Passed this _ day of ,200M. Mayor - Presiding Officer ATTEST: Clerk of Council Sponsor: Division of Planning. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - April 15,2004 Page 6 2. Administrative Request 04-058ADM - Rural Conservation Design Resolution Amendment Mr. Gerber said the Commission and City Council studied new ruralism and conservation design and adopted Resolution 48-03: Requiring Development in a Conservation Design Pattern in Appropriate Areas in the City of Dublin. He said after the initial application of the requirements on the Avondale Woods project (Case No. 930139Z), it became apparent the strict requirements of the Resolution in conservation design principles may not always be appropriate. As such, the Commission formed a subcommittee to look over the resolution. The Subcommitee, consisting of Mr. Zimmerman, Ms. Reiss, and Mr. Gerber met twice with staff. He said with much input from Brandol Harvey, they came up with something that he thought reflected more of what he had originally thought last year. Mr. Harvey said this is a revision of the Conservation Design Resolution that the Commission had already spent substantial time on and it was sent to City Council. He said as the Resolution focused on conservation design which is a technique to try to take advantage of open space and natural features that might be present on a site. He said that it required every planned residential district that was being requested to submit a conservation design approach regardless of where that site was in the City or what natural features it had, etc. He said this may not always be appropriate. Mr. Harvey stated the idea was to not to eliminate conservation design as an option. A number of the principles and objectives contained in the existing Resolution are still contained in the proposed resolution. This new resolution would supersede the prior one and would elaborates on other types of residential development and other aspects of residential development that the Commission subcommittee felt was important. Some of those other elements included the overall development project approach, the appearance of architecture, and the project from off- site; how it connects with surrounding projects and the transportation system (bikeways, openspace, etc.), connectivity in a functional sense. Mr. Harvey stated the idea was to identify a number of things that were desirable for any residential development in Dublin, regardless of where it was. Then, the Commission and City Council can hear each case and the positive points of that site can be taken advantage of without some one type always being enforced on it. Mr. Zimmerman said that Mr. Harvey's conclusion from the Subcommittee meetings was correct. He thought the staff report and new resolution were excellent and were something he thought should be submitted to City Council. Mr. Gerber agreed. Ms. Boring was concerned about the process. She said City Council had not directed the Commission to do this. Mr. Gerber said he and the Mayor sat on the Code Development Revision Taskforce and this was an issue discussed in great depth. He said the Taskforce never really came to a consensus. He said Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher felt that it would need to be worked out at some point, some how, by somebody. He thought it would be worked at some work session with Council. Before they went to a subcommittee, he said he talked with most Council members, particularly, Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, and she thought it was a good to at least provide one new perspective on this. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission . Minutes - April 15, 2004 Page 7 Mr. Harvey added that the way this has been elaborated, is focused on the desired outcomes, rather than the process. He said one reason that was being done, is that the new planned district regulations that are before Council April 19th will change the process that has been used in the past anyway and would override the way this was being administered. He said it simplifies the process and it will be discussed during the next agenda item. Mr. Gerber said it was their intent to present some additional information to City Council. He said it would ultimately be up to Council whether they want to change the resolution, amend it, or come up with a new one. He said this came out of the Taskforce. Ms. Boring said at the last time this was discussed, there was a real contention about the last few Whereas sections being included. She asked why they have been eliminated. Mr. Harvey said the last Whereas sections focused specifically on Conservation Design as the only criterion under the original resolution, and the elaboration on a number of desirable objectives, they made them obsolete. They would otherwise be contradictory. Ms. Boring referred to the following eliminated Whereas section: WHEREAS, conservation design practices can be employed to further both the open space and housing goals of the City of Dublin. She asked if modifying it to state: "Whereas, defined design practices should be employed further..." would be undesirable. She suggested keeping some Whereas sections where Dublin wants to employ openspace design efforts. Mr. Harvey said that Whereas section could be retained. He agreed that particular Whereas section would not necessarily be contradictory. He said in the first Whereas sections, it discusses openspace as natural features, and more importantly, in Section 2 of the resolution, it discusses natural features and conservation type objectives. Ms. Boring thought they should make sure that it emphasizes that the design practices should be employed to further openspace. Mr. Harvey said in the proposed new resolution, Section 2, discusses the fundamentals of conservation design. He thought Section 2 covers the original intent when there are natural features and openspace and Section 3 addresses those other types of residential development. He thought it was emphasizing more the number of units per acre (density) regardless of the lot size or the amount of openspace that is ultimately of concern to the Community Plan. He said each project might have different configurations to achieve that density, but using density as the benchmark rather than a percentage of openspace allows more flexibility and design alternatives. Mr. Messineo gave a 60-acre former soybean field as a candidate for this. He said soybeans were not expected as the end product. Mr. Harvey said that was why elaborating on these other objectives allows each case to be looked at on its own merits. For example, a 60-acre site that is all soybeans now would be looked at differently than a 60-acre site that had three acres with a running stream and five acres in a larger stock of woods. Mr. Harvey said if the site being considered includes something that they want to preserve, that has merit. This resolution allows it. The objectives call for either naturally occurring or provided features. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission . Minutes - April 15, 2004 Page 8 Mr. Saneholtz understood there was nothing that would prevent them from addressing any site or asking them to address conservation design if they thought it had merit. Mr. Harvey agreed. Mr. Saneholtz said for example, they would not force this upon an open 60-acres that happened to be in the middle of single-family homes. Even if that parcel were left open, the view would be of homes and there would not be much gain. He referred to an area in Illinois where the natural grasses were planted for an open, natural view. He said there was nothing in the resolution to prevent consideration of that, other than their own mindset as to what conservation design was. Mr. Harvey gave an example of how alternatives. If a 200-acre development proposing pasture or wildflowers, and 50 percent of it was wildflowers or pasture that would have one type of appearance. If it were a five-acre site, and 50 percent wildflowers or prairie were proposed, it obviously would not work. Looking at the scale and the characteristics of the project allows a number of things to be taken into consideration. Mr. Saneholtz feared that at some point, they were only concerned about preserving streams and trees, and that if a site was just blase, that there was nothing that the City would think to do creatively as far as conservation design went. He said preserving a view where he did not have to look into another person's home was attractive. "Building a golf course community without the golf course" was a quote he had heard at the presentation a couple of years ago. Conservation design should focus on that too. Mr. Sprague said another thing was it may give the lower density desired. It may also provide the quasi-empty nester kind of environment (less yard, more open space) so the density stays the same, but they have less to maintain. Mr. Saneholtz said the area that came to his mind when he thought of that was Red Trabue park area behind Lowell Trace and the retirement home. Mr. Messineo said he thought it would be a little harder than just seeding grass. It is going to be an active, aggressive landscaping plan to return something to a natural-looking prairie. Ms. Boring said at one time, they were very entrenched with requiring 50 percent openspace in the discussion. She asked what happened with that entrenchment. Mr. Harvey said the original resolution was worded so that 50 percent was a strong focus, not an absolute requirement. He said it should depend on the characteristics of the site. For example, if a site on Sawmill Road had a shopping center next to it, 50 percent openspace may not be wanted. Thirty percent new landscaping and buffering might work with 70 percent impervious surface because it is an urban setting rather than a suburban or rural setting. He said it is not that 50 percent is not a good thing; it is just that it might not always be desirable and should not always be required. Ms. Boring said in establishing the new resolution, they are establishing development principles and moving away from conservation design. She inquired as to how to achieve the 50 percent openspace, where it made sense. She stated that everybody was intent on accomplishing that objective. Mr. Harvey said Section 2 addresses it: Maximize preservation of natural features and open space areas both in terms of.effectiveness and quantity. Ms. Boring stated that section was open to interpretation. Mr. Harvey agreed and said it depends upon the needs and merits of a particular site. Ms. Boring still wanted to see 50 percent. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission . Minutes - April 15, 2004 Page 9 Mr. Messineo said he thought there was a number at one time that was an overall density of two units per acre with 50 percent openspace. Mr. Harvey stated that the Land Use Plan addresses desirable and assumed upper limits of density as well as a number of other characteristics and objectives for a particular location. He said because other objectives are being achieved, a higher density might be allowed. Mr. Messineo said that has not actually been quantified as an upper limit. Mr. Harvey said that would be a function of the Community Land Use plan, transportation traffic objectives, etc. Mr. Messineo said he thought the plan was if there were four acres, the upper limit was eight houses, each on a half acre. However, with conservation design, there could be two acres of openspace and eight houses on quarter-acres. Mr. Harvey said that still could be done. Mr. Messineo said the gross density was not quantified in the resolution. Mr. Harvey said it was explained in the Community Plan how it would work. Mr. Saneholtz said each acre is not looked at independently. If the higher density is not allowed on the developed part, the economics will not work. Ms. Boring felt that when the Commission doesn't strive for 50 percent openspace to maximize openspace, that there would be no target for the developers. She felt a target was necessary so the developers know what is expected beforehand. She thought this was ambiguous at some point. Mr. Gerber said the Taskforce wrestled with that concept. He said the Commission had the authority to ask for that now. However, part of this conservation design, and unfortunately, a poor choice of words to call it that because of what that connotes in the community, was to find a playing field where a variety of housing stock and more creativity than is what has been seen, providing more takeaway, but on the 50 percent is encouraged. He said there were other factors besides just saying 50 percent. As noticed with a couple of applications seen, it is a very limited housing stock or a lot of creativity that comes before the Commission when that is done. Mr. Gerber said they wanted to have the document be flexible to allow for variety of housing stock, yet still encourage conservation elements. Mr. Gerber said that was one aspect because at the Taskforce they saw the Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) that not everyone was real enamored with. He said it might work on a larger site, but on a smaller site, it may not work all that well. That was one element of many that they considered when discussing the 50 percent openspace requirement. He said they thought that wouldn't "handcuff' them into limited designs. Mr. Gunderman said the taskforce discussed TND a lot, but the impedious for that discussion was also to get them away from using the conservation wording because it did not permit the 1ND. The more open language in this draft actually now opens you up to the TND and the subcommittee's intent to open up other things besides the TND. He said it was actually true that the conservation design does close down the TND and other designs. Mr. Gerber said the applicant for the Avondale Woods development brought two applications to the Commission, one which was a conservation design which required 50 percent openspace. The design was limited because of the features of that parcel. He stated if conservation features Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission , Minutes - April 15, 2004 Page 10 are present the Commission, the Planning Division and the applicant, can devise something that looks like conservation design, but gives more opportunity to have a variety of attractive housing stock and is consistent with the Community Plan and the new PDs, etc. He said if the provision were kept at 50 percent, it couldn't be achieved on that site. Ms. Boring agreed. Mr. Gerber said there are a lot of other sites where 50 percent openspace should be a no-brainer because they were larger projects. Ms. Boring said in Avondale Woods, the woods were all in one corner. She stated that in that particular case the Commissioners all agreed that something more flexible than conservation design would work on site. However, somehow she would like the developers to know we are going to strive for 50 percent openspace. Mr. Gerber thought that could clearly be stated in the resolution. He said the problem the Taskforce had was if they are so black and white, it gives a lot of notice to people, but at the same time, it takes away many planning tools and discussion to perhaps come up with better projects. The ultimate goal was to have better projects. Mr. Zimmerman stated by putting down the maximum, at some places 40 percent might be the maximum and others, 60 percent. It provides more give and take. An exact number will be focused on to achieve only that number. Ms. Boring said flexibility is left when stating, "the project should strive to maximize 50 percent." They would have the idea what is wanted. She said when developers tell her how much openspace they have; she will tell them she wants more openspace. That is not what this resolution states. Mr. Messineo said the whole object of this is to get as much openspace as possible.. Mr. Gerber said in part it is to get the right design, and in part it is to get a variety of housing stock. Mr. Messineo said this is not about housing stock, it is about openspace. Mr. Harvey thought as they were discussing openspace and the 50 percent goal, etc., he pictured in his mind, literally 50 percent openspace. He said it might be that the site for example is 30 percent wooded, and that would be equal in his mind to 50 percent openspace or if it was 10 percent water and 10 percent wooded. Mr. Harvey referred to the first bullet in Section 2 and said if we concentrate perhaps more on the term "effectiveness" of the use of openspace and natural features rather than the quantity, it provides the opportunity to look at every site on its own merits and make sure that whatever the features are (woods uses as buffering or naturally occurring woods in the center or corner, etc.) effectiveness of using those features can be addressed rather than a number (quantity). Ms. Boring said they were trying to shape the market in Dublin. She thought they thought as long as developers are having success building the same housing types, there is no need for them to jump out of the box. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - April 15, 2004 Page 11 Mr. Messineo said if there were a very desirable site with very interesting land features, it would be a selling feature for a developer. Mr. Gerber said for the last 2~ years the Commission has talked a lot about this whole concept. It is multi-faceted. They talked about openspace and wanting more of it. They want more "green" features. However, they also talked about the "cookie-cutter" neighborhood layouts, the same old housing stock (three sides stucco), and about how they wanted to encourage development to take another look at that come up with some other ideas. He said this proposed resolution is one of many pieces that have been laid out to intend to effectuate that end. Other pieces will be the Community Plan, the PDs recommended to City Council, the Appearance Code, and the upcoming Subdivision Regulations. He said they overlay each other and at the end of this effort a new guide will be available to the applicant. It will make the applicants very aware of, better than ever before, what the City expects from them. Mr. Messineo said he was convinced that that the current Commission can affect an effective control on this conservation design. However, it may open up loopholes at some point. Mr. Gerber said the fear was that if you deal with an absolute, it may work 90 percent of the time, but 10 percent of the time it handcuffs the Commission and they are stuck with something because it is in black and white, so rigid and inflexible. He said this gives a little more flexibility to address those situations. Ms. Boring referred to the first strikeout in Section 3: Where residential development is on individual lots, minimum lot areas, setbacks and lot width will be determined in the PUD text for the project. She asked why was that removed. Mr. Harvey said it was a requirement anyway when a planned district is done. Ms. Boring said the way she read that was that because the extra consideration was being asked you now could have different setbacks, etc. Ms. Boring referred to the third stricken bullet in Section 3: Natural areas or buffers will be required for all proposed development in accordance with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. She asked if it were removed because it was already in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Harvey said it would be redundant. Ms. Boring referred to the fourth stricken bullet in Section 3: Viewsheds of natural features need to be identified and reserved where possible. Mr. Harvey said viewsheds and natural features are covered in several other new bullets. Ms. Boring referred to the second bullet, first strikeout: . . . should contain no more than 75 percent in the flood hazard, wetlands, or steep slopes. She asked if that did not matter any more. Mr. Harvey said it doesn't matter because an absolute 50 percent openspace criterion is no longer being used so that sub standards are not necessary below that. Ms. Boring referred on down in the resolution: Conservation projects should be developed in the following manner. She asked if that process was removed in order not to tell them how to do it. She asked if the process was still valid. Instead of "potential conservation area," she suggested Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Mim..-t:es - April 15, 2004 Page 12 "identify all natural features and then locate the housing sites that fit and design the street alignment and develop the property lines" would still be appropriate. Mr. Harvey said not in all cases. That natural features are being identified is still a requirement. He said the design methodology might vary depending on the type of site and project being proposed Ms. Boring had a concern with: When site limitations force the use of gridded street patterns... However, she did not mind a statement saying that when streets are not curvilinear traffic controlling should be considered. She said as written, it is left open for interpretation. She felt very strongly that the general statement should be included: That all development should look at, if needed traffic controlling devices. Mr. Harvey said elsewhere curvilinear streets are discussed as being objectives. Also diversity of how a house is located on a site as well as diversity of setbacks, lot widths, etc. are discussed. These features create visual relief. He said the intent of the bullet was that when you are being forced to use gridded streets, when the options do not allow anything else, you are to consider some ways to provide visual relief. Ms. Boring asked for it to be softened some way. Mr. Harvey said it probably sounded stronger than intended to be. He said a roundabout was not the only alternative. There were several other things that are both traffic calming and provide visual relief. Ms. Boring said the problem was that she would like to generalize: When the site limitations force the use of gridded street patterns, by getting rid of the "forced gridded street patterns". Mr. Messineo suggested removing "the site limitations" and state:... gridded street patterns and traffic calming shall be encouraged. Ms. Boring said, "gridded street patterns should include..." Mr. Harvey said gridded street patterns were not encouraged. Ms. Boring agreed. Mr. Messineo suggested it read: Traffic controlling devices, such as roundabouts shall be encouraged. Mr. Harvey suggested it state: That traffic calming devices and visual relief are encouraged, particularly when gridded street systems are required due to lack of options. Ms. Boring suggested it include "especially in gridded street patterns." Mr. Harvey thought that gridded street systems were not typically liked. Ms. Boring thought it had been made clear earlier that curvilinear and everything else was wanted. Mr. Messineo agreed. Mr. Harvey suggested it read instead: That traffic calming and visual relief was wanted, particularly when gridded street systems are being done because of limitations. He said they should not be encouraged. Ms. Boring agreed. Mr. Gerber said all that was being said was that in those rare instances where there are gridded streets, the following will be done. Mr. Messineo suggested it read: Gridded street patterns shall include traffic controlling devices and roundabouts to slow traffic and provide visual relief. Ms. Boring was not sure the word "shall" should be used. Mr. Messineo suggested "must or will" instead. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission , Minutes - April 15, 2004 Page 13 Mr. Gerber asked Mr. Harvey to repeat his statement which he thought captured the essence of the intent. Ms. Boring agreed. Mr. Harvey repeated: Traffic clarning devices and visual relief techniques should be provided as necessary, particularly when gridded street systems are being considered. Ms. Boring liked that because it stated "as necessary." Ms. Boring referred to the third bullet from the bottom: Projects incorporating or fronting special corridors should incorporate buffers, ponds,... She suggested "where possible", "including", or "to incorporate features such as" be added. She read that as stating that all those things should be incorporated. Mr. Harvey suggested "incorporate features such as" be added. He said later on after the list of features, it discusses "in keeping with the characteristics of the site," which implies that not all these would apply in all cases. Ms. Boring, Mr. Gerber, and Mr. Sprague agreed to Mr. Harvey's suggestion. Ms. Boring said previously there was a sentence stating that you will have sufficient setbacks from existing streets, especially designated scenic roads. She said it got lost. She asked if the setbacks were not wanted. It was a big issue in the Community Plan. Mr. Harvey said the prior bullet discussed uses the terminology "special corridors" which included scenic corridors, but also perhaps US 33 or some other unusual transportation feature or systems that might require different thinking. Ms. Boring asked if that was addressed in this resolution. Mr. Harvey believed it was addressed in this new resolution in the bullet referred to just previously: Projects incorporating or fronting special corridors should incorporate features such as... He said the special corridors would include scenic corridors and other types. Ms. Boring asked if that "or adopted policies and design criteria that relates to that area" covered the sufficient or large setbacks. Mr. Harvey said the scenic corridors are in the current Community Plan and the new one might include other types of special corridors. Ms. Boring understood that, but she was more addressing the issue specifying that a large setback is necessary. She asked if that was included in the phase".. .or adopted policies." Mr. Harvey said it was. Mr. Gerber said the Commission was not in a position to adopt this resolution. This was more of an advisory effort to send on to City Councilor a Taskforce, whomever has an interest. Mr. Gerber made the motion to approve this revision to supercede Resolution 48-03 with the comments mentioned above. Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion. Ms. Boring said she wanted to pass this to City Council, but asked if she voted in favor did it mean she was in favor of it as it currently stood. Ms. ReadIer said the vote would be in favor of recommending the amended resolution to City Council so that would incorporate the revisions Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - April 15, 2004 Page 14 and comments made tonight. Ms. Boring asked if she still had a problem with one point, should she vote negatively. Ms. ReadIer said it would be discussed at City Council and possible further revisions will be discussed at that point. Ms. Boring said she wanted to move it to City Council but she was not agreeing to the way it was now. She asked how to vote so that when she brought it up at Council, they would not think she voted for it. Ms. ReadIer said the way the motion was worded, it incorporated the revision. If Ms. Boring did not agree with the revisions, then she should vote against it. Mr. Gerber said staff should note that this is a beginning of something. It certainly is not the intent or does the Commission have the authority to adopt this. He said this was a well intended effort to address a perceived problem as they found in the Code Taskforce and through the Commission's experience with a couple of recent applications. He said it was up to City Council to tweak this and do whatever they please with it. Mr. Gunderman pointed out that the "backdrop" was that with the old resolution in place, they had drafted one particular section of the proposed Subdivision Regulations that more or less matched with the previous resolution. As they got to the end ofthe Taskforce, they did not really have consensus on that particular section, as maybe there is no consensus on the resolution at the present time. If City Council can agree on these types of principles, then it becomes a basis for that section of the Subdivision Regulations that can be drafted. Mr. Gerber said perhaps this could be one more tool for City Council as they review this entire issue. He said Ms. Boring was in a very unique position, whether she agreed with all of it or not, because she would see this again. Ms. Boring said even though she had a problem with the process, she appreciated the extra time that members spent on this. It looked very detail-oriented. She said although she still had an issue, she was not against the entire resolution. She thought it needed to be passed on to City Council. The vote on Mr. Gerber's motion was as follows: Mr. Messineo, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Mr. Sprague, yes; Ms. Boring, no; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Approved 6-0.) Mr. Gerber thanked Mr. Zimmerman, Ms. Reiss, and particularly Mr. Harvey, Mr. Gunderman, and the rest of staff. It amazed him that people would take the extra step in the Planning Department to work over these things. He said Dublin is very lucky to have people that are willing to volunteer their time. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES APRIL 1, 2004 CITY OF DUBLlN.. OJ\li~ion of Plonning I Shier-Rings Road Ou Ohio 43016-1236 'hone/TOO: 614-410-4600 Fax: 614-761-6566 Neb Site: www.dublin.oh.us 1. Informal - Rezoning Application 04-040INF - Gateway Professional Center - 6700/6750 Eiterman Road (Informal discussion only. No vote taken) 2. Rezoning - Revised Preliminary Development Plan 04-028Z - Homestead at Coffman Park (Tabled 6-0) 3. Corridor Development District 04-038CDD - Wendy's Addition - 1 Dave Thomas Boulevard (Approved 6-0) Administrative Business: Chair Rick Gerber con ned the meeting at 6:30 p. . Other Commissioners pre ent were: John Messineo, Jim Spra e, Todd Zimmerman, and th Reiss. Cathy Boring ved at 6:35 p.m. Ted Saneholtz was bsent. Staff members inclu ed: Brandol Harvey, Gary "underman, Carson Combs, Jamie A ins, Dan Phillabaum, J oa Ochal, Mike Stevens, Fran Ciarochi, Barb Cox, Kristin Y orko, ennifer ReadIer, and Libby E rley. Mr. Gerber ade the motion to accept t in favor. Approved 7-0.) erber made the motion t approve the March 4, 2 4, minutes as presented ith un Imous consent. The minute were unanimously approve . (Approved 4-0-1). Mr. S ague a tained. Mr. Gerber stated a memo in the packet showed progress by the Conservation Design Subcommittee. He wanted to review it on April 15th even though he knew Ms. Reiss would not be attending. He asked for her comments. Ms. Reiss stated that subcommittee members and staff worked to increase the variety of residential products that the Commission would review as well as providing flexibility from "traditional conservation development". She stated they did not want to lock themselves into preconceived ideas about conservation development, just to review a variety of residential subdivision types and housing stock. Mr. Gerber stated the Commissioners could decide if they want to provide further changes, revisions or reviews at the May 6th meeting. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MARCH 18,2004 CITY OF DUBLIN.. Division of Planning ,00 Shier-Rings Rood 1 n, Ohio 43016-1236 P~;;ne/TDD: 614-410-4600 Fox: 614-410-4747 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us 1. Rezoning Application 03-119Z - Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea A (Approved 7-0) 2. Rezoning/Revised Preliminary Development Plan 03-04SZ - NE Quad PUD Retail, Subareas SA and 5B - Kroger Center - Sawmill Road (Approved 7-0) Administrative Busin ss: Chair Rick Gerber nvened the meeting at :30 p.m. Other Commission s present were: John Messineo, Jim S~ ague, Cathy Boring, T d Zimmerman, Ruth Reiss a Cl Ted Saneholtz. Staff members inclu d: Brandol Harvey, ary Gunderman, Carson Co bs, Anne Wanner, Dan Phillabaum, J ie Adkins, Claudia H ak, Matt Hansen, Jennifer R dler, Frank CiarOChi,Z Cox, Kristi orko, and Libby Fade . an for providing the Commis oners with an updated repo on admin' trative cases. He said s stantial progress had been de, and noted that the Con tional Use mendment had alread been heard by the Commi ion in January or Februa Mr. G dennan said the case 'M s already approved by City unci!. Mr. Gerber thanke everyone f, r their hard work to get 0 this point. Mr. Gerber said that ity Council was considering joint meeting with the Co missioners and Board of Zoning A eals on Wednesday, April 7, 004, at 5:30 p.m. or 6:30 .m. The location was yet to be dete ined. Ms. Reiss had a poss' Ie conflict and it would on work it they were done by 7:30 p. Mr. Gerber asked the Co missioners to respond wit the next couple of days if they c ld attend. He also had a co ict, but agreed to change h' schedule if it worked for everyone else. Mr. Gerber said at the last meeting, a subcommittee was formed to review the Conservation Design Regulations. Mr. Zimmennan, Ms. Reiss, and he met with staff on March 91h and will meet again tomorrow. He believed progress had been made, and that after the next meeting there will be a product to bring back to the Commissioners for thoughts and comments. Me. Gerber ~ the motion to accept the fumen!s into the record. Tfote was unanimous in favor. (AR roved 7-0.) . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION MARCH 4, 2004 CITY OF DLJBLI:\_ Division of Planning ~800 Shier-Rings Rood lin, Ohio 43016-1236 Pnone/rDD: 614-410-4600 Fax: 614.410.4747 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 5. Informal 03-1391 - Avondale Woods of Dublin - 5215 Avery Road Location: 139.65 acres on the west side of Avery Road, 2,000 feet south of Rings Road. Existing Zoning: R-IB, Limited Suburban Residential District (Washington Township). Request: Informal review of development options, as required by Resolution 48-03 regarding conservation design techniques, for a proposed PLR, Planned Low Density Residential District, subdivision under the provisions of Section 153.051. Proposed Use: The following two residential development options are proposed for general discussion: 1) Option 1: A mixed-use, residential development consisting of 197 single- family lots, 81 attached condominium units, and 44 acres of open space (31.5 percent). 2) Option 2: A residential development consisting of 278 single-family lots, and 69.8 acres of open space (50 percent). Applicant: J.C. Hanks, Homewood Corporation, 750 Northlawn Drive, Columbus, Ohio 43214; represented by Christopher Cline, Blaugrund, Herbert, & Martin, 5455 Rings Road, Suite 500, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Staff Contact: Mark Zuppo, Jr., Planner. MOTION: That this site is not conducive to Conservation Design. VOTE: 5-1. RESULT: After much discussion, the Commissioners decided that this site was not conducive to Conservation Design. Four of the Commissioners preferred the pians submitted December 2002 to these plans and all agreed the density should be lowered. STAFF CERTIFICATION _ ::~ .',-_~L- Ct . L~'-/~t~ \,', Frank A. Ciarochi Acting Planning Director Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - March 4, 2004 Page 23 Mr. Gerber agreed, but s only because of the visi lity the Commission sho review it. Gary Gunderman cIa . led that if changes to th Code had been adopted t consolidate the PCD with the PUD, this ould not be before the C~ mission. Mr. Gerber un rstood. ade a motion to approve is revised development an because it conforms t area J text and complie with the PCD provisions Section 153.058, provid' g for the exp sion and update of a succ ssful Dublin business wit even conditions: 1) That \I hicular display be prohi1tited on the proposed path d be noted as such on al subj ct to staff approval; ~I I T t no colored lenses be us for any lighting on site; , ~t th~ proposed ~odio/ations comply with appl' able Stormwater RegU~(Ons, to the satisfactIOn of the CIty kgmeer; / That revised plans be ~ mitted if a second door i/required, subject to staff JI!proval; 5) That proposed new /signage be submitted th, ' is directional in nature, subject to staff , ; I approval; I v,' , ' 6) Th~t relocated~es be replaced on an inv " -per-inch basis if they ll~ within five years, subject to staff}tpproval; and /'/ 7) That the appvcant utilize a rock that is 're aesthetically suitable, subject to staff approval. j ! ! I v' / Mr. Gerber ,~elconded the motion. Mr.,' line agreed to the conditi9hS as listed above. The v was as fZWS: Mr. Messineo, yes; s. Reiss, yes; Ms. Boring, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes' Saneholt , yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes ~Approved 6-0.) ;f.ninglReVised Preli nary Development ~:_045Z - NE Subareas 5A and 5B - roger Center - Sawmill oad Mr. Gerber noted this ";S a very large applicati . He said a Commissi meeting was scheduled for March 1 ; but there are no applic<y1ons currently ready to r iew. Instead of canceling the meeting ,t made sense to hear this se then. Ben W. Hale, Jr. epresenting the applicant agreed to request a tabli g in order to hear this application in it entirety at the next meet' g. He said they were re y to go tonight and th they would no change anything in the ne two weeks. Mr. Gerbe made a motion to table thO case and made a motion. s. Reiss seconded the otion, and the te was as follows: Mr. essineo, yes; Mr. Sanehol , yes; Mr. Zimmerman, es; Ms. Reiss, es; and Mr. Gerber, yes. s. Boring had left the roo temporarily.] (Tabled -0) 5. Informal 03-1391 - Avondale Woods of Dublin - 5215 Avery Road Mr. Gerber said this is an informal review of development options in order to address the objectives of the recently enacted Conservation Design Resolution. The discussion will be limited to thirty minutes. Mark Zuppo said the applicant has filed for a rezoning application to request a change in zoning to PLR, Planned Low Density Residential District, but wanted to discuss the issue of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - March 4, 2004 Page 24 Conservation design prior to moving forward with the application. He said the Commission, on December 12,2002, heard an informal proposal for this site on December 12,2002. The site is a peninsula at the southernmost portion of Dublin, west of A very Road. It has approximately 4,000 feet south of Rings Road, and is surrounded by the City of Columbus on three sides. He said the site currently has Washington Township R-IB, Restricted Suburban Residential District zoning. Parcels within Dublin to the north are also zoned RI-B. The existing CSX railroad track has approximately eight to ten trains per day passing through the site. There is a 25-acre woodland in the northwest corner of the site and a four-acre triangular woods in the southwestern portion. According to draft plans for the Hayden Run Corridor, office developments will abut this development on both the west and east sides of A very Road. Several Traditional Neighborhood Development zoning classifications are to the southeast and southwest. Directly to the south is the location for the overpass of the future Britton-Cosgray connector. Ms. Boring inquired about the densities of the Traditional Neighborhood designations. Mr. Zuppo said approximately six dwelling units per acre. Option 1: Mr. Zuppo showed a slide of Option 1, which included 197 single-family lots located north of the 81 attached condominium units (three units per building). He said Avondale Commons, the single-family portion of the site, is noted as Avondale Village on the site plan. It has approximately 44 acres of openspace, mostly woodlands on the northwest corner (28.5 acres) as well as four acres, and a small swale in the southeastern portion of the site. He said the main access will be on A very Road, and future access to Tuttle Crossing when it extends through, will be to the north. A retention pond is proposed in the east central portion of the site along with other small ponds in the condominium unit development. Option 2: Option 2 includes fifty percent openspace (69.8 acres). This option provides more openspace and a few more view sheds through the site. The main north-south boulevard will go through the site, abutting the woods. Homes along an east-west drive will back up to the woods. Mr. Zuppo showed slides of the area for the two proposed options. He said staff did not have a recommendation on this informal application, but does believe the applicant has been amenable to staffs suggestions and would like feedback from the Commission to move forward. Mr. Gerber said it was the Commission's role to determine if this site warrants a conservation development approach. He noted that this case began at 6:45 p.m. and so it will continue until 7:15 p.m. Christopher T. Cline, Jr., representing the applicant, said he hoped tonight they would get a positive or negative answer on whether this site is appropriate for conservation design. Mr. Cline said the site has been owned by Homewood since 1993. They were ready to file an application in 2003, and staff asked them to wait because of events with Columbus. They filed Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - March 4, 2004 Page 25 this application on November 2, 2003, so they predated the Conservation Resolution by six weeks. He said there is a legitimate question as to whether it applies to this site. He said the Resolution just states that it will apply to "new" subdivisions. Nothing was said about grandfathering. Mr. Cline said they had a big investment in time and resources in the original plan (Option 1), which is the one they preferred. However, he said that they completed conservation design as requested. He said preserving the woods significantly constrains the planning, particularly for conservation options. They set that as a priority because it is clear the City wants the woodlot preserved. They hope to develop a higher quality subdivision on this site with 75- to 95-foot lots. The homes are proposed to be 2,400 to 3,200 square feet in area. They would like to set the tone in this area before development commences in Columbus. Mr. Cline said conservation design does not apply to every project. For the sites and densities that it works for, it seems to plan itself. Linda Menerey presented options that were submitted at the December 2002 hearing for this site. She said planning cannot be done in a vacuum, and everything must be considered as Mr. Arendt makes clear. Ms. Menerey said when looking at property, locational context needs to be understood. The objectives of the developer and the City must be integrated into a plan. She said the reality here is that there will be 2,700 units to the west at six units per acre (17 percent openspace). Most of the openspace is contained along the Hayden Run, the high-pressure gas line easement, and along the railroad tracks. She said Dublin's Community Plan suggests 1 to 2 dwelling units per acre. Their biggest issue is when they look at everything happening around the site, it was hard to look at a conservation development in the true sense and figure what they are supposed to be doing. Ms. Menerey said this parcel has one of the largest woodlands in the Southwest area. Keeping it as a feature of this development poses issues because conservation principles encourage providing greenspace throughout. The whole concept is to provide an integrated openspace network. Unless they develop the woods, they are stuck with 28 acres in the comer and seven acres remaining elsewhere on the site. Ms. Menerey said Dublin wants to protect the rural character. The applicant is attempting to do some of that by saving the woods, keeping the large openspace corridor along A very Road, and preserving natural features. An objective of diversifying housing choices is very clear. The plan submitted in November showed two different kinds of housing. The typical lot size is 75 to 95-feet and the other product, which is a three-unit building, is designed to offer a different price point/life style in the marketplace. Ms. Menerey said this plan has around 31 percent openspace. She said in terms of integration, it is not necessarily all or nothing. While the plan is not 100 percent conservation design, it is not a standard subdivision plan. She said they did not believe that was necessarily the right solution. They would like to think there is a better solution that incorporates some of the conservation design objectives the City would like. Ms. Menerey said they did not think 100 percent conservation was the right way to go with everything that is happening in the surrounding area. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - March 4, 2004 Page 26 Ms. Menerey said Option 2 provides a combination of 50 by 110-foot lots and the other more "typical" lots. She said in order to get the 50 percent openspace and keep the woodlot, that shapes the lot sizes and product types. They also worked with staff in terms of road connections and some of the impacts with Avery Road. She said they had modified both plans in terms of entry points along A very Road. Al Berthold, Alfred Edwin Berthold Architect, said they considered a multi-family product. They thought about the massing and scale of the buildings and worked back to the interior design. He presented a small model of a building. He said they thought about putting three units in a building to provide a mix that included a ranch, a story-and-a half, and a traditional two- story in the middle. The garage locations can be varied, and stone was selected as a major material. Ms. Menerey said the multi-family is generally located along the railroad. Mr. Cline said over the past ten years the need to incorporate different demographics into the same developments has been discussed. He said the condos were intended to appeal to three different markets. Mr. Cline said in the remaining six minutes he wanted to hear from the Commissioners. Ms. Reiss thought a good job was done in preserving the woods. Because the site is flat, it is important to have proper stormwater management. More ponds would be great. She was leaning toward the conservation approach (Option 2). The smaller lots are okay, and a good job has been done providing setbacks off A very Road. She wondered about the Tuttle extension and suggested the last row of houses be eliminated. A buffer is also needed along the railroad tracks where the woods and detention will be. She understood the site is surrounded by higher density and leaned towards lower density because of traffic impacts. Mr. Gerber said this was the third time he has seen this project. He did not think conservation options fit here. He thought the December 2002 plan was more appropriate. Ms. Boring did not like any of the previous layouts. She agreed with Mr. Gerber that conservation design does not work because of the woods. She would like to see more frontage on the woods and thought the diversity in the multi-family was great. She would encourage a density of 1.5 duJac and see what other things could be incorporated. Two dwelling units per acre was too high. Mr. Messineo said 2.0 du/ac seemed to be more of a medium density and he did not like the condos on this site. He did not think conservation design was applicable, and he liked previous layouts better. Mr. Zimmerman said conservation design did not fit the site, and he wanted to see the woods preserved. He liked the design of the condos, but would prefer a residential subdivision. Ms. Boring asked what was not "residential" about the condos. Mr. Zimmerman said he looked at it as multi-family on single-family lots. He said the previous layouts were more attractive. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - March 4, 2004 Page 27 Mr. Saneholtz said Option 1 with the condos was appealing to him, but he would eliminate 22 lots along the railroad for openspace. That would provide a density of 1.8 dulac. He liked that there was nothing against the woods on the east side. He said the previous design layout with no units against the railroad was more appealing to him.. Mr. Gerber announced the time allotted had expired. He asked that the layouts be better identified for the record. Ms. Menerey said the PLR design was what the Commission referred to as Option 1. The conservation development is Option 2. Discussion about the previous three layouts were for Options A, B. and C. Mr. Cline counted four Commissioners that did not think conservation design would work. Mr. Gerber added that the majority thought the 2002 proposals were better than these presented tonight. Ms. Menerey added that there is a sanitary sewer easement running east-west through the site and per the City Engineer's office, that must go in a front yard. Ms. ReadIer suggested that a motion be made to recommend that the site is not suitable for conservation design. Mr. Gerber made a motion that this site is not conducive to conservation design. Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ms. Reiss, no; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Ms. Boring, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Messineo, yes. (Motion Approved 5-1.) The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~u:t~ Administrative Assistant Planning Division RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MmutesoL __ ______ ________--.PubllouC.i.tyuCQul}ciL--- -------. . MeetJllg DAY~~_l~Q~_~!'f>.!~INC----,-~QR_M~O_1_0.1~~________ ----------..- December 15, 2003 Page 13 Held 20 d that at this point, the plan' to survey using tQeir cons ants on collection and parti . ation. As far as a resident rvey, he is not certain that other is I needed at this poi . He added that staff is not et committed to bidding this pe of program citywid . They are working with the olid Waste Authority on spe fication I design for this rogram. More information I be provided to Council in nuary, including I survey resul I Mayor M ash added that the City ne s to review the sizes of gar. ges during the zoning I proces o ensure they are sufficien sized for two vehicles plus e waste and recycling I cont . ers. I Mr. cDaniel responded that sta has undertaken education I h e two-car garages and has und the containers can be that it is a consideration for t development process. Vote on the Resolution: s. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider es; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Kranstuber. yes; Ms. C nici-Zuercher, yes; Mayor cCash. yes; Mrs. Borin LAND USE Resolution 48-03 Requiring Development in a Conservation Design Pattern in Appropriate Areas of the City of Dublin. Mr. Reiner introduced the resolution. Mr. Harvey stated that Council and Planning Commission have worked this proposal on for the past year. It would require residential development proposals to include an option for conservation design. During the course of the application submittal, that option would be reviewed by staff and ultimately with Planning Commission to determine if a conservation design approach is appropriate for the land use in the particular area. Included in the resolution are 16 design criteria. It is an attempt to encourage conservation design. Among the descriptive requirements are a goal of 50 percent open space and density per the Community Plan. It does not necessarily require a change in housing styles. although it anticipates a creative approach to provision of housing as well as lot configuration. Ms, Salay asked about the lot widths in attachment A, pages 1 and 2. Mr. Harvey responded that he does not know the lot dimensions, but the lot sizes would typically be smaller. The intent was to illustrate how a given acreage could have the same yield with a conservation approach and 50 percent open space. Ms, Salay asked about the feedback from the development community on this proposal. When this was suggested previously, there was a lot of resistance. Mr. Harvey noted that he came into the process late. but there has been some confusion about conservation design in its traditional sense that originated with the farmland preservation effort and a very rural approach to development. The effort now is to apply it to a semi-rural. semi-urban setting and there has been some confusion about how that might be done and questions about housing types, etc, Given that, the clarifications are helping to clear up some of the confusion in the development community. They are now feeling the market pressure for this type of development. It is an estate feel and typically appeals to an upscale market. In that respect. it is a good fit for Dublin and the local development community is beginning to understand that. Vote on the Resolution: Ms, Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay. yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring. yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Kranstuber. yes; Mr. Reiner. yes, AGREEMENT Resolution 49- Consenting t ,Approving and Authoriz' g the Continuation of an xisting Mortgage and the Ex ution of a Third Change i Terms Agreement, All i Extensio of a Revolving Credit Lo Note from the Huntingt Tartan olf Company, LLC Relati to The Golf Club of Dub' . Mayor. cCash introduced the res ution. Mr. mith stated that bond coun I has provided a brief cov This re tes to the capital loan take out when the project bega nd is a standard renewal. ere is no increase in the . y's risk or debt. Bond cou el has reviewed the documents. n addition. he noted that City has received the fina ial records from the Golf Club of PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION NOVEMBER 13, 2003 erry OF DUBU\- Division of Planning BOO Shier-Rings Rood in, Ohio 43016-1236 Phone/TDD: 614-410-4600 Fax: 614-761-6566 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. New Ruralism Draft Resolution 03-102ADM Request: Review of a draft resolution in support of rural conservation design, to be submitted to City Council. Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Staff Contact: Gary Gunderman, AI CP, Assistant Planning Director. MOTION: To approve this draft resolution with the removal of the words "rural conservation" with "conservation design" throughout the document. VOTE: 5-0. RESULT: This resolution was approved. It will be forwarded to City Council with a positive recommendation. STAFF CERTIFICATION ~~.~ Frank A. Ciarochi Development Director and Acting Planning Director STAFF REPORT DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13, 2003 CITY OF DUBLlN. . ~ivision of Plonning '00 Shier-Rings Rood [ 1, Ohio 43016-1236 PhOne/TOO: 614-410-4600 Fox: 614-761-6566 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us 1. New Ruralism Draft Resolution 03-102ADM Request: Review of a draft resolution in support of rural conservation design, to be submitted to City Council. Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Staff Contact: Gary P. Gunderman, AICP, Assistant Planning Director. BACKGROUND: On August 28 2003, the Commission recommended that the City should pursue the concept of Rural Conservation development. The Commission suggested that this should be done on a broad scale and further consensus should be sought so that a clear message can be conveyed to the development community about the City policy on new development. It was suggested that the Planning and Zoning Commission adopt a resolution to be forwarded to the City Council for adoption. This resolution is a formal statement of the expectations on the record. The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the draft resolution on October 16 and suggestions were made for revisions to the resolution. The attached resolution contains revisions to the resolution that attempt to address the comments of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The revisions are contained in Sections 1 and 3 of the resolution where references to Randal Arendt have been removed, and a more detailed list of characteristics has been added. Graphics have been added as an attachment and a reference to utilizing gross density calculations has also been added. CONSIDERATIONS: . The revised draft resolution continues to voice several goals that were raised during discussions by the City Council and the Planning Commission. These goals include: . Preservation of natural features, . Retention of rural character, . Development of areas suitable to be adjacent to the Metro Park, and . Creation of a diverse housing market. Community Plan Issues: . The importance of rural character is discussed in Chapter Two of the Community Plan "Community Character & Environment." In describing the elements of Dublin's character, the "Rural Landscape" dominates much of the southwest and western portions Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report - November 13, 2003 Page 2 of the City. This same rural character and other natural features are accentuated by the importance given to "Scenic Roads" -another element defining Dublin's character. Map 3 "Elements of Community Character" indicates that most of the western portion of the city has a "Rural Image/Character." These are areas of Dublin where substantial new residential development will occur in the future. . Chapter Two also, states "1. Protect rural character in Dublin." This part of the Plan notes that current regulations do not address the preservation of rural character. The implementation of a rural conservation policy will help overcome this deficiency in the Code. This section also notes the importance of other issues to be addressed such as "Preserve rural road characteristics." Clear views of houses and more houses cannot be used to preserve the rural roads, but conservation development can create enough open space at the edge of the road to retain a rural ambience in the area. The plan also discourages "Protect the character of scenic roads." . This intent is addressed in the Plan by the endorsement of "discouraging large lot residential development" on major roadway frontage. This same section highlights another central feature of rural conservation development "Preserve critical viewsheds." This has always been a prominent feature of the Randall Arendt planning review process and conservation design should make the retention of such views far more practical than previously possible. . In the "Policies, Issues and Strategies" section of the "Environment" in Chapter Two, the second item listed is "Wooded Areas and Tree Cover." This is yet another topic well managed by Rural Conservation development, as are "Steep Slopes." All of these topics are reflected in Chapter Ten - "Implementation Elements" where Policy 1 under "Community character" is "Protect rural character in Dublin," and Policy 4 "Preserve critical viewsheds." Policy 8 continues with "Protect the character of scenic roads." Many other topics under "B. Environment" also restate the discussion for Chapter Two and emphasize issues that can be addressed in rural conservation development. Basic Components of Rural Conservation Development: . Rural Conservation Design is a concept that has been under discussion for the past ten years, partially as a result of the work of Randall Arendt. The rural conservation subdivision is a design process that involves the careful consideration of several factors, the basic elements of which are fairly simple. . The rural conservation subdivision calls for the use of the property in a manner that preserves its most important natural features. Clustering of dwelling units into smaller areas allows for the permanent aggregation and preservation of the resulting open space. The open space is achieved by developing a smaller area; single-family homes clustered on smaller lots for instance. In most cases, this goal can be achieved while maintaining the same overall density as would have been otherwise permissible. Typically, no reduction in the number of units is required to achieve open space. The amount of area used for right-of-way may be reduced as well. . Steps involved in the process described by Arendt are as follows: 1. Identify all the Potential Conservation Area, a very important step in this process that involves identifying a large number of potential characteristics. 2. Locate the housing sites that can fit into the conservation area and features defined in step 1. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report - November 13,2003 Page 3 3. Design a street alignment and pedestrian trails that complement the housing layout. 4. Draw in the lot lines. Randall Arendt has written extensively on this subject in Growing Greener Putting Conservation into Local Plans and Ordinances and in, Conservation Design for Subdivisions, A Practical Guide to Creating Open Space Networks, as well as other books and articles on the subject. Potential Standards: . All new residential development projects in the City of Dublin should be evaluated for the suitability of applying a rural conservation development. All potential residential rezoning applications should include conservation layouts for consideration in each project. All projects are expected to adhere to the overall density directions of the Community Plan. . Projects utilizing rural conservation techniques are able to utilize the PUD process. The flexibility is incorporated within those regulations to develop in a rural conservation manner. . All rural conservation projects should strive for at least 50 percent open space areas. . All rural conservation project should strive to have at least 75 percent of the dwelling units directly adjacent to open space areas. . All rural conservation projects should attempt to provide large setbacks from existing streets, especially designated scenic roads, and to create a separate area identity surrounded with open areas specifically preserved in the development of these projects. . Wherever possible, the street system should have a curvilinear pattern that will minimize traffic speed, support the housing development pattern, and protect natural features. . Projects located in sites with few natural attributes for preservation should design grading and landscape features that create desirable open spaces as these areas are created and mature. . Where residential development is on individual lots, minimum lot areas, setbacks and lot width will be determined in the PUD text for the project. . Individual structures will need to maintain sufficient separation to meet applicable fire protection codes. . Historic sites and their cultural landscapes may be included as part of the required preservation area. Cultural landscapes required to preserve an historic site's integrity shall be maintained. . Natural areas or buffers will be required for all proposed development in accordance with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. . Viewsheds of natural features need to be identified and preserved where possible. . Detention or retention areas and utility easements may be included as part of the common open space. Appropriate maintenance easements satisfactory to the Planning and Zoning Commission need to be established. Preservation Requirements: . Each tract should contain a preservation area to be included in the common open space subject to the following: . Preservation areas include woodland, meadow, wetland, watercourse, wildlife sanctuary or similar conservation-oriented area, park, pedestrian or equestrian trails or outdoor recreation areas, pastureland, open field or lawn. Historic resources that are not in excess of 20 percent of the required preservation area can be included. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report - November 13,2003 Page 4 . Sixty percent of the common open space should be preservation areas that preserve and protect the significant natural features, cultural landscapes, and historic sites. . Land designated as preservation area should contain no more than 75 percent ofthe area in designated flood hazard district, wetlands, or steep slopes. . All preservation areas must be at least one acre and 75 feet in width, or have a ratio ofthe longest to shortest dimension exceeding 4 to 1, unless there are exceptional circumstances. No structures or impervious surfaces shall be counted towards the preservation area requirements, except for historic farm buildings. . There shall be a maximum of four noncontiguous preservation areas in any project. Maintenance and Operation of Common Facilities: . A plan for maintenance and operation of all permanent common areas and facilities will be provided. A plan for the disposition, use, maintenance, and insurance of the common open space, including provisions for funding, shall be included in the preliminary plan approval. . Common open space shall be available for use by those having an ownership interest in the tract as developed. Portions of the common open space may be designated for use by the general public. . The following methods may be used, either individually or in combination, to own common facilities: condominium ownership, fee simple dedication to public agency, dedication of easements to the city, fee simple dedication to a private conservation organization, and/or transfer of easements to a private conservation organization and/or homeowners' association. Common facilities shall not be eligible for transfer to another entity except for transfer to another method of ownership. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the resolution be adopted by the Commission and recommended to be adopted by City Council. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report - November 13,2003 Page 5 XX-03 A RESOLUTION REQUIRING DEVELOPMENT IN A RURAL CONSERVATION PATTERN IN APPROPRIATE AREAS OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN. WHEREAS, the decisions in the Dublin Community Plan were based in large part on the measurable impacts of development; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan recommends protection of rural character in outlying areas in the northwest and elsewhere; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan recommends the preservation of natural features and open space; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan designates areas for lower density development along the River Corridor and in outlying areas; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan encourages amassing a large Metro Park to create a greenbelt and a definitive City "edge" to avoid a continuous mass of development; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan recommends revising Dublin's ordinances to facilitate the preservation of rural character; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan recommends the use of cluster residential development adjacent to the Metro Park to preserve open space and rural character; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan includes a Land Use Map based on the "preferred scenario" based on computer modeling of the impacts of development; and WHEREAS, many residential subdivisions have been developed in the City of Dublin that exhibit similar characteristics, with similar appearance, and provide similar housing stock; and WHEREAS, continuing this development pattern will create a repetitious environment for the City as a whole and limit the housing choices of the residents; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin will require diverse housing products to meet the future needs of its residents; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin desires to broaden the housing choices available to its residents as their life circumstances change; and WHEREAS, the community desires to avoid repetition and to create a diverse and dynamic environment as the City continues to develop; and Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report - November 13,2003 Page 6 WHEREAS, the City of Dublin desires to have a larger variety of housing types and remains committed to housing options of high quality; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin desires to preserve natural features of the land, the open vistas, and open space in general whenever possible; and WHEREAS, conservation design practices are based on the natural resources of the land being developed and provide for preservation of substantial open space; and WHEREAS, conservation design practices have been successful in locations across the United States and may provide for reduced private development costs; and WHEREAS, conservation design practices can be employed to further both the open space and housing goals of the City of Dublin; and WHEREAS, the Dublin City Council and its Planning and Zoning Commission have indicated support for such practices on a continuing basis; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Dublin, _ of the elected members concurring, that: Section 1. The City encourages new development to provide for alternative housing styles and designs and to preserve open space and natural features. New development proposals need to conform to the density and impact recommendations in the adopted Community Plan based on a gross density calculation for the development. The City will require all new residential proposals, where a planned district is requested, to include a layout based on rural conservation design practices, and indicating at least fifty percent open space, for evaluation. Section 2. Sites with woods, streams, river frontage, steep slopes, and other natural features will be considered as prime candidates for employing rural conservation techniques. Additionally, rural conservation techniques should be incorporated wherever possible for development sites located along the River Corridor, at the outskirts of the municipality or with proximity to the Glacier Ridge Metro Park. Section 3. Conservation layouts being submitted for evaluation should be based upon and adhere to a design criteria for rural conservation design that calls for the clustering of available density onto smaller, grouped, individual building areas. Conservation layout should generally adhere to the following principles; . All rural conservation projects should strive for at least 50 percent open space areas. . All rural conservation projects should strive to have at least 75 percent of the dwelling units directly adjacent to open space areas. Dwelling units should be clustered in patterns that preserve sizeable open spaces and still disperse the dwelling units to permit a high percentage to be directly adjacent to the open space. . All rural conservation projects should attempt to provide large setbacks from existing streets, especially designated scenic roads, and to create a separate area identity surrounded with open areas specifically preserved in the development of these projects. . Wherever possible the street system should have a curvilinear pattern that will minimize traffic speed, support the housing development pattern, protect natural features. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report - November 13,2003 Page 7 . Projects located in sites with few natural attributes for preservation should design grading and landscape features that create desirable open spaces as these areas are created and mature. . Where residential development is on individual lots, minimum lot areas, setbacks and lot width will be determined in the PUD text for the project. . Historic sites and their cultural landscapes may be included as part of the required preservation area. Cultural landscapes required to preserve an historic site's integrity shall be maintained. . Natural areas or buffers will be required for all proposed development in accordance with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. . Viewsheds of natural features need to be identified and preserved where possible. . Detention or retention areas and utility easements may be included as part of the common open space. Appropriate maintenance easements satisfactory to the Planning and Zoning Commission need to be established and may include arrangements with other governmental and private organizations. . Each tract should contain a preservation area to be included in the common open space. . Preservation areas should include woodland, meadow, wetland, watercourse, wildlife sanctuary or similar conservation-oriented area, park, pedestrian or equestrian trails or outdoor recreation areas, pastureland, open field or lawn and should be developed only to support long term natural vegetation without regular maintenance. . Preservation areas should be structured so as to preserve and protect the significant natural features, cultural landscapes, and historic sites or create new natural areas that will mature over time. . Land designated as preservation area should contain no more than 75 percent of the preservation area in flood hazard district, wetlands, or steep slopes. . All preservation areas must be at least one acre and 75 feet in width, or have a ratio of the longest to shortest dimension not exceeding 4 to 1, unless there are exceptional circumstances. No structures or impervious surfaces shall be counted towards the preservation area requirements, except for historic farm buildings. . There shall be a maximum of four noncontiguous preservation areas in any project. . Conservation project should be developed in the following manner; 1. Identify all Potential Conservation Areas. 2. Locate the housing sites that can fit into the conservation area and features defined in step 1. 3. Design a street alignment and other pedestrian trails that complement the housing layout. 4. Develop the property lines. It is understood that such layouts can include one or more housing types, less conventional lot layouts and diminished lot sizes. The overall design, architectural quality and the buildings themselves may be factors in the Commission's evaluation. Graphic examples of conservation design are attached as a comparison of typical Dublin Subdivisions and rural conservation design applied to the same location and density. (See attachment A pages 1,2 and 3) Section 4. The Planning and Zoning Commission, in concert with the staff, shall evaluate new residential development proposals and shall determine whether an individual site is poorly situated for the use of rural conservation design. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall indicate its reasons for considering other non-conservation layouts or designs for development, in its records and reports to City Council. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report - November 13,2003 Page 8 Section 5. The Planning and Zoning Commission, in concert with the staff, and working proactively with the development community, shall endeavor to incorporate rural conservation design practices in future residential developments in all appropriate locations. Section 6. The City will consider the adoption of specific regulations, and planning and development policies, related to rural conservation design as part of its continuing review of development controls and through the work of the Development Code Taskforce on the subdivision regulations. Section 7. This resolution shall be take effect and be in force upon passage. Passed this _ day of , 2003. Mayor - Presiding Officer ATTEST: Clerk of Council Sponsor: Division of Planning. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report - November 13,2003 Page 9 Resolution XX Attachment A page 1 ; Typical Dublin Single Family Development -'- ' '':'-''- .:.-- . ~- ~ L..___ __.._._.__._.._.._!l:lVI>A~ ~-. '~"-"--"-"-'_: Typical Rural Conservation Single Family as proposed in Resolution XX Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report - November 13,2003 Page 10 Resolution XX Attachment A page 2 Typical Rural Conservation Attached Condo as proposed in Resolution XX Typical Dublin Single Family Development Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report - November 13,2003 Page 11 Resolution XX Attachment A page 3 Typical Rural Conservation Single Family as proposed in Resolution XX Typical Rural Conservation Condo project as proposed in Resolution XX Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - November 13,2003 Page 2 Mr. Messineo sai e supported the applic IOn last time and secon d the motion. The vote as as follows: Mr Gerber, yes; Mr. Zim rman, yes; Mr. Sprag , yes; Mr. Saneholtz, ye , and Mr. Messine , yes. Mr. Saneholt withdrew his vote a abstained instead. ( tion to reconsider proved 4-0-1) Mr. Zi erman requested the se be on the December 4 genda. Admi strative Business Mr erber announced that t e consent case, Case 3, ould be heard first, then ases 1,2,4, and [The final hearing ord was Cases 1,3,5,2, a order.] 1. New Ruralism Draft Resolution 03-102ADM Gary Gunderman said at the October 16, 2002 Commission meeting, the Commissioners discussed this resolution at length. The revisions requested have been made by staff. Section 3 has been changed considerably to add 17 sub-bullet items and take out the reference to Randall Arendt as the authority as requested previously. The rest of the resolution is unchanged. Mr. Gerber appreciated Mr. Gunderman's efforts to reflect the Commissioners' comments. Mr. Gerber said when he thought of "ruralism" he thought of Ames, Iowa, Peoria, Illinois, etc. (rural communities) and he thought some of those concepts and designs should not be used. In Dublin, it was more "conservation design" as opposed to "ruralism." It connotes more to the Community Plan. He said the staff report and resolution referred to "conservation design." He said that reflected more of what he was thinking. Mr. Zimmerman agreed it and was more current for the community. Mr. Gerber made the motion to approve this resolution with the change made from "rural conservation" to "conservation design" throughout the document. Mr. Zimmerman seconded, and the vote was as follows: Mr. Sprague, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Mr. Messineo, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes. (Approved 5-0.) 2. Revised Dev opment Plan 03-095 Stations) area V - 5805 Eiterm Road Mr. Gerber wore-in those who pIa ed to speak, Commisso n tonight on this case. Mar uppo said this is a reque for two comfort stations ithin Subarea V Of~fCIUb of D in development. He s' they were not specific y called for in the te " however the S barea V text does list re ote restroom facilities. showed slides of the % locations. Both sites are zoned PLR, PIa ed Low Density Resideq 'al District along with th 'golf course and the surrounding residentia community. .;// # ./ Comfort station is set back approximate 1'30 feet from Barrons{e Way on the sout Ide. Barronsmore y is currently stubbed a will eventually be exte ed to the west. The cation is just north the Hole #14 tee box w ch is at an elevated po~. on. He showed slid showing the site fr PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION OCTOBER 16, 2003 CITY OF DUBLI:\- n'''ision of Planning 10 Shier-Rings Rood 0 , Ohio 43016-1236 Phone!TOO: 614-410-4600 Fox: 614-761-6566 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. New Ruralism Draft Resolution 03-102ADM Request: Review of a draft resolution in support of rural conservation design, to be submitted to City Council. Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017, Staff Contact: Gary Gunderman, AICP, Assistant Planning Director. MOTION: To table this resolution. VOTE: 6-0. RESULT: After much discussion, this resolution was tabled to further refine it to return to the Commission at their November 6, 2003 meeting for review and approval. STAFF CERTIFICATION 4/~ Gary P. Gunderman Assistant Planning Director STAFF REPORT DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16,2003 ,.ciTY OF Bl'HLll\ Division of Planning 5800 Shier-Rings Rood 01 Ohio 43016-1236 Pho )0: 614-410-4600 Fox: 614-761-6566 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us 1. New Ruralism Draft Resolution 03-102ADM Request: Review of a draft resolution in support of rural conservation design, to be submitted to City Council. Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Staff Contact: Gary Gunderman, AICP, Assistant Planning Director. BACKGROUND: On August 28 2003, the Commission recommended that the City should pursue the concept of Rural Conservation development. The Commission suggested that this should be done on a broad scale. Further consensus should be sought so that a clear message can be conveyed to the development community about the city policy on new development. It was suggested that the Planning and Zoning Commission adopt a resolution to be forwarded to the City Council for adoption. This is a formal statement of the expectations on the record. CONSIDERATIONS: The draft resolution voices several goals that were raised during discussions by the City Council and the Planning Commission, These goals include: . Preservation of natural features, . Retention of rural character, . Development of areas suitable to be adjacent to the Metro Park, and . Creation of a diverse housing market. Community Plan Issues: . The importance of rural character is discussed in Chapter Two of the Community Plan "Community Character & Environment." In describing the elements of Dublin's character, the "Rural Landscape" dominates much of the southwest and western portions of the city. This same rural character and other natural features are accentuated by the importance given to "Scenic Roads" -another element defining Dublin's character. Map 3 "Elements of Community Character" indicates that most of the western portion of the city has a "Rural Image/Character." These are areas of Dublin where substantial new residential development will occur in the future. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report - October 16, 2003 Page 2 . Chapter Two also, states "1. Protect rural character in Dublin." This part of the Plan notes that current regulations do not address the preservation of rural character. The implementation of a rural conservation policy will help overcome this deficiency in the Code. This section also notes the importance of other issues to be addressed such as "Preserve rural road characteristics." Clear views of houses and more houses cannot be used to preserve the rural roads, but conservation development can create enough open space at the edge of the road to retain a rural ambience in the area. The plan also discourages "Protect the character of scenic roads." . This intent is addressed in the Plan by the endorsement of "discouraging large lot residential development" on major roadway frontage. This same section highlights another central feature of rural conservation development "Preserve critical viewsheds." This has always been a prominent feature of the Randall Arendt planning review process and conservation design should make the retention of such views far more practical than previously possible. . In the "Policies, Issues and Strategies" section of the "Environment" in Chapter Two, the second item listed is "Wooded Areas and Tree Cover." This is yet another topic well managed by Rural Conservation development, as are "Steep Slopes." All of these topics are reflected in Chapter Ten - "Implementation Elements" where Policy 1 under "Community character" is "Protect rural character in Dublin," and Policy 4 "Preserve critical viewsheds." Policy 8 continues with "Protect the character of scenic roads." Many other topics under "B. Environment" also restate the discussion for Chapter Two and emphasize issues that can be addressed in rural conservation development. Basic Components of Rural Conservation Development: . Rural conservation design is a concept that has been under discussion for the past ten years, partially as a result of the work of Randall G. Arendt. The rural conservation subdivision is a design process that involves the careful consideration of several factors, the basic elements of which are fairly simple. . The rural conservation subdivision calls for the use of the property in a manner that preserves its most important natural features. Clustering of dwelling units into smaller areas allows for the permanent aggregation and preservation of the resulting open space. The open space is achieved by developing a smaller area; single-family homes clustered on smaller lots for instance. In most cases, this goal can be achieved while maintaining the same overall density as would have been otherwise permissible. Typically, no reduction in the number of units is required to achieve open space. The amount of area used for right-of-way may be reduced as well. . Steps involved in the process described by Arendt are as follows: 1. Identify all Potential Conservation Area, a very important step in this process that involves identifying a large number of potential characteristics. 2. Locate the housing sites that can fit into the conservation area and features defined in step I. 3. Design a street alignment and other pedestrian trails that complement the housing layout. 4. Draw in the lot lines. . Randall Arendt has written extensively on this subject in Growing Greener Putting Conservation into Local Plans and Ordinances and in, Conservation Design for Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report - October 16, 2003 Page 3 Subdivisions. A Practical Guide to Creating Open Space Networks, as well as other books and articles on the subject. Potential Standards: . All new residential development projects in the City of Dublin should be evaluated for the suitability of applying a rural conservation development. All potential residential rezoning applications should include conservation layouts for consideration in each project. All projects are expected to adhere to the overall density directions of the Community Plan. . Projects utilizing rural conservation techniques are able to utilize the PUD process. The flexibility is incorporated within those regulations to develop in a rural conservation manner. . All rural conservation projects should strive for at least 50 percent open space areas. . All rural conservation project should strive to have at least 75 percent of the dwelling units directly adjacent to open space areas. . All rural conservation projects should attempt to provide large setbacks from existing streets, especially designated scenic roads, and to create a separate area identity surrounded with open areas specifically preserved in the development of these projects. . Wherever possible the street system should have a curvilinear pattern that will minimize traffic speed, support the housing development pattern, and protect natural features. . Projects located in sites with few natural attributes for preservation should design grading and landscape features that create desirable open spaces as these areas are created and mature. . Where residential development is on individual lots, minimum lot areas, setbacks and lot width will be determined in the PUD text for the project. . Individual structures will need to maintain sufficient separation to meet applicable fire protection codes. . Historic sites and their cultural landscapes may be included as part of the required preservation area. Cultural landscapes required to preserve an historic site's integrity shall be maintained. . Natural areas or buffers will be required for all proposed development in accordance with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. . Viewsheds of natural features need to be identified and preserved where possible. . Detention or retention areas and utility easements may be included as part of the common open space. Appropriate maintenance easements satisfactory to the Planning and Zoning Commission need to be established. Preservation Requirements: . Each tract should contain a preservation area to be included in the common open space subject to the following: . Preservation areas include woodland, meadow, wetland, watercourse, wildlife sanctuary or similar conservation-oriented area, park, pedestrian or equestrian trails or outdoor recreation areas, pastureland, open field or lawn. Historic resources that are not in excess of20 percent ofthe required preservation area can be included. . Sixty percent of the common open space should be preservation areas that preserve and protect the significant natural features, cultural landscapes, and historic sites. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report - October 16,2003 Page 4 . Land designated as preservation area should contain no more than 75 percent of the preservation area and should be comprised of designated flood hazard district, wetlands, or steep slopes. . All preservation areas must be at least one acre and 75 feet in width, or have a ratio of the longest to shortest dimension exceeding 4 to 1, unless there are exceptional circumstances. No structures or impervious surfaces shall be counted towards the preservation area requirements, except for historic farm buildings. . There shall be a maximum of four noncontiguous preservation areas in any project. Maintenance and Operation of Common Facilities: . A plan for maintenance and operation of all permanent common areas and facilities will be provided. A plan for the disposition, use, maintenance, and insurance of the common open space, including provisions for funding, shall be included in the preliminary plan approval. . Common open space shall be available for use by those having an ownership interest in the tract as developed. Portions of the common open space may be designated for use by the general public. . The following methods may be used, either individually or in combination, to own . common facilities: condominium ownership, fee simple dedication to public agency, dedication of easements to the city, fee simple dedication to a private conservation organization, and/or transfer of easements to a private conservation organization and/or homeowners' association. Common facilities shall not be eligible for transfer to another entity except for transfer to another method of ownership. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the resolution be adopted and recommended to the City Council for adoption. XX-03 A RESOLUTION REQUIRING DEVELOPMENT IN A RURAL CONSERVATION PATTERN IN APPROPRIATE AREAS OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN WHEREAS, the decisions in the Dublin Community Plan were based in large part on the measurable impacts of development; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan recommends protection of rural character in outlying areas in the northwest and elsewhere; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan recommends the preservation of natural features and open space; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan designates areas for lower density development along the River Corridor and in outlying areas; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan encourages amassing a large Metro Park to create a greenbelt and a definitive City "edge" to avoid a continuous mass of development; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan recommends revising Dublin's ordinances to facilitate the preservation of rural character; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan recommends the use of cluster residential development adjacent to the Metro Park to preserve open space and rural character; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan includes a Land Use Map based on the "preferred scenario" based on computer modeling of the impacts of development; and WHEREAS, many residential subdivisions have been developed in the City of Dublin that exhibit similar characteristics, with similar appearance, and provide similar housing stock; and WHEREAS, continuing this development pattern will create a repetitious environment for the City as a whole and limit the housing choices of the residents; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin will require diverse housing products to meet the future needs of its residents; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin desires to broaden the housing choices available to its residents as their life circumstances change; and WHEREAS, the community desires to avoid repetition and to create a diverse and dynamic environment as the City continues to develop; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin desires to have a larger variety of housing types and remains committed to housing options of high quality; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin desires to preserve natural features of the land, the open vistas, and open space in general whenever possible; and WHEREAS, conservation design practices are based on the natural resources of the land being developed and provide 'fo~ preservation of substantial open space; and WHEREAS, conservation design practices have been successful in locations across the United States and may provide for reduced private development costs; and WHEREAS, conservation design practices can be employed to further both the open space and housing goals of the City of Dublin; and WHEREAS, the Dublin City Council and its Planning and Zoning Commission have indicated support for such practices on a continuing basis; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Dublin, _ of the elected members concurring, that: Section 1. The City encourages new development to provide for alternative housing styles and designs and to preserve open space and natural features. New development proposals need to conform to the density and impact recommendations in the adopted Community Plan. The City will require all new residential proposals, where a planned district is requested, to include a layout based on rural conservation design practices, and indicating at least fifty percent open space, for evaluation. Section 2. Sites with woods, streams, river frontage, steep slopes, and other natural features will be considered as prime candidates for employing rural conservation techniques. Additionally, rural conservation techniques should be incorporated wherever possible for development sites located along the River Corridor, at the outskirts of the municipality or with proximity to the Glacier Ridge Metro Park. Section 3. Conservation layouts being submitted for evaluation should be based upon and adhere to the design criteria for rural conservation subdivision design outlined in the publications of Randall Arendt. It is understood that such layouts can include one or more housing types, less conventional lot layouts and diminished lot sizes. The overall design, architectural quality and the buildings themselves may be factors in the Commission's evaluation, Section 4. The Planning and Zoning Commission, in concert with the staff, shall evaluate new residential development proposals and shall determine whether an individual site is poorly situated for the use of rural conservation design. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall indicate its reasons for considering other non-conservation layouts or designs for development, in its records and reports to City Council. Section 5. The Planning and Zoning Commission, in concert with the staff, and working pro actively with the development community, shall endeavor to incorporate rural conservation design practices in future residential developments in all appropriate locations, Section 6. The City will consider the adoption of specific regulations, and planning and development policies, related to rural conservation design as part of its continuing review of development controls and through the work of the Development Code Taskforce on the subdivision regulations. Section 7, This resolution shall be take effect and be in force upon passage. Passed this _ day of ,2003, Mayor - Presiding Officer ATTEST: Clerk of Council Sponsor: Division ofPlaJ,1ning. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - October 16,2003 Page 2 1. New Ruralism Draft Resolution 03-102ADM Gary Gunderman said this draft resolution was distributed first at the October 2 meeting, with a request for any comments or modifications. There are 19 introductory "Whereas" statements sections followed by six sections to be enacted. He said the first eight "Whereas" statements stem from the Community Plan. and deal with protecting rural character or natural features, areas of lower density development, and amassing a large Metro park. The next few "Whereas" sections highlight several other observations that make conservation design useful, creating less repetitious subdivisions in the future and diversifying the housing stock in Dublin. He said the last few "whereas" clauses discuss fostering openspace goals and cost savings. Mr. Gunderman said the "Whereas" portions set up the logic, but the next six sections are the crux of the matter. He said Section I encourages new design and requires all residential proposal to submit a rural conservation design that includes at least fifty percent openspace. He said Section 2 indicates prime candidates for conservation design, such as wooded sites, stream corridors and those areas close to the Glacier Ridge Metro Park. He said Section 3 references to work done by Randall Arendt on this topic as the basis for future designs. Section 4 indicates that the staff and really the Commission will decided on a case by case basis whether a site is well-suited or not for conservation design. He said one major point is whether a location is appropriate for this. There are expected to be new conservation standards in the subdivision regulations being reviewed by the Development Code Review Taskforce. Mr. Gunderman said this draft resolution attempts to achieve a consensus on the topic between the Commission and City Council. It will give clear guidance to staff and developers. He said staff would be happy to make any corrections the Commission requests. Mr. Gerber asked if the previously approved Bishops Run development would qualify under Section 1. Mr. Gunderman said it not be considered because it is no longer a new proposal, but if it were still at the rezoning stage, it would be encouraged to follow a conservation route. Mr. Gerber said there were factors why or why not to ultimately adopt it such as roadways, etc. Mr. Gunderman added the shape or size of the property as considerations which would be a real difficulty. Adjacent land uses and design patterns may be established that are not workable. Mr. Gerber asked about criteria for rural subdivision design outlined by Mr. Arendt's publications cited mentioned in Section 3. Mr. Gunderman said those were addressed in the staff report. It is a matter of analyzing the site, checking the natural features for preservation (woodlands, creeks, etc.), identifying and mapping them, then attempting to them into a rational housing development pattern. He said the Potential Standards on page 3 of the staff report were recommended, but they did not directly translate to the resolution. Mr. Gerber wanted the basic components of rural conservation development outlined to put developers on notice of what criteria are being used. Mr. Gunderman said the reference to Arendt does that. Mr. Arendt has done so much work on that one topic, it should be clear. Mr. Messineo suggested citing additional authorities on ruralism, or the basic principles. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - October 16,2003 Page 3 Mr. Gunderman said staff could probably craft some principles. He said the fundamental issues of the clustering and doing the steps mentioned previously are the two major components. He thought it possible to come up with a description that did not rely on Arendt's work. Mr. Gerber felt the Commissioners had a lot of issues. He said he would like with respect to Section 3, see some of those. The Commission needs a main theme to feel more comfortable in embracing this, and then notifying developers that these are being considered. Ms. Boring agreed and said she had problems with the entire resolution. She asked what "diverse housing products" and did not agree that Dublin "desires to broaden the housing choices available as their life circumstances change" as the reason for ruralism. She was concerned that ruralism was a way to map out houses at the same density in a different way. This resolution implies that increased density will be allowed, and that is wrong. Ms. Boring asked the meaning of "Dublin desires to have a larger variety of housing types." She said City Council made it very clear they wanted a tool to use, but she was uncomfortable requiring all new developments to prepare a conservation design because developers say this is very expensive. She was not sure that Mr. Arendt had Dublin in mind. She thought they had agreed not to call this "ruralism." She thought "conservationism" was an excellent idea. Ms. Boring said this is too loose with an unclear purpose. The references to Arendt need to be removed; this should be Dublin's own tool based on Arendt. She wanted assurance that this is not a way to boost densities. The number of units needs to stay the same, but the placement of the homes changes. Ms. Boring did not connect lot size to a change in housing types. Ms. Boring was not disappointed with the housing types. She liked single-family homes. Mr. Gerber said they discussed this several times, including at joint meetings with Council. He said "Whereas" clauses 1-8 are "givens," but 9-16 are at the center of what they were talking about. They expressed the need for more developments, and where appropriate and with the demographics of the City, other types of housing for consideration of those wanting to downsize. Ms. Boring did not see that as ruralism. This does not seem to support single-family home development, just multi-family condos for the graying population. She saw this as two separate issues that should not be hooked together. She thought developers would use this to increase densities to unacceptable levels. Mr. Gerber said there is a need for more information, and he sensed this resolution is not ready. Ms. Boring wanted to know if this addresses diverse development or diverse housing. Mr. Sprague did not think the impact of requiring a ruralism layout for all new PUD applications would have a significant financial impact on the builders. He wondered if a disincentative was being provided for them to use the PUD layout. He noted the Code changes are not complete as yet. He wondered if this will push developers away from using PUDs. Mr. Gunderman thought that application dynamics would not change. It will add some effort to the process. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - October 16, 2003 Page 4 Mr. Sprague said another issue may be scale. Recent PUDs have been quite small, and doing a tiny ruralism design could be expensive. Mr. Gerber agreed, but thought this was covered by "where appropriate.". He asked that the two could be compared from a cost standpoint to answer the question if lots are lost. Mr. Gunderman said they will be essentially neutral on density. Mr. Gunderman said staff assumed the rural conservation designs would contain the same number of lots. Mr. Gerber said the streets might need to be realigned, and he added that the Commission needed to look at this and discuss it. Mr. Zimmerman said a ruralism design was previously demonstrated for the Conine property. He said when compared, the layouts were very different. Mr. Gerber agreed. Mr. Gunderman said it took a staff member several days to design those exhibits. Mr. Zimmerman wanted to see a comparison on the 20 likely properties. Ms. Boring said, as written, it would apply to the Hansel property, and better criteria are needed. Mr. Gerber said the ruralismlconservation characteristics and the housing issue needed to be separated. Alternative housing could be handled elsewhere. Ms. Clarke said the Commission hadn't separated those issues in any of their previous discussions. This was the first time those issues were being separated. Mr. Gerber agreed. Mr. Gunderman said some locations may only be appropriate for single-family purposes. Mr. Gerber said they did not want to look at the alternative housing issue tonight. Mr. Gunderman said that was a big change from the previous course. Mr. Sprague said not every PUD needs to be single-family. Some site may be compatible with new ruralism and others not. It does not limit the Commission's discretion, it just says they are not going to use the new ruralism format to expand the diversity of the housing stock. Ms. Clarke predicted more "cookie-cutters" will result. She had heard in many meetings that there is a real resistance to the "same old, same old." There were requests for something different, something creative, For a developer to give half of the site as open space, something has to change. If the number of lots stay the same and the open space contribution increases, the lot sizes have to get smaller. That is the "alternative" to current patterns. Mr. Zimmerman said the housing stock needs to be more creative. Ms. Boring agreed and said the lots become smaller. Mr. Zimmerman said the lots may be narrower, requiring a narrower house design, a different design. Ms. Clarke said the current policy is that 80 feet will be the narrowest lot platted. Mr. Gerber said that would not change with this resolution. Ms. Clarke said that will nullify this effort. Ms. Boring disagreed and said "diverse housing products" generally means more multi-family. She agreed the lot sized need to be smaller, with clustering, but otherwise housing is the same. Mr. Gerber suggested that "alternative housing styles" should be defined. He asked if how it differs from a standard house, and perhaps includes twin-singles, or condos. Mr. Saneholtz said he always thought of it as different styles, but it relates to single-family homes. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - October 16,2003 Page 5 Ms. Clarke said the second sentence of the resolution relies on the Community Plan recommended density. If the recommended density is 1 to 2 dulac, does the Commission find that a two-family product meeting that density with 50 percent openspace to be unacceptable? Mr. Saneholtz said no, not necessarily. Mr. Messineo said the key was 50 percent openspace. Mr. Messineo said developers will tend to put bigger houses on smaller lots, but the gross density across the whole site will remain the same. Mr. Gunderman agreed. Ms. Boring said the "whereas" sections needed to be redefined. She agreed housing choices need to be broadened, but she was not sure that is the basis for adopting ruralism. She thought the goal is to conserve openspace and to conserve the natural beauty of the land. The secondary goal is to get away from cookie-cutter style housing to upgrade the appearance of the community. Mr. Sprague said it could be deleted. Ms. Clarke said the housing language is based on a goal in the Community Plan, and that document acknowledges the demographics of the country. Not everybody will be able to live in a two-story, four-bedroom house over time. Ms. Boring agreed, but she thought that ruralism was to provide a different housing look and to preserve the natural resources. Ms. Clarke said wider housing choice is an empty goal, unless there is a vehicle to implement it. Ruralism is a vehicle that a developer can use to create alternate housing. Mr. Gerber agreed that the housing and the conservation design issues needed combined. Ms. Clarke said staff s goal tonight was to facilitate the policy statement, not to put the Commission in a box versus the developer. It is merely to put another development tool. This resolution should not go to City Council until the Commission is happy with it. The Commission should think of words that capture the spirit of the goals they want fostered. Mr. Gerber reiterated that the Whereas numbers 9-16 captured the past Commission discussions. He said staff should be given direction. Mr. Zimmerman said Section 3 discussed the land and housing. The overall design, architectural quality and the buildings themselves will be the factors in the Commission's evaluation. Developments will always be evaluated regarding the conservation layout and housing types. Ms. Boring asked if Mr. Arendt's work encouraged more multi-family and higher density. Mr. Zimmerman said in Arendt's seminar, he never talked about multi-family. Mr. Gunderman said most Arendt case studies are single-family developments in more rural settings. His books discuss the diversity of housing stock and the ability to mix housing types. Mr. Saneholtz asked for an Arendt example of a building that appeared to be almost large hotel, projecting the image of an estate, and it contained single-family residences and multi-family in the same structure. The land only accommodated that, and only with a conservation design. Mr. Gunderman said did not remember that example. Mr. Gunderman said 25 percent, including internal areas for parks, and open strips along the road, are typically dedicated in open space currently at two dwelling units per acre, Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - October 16,2003 Page 6 Mr. Gerber asked about the amount of openspace on the imaginary Conine rural ism development and said the design was much more interesting. Mr. Gunderman said it was either 50 or 60 percent for the same number of lots. Mr. Gerber, Ms. Boring, and Mr. Zimmerman agreed that was what they were trying to accomplish. Mr. Gunderman said most Dublin projects are built were built in planned districts, yet there is not very much deviation in the lot dimensions overall. It is not the Zoning Code that prevent creativity and varied lot sizes. Until now, there was direction for 80-foot lots. We are hearing now there is a need for a clear direction in policy for future planned projects. The resolution is a good instrument to start a change. Mr. Saneholtz said he understood from Arendt's presentation, that a maximum (not a minimum) lot size is set. The development was more clustered, increasing the density on the developed part, but coupling it with a lot of openspace. Mr. Gunderman said the resolution does not say that, but Mr. Saneholtz was correct. Many of the Arendt examples involve rural areas with a minimum lot size of several acres, to provide for individual septic and well systems. Most of those communities have a simple zoning code and need an incentive to change shape of development. The land is already zoned for X dwellings, and sometimes bonuses are included. Staff seen no need for bonuses here. Mr. Gerber thought Dublin could include alternative housing styles because the Community Plan is in place, and there is plenty of give and take in the PUDs. The Commission h as ample authority to disapprove a multi-family proposal that does not fit in a certain area. Those tools are not being lost. Mr. Messineo agreed. Mr. Gunderman said staff expects the cost for infrastructure will be less because there are fewer roads and less lengths of pipe to construct. Mr. Zimmerman said he wanted to see comparisons between the two types of designs. Mr. Gunderman felt the condo concept would come up in some projects. . Mr. Gerber asked how this could be applied to a ten-lot application. Mr. Gunderman said in order for them to make the conservation design, they might need to go to a completely different type of housing structure. Perhaps the economics of the patio homes and the common type of facilities would not be as appealing at that small scale. Other options would be suggested. Mr. Messineo suggested more elaboration on Section 3. More specifics are needed. Mr. Gerber said it was not necessary to rewrite it, but part of the Commission's analyses should be included. A list of the 25 major criteria could be included. Mr. Gerber said a developer would be referred to a list of criteria to consider before submitting their application. Mr. Sprague said it would give a good foundation if the criteria are set forth in an ordinance. Mr. Gerber said it did not have to be part of the ordinance. Mr. Sprague said it would give them an idea of what they are really recommending as far as what the ordinance would look like. He said the ordinance did not have to be laid out, but it will give them an idea of what they are really talking about. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - October 16,2003 Page 7 Ms. Clarke said there would be difficulty drafting 25 criteria. She thought this should be approached from a completely different side. She suggested that attached to this resolution there should be exhibits showing standard designs vs. conservation designs as examples. However, every site might not have the same criteria. Mr. Gunderman agreed that was one of the difficulties of this approach. He said it is a little hard to get down to a real specific categorization in many cases. Mr. Gerber thought maybe that should be tried. Ms. Boring said this was a good idea. Ms. Boring said density gets confusing. She said if 100 acres had a density of one dulac, that meant 100 houses. However, in ruralism, the houses will be on 50 percent of the site, so the net density may be two dulac, but actually one dulac overall. She wanted the number of units used. Ms. Clarke suggested the words "gross density" be used. The Commissioners agreed. Mr. Sprague said perhaps the gross density would have to be smaller with the standard PUD because certain sideyard setbacks, etc. would still be enforced on some. Mr. Gerber said on planned districts, the Commission would look at that on a case by case basis. Mr. Saneholtz said according to Arendt, most codes presently on the books are written using minimum lot sizes, on a minimum of five acres, and that was why you end up with one house for every five acres, but houses sometimes need to go in the middle of the woods. Arendt encouraged everyone to think about maximum lot size, and that is what Arendt did on many of his new codes. Mr. Gunderman agreed, but asked that the Commission bear in mind that most of the time, Arendt. when making his presentation to anyone considering making code changes, is coming from an environment where that maximum is something they would write into this new section of code for rural conservation as an alternative to what they presently have in zoning already in place. Fortunately Dublin, is beginning with an assumption of a planned district where there are none of those issues. If the Commission was looking at a code that was only single-family, straight districts, they would be looking at preparing a new section of the Code, the straight zoning code which could be used as an alternative and then the maximum lot size would be dealt with accordingly. Mr. Gunderman said the revisions would change the language dealing with density will be revised and the term "gross density" will be used. References to Arendt will removed from Section 3. Graphics will be included. Mr. Gerber said clarification was needed. Ms. Boring asked if all new residential proposals will still be required or encouraged. Mr. Gerber said the resolution said the City encourages. Ms. Boring said it said the City will require on hers. Mr. Sprague said the term require is applied to the PUD requirement. Ms. Clarke said there was discussion that they would like to see what a conservation layout looks like for each development, and maybe it's the wrong approach for that piece of property, but they wanted the developer to at least consider how that piece of land would layout with half of it being openspace. Mr. Gerber said the Commission wanted to do that. Ms. Clarke said the Dublin has regulations on parkland requirements, but the City always encourages where it thinks it needs that parkland, along streambeds, adjacent to other parks, or Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - October 16, 2003 Page 8 wooded areas, etc. It is not just any parkland that the City would accept for the overall good of the community. She thought unless required, a conservation design will never be seen. Ms. Boring asked about the Hansel property. Mr. Saneholtz said it was a small parcel that would not be condusive to conservationism, so the idea of giving any effort towards it would not be a great expense if a line was just drawn on the paper. Mr. Gunderman agreed that on smaller projects there is less expense discussing alternative layouts. The concept plan required in the proposed planned district regulations would not necessarily require that level of work. Mr. Zimmerman said the adjacent property should also be considered. Mr. Gunderman agreed. Mr. Gerber made a motion to table this resolution to further refine it for the next meeting. Mr. Messineo seconded the motion. Mr. Gunderman said it could not be completed in two weeks. Mr. Gerber changed the date of his motion to the second meeting of November. The vote was as follows: Ms. Boring, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Mr. Sprague, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Mr. Messineo, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Tabled 6-0.) 2. Rezoning 02-138 - Preliminary Develop ent Plan - Hansel Su ivision Mark Zuppo said thO case was disapproved the July 10, 2003 meet" g. That proposal was fo eight lots along xtension of the Bellow alley Drive cuI de sac hich stubs into this site t the northwest c er. This application s been changed subst tially since that time, a IS much more in . e with what was origin y approved for the site 2001. r r The site is, ocated on A very Road, orth of Brand Road. I s zoned R -1, Restricted burban Resident" District. The applican IS requesting a rezonin to PUD, Planned Unit D elopment DistrijV . f Y ,v ~uPPO showed a slide 0 the new site layout fo six lots. The density is .2 duJac. Two a ess drives are proposed ne per three lots. The ts are all 0.83 acres. A ' epath meanders . and out of a bikepath ement to the front (ea of the lots. Replaceme trees are shown to the west on the rear of t e lots. All lots front on A very Road. The buildi setbacks have been increased to a minim of 105 feet, staggerin rom 105 to 115 feet, 105 10, and then 115 feet for the third and fou lots and then staggeri g back to 110 and 105 fee oving north. Mr. Zuppo sai ellow Valley Drive as not been finished to e satisfaction of the C Engineer. All e lots will be 350 feet eep and 120 feet wide. I ieu of the required .3 7 a es of parkland, fee will be paid. A slide s owed the proposed Ian caping and fencing treat nt coincides with the ne' boring develo ents' treatment along very Road. Mr. Zuppo s Cl staff is asking that the reet trees be 45 0 50 feet on center alig d along A very Road and s ggered to the west of the ikepath. Mr uppo said staff belie es this proposal is much ore appropriate with th A very Road c idor and its setbacks, . is lower in density, and i IS much more in line als with what was approved previously in 01. He said staff is recom ending approval with 13 onditions: 1) That the park fee 0 $14,615 be paid prior to re rding of the final plat; 2) That no-build zo s be noted on the prelimin y development plan, subj ct to staff approval; ,- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meetin~ OAYTON LEGAl INC.. f()R6A NO_ 1014 September 15, 2003 Page 17 Held 20 as the ability to undertake a pr . ct and to tllen require developer reimburse men t a later date when the land is veloped. Mr. Hammersmith resp ded that this is worthy of inves' ation, but he does not have a definitive answer. 3. Asked ab . t the status of the crumbling st e along the retaining wall at Hayden un Road. She brought this up veral months ago. Mr. Hammersmi stated that Engineering staff h been working with the Service Department 0 program. The next step is to edule a neighborhood meetin bout the plan of a on. It will likely be done as an' dependent project via a contrac r. 4. mplimented staff for the histori istrict stoffilwater project. Ther have een no complaints and the resi ents and merchants appreciate e weekly updates being delivered to the Asked about the status of th ouncil Chamber remodeling. would be completed durin e summer. At a recent Planni Commission meeting, a number of res' ents were not able to view the p sentation. She asked about timing for mpletion of the remodeling. Ms. Brautigam responded that . McDaniel is working on this pr ect, but she is not certain of the timetable for co. letion. Her office relocation to t e first floor is also part of the project, so she is inter sted in seeing its completion as n as possible. She will report back to Co cil on the status. 6. Noted conce bout the condition of the prope at the Golf Club of Dublin, with dead a dying landscaping, a weed patc for a parking lot, etc. She asked for pies of ongoing correspondence etween the City and the develope. It reflects poorly on the City an on Council. It has been a hu disapp'ntment and she no longer has p ence with the lack of a cart ba parki lot, etc. She would like to know bout the plans to resolve this situ Ion. 7. P . ted out in a related matter that e has concerns about follow- by Code nforcement. She understands t t Mr. Jones checks on compl . ts, but many residents have indicated t er that they do not hear ba follow-up to their complaints. Could Mr. Jo es report his findings to some e on staff who could then relay that infoffila' n to the resident who made t complaint? In this way, the residents are ept in the loop about the statu of a complaint filed. M . Brautigam agreed that it is imp ant to follow-up on the outco of investigation of mplaints. This is a customer s ice issue and it will be addre ed. 8. Noted in regard to th aterford Village greens pace ing maintained voluntarily by the re dent who spoke tonight that s would like strong action taken by staff. S hears about this matter on a r ular basis from neighbors who are very up t about the condition of the p land. Mrs. Borino: 1. Echoed congratulations to Ms. Brautigam regarding the civic association involvement award to be presented at ICMA. Many of these items are not new concepts. but Ms. Brautigam has generated a new .spark" in the civic association involvement efforts. 2. Asked in regard to the new ruralism/conservation subdivision design concepts, what is the status of the resolution to be considered by Planning & Zoning Commission? Mr. Gundeffilan stated that his understanding was that a separate meeting was to be held in September to address administrative items. That administrative meeting. however, has since been cancelled. Staff is drafting a resolution, and is reviewing the upcoming agendas for an appropriate time to schedule this item. Some members of the Commission had also requested infoffilation about locations in Ohio where these types of projects have been done. Mrs. Boring stated that the intent of this resolution is to ensure Council's endorsement before further work is done on the concepts. and it is taking too long. It is important to bring this to Council to ensure their buy-in. She urged staff to place this on an agenda at the earliest date possible. Mr. Kranstuber suggested that this could instead be done by'motion of Council. Mr. Reiner agreed. Mrs. Boring stated that P&Z is concerned that Council will not be willing to accept the smaller lot sizes in the new ruralism concepts as advocated by Randall Arendt. However, if Council prefers to endorse by motion tonight having P&Z do this work, that is fine, too. ----- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAl 1<<:. FOm4 NO. 1Qtq September 15, 2003 Page 18 Held 20 Mayor McCash stated that conservation subdivision design and new ruralism are two separate concepts. Conservation subdivision design is development on 60 percent of the land with, in essence, the same densities. This was considered by Council previously, but at the end of the process, 75-80 foot lots were supported and it was not compatible with this design concept New ruralism is somewhat different. What exactly is P&Z working on at this time? Mr. Gunderman responded that these terms have been used generally interchangeably. There has not been discussion of holding to larger lot sizes as part of this discussion. Mr. Kranstuber commented that these are merely a set of guidelines to be developed for an area where the concepts could be applied. It would not be used in all situations. Mr. Gunderman agreed, noting that the resolution could include language that the concepts would generally be used in locations that are still sizable and planned for residential development at two units per acre in the current Community Plan. Mrs. Boring stated that her understanding is that the most compelling factor would be a piece of land with natural resources to be preserved in conjunction with its development. Mr. Kranstuber noted that the assumption is that the density would not be higher or lower with these concepts. Mrs. Boring stated that P&Z is operating under the assumption that the density would remain the same. The benefit to the developer would be less costs for infrastructure. But. Mayor McCash has cited the reason for P&Z's hesitation. When this was brought to Council previously, Council was not willing to reduce the size of lots and so the concepts would not work. Mayor McCash stated that he would prefer reviewing some written parameters or a basic framework versus a general question of whether or not Council supports new ruralism or conservation subdivision design concepts. The answer to the general question may be one matter, but supporting the resolution as drafted could be entirely different. Ms. Brautigam agreed that the details are important when it comes to a question of the ultimate approval of a particular subdivision. What she believes Planning Commission is trying to communicate is that they have a full agenda, but that they want to pursue the concept of new ruralism. But they know that, inevitably, it will result in lots that are smaller than what the City is accustomed to. It will result in larger areas of conserved land, but smaller lots on which to place homes. They know that, based on history in Dublin, Council is generally not supportive of small lots. So the question is whether Council wants P&Z to pursue conservation subdivision design and new ruralism, knowing that it will inevitably result in bringing a recommendation to Council that allows for smaller lots. If the answer is "yes, " they will proceed with the work. But if the answer is "no: an entirely different task is ahead of them. Mr. Reiner stated that new ruralism will create a multitude of new kinds of housing - downscaled housing for singles, housing for empty nesters and for teachers. The goal is to devise a new type of zoning that will offer new types of housing to the community, and yet is aesthetically attractive, meeting the desire of the community plan for rural feel and low traffic. Mayor McCash stated that what Mr. Reiner is describing are different types of multi-family housing. Currently, the Community Plan calls for multi-family housing at 4-5 units per acre. The question P&Z is asking is: If land is developed under this standard, is it possible to maintain this level of density on 60 percent of the land? To have the views and amenities, will they require 80-foot lots or will they be permitted to have 50-foot lots? Will this be accepted as part of the ordinance or not? Previously, when this came before Council, Council indicated that they wanted 70 or 90-foot lots, or a certain percentage would have to be 90, with some at 80 and 60 feet. Mr. Kranstuber commented that, obviously, Mr. Reiner is willing to accept the smaller lot sizes. But knowing that this technique is simply a tool to be used when appropriate, and in view of the desire to provide some alternative types of housing, he could consider this. The market would obviously have to support these types of housing. He is assuming that the ordinance would have to include waiving other provisions of the Code in conjunction with this type of development. Obviously, it would not be possible to have multi-family housing at 5 units per acre in this type of development - perhaps within the, cluster itself, - .----- - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting OAY'l"ON LEGAl tNC fORtol NO. 10148 September 15, 2003 Page 19 Held 20 the density would be 22 units per acre. It would essentially consti~ute a City-sponsored PUD. Mayor McCash stated that the key is in balancing these items. With too many restrictions, the concepts will not work. Mrs. Boring added that large setbacks between the houses are obviously not workable under this concept. Mr. Reiner noted that in forested areas in the City, this concept would work well - clustering homes in portions of a site. Perhaps other "fingers" of land could connect to the Metro Parks, providing access to the park. These are new concepts to be explored which would offer something to developers other than the tract housing subdivisions currently offered. Mayor McCash stated that a couple of such proposals were submitted previously, but were not supported due to the densities. Mr. Kranstuber stated that the question is whether to draft a motion tonight or allow staff to prepare a resolution to be brought back. Mr. Reiner suggested that Council consider a motion to indicate their support or non- support of the concepts. Mr. Lecklider responded that he can support the concepts in general, but he wants to reserve the right for further input when the details are provided to Council. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that a motion be considered. Mayor McCash stated that his understanding is that the question is whether or not Council can support new ruralism in view of the smaller lots which will result. Mrs. Boring asked Ms. Brautigam for suggestions in framing a motion. Ms. Brautigam summarized that Planning Commission is seeking from Council a motion indicating that Council supports the Commission's consideration of new ruralism and that Council is open to proposals which meet the criteria of preserving open space and enhancing creativity and diversity in housing stock. Mrs. Boring added a provision - "with the understanding that the City regulations regarding side yard setbacks, minimum lot sizes, minimum frontages, etc. will have to be varied to a=mmodate this type of design: Mrs. Boring so moved. Mr. Kranstuber seconded the motion. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher added that Council is voting on a conceptual issue at this time, with the expectation that guidelines will be brought back to Council for further discussion. Mrs, Boring stated that this is her understanding as well. Mr. Kranstuber stated that Council recognizes the amount of work required from P&Z and staff to further define these concepts for Dublin, and therefore the Commission wants assurance of Council's willingness to be open to the concepts. Mr. Gunderman commented that staff and Planning Commission assumed that if the resolution were approved, that they would then incorporate the policy and direction into the revisions to the subdivision regulations as opposed to taking these items up separately. The Task Force has reconvened now, and can consider these items. Mrs. Boring disagreed, noting that Planning Commission desires another "tool" at this time because of the volume of new development applications being submitted. She does not believe they are willing to wait until next winter for these. They will approve the guidelines and then submit them to Council for adoption. per the established process. Mr. Reiner noted that he supports expediting this effort due to the volume of development activity. Whether it should be reviewed at the Development Code Revision Task Force as well is another issue. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BlANK INC. F<)RM HO. 1tl14e September 15, 2003 Page 20 Held 20 Vote on the motion: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boriilg, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Mr. Reiner: 1. Congratula (f Ms. Brautigam on the ICMA aw 2. Thanked aff for their follow-up on the Bran Ms. Chinnici-Zu cher: 1. Reporte that the Japanese artist Eitetsu 13-14 r meetings, and the DAC has an' erest in having a reception for staff oard and commission members d the DAC Board during that ti Th. would provide an opportunity to et the artist and give formal re t program. g brief discussion, it was the con nsus of Council to request that e reception d on Thursday, November 13 fro 5:30 to 7 p.m. Noted that Monday, October 1 ts Columbus Day and asked aba the plans for a study session on that day. s. Brautigam stated that it is not City holiday, but the Coffman P Expansion Task Force had hoped to be at the st y session on October 13. Due t some scheduling conflicts, they have requested at the study session for the Co an Park Expansion Task Force be rescheduled r Monday, October 27, if Counci s available. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher not a potential conflict with October 7. Ms. Salay also has a co Ict on October 27 and suggeste ovember 10. Mayor McCash noted nflict with November 10. The consensus of C ncil was to schedule the study s sion on Wednesday, October 2 at7p.m. mmented in regard to the list of tential entertainers for the ay celebration in 2004 that he uld suggest: (1) Earth, Wind a e Gang; (3) Rick Springfield; or ) AI Green. Mayor ash moved to adjourn to execu. e session at 10:20 p.m. for dis sion of land a uisition, legal and personnel ma rs. He noted that the meeting uld be reco ened only to formally adjourn. Mr. ranstuber seconded the motion. V e on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes' r. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, y ; Mr. Kranstuber, es; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; yor McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, The meeting was reconvened nd formally adjourned at 11 :20 ~ Clerk of Counci PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION AUGUST 28, 2003 -CITY OF [)lBLll'\ Division of Planning 58 "lief-Rings Rood lublil io 43016-1236 one/hIll: 614-4\ 0-4600 Fox: 614-761-6566 'eb Site: www.dublin.oh.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 3. Discussion - New Ruralism Request: Issues identified by the Commission of the New Ruralism concept. Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017 Staff Contact: Gary Gunderman, AICP, Assistant Planning Director. MOTION: That a resolution be prepared to submit to City Council expressing the Planning Commission's support for encouraging ruralism characteristics. VOTE: 6-0. RESULT: A resolution stating the Commission's support for ruralism will be prepared by staff to submit to City Council. STAFF CERTIFICATION ~ JJ. (it ') klJ II /': {jj / Barbara M. Clarke Planning Director Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report - August 28, 2003 Page 16 3. Discussion - New Ruralism 03-102ADM Request: Issues identified by the Commission of the New Ruralism concept. Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Staff Contact: Gary Gunderman, AICP, Assistant Planning Director. BACKGROUND: The discussion of rural conservation subdivision began last winter at the joint City Council Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on January 23. The discussion continued, after a motion by the Planning and Zoning Commission on February 20, at a City Council study session meeting on March 10. At the study session staff was asked to review the potential areas where conservation subdivision could be considered and other concerns. A discussion of the topic is scheduled to provide broader understanding of the preferred outcome. Dublin is in a position to utilize planned districts to achieve the clustering needed for rural conservation. Dublin could be aided in the development of rural conservation by the development of a section of the Subdivision Regulations dealing with rural conservation. To precede the City should direct the staff as to the general parameters of how the rural conservation development could be sought and obtain an understanding of the policy directive to be adopted in such policies. CONSIDERATIONS: Basics: . Rural conservation design is a concept that has been under discussion for the past ten years, partially as a result of the work of Randall G. Arendt. Arendt's body of work covers urban, suburban, and rural development, but the topic of interest for Dublin at this time is the rural conservation subdivision. The rural conservation subdivision is a design process that involves the careful consideration of several factors, but the basic elements of the topic are fairly simple. . The basic concept calls for the use of the property in a manner that preserves its most important natural features. Rural conservation subdivision is the clustering of dwelling units into smaller areas allowing for the permanent retention and preservation of the resulting open space. The open space is achieved by developing a smaller area; single- family homes on smaller lots for instance. In most cases, this goal can be accomplished while maintaining the same overall density as would have been otherwise permissible. Typically, no reduction in the number of units is required to achieve open space. The amount of area used for right-of-way may be reduced as well. Dublin Advantages and Differences: . Most of the discussion about rural conservation subdivision focuses on existing zoning and subdivision regulations that must be changed to facilitate it. Dublin has the advantage of using planned districts for almost all new development. Planned districts can readily permit the type of clustering and density averaging that the rural conservation subdivision requires. This gives Dublin a great advantage at the front end of the process. Dublin also has a rigorous review process that is needed to complete conservation design. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report - August 28, 2003 Page 17 . Dublin has higher base densities than most of the rural areas where conservation development has taken place. Conservation development achieves its primary goals easier when the base density is one unit per acre. The basic principles of rural conservation can be applied to any subdivision plan, but higher density makes the compression required to preserve open space on the scale and in the design suggested for rural conservation design less productive. The majority of the open land intended for residential development in Dublin is planned for a maximum of two units per acre. Of course, the City of Dublin could also utilize non-single family projects to help achieve the conservation goal as well. . The basic goal is to achieve at least 50 percent, and ideally 60 percent, of protected open space and to locate the substantial majority of the dwelling units adjacent to the protected open space. Most of the open space is intended to be left as natural areas. The open space also includes areas of open public squares and boulevards. Conservation design, when given a large enough setting, can imitate a village setting appearance. This type of conservation design tends toward straighter street and a linear design. Conservation design can be practiced on both a large development scale or on a small two and three lot setting. The concept is fundamentally simple in its result and may require deviations from traditional subdivision settings for access arrangements and other features. Arendt has proposed lots as small as 5,000 square feet to preserve open space. Such lots could then be adjacent to large open spaces. Issues to Resolve: . One issue is the maintenance of the open space. The financial obligation will rise over time for the larger amount of open space. Large-scale use of conservation development could make City maintenance impractical in most cases. . The cost may be manageable if the open spaces are wooded areas or areas that could be managed for crops. The maintenance of any development park area could become a substantial burden on the properties involved. Large scale mowing is not the intended use for most of the property, and it can become expensive. This becomes one of the balancing considerations in determining whether a particular project should adopt the conservation design. . The City should consider whether rural conservation is appropriate in some or all the locations that might otherwise have traditional residential subdivisions. Some projects may be adjacent to other types of development, or be shaped in such a way that rural conservation is not necessarily appropriate. The City has some areas in east Dublin with relatively wooded sites where the benefits of conservation design are high. Most of the available land for residential development is located on the far west side of the city and is located in areas with large open agricultural fields and some smaller stands of trees. A conservation design for some of these areas will need to make preservation areas from these open fields if the concept is to be followed consistently in undeveloped areas. Only three areas of potential development include substantial stands of trees, and Tartan West is one of those remaining sites. . Many single-family projects may not make the 50 percent open space or the adjacency that the concept intends. Specific knowledge of the potential preservation area will not be available until a study is completed for each site. The City would be helped by some base assumptions about the intended project. For example, the City can set a policy of 35 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report - August 28, 2003 Page 18 percent open space with lots no less than 7000 square feet. This would be a substantial change from the 80 and 100 foot lots typical in many Dublin subdivisions. . The City should determine the use of conservation design as a mechanism to achieve residential development for non-single family development at low densities. Liberty Township Potential Rural Conservation Land Legend Within Dublin and the Dublin - Oublin Corporft\e limil _5 47.86 _13 757.50 [::=] Parcels _6 25.58 ["=:'14 20.81 Exclusive Annexation Area c=J Cilyo!DubHn 1.:=7 162.48 _15 29.64 _8 112.74 _16 76.68 Fu\ure Developed lands (Acres) _9 146.85 _17 47.42 N ~1 266.58 _10 333.27 r',1f.!:l18 41.41 W+E _2 328.87 [3'ml1 93.68 1:'=:':;19 228.75 o 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 _3 161.87 _12 348.34 t~20 85.12 ",""-1lIIl_ ,Miles _4 62.52 s Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - August 28, 2003 Page 5 Mr. Ritchie asked if he anted to develop four arcels (two acres), wer hey considered four lots or one. Ms. Clar said that was four half- re lots. A development an only be a half-acre. [Question from t audience] Can a vari ce be requested, if it i rezoned? Ms. Clarke id those processes ere always available. sually, a lot size varianc does not go to BZA, b that would have t be considered. Gener y, people want smalle not bigger lots than t Code permits. Sh said Mr. Banchefsky s uld think about that. ineo asked administraf ely, what problems arise rom splitting this Resi ntial District along e centerline of Cosgra itch at the McDowell operty. Mr. Combs sai no boundaries are eing determined tonigh It would, however, crea a little difficulty admi. 'stratively. r. Gerber reiterated th make a recommendaf /~ to City Council on the two districts. J Ms. Clarke said ge the zoning. How er, staff thinks that i he right thing to d and will sponsor a rezo mg application for tha urpose. These are s arate assignments. e wants to be honest ab t having rezoning pro sal in the works. The rst step in the proce is to establish the new ning districts. Ii erman made a motion fI approval because the ndards are more com tible with the Histo . c Dublin development p ems, provide better co istency with adopted sign guidelines e ARB's administraf n and the. public r iew process, with a re st that the Thomas M owell letter be inclu Q in the Councilor RB packet. Mr. Mess' eo seconded the motio . Ms. Boring asked w the boundaries were not being established. s. Clarke said no pro rties were being rezo Q by this action, it only, adds two districts to e Zoning Code. No bo dary lines are being s y this. The vote for app' val was as follows: . Ritchie, yes; Mr. Ge er, yes; Ms. Boring, y ; Mr. Saneholtz, yes' r. Messineo, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, ye . (Approved 6-0.) Mr Gerber thanked ever ne for giving input. . Ritchie said Mr. Co s had done a good job. 3. Discussion - New Ruralism Gary Gunderman said this discussion session is to provide Commission feedback on the goals to achieve through ruralism. He gave a brief review of the land analysis for conservation design, clustering of development, and resultant openspace. He presented comparison plans, using "typical" lot layouts versus conservation design. The "typical" layouts covered the entire site. Mr. Gunderman said prime preservation areas are those that are most valued to be saved. Calculating the density is sometimes the next critical step. Then, other less critical natural features are determined along with the potential development areas. Then the layout with road alignments, lot lines, and other features can be completed. The literature deals heavily with maintaining and preserving a lot of the open meadows, not particularly forested areas as is often discussed. He showed an example with 35 percent development area and 65 percent openspace. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - August 28, 2003 Page 6 He said conservation practices also work on small parcels. He showed slides of acceptable and non-acceptable approaches. Mr. Gunderman showed an example using the Conine tract as approved with 100-foot lots and of 15,000 square feet or so. He said Carson Combs had also prepared a conservation plan for the site. It utilized the same number of lots at 70 feet (8,800 square feet apiece) and substantially increased the available openspace. Ms. Boring asked about the relative amount of pavement, waterlines, etc. in each approach. Mr. Gunderman said the street right-of-way decreased from 7.4 acres to 4.7 acres. Mr. Messineo asked how the zoning text would address two units per acre overall, but with the development not spread over the whole site. Mr. Gunderman said the zoning process ties up the tract permanently, and it uses the same process and density calculations. Staff assumed conservation design would utilize a planned district, with overall flexibility, including lot size. Mr. Saneholtz said current texts indicate a minimum lot size, and conservation design talks about maximum sizes. Mr. Gunderman said in planned districts, the lot size would be capped. He said a preliminary development plan provides the general layout provided. Ms. Clarke said traditional or conservation design could be established using a PUD, and both could establish a minimum lot size. The rezoning process includes a lot layout, and shows the access, general lot size, the location and amount of openspace, neighborhood connections, etc. If the conservation example had been the goal in the Conine PUD, that plan and a development text would have been included in the ordinance. Conservation design, if proposed now in a Dublin planned district, would not necessarily need to mention a maximum lot size. Mr. Zimmerman asked if sidewalk requirements would be modified. Mr. Gunderman said yes. Mr. Gunderman showed a comparison between the approved Bishop's Run layout and a conservation design applied to that site. He said the site plans were drawn to scale. Generally, the Commissioners expressed positive reactions to the conservation design. Ms. Boring said the Community Plan recommends a maximum density of two dulac, with rural characteristics. She noted that Bishop's Run was implemented under the Road to Wow! criteria. She said Dublin did not have this concept then, and while the Commission did a good job with Bishop's Run, it can always find even better ideas. She wanted to combine the best elements of both for new residential zoning cases where they will fit the area. Ms. Boring said identifying the areas where this concept should be encouraged was the question. Mr. Saneholtz said page 2 of the staff report talks a lot about trees. He said this concept is not tied to wooded sites, and it can be used on an open cornfield. Mr. Gerber agreed. Mr. Gunderman said the point is to preserve natural features, whatever they are. Mr. Saneholtz said many Randall Arendt examples convert farms into wildflower meadows, etc. Ms. Boring said the cost to maintain that openspace is a problem. Mr. Saneholtz and Mr. Zimmerman though this cost could be contained by annual or semi-annual mowing. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - August 28, 2003 Page 7 Mr. Gerber said the Commissioners endorse the concept and wanted to know what staff needs to move forward. This should progress to the next level. Mr. Gunderman said a conservation design might have lots as narrow as 50-60 feet. Several Arendt plans use 50-foot lots and/or zero lot line situations. He showed slides of typical types of houses for narrower lots, including ones in Ballantrae and Muirfield. He said the. Arendt design includes finished park areas, as well as natural ones. Mr. Gunderman said there may be about 20 unzoned sites in Dublin for which the Community Plan recommends residential land use. He showed aerial slides of these areas, and most are flat and open. Half a dozen are partially or fully wooded. He asked the extent of the Commission's interest is pursuing conservation design. Mr. Gerber said his preference was for all 20 sites. Ms. Boring said that was not her preference. She believes that wooded areas are a "given" for conservation layouts. She wants clarity on how to maintain large open areas before recommending it for developing farm fields. Mr. Gerber said "cookie-cutter" neighborhoods create plowing and long-term maintenance for a greater proportion of streets, etc. Ms. Boring agreed, but she thought it could be offered two different ways. She noted that some buyers still want the "cookie-cutter" neighborhood, and it should not be eliminated completely. Mr. Saneholtz said there will be places that are already anticipating "cookie-cutter" lots, and a major change in those areas might be inconsistent. He was not sure conservation design should be the single approach, but he wanted every developer to consider it to determine if it works. Mr. Gerber said their recommendation to Council included "where appropriate," and it may not be appropriate everywhere. Everyone agreed the desire is for more creativity in developments and moving away from the predictable "cookie-cutter" designs, of which there is an abundance. Ms. Boring said she wants an improved and more neighborly neighborhood. It should be more creatively designed, including the houses. She liked the "where appropriate." Mr. Messineo preferred to see several different applications. Woods, ravines, and meadows should probably be saved. He asked how an open farm field would be maintained, and he wanted to know the developer's level of responsibility to turn it into something attractive. Mr. Gunderman said the developer would initially landscape it, but the owners' association will maintain the acreage. If regular mowing is too expensive, a different type of landscaping may be needed. The difference is in the scale and type of treatment. Mr. Messineo said residents cannot really maintain 50 percent openspace, landscaped or not. Mr. Saneholtz said farmland could be tumed back into a forest, increasing the property values. Ms. Clarke said reforestation costs are something to be considered. Mr. Zimmerman said some people would not like 40 acres of open field with only annual mowmg. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - August 28, 2003 Page 8 Mr. Gerber asked about the policy involved when some public land is maintained by the City and some by the homeowners' association. Ms. Clarke said City Council's current policy is to try to keep a ratio of at least 18 homes per acre of regularly mowed lawn area in the park. She said a low-maintenance type of grass or other ground cover would lower the cost. She explained the history of the developer incentives to create attractive roadways through the Road to Wow! program. She noted that cropland was not acceptable within the 200-foot setback area due to the chemicals and pesticides used in farming today. Reforestation or tall fescue might be options. Ms. Boring said Emerald Parkway has ornamental tall grasses. Ms. Clarke agreed. Mr. Saneholtz said Deer Creek State Park has open farm fields that they are letting go back to nature, being reforested naturally. It is tall grasses now, and eventually it will be all trees. He noted some of the materials included a homeowners' association, some with community gardens, and others where they paid fees to have areas maintained. Ms. Boring said Ben Hale had mentioned setting up some type of funding mechanism in Genoa Township. She thought this was a good idea, as was the Road to Wow, but the omission should be sure it stays flexible. Not everyone will find small lots appealing. However, she wanted to assure that creativity is maximized. The Commission is not in a position to answer questions about reforestation or wildflower meadows, but the process needs to be more creative. Mr. Gerber said the Commission needed guidance from staff on how to do that, whether it is through the subdivision code, a follow-up to the Appearance Code, or some other measure. He wanted the process started. Ms. Clarke asked why there was not already a conservation development in Dublin. Ms. Boring said that Dublin has taken its lead from the developers. Mr. Gerber said it is a market issue. Ms. Clarke said what the Commission means by "where appropriate" may differ from the developer's definition. Mr. Saneholtz said something other than conventional is needed on every development. They must at least make an attempt to do something other than the repeated and repeated layout. Mr. Gerber said the Commissioners were saying they like ruralism characteristics, and they also would like more imagination in design than what is being submitted. Ms. Boring agreed. Mr. Banchefsky asked if they would ever want to incentivize it. Ms. Boring said if "incentive" means increasing residential density, she absolutely could not support that. She thought the point of ruralism was to build the same 100 houses as the "typical" layout, but to build less roads, less water and sewer lines, etc. The savings is the incentive. Mr. Messineo said the Zoning Code sets up certain lot sizes, and a developer cannot reduce them. Mr. Gunderman said that may be true in many other places with more conventional zoning, but Dublin relies heavily on its planned districts. Most of them would need to rewrite their codes to permit ruralism. The literature is not based on the Dublin experience. Mr. Messineo thought the Commission should select a few target areas. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - August 28, 2003 Page 9 Ms. Boring said the roll of a farm field is important. She thought trees were most important, then rivers and streams, and to preserve these assets, the staff should hold out for ruralism. She did not want to set the parameters without knowing all the facts. Areas adjacent to Glacier Ridge Metro Park are prime candidates and need a lot more creativity. Mr. Messineo suggested the staff should assess this at the concept plan stage for new projects. Ms. Boring agreed. Mr. Saneholtz thought a design based on ruralism should be examined for every possible parcel. The issue should at least be addressed. This would be clear direction for the staff, who will then give clear direction to developers. Mr. Gunderman said developers have not requested this as yet. The concept plan is an opportunity to provide feedback and to encourage this. The majority of Dublin's remaining open sites are fairly undistinguished farm fields, especially at the westem edge of the City. Ms. Boring said the Commission needed a list of characteristics that make the best match for ruralism. It is probably not right for every site, and they need to prioritize. Mr. Gerber suggested saying "rural ism characteristics, where appropriate" instead of "ruralism." Ms. Boring agreed. Mr. Ritchie wanted a list of the staff goals on this-avoiding monotony, preserving resources, broadening housing choices, etc. Ms. Clarke said that was the purpose of this discussion. She frequently hears that other, non-cookie-cutter, housing choices are needed. Dublin has abundant 80- and 100- foot lots, and there is always a value placed on maintaining natural features. She suggested discussing this with development community representatives, to understand what they perceive as the barriers. Their input was extremely helpful in designing the Road to Wow! The stated incentive was density, to get to the high end of the range recommended by the Community Plan. The real incentive was an expedited review process, and Wow! produced the fastest rezoning cases on record. That program set 80 feet as the minimum lot width. New policy direction needs to come from the Commission, as an arm of City Council, for issues not covered in the Community Plan. In addition to lot size, how to maintain larger greenspaces needs to be resolved. The house styles that fit in narrower lots should be examined closely. Mr. Gerber said there was a joint meeting with City Council last winter at the recreation center, and he did not see it in the minutes, but they talked about lot sizes, type of housing, and ruralism characteristics. He asked for either the outline or minutes from that meeting. Mr. Messineo said he did not really like what was shown on the slides. Ms. Boring said she could support smaller lots only if the density remains the same, and there is an ambiance or environment to enhance it. The materials and designs used on smaller houses were also critical. Mr. Saneholtz agreed Mr. Saneholtz said there is so much repetition in the housing inventory in Dublin. He said smaller lots will force different architecture. Many older families want to downsize as square footage goes, but also want an increase in the house quality. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - August 28, 2003 Page 10 Ms. Boring said many do not want condos, but detached houses. Mr. Ritchie said the Commission did not support recent attempts for those other products on A very Road and Post Road. Ms. Boring said those were attached condos. Mr. Gerber said they were not located in the right area. Mr. Ritchie agreed, but he added that the developers must see the market and need. Mr. Saneholtz said the Moors in Muirfield was unique. The homes are tightly spaced and very different. Mr. Gunderman said almost every Moors building has the garage out in front. He noted there is nothing of this type in the pipeline. He said there were some projects that used this theme in Gahanna. Mr. Zimmerman asked for a list, even if they are out of town. Mr. Gunderman understands that the Commission is serious about and this concept. There should be sites designated for it. Ms. Clarke said she understood treed sites or natural featured sites are priorities in designs with ruralism characteristics. Ms. Boring said the Glacier Park and edge areas should be included. Ms. Clarke heard that the Commission believes a density bonus was not a proper option. Mr. Messineo and Ms. Boring agreed that densities should not exceed the Community Plan. Mr. Ritchie said the Hansel property and baitstore might be candidates. Mr. Gerber agreed. Mr. Banchefsky asked how the openspace would count towards the parkland dedication, and if these areas would be open to the public. His concern was the parkland dedication requirement. Ms. Boring thought the staff could handle that issue. She was concerned, however, that City Council would need to buy into the concept of small lots. She was not sure where Council as a whole stands, and both groups will need to be on the same page. The Commission needs to approach Council for support before spending a lot of time on this. As the City Council liaison, she agreed to request a joint discussion of the topic. Mr. Ritchie said they need a written list of goals, and staff needs criteria on where this should be applied. Their recommendations need to be more solid. There are different perceptions on why the Commission is undertaking this. There was consensus on using conservation principles: to facilitate alternative forms of housing, to vary the size of lots and diversity of housing; to preserve natural resources, what is already there, rural characteristics, vistas and views, the natural character of the land; to avoid the monotony of "cookie-cutter" subdivision; and to further the Community Plan recommendations. Ms. Boring clarified that the goal was not to create small lots per se, but to use this as a way to meet the goal of greater diversity. Mr. Gerber agreed and said some projects may not involve small lots because of the character of the land. Both wanted to pursue the goal of ruralism. Mr. Ritchie wanted to add providing housing for a broader sector (empty nesters, retirees, etc.) Mr. Saneholtz said an important factor in conservation design is that many units back up to open space. People love not seeing a row of other houses behind them, even if the land has no remarkable characteristics whatsoever. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - August 28, 2003 Page 11 Mr. Gunderman asked for direction on the next step in the process and suggested that the Commission visit several sites. Mr. Zimmerman suggested meeting with City Council next. Mr. Gerber noted there have already been several meetings with Council and a workshop. The staff was supposed to present something for consideration. They have already been over this. Ms. Boring thought they should be extra cautious and contact Council directly on this. Mr. Messineo thought this should be instituted on a development coming through the pipeline, from the concept stage onward. Staff should tell the developer that the site is appropriate for new ruralism planning. It should be encouraged. Mr. Banchefsky said one development cannot be singled out to do something different as a requirement. Mr. Messineo and Ms. Boring said it could be requested. Mr. Banchefsky agreed. Mr. Saneholtz said the answer might be to hold traditional development proposals to one unit per acre - new ruralism designs to get closer to two per acres in the "one to two" design areas. Mr. Messineo said this will be a give-and-take relationship, when it is appropriate and when it makes business sense to the developer. That seems feasible to him. Mr. Gunderman said the staff does that type of talking with developers now. He thought it would be difficult to convince any developer who wants to do another standard design. He suggested using a resolution, voted on by both the Commission and City Council. While everyone understands the basic concept, he is uncertain if there is agreement on when to apply it. He did not know the direction on new Code provisions, etc. Ms. Clarke thought drafting a resolution was a good suggestion. Mr. Gerber thought that had been done several months ago. Mr. Gunderman said that is not reflected in the minutes. Ms. Boring acknowledged Mr. Gerber's frustration in this slow process. Mr. Gerber thought the Commission was given an assignment to draft a resolution, and the Commission wasted 2'li hours discussing this tonight and it is not ready. Ms. Clarke believes City Council is expecting some action on new ruralism soon, and she thought the suggested resolution was good. The adopted policy, by City Council, should encourage conservation design. There are some less strident "policies" not in writing. Mr. Gerber said the "whereas" statements should serve as criteria for rural conservation design, and the motion was to encourage ruralism characteristics where appropriate. Ms. Boring asked if rural design could merely be required. After discussion, Mr. Gerber restated the motion: That a resolution be prepared to submit to City Council expressing the Planning Commission's support for encouraging ruralism characteristics. Mr. Messineo seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Mr. Zimmerman, yes; M~. Saneholtz, yes; Ms. Boring, yes; Mr. Ritchie, yes; Mr. Messineo, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Motion approved 6-0.) Ms. Clarke said the staff will prepare a resolution for the Commission's consideration. Study Session Monday, March 10. 2003 Page 14 Mrs. Boring stated t in hearing that different optio or City funding will be provid it is important to w whether a majority of Cou will support this concept at al of staff time. Ms. Chi lci-Zuercher stated that it is i rtant to understand the big pi re before mak. any decision. She believes t d about all of t . . Ms. Salay stated that there e many residents who are ve terested in this issue and she is not comfortable i king any kind of action at this She would want to hear public testimony as Mr. Hammersmit ered that staff can return wit session or to ouncil meeting. Mrs. Bo stated that the problem with allow r public participation. r. Kranstuber suggested that' should be combined - a work s sion format which also includes public testimony. rhaps the best solution is a spe focus on this topic. Mayor McCash a ed with the concept of a Speci ounci! Meeting. It is a tough issue and it is import to be fair to everyone. In ter of City subsidies, the issue becomes how to cal te a uniform subsidy across th oard - if, in fact, any subsidy is approve ecklider thanked the member CSAC for the time spent in review and vestigation. Report and Discussion Reqardinq Conservation Zoninq - Planninq & Zoninq Commission Recommendation (Present for the discussion were P&Z Commissioners Gerber, Saneholtz, Zimmerman, Ritchie and Messineo) Mr. Gunderman stated that P&Z recommended that Council consider endorsing conservation zoning. Background material has been provided in the packet. Some of this is from Randall Arendt's books, and miscellaneous articles on conservation and clustering. Also included are some sample ordinances for consideration. He noted that Mr. Arendt's material focuses on rural areas in an environment where there is a lot of straight zoning requiring large lots. His efforts focus on preserving features of the property and provide a mechanism to accomplish that. Mr. Gerber stated that the recommendation is in keeping with the discussions at the joint Council/P&Z meetings and their review of the Community Plan - looking for opportunities where conservation techniques could apply. They would not necessarily advocate of all of Mr. Arendt's concepts, but there are properties where these techniques could be a good alternative to "cookie-cutter" homes. Study Session Monday, March 10, 2003 Page 15 Mayor McCash stated that much of Mr. Arendt's work relates to rural areas, where developers are forced into large lots due to the minimum sizes for septic and well systems. If these techniques are applied in areas with water and sewer extensions and which don't require minimum lot sizes, there is potential for the abuse of conservation subdivision design to the point where the product will not be acceptable. Some of the benefits in this would be considering basic land planning principles when looking at the site - the topography, the amenities - and plan around those. Perhaps the open space provisions could be adjusted based upon those type of components. It would make sense in areas where a site has a lot of natural amenities to be protected. For a completely flat, open field with no amenities, conservation subdivision techniques will not be beneficial. He acknowledged that there are some portions which could be used in different applications that would benefit the way subdivisions are laid out in Dublin. It would not be necessary to adopt the entire conservation subdivision design approach. Mrs. Boring stated that from what she has heard, there is not a desire to apply this to every area. What is being considered is another alternative. There are some key areas where these principles could be useful. Discussion points are whether there is a minimum amount of land where this would work; and if an applicant saves trees and certain features, they may request higher densities than in the Community Plan. She is concerned because of the many applications in the pipeline, and the need to have a technique available soon which has not been "watered down." This is not for an across the board application, but merely provides another tool. There are some specific areas where these concepts could work - it will not fit everywhere. Mr. Kranstuber asked what additional tool is needed? Currently, a planned district can accomplish many of the same goals. Mr. Gerber stated that in fairness to developers and applicants, the Commission wanted to provide notice of the City's policy regarding this type of land planning. Ms. Clarke stated that the frustration she has heard from the Commission is that the Community Plan values ruralism, yet they don't see rural characteristics in what is being developed. P&Z would like to know what to tell developers in order to achieve the rural characteristics so valued in the Community Plan. Mr. Kranstuber stated that this would not then be a new law. P&Z is seeking Council's support in requesting this type of subdivision design. Ms. Clarke stated that in her view, there is nothing which would currently prohibit a developer from doing a complete conservation design in a PUD. The question is whether the City actually encourages this - is it the policy to move in that direction? Mr. Lecklider stated that if Council supports this type of land planning, a question which comes to mind is how this subdivision design can be incentivized? Mr. Messineo stated as an example that the development on the bait store site was a higher density than the City desired. But perhaps some larger, wooded areas could be preserved if it were developed in something other than a conventional way. Study Session Monday, March 10,2003 Page 16 Mrs. Boring stated that she spoke with the staff planner who worked on that case and who indicated that a standard is needed. The incentive to the developer is the lower costs of infrastructure because the entire acreage would not need to be developed. Mr. Kranstuber stated that all of these things can be done in a planned district. Mayor McCash agreed. Currently, an applicant can present a conservation subdivision design plan to the Commission for review. Mr. Reiner stated that there is no incentive or direction from the community to do this. The Community Plan has not been implemented with "teeth." Mayor McCash stated that the Community Plan indicates the City values rural characteristics, so an applicant can present a plan that preserves rural character for P&Z's consideration. They have every opportunity to do that now. Ms. Clarke stated that the Community Plan was adopted in 1997. Sine that time, how many rural plans have been proposed? If it's not the market that drives this type of land planning, someone must really encourage it. Mr. Reiner stated that the development community will continue to do what they have always done - profit is their motive, not imagination. Dublin has a higher standard and always has. The Community Plan indicates a desire for a rural look - better zoning, better protection. The Dublin government has not proceeded to implement these things with legislation. P&Z is now asking Council to prepare legislation to enact the Community Plan. Without taking action, applicants will continue to submit what they have always submitted - cookie-cutter designs lacking creativity. If they are forced to think outside of the box, they will have to hire architects to create interesting housing plans. Government must move to implement these creative designs which preserve open space, riparian corridors and other natural amenities. The land supply is limited, and it is time to do something creative. Legally, this is likely only option available under the state and federal constitutions which would not constitute a "taking." Ms. Salay stated that when these concepts were considered a few years ago, they were not adopted. Since that time, Ballantrae came in and that was unique. Other than that, subdivision developments have come in with 200-foot setbacks, as Council requested, but with 80-foot lots by the same developer. This is what prompted P&Z to come to Council. She noted that in the examples provided in the packet, all of the lots face onto the open space and that is where the value comes. If conservation subdivision techniques are desired, stronger encouragement will be needed. Council and the community will also need to embrace the concept of smaller lots. In recent years, the standard has been 100-foot lots in width. Larger homes on larger lots have the same feel. Before spending more time on these concepts, there is a need to assure comfort with the lot widths. In order to secure huge open spaces, the densities will be necessarily higher in the other areas. Study Session Monday, March 10,2003 Page 17 Mr. Reiner stated that in Muirfield, there are areas with higher densities, such as Weatherstone, to accommodate the different types of housing. Mr. Kranstuber stated that he doesn't believe it is necessary to "sell" anyone on these concepts. At the same time, he is hearing that it is not appropriate for all areas. There must be an incentive for the developer to encourage this. Or perhaps overlay areas should be established where these concepts could be used. Mayor McCash stated that if there are 100 acres, 200 homes would be placed on a certain percentage of the site, and a larger open space would be preserved. It would necessitate smaller lot sizes, but would have the amenities of a larger open space. Previously, Council determined that they could not consider a lot size less than 80 feet. That is why the concept was never adopted. Mr. Reiner stated that for the bait store site, which is heavily forested, a developer would generally remove the trees and place houses on 80-foot lots. If these concepts were adopted, however, an overlay would be created requiring clustering of houses and resulting in higher densities. No one wants to maintain large lots in this day and age. Mr. Kranstuber stated that there appears to be buy-in on the concept - the question is how to move forward? He would envision that a consultant or planning staff could do this, establishing particular areas where these techniques would be used - or possibly incentivizing this for certain areas. The question becomes requiring versus incentivizing this design. Mayor McCash stated that rather than doing overlays, the City could indicate their interest in this type of approach and encourage developers to do this. P&Z already has the direction from Council to encourage this in order to preserve rural characteristics. Mr. Lecklider commented that his experience is that production homebuilders have a certain number of standard floor plans. For Dublin, they probably don't have a plan for a 60-foot lot at these quality levels. Mrs. Boring stated that the Tartan West developers sent their plan to Randall Arendt for review. Local developers do not know how to do these concepts. Legally, the conservation design concepts must be formally adopted or nothing will happen. Mr. Ritchie suggested that staff assess the available undeveloped land in the City with a thought toward what sites could be considered for this type of development. Within three weeks of time, this could be brought to P&Z for approval and then to Council for approval. Once it is official, developers will understand what the expectations are when they visit the Planning office. Ms. Salay stated that there have been recent articles in the newspaper about areas where these design concepts have been used - Hampstead Village in New Albany, out west on the Darby Creek. It seems that the concept is working in other areas. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked about the timeframe staff would need to do this research. Study Session Monday, March 10, 2003 Page 18 Ms. Clarke responded that she is not certain this could be done in three weeks. Mrs. Boring asked what can be done with developments already in the "pipeline" - there seems to be an urgency in all of this. Mr. Gerber added that P&Z believes the Community Plan already supports this design concept. They are asking for Council's support in directing staff to proceed with this work. Mr. Saneholtz stated that if a builder takes the time to research these concepts, they will understand the economic benefits which could be obtained with implementation of this strategy. There are many areas in the community, such as the Tartan West area which are designated as Rural. In the case of Tartan West, P&Z asked for something different and they apparently brought that to Council. He had hoped that revised concept plan would be brought back to P&Z at some point. Mr. Reiner thanked P&Z for their efforts in bringing this forward. Staff will proceed with the direction they have been given tonight. Mr. Zimmerman stated that not only the wooded acreage in Dublin should be considered - there are large areas in southwest Dublin off of Avery Road where these principles could be used. Ms. Salay agreed. Mr. Lecklider noted that he agrees with Mr. Gerber that based on the Community Plan, they can move forward with work on these concepts. Mrs. Boring suggested that the key points are that the lots are oriented toward the open space. Mr. Messineo asked who would own the open spaces. Mrs. Boring stated that there would be a forced homeowners association in these areas. Ms. Salay stated that, depending on what kind of maintenance is required, a situation could occur where a small number of homeowners must maintain a large area. Mayor McCash stated that if the open space is being preserved for the benefit of the citizens of Dublin, all residents should have the opportunity to use this space. Otherwise, individual cities and parks will be created throughout the town. Mr. Lecklider stated that in terms of smaller lot sizes, he urged everyone to keep an open mind. The Kentlands in suburban D.C. has homes extremely close together, but the appreciation in value has been substantial. Council shouldn't rule out the possibility of this type of development. Mr. Gerber noted that these concepts will not fit all areas - the language "as appropriate" is important. Mrs. Boring asked for an estimated timeframe. Study Session Monday, March to, 20m Page 19 Ms. Clarke will report back after discussion with staff. Re ort re ardin A earance Code mmittee (Committee Chair George Peplow s present for this discus on.) Mr. Kranstuber reported that he nts to advise Council of e status of their work. have completed approximatel~ 0 percent of the scope 0 ork of the Committee, d would now like Council's inp . The group has worked gether well - it includes eorge Peplow, John Messineo, arlie Driscoll of the BIA, vid Meleca and himself taff member Brandol Harve as worked with the grou and the various items a now drafted in ordinance f . The Committee revie d hundreds of slides to etermine what is desired in D lin. They identified the v ious items: For site develop t: 1) Tree ape. The draft ordinanc (jecreases the spacing an Increases the caliper to inches. 2) r private landscaping, th ordinance requires thre selected from the City's r of appropriate trees. Curvilinear streets will encouraged. ign standards: In lieu of requiring a pe entage of vinyl siding, t group looked at the type siding, a minimum of .~4 mill vinyl, and include a list of accessories to be acquired. 2) Garage doors. reduce the impact of str et facing garage doors an encourage sid oading, several standar are recommended. 3) Four sided hitecture. The concern as with blank facades, an hat is recomme ed is that a certain num r of design elements are ( quired, especia for street facing and cor r facing sides. The last ite o be addressed is divers' . What the Committee m propose is that by implemen' g the foregoing quality c nges, there may not be a eed for the diversity portion. e intent of the effort was 0 avoid "cookie-cutter" ty subdivisions. Further, the BI representative has indic d he will not support the versity portion. While sta has repared information rega Ing diversity, the Committ 's sense is that adding t . p ion will not accomplish ch more. If Council, how er, wants the Committee nsider diversity, they wil eed another two meetin for this review. If not, the remainder can be forma presented to Council in ew weeks. Mayor McCash stat that in his view, the diver ty aspect should be revie the concern abou ubdivisions built all by th ame builder. The similar odels result in the loss of a div se appearance in the sub vision. Perhaps with a c ain number of builders invol d in a development, there ould not be the need for ese standards. The concer as obviously with an en!" development built by on uilder. Ms. Sal stated that Mr. Driscoll i urrently working within th requirements to build diver. y into every neighborhoo Why would he then vote ainst this portion - div sity seems to be the easi part? . Kranstuber stated that . Driscoll has concerns wit government requiring diversity, ue to the difficulties/delay which may result from fu er reviews by boards, etc. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION FEBRUARY 20,2003 lIn HI III HU\ Division of Planning 5800 Shier-Rings Rood Dublin, Ohio 43016-1236 '110 DD: 614-410-4600 ox: 614-761-6566 We! : www.dublin.oh.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: MOTION: To ask City Council to adopt a policy involving the use of conservation design techniques for future development, where appropriate, in the City of Dublin. VOTE: 7-0. RESUL T: This request will be forwarded to City Council. STAFF CERTIFICATION ~~ Jf? ( (fJJL Barbara M. Clarke Planning Director .-- DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 2003 ,.CITY OF IHJBLlN Division of Planning 5800 Shier-Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016-1236 Pho DD: 614-410-4600 ax: 614-761-6566 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us Administrative Business Chair Jim Sprague co vened the meeting at :30 p.m. Commission s Rick Gerber, Todd Zimmerman, Dick R' chie, and Ted Saneholt were present. Cathy B ring and John Messineo arrived just after r call and the records ere approved, at 6:32 p Staff members prese t included: Bobbi Clarke, Gary Gundenn , Kelly Dannenfelser, olby Turnock, Mark Zu Matt Hansen, P 1 Hammersmith, Kriste Y orko, Mitch Banchefs y, and Libby Farley. Mr. Gerber made the motion to a prove the January 25, 003 special meeting 1 presented. Mr. Ritchie seconded. he vote was unanimous' n favor. (Approved 5-0. Mr. rber made the motion to accept the docume into the record. ded, and the vote was u animous in favor. (Ap oved 5-0.) le Commission discuss scheduling an adminis, ative meeting on Thurs y, April 10 to elect officers and for a thor I. gh discussion of the C mmission's administrati e rules. Mr. Gerber suggested a worksh to discuss changing e 11 o'clock rule to 1 0' clock, swearing i applicants, etc. M: Saneholtz will not be ailable on April 10. s. Clarke noted that e agendas for both arch Commission mee rigs would be heavy. S veral potential dates ere discussed. Mr. anchefsky said new offi ers could be appointed i arch, but terms wo Q not become effec' e until April. Ms. Bori then suggested Tuesda , April 8 in Council Cambers if it would rk logistically. Mr. Sp gue said the meeting wo d be advertised and en to the public. It as decided this should a regular meeting, with t dinner. Mr. Sprag suggested snacks. fter more discussion, A il 8 was selected as the te for the administrati meeting. Mr. Sprague said there had been discussion at the Commission's joint meeting with City Council about diversity and conservation of natural resources in general. He suggested making a recommendation to Council about consideration of informing developers that the City would be interested in pursuing conservation design in plans for future development. Mr. Gerber agreed there were several discussions about conservation, and some party needed to take the first step. It seemed appropriate to make a motion to City Council to adopt some kind of conservation design, where appropriate. This is very consistent with the Community Plan. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - February 20, 2003 Page 2 Mr. Saneholtz agreed that "ruralism" had been stressed lately, and everyone seems excited by the potential results. He said according to the Community Plan, retaining the rural character of Dublin was one of the main principles stressed by the citizens. He felt direction was needed to inform developers about what the City Council, the Commission, and citizenry really want from the development, whether this should continue current patterns or be something different. Mr. Sprague asked what would be the best vehicle to make their thoughts known to City Council. Ms. Clarke noted the current PUD regulations could be used as the vehicle to implement a conservation design. However, there is no formal policy to encourage or influence design in that direction. She said City Council is the policy-making arm of Dublin's government. There should be some type of communication with City Council, perhaps requesting passage of a resolution fostering conservation techniques in appropriate circumstances. Mr. Sprague agreed. Ms. Clarke said if Council passes a resolution, the policy is then set. Mr. Gerber made a motion to ask City Council to adopt a policy involving the use of conservation design techniques for future development, where appropriate, in the City of Dublin. Mr. Ritchie seconded, and the vote was as follows: Ms. Boring, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Mr. Sprague, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Mr. Messineo, yes; Mr. Ritchie, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Approved 7-0.) Mr. Sprague thanked Mr. Gerber for his enthusiasm. Mr. Sprague explained the meeting procedures and announced several time limit for tonight's one case: Staff, 30 minutes; applicant, 60 minutes, and 5 minutes per person from the audience. 1. Concept Plan 02-132C - Tartan West Kolby Tumock presente is PUD concept plan r a residential communit~ esigned around a fitness and wellness nter. The 211-acre si contains five parcels a is located east of Hyland-Croy Road, uth of McKitrick Roa approximately 500 feet rth of Dublin Jerome High School. Onl a tiny portion of the sit along Manley Road is in elaware County, and the balance is in Un' n County. He said the orth central portion of th ite is heavily wooded a gave a Power int presentation. He s 'd there are five streams ring south through the te and general follow the wooded are . A 150-foot electric eas ent runs diagonally acro the site with ee towers. The site s zoned R, Rural Distric following its recent ann. ation. Propert to the north and west' in unincorporated Unio ounty, with Glacier Rig,ge Metro .r Park ing up most of the pr erty to the west. Muirfi d Village Phase 43 is lo~ated to the Tartan Fields is locate 'utside of Dublin City limO to the north. ' The site plan has chang ecember 12, 2002. The Ian still includes 423 units, with a gros aensity of two units per a e. The cluster homes shi ed from 119 to 112 units, one single-fa lly lot was dropped (now lots), and eight condo its were added. The wellness center i now located on the west side of the site, rather at the middle, several other subareas anged location, and the tough street is now more urvilinear. Mr. Turnock said the text s not changed since last t Commission's special m ting in January. Mr. Tu ck said staff requested te modifications to lorfer e wellness center's heig and reduce e extensive list of permit uses. Staff would like t . densi ti es to be set at the zoning stag nstead of permitting densi transfers. Joint Meeting of CounL:l1 and Planning & Zoning Commission January 23, 2003 Page 11 Mrs. Boring asked if the onsensus is that P& should be concem with street layout; and that use of chicane , traffic circles, etc. o avoid future need or traffic calming. Mr. Gerber state that while street la ut is important, he oesn't believe the ag earance code committ will address the is e of housing divers' y. This issue relates 0 the and its diversity, t just the appearanc of houses. Mrs.B ing stated that the d' ersity relates to the emographics issue. Mr einer pointed out at in terms of the ag earance/visual issue , the foundations s ould be wrapped wi some type of deco tive brick or stone. Demographics/Housing Stock Mrs. Boring asked Mr. Ritchie and Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher to introduce this topic. Mr. Ritchie stated that he is looking at this from a market segment standpoint as opposed to the visual - how the housing is designed and flows together depends upon who is going to live there. Empty nesters generally want smaller homes and lots with less maintenance. Young singles may want something different. His perception is that Dublin is accommodating only one market segment - 100 foot lots on cuI de sacs, 2,500- 3,000 square feet at a price of $300,000 plus or minus. Dublin needs to provide life cycle housing for a broader market - singles, young and old and empty nesters. His long-term concern is with who will buy all ofthe baby boomers' houses in a few years. A variety of housing should be provided so that in 10 years, there is not a glut of this type of housing on the market in Dublin. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher indicated she supports this. She believes the City should be talking with futurists who do visioning of the market and the wants of the future. We need to be cognizant of the future of the young singles group who may buy a lot and tear down the existing home - similar to what is happening in Arlington. The issue of concern in Dublin has always been density associated with these types of housing. Personally, she is a baby boomer who would like to remain in Dublin, but there are few affordable cl,1oices. Under the current scenario, Dublin cannot keep those who want to stay in Dublin and cannot attract the young singles. Dublin is not the same city it was a few years ago - people are staying longer, there is less corporate transfer, residents want to remain and raise their families. Dublin has not adjusted to this change of people staying in Dublin through the various life cycles. Mrs. Boring stated that in terms of condominium developments, the City cannot control the interiors of these projects - those who move to a smaller home still want a nice home. How can the City require the amenities that people desire in this product? Joint Meeting of Count;ll and Planning & Zoning Commission January 23, 2003 Page 12 Mayor McCash stated that as Dublin reviews subdivision design and implements a new zoning code, it is important to be cognizant that people building are for profit organizations. Dublin should consider providing options - perhaps a base quality standard or pro forma without adding so many regulations that it becomes a $400,000 condominium. A lot of the regulations being considered result in a higher cost, usually paid for by the purchaser. Mr. Ritchie stated that the City could allow higher densities, provided there is greenspace around it. The overall density may not be much higher. Mrs. Boring stated that density affects everything - more traffic, services, etc. The concept is to keep the density the same, but to reconfigure the site design. Mr. Banchefsky noted that there is a development proposed in Arlington that consists of 35-40 acres on 8 acres in the middle of a residential area. The neighborhood is very opposed to this and wants the same level of density in the adjacent area. - Mr. Reiner suggested that the new ruralism concept of Randall Arendt could preserve the rural and green look while incorporating higher densities. Preserving the rural feel is highly valued in Dublin. What are needed now are creative developers to carry out this concept in Dublin. He encouraged P&Z and Council to attend the upcoming lecture by Mr. Arendt. The City previously considered these concepts with the proposal from Wallace, Roberts and Todd. However, the concept was not approved at that time. Mayor McCash pointed out that the minimum lot width became a stumbling point in the previous discussions. Mr. Reiner responded that a number of builders at the time protested this, indicating their standard plans would not accommodate this type of development and that their business would be impeded. Mr. Sprague commented that his recollection is that some were supportive - Ben Hale had indicated it was feasible. Mrs. Boring invited Mr. Zimmerman to comment. Mr. Zimmerman stated that regarding the visual issues, there was an article in the newspaper recently about Prairie Crossing, Illinois and their efforts with new ruralism. They, too, were tired of the similar layouts being submitted by developers. Mrs. Boring stated that she is hearing consensus regarding exploring the concept of new ruralism. She then invited staff to review the status of the remaining land in Dublin for development - what is left to annex, where can more housing development take place, etc. Ms. Wanner has assembled a series of maps regarding these issues. Joint Meeting of Counl.;d and Planning & Zoning Commission January 23,2003 Page 13 Ms. Clarke showed a map outlining the sewer/water extension areas under the existing contract with Columbus. She noted that the northwest hatched brown area is one of the negotiated expansion areas, and agreement is needed with Columbus before either party annexes into that area. A 60-acre development proposal for the west side of Hyland Croy Road was brought forward by Mr. Solove last year, and Columbus gave permission for Dublin to serve it. This property was then annexed by Dublin. Also shown on the map is the current Metropark property purchased to date. As part of the Metropark participation agreement, Dublin agreed not to extend utilities into the park. To a certain extent, this Metropark could landlock Dublin in terms of utilities and annexations. At the southern part ofthe map, there are approximately 500 acres recently annexed to Columbus and they are under development review at this time by Columbus. Mr. Sprague asked about the HilliardlDublin school district boundaries. Ms. Wanner pointed these out on the map. Ms. Clarke stated that 4,600 acres of developed single-family land has yielded about 12,000 units. In other residential, including apartments, patio homes, cluster housing, townhouses, and attached two families - there are approximately 5,200 units on 589 acres. The ratio of other to single family is 1 versus 2.3. This ratio is higher than anticipated in the community plan for "alternate" housing. The next slide shows developed and phased residential land versus developed and pending multi-family land. For phased single-family, 619 acres will accommodate 1,200 units. Pending multi-family totals 206 acres with an estimated 1,000 units. Most of the multi-family has a density of 5 units per acre, except for the northeast quad that was zoned for a density of 6.8 to 8 units per acre. Ms. Salay asked about the price range for the condos to be built in the southwest. Ms. Clarke responded that they would be priced similar to the single-family houses in the area. Ms. Salay asked if the empty nesters interested in diversity of housing stock could have their needs met with these? Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that, other than in Muirfield where various housing stocks are available, nothing available is located in the central city - rather, this housing is located at the outskirts. There is a totally different level of engagement with Dublin for those located off of Sawmill Road or Tuttle Crossing. Mrs. Boring stated that this is the exact problem, and how can the City bring these areas together as one community? Ms. Salay stated that the community should be planned in its entirety versus piece by piece. A builder may bring in a project for review, but it needs to be considered in the larger context of how it relates to other projects. Perhaps more office buildings are needed to generate revenue to provide services. She had learned previously that multi- family development was not supported in Dublin, so the mind set has to change if the new Joint Meeting of COUnt:tl and Planning & Zoning Commission January 23,2003 Page 14 ruralism is to be considered. It is important to understand all of the ramifications of these concepts. Mrs. Boring stated that the new ruralism does not necessarily translate to a higher density - rather it relates to how the properties are grouped on the site. Ms. Salay asked if the economics will work for developers, and will they support this? It seems no one wants to approve anything less than 100-foot lots. Mr. Reiner stated that previously, Dublin was zoned for a large percentage of apartments and this was perceived as unhealthy. Council then dropped the multifamily density to 5 in the Community Plan in order to keep the financial stability. He is curious about the percentage of multi-family at build out. Ms. Clarke stated that, based on the Community Plan, there will be 65 percent single family and 35 percent multi-family. Ms. Salay stated that condominium, owner occupied units are quite different than apartment complexes. Mr. Reiner stated that the conflict in the consideration of the Wallace Roberts & Todd plan was with the builders and developers who were not willing to build this product. The new ruralism plan is a legal way to meet the letter of the law and still have a unique city. Mrs. Boring summarized that she is willing to consider the new ruralism, but she does not want to arrive at the end of the process and have people demanding 100-foot wide lots. Mr. Sprague stated that much of Dublin is flat farmland and would not have the type of amenities for preservation as outlined in the new ruralism concepts. Ms. Salay asked for copies of the newspaper article regarding Prairie Crossing, Illinois - this was done in a farmland area outside of Chicago. Mr. Ritchie stated that Ms. Clarke has said that planning is a series of small steps. He believes the consensus should be to "raise the bar" on the bait store site - asking the developer to preserve the natural character, do something unique, and provide some form of alternative housing. This could be done in a PUD zoning. There are some other opportunities in the Amlin area to apply the grid system of streets. Why not agree to take these small steps tonight? Mr. Reiner agreed. Joint Meeting of Count;l1 and Planning & Zoning Commission January 23, 2003 Page 15 Mr. Lecklider indicated that he is interested in all of these concepts - perhaps the developers should attend the Arendt land planning conference as well. How can Dublin impose its views upon the developers? Mr. Reiner commented that in the last round, City staff had meetings with developers to explain and discuss the concepts. Rather than supporting it, the developers instead lobbied the Council to defeat the plan. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that this is history - it is a new day and there are new opportunities as discussed tonight. Mrs. Boring stated that she has heard some hesitation, but she has also hears a desire to try something new. This is in keeping with the Community Plan update for 2004. Council has indicated their support of these new and innovative concepts, but to make this viable for the community, it will need to be adopted in some manner. Prom this point, steps need to be taken toward the update of the Plan. Personally, she doesn't want to see this effort delayed due to the pace of the build out. She asked the Commissioners if they need more feedback from Council tonight. - Mr. Sprague stated t at Ms. Chinnici-Zuerc r had made a good sug stion to bring in a futurist as a tool i eviewing the trends, d ographics and market or planning purposes. ked that the survey res ts of the Appearance C de Committee be Ms. Clar asked for clarification bout the suggestion for futurist to present. At t e time of e Community Plan, a eaker series was held. s that the intent? Ms. innici-Zuercher respon ed that there could be t 0 components to this effi -an inte ctive session with Cou cil and P&Z, and then session designed for the neral p lic. This would focus the demographics an ersonalities of the gener ion ming forward - there e experts in this type 0 analysis of lifestyles. Th' would assist in understanding the pI ning needed for the fu reo In terms of a timefr e, it was the consensus 0 have this scheduled in days. Mrs. Boring m ed that Ms. Chinnici-Z persons for s f on this matter. Mr. Messin seconded the motion. The moti~'was carried unanimou y. / M*,er stated that the Co ission has bronght conc os to Council tonigh nd has requ sted tools to change the ity. He noted that some mes developers "wi ' because of in ia - laws are not adopt a, new ideas are not con .tiered, and govemme lags behind. His suggestion is that tho e attending the Randall endt lecture embrace ese concepts