48-03 Resolution.R : ODD OF RESOLUTIONS
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc.. Form No. 30045
Resolution No. 48 -03 Passed 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 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 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
RECORD OF RESOLUTIONS Page 2
Dayton Legal Blank. Inc., Form No 30045
Resolution No. AID al Passed _
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,
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 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 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.
• 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
RECORD OF RESOLUTIONS Page 3
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc., Form No 30045
Resolution No. 4803 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 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 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 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
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 7. This resolution shall be take effect and be in force upon passage.
Passed this -�of , 2003.
ayor — Presiding Officer
ATTEST:
I hereby certify that copies of this
��— Ordinance /Resolution were posted in the
City of Dublin in accordance with Section
Clerk Of Council 731.25 of the Ohio Revised Code.
Sponsor: Division of Planning.
e uty Clerk of Council, Dublin, Ohio
RECORD OF RESOLUTIONS Page 4
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc,, Farm No. 30045
Resolution No. — 48-03 Passed --.20
Resolution 48-03 Attachment A page 1
Typical Dublin Single Family Development
Sd
Resolution 48-03 Typical Conservation Design Single Family
RECORD OF RESOLUTIONS Page 5
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc., Form No 30045
Resolution No. 4803 Passed 1 20
Resolution 48 -03 Attachment A page 2
Typical Conservation Design Attached Condo
Resolution 48 -03 Typical Dublin Single Family Development
RECORD OF RESOLUTIONS Page 6
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc., Form No 30045
Resolution No. 48 03 Passed 20
Typical Conservation Design Single Family
Typical Conservation Design Condo project
Resolution 48 -03 Attachment A page 3
1�
v
Mm'ft
1 115
Pit,
'mf w FITR'' �'r,
ig
M
b�jl t R'F �.. 0'"'. 1 1�°w1J r 1 ' .1 1 w ..
. . . . . . . . . . . .
IN
A
.��� i � � �� { r ,�,,,„ ��1I �,.. #Rae4 �1� \��1 I��BH'i
NO
W,
��I �Ji�l m 1 - — 1�. :p ia — — �+����ary ��; � �7r� d t 9 ��'. ����>.. t'�J�d�tid xa v� v
�17
w ' ;N� . 1 4"
VT
W
"l-A
%
11w
A �" � �>� ids , r r �' i i �, t r � ,�� r '" � , w �f R`,�r.
mn ana ine Uublin �5 47.86
P-� �6 25.58
CRY CO Dublln W= 162.48
Nnnexation Area 110
Department of Development
Division of Planning
5800 Shier -Rings Road • Dublin, Ohio 43016
Phone: 614 - 410 -4600 • Fax: 614 -761 -6566
CITY OF DUBLIN
TO: Members of Dublin City Council
FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Managea.�.��5 .
DATE: December 8, 2003
INITIATED BY: Gary P. Gunderman, Assistant Planning' ctor /Jrc�
Memo
RE: Resolution 48 -03 Requiring Development in a Conservation Design Pattern in
Appropriate Areas of the City of Dublin
SUMMARY
During the past year the Planning and Zoning Commission has discussed the merits of utilizing a
conservation design for new residential projects in the City of Dublin. This discussion began in
part with a joint meeting between the Planning Commission and the City Council and has
continued at several Planning and Zoning Commission meetings. This discussion has culminated
in a recommendation to the City Council that Resolution 48 -03 be adopted so that there is policy
documentation of the City's intent to have new residential development take place in
conservation pattern. The basic direction of the Resolution is simple in that it calls for all
residential projects to utilize Conservation Design whenever this design is practical. This topic
has been reviewed and the staff is confident that many areas that are currently undeveloped can
be developed in a conservation design pattern. The modifications requested by the Planning and
Zoning Commission on November 13 have been made to this resolution.
RECOMMENDATION
Adoption of Resolution 48 -03 as drafted.
CITY OF DUBLIN-
Division of Planning
_ "00 Shier -Rings Road
I i, Ohio 43016 -1236
Phu m/ TOO: 614 -410 -4600
Fax: 614 -761 -6566
Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
NOVEMBER 13, 2003
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 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
CITY OF DUBLIN-
Division of Planning
",00 Shier -Rings Road
n, Ohio 43016 -1236
Pho ,GiTDD: 614 -410 -4600
Fax: 614-761-6566
Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us
STAFF REPORT
DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 13, 2003
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 of the 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 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 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 9
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
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 Dublin Single Family Development
Typical Rural Conservation Attached Condo as proposed in Resolution XX
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report — November 13, 2003
Page 11
Typical Rural Conservation Single Family as proposed in Resolution XX
Typical Rural Conservation Condo project as proposed in Resolution XX
Resolution XX Attachment A page 3
CITY OF DUBLIN..
Division of Planning
!0 Shier -Rings Road
0 , Ohio 43016 -1236
Phone/TDD:614 -410 -4600
Fax: 614- 761 -6566
Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
OCTOBER 16, 2003
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
—z—
Gar P. Gunderman
Assistant Planning Director
03- 102ADM
New Ruralism
Draft Resolution
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 1 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 ruralism/conservation 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 du/ac, 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 ruralism 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 du/ac, that
meant 100 houses. However, in ruralism, the houses will be on 50 percent of the site, so the net
density may be two du/ac, but actually one du/ac 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 lay out 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.)
crrr ur lit BLIN
D on of Planning
5 Shier -Rings Road
Dub! hio 43016 -1236
ioneADD: 614410 -4600
fax: 614 - 761 -6566
leb Site: www.dublin.oh.us
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
FEBRUARY 20, 2003
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.
RESULT: This request will be forwarded to City Council.
STAFF CERTIFICATION
Barbara M. Clarke
Planning Director
03- 102ADM
New Ruralism
Draft Resolution
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, rNaining 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 m ng procedures and announced several time limit for tonight's
one case: Staff, 30 minutes; plicant, 60 minutes, and %" notes per person from Ye audience.
1. Concept Plan 02 -1 CP —Tartan West
Kolby Turnock pres ted this PUD concept pl for a residential common y designed around a
fitness and welln s center. The 211 -acre ite contains five parcels nd is located east of
Hyland -Croy R d, south of McKitrick R d, approximately 500 fee orth of Dublin Jerome
High School. my a tiny portion of the to along Manley Road is i elaware County, and the
balance is i Union County. He said t north central portion of tl site is heavily wooded and
gave a P erPoint presentation. He aid there are five streams nning south through the s
and ge rally follow the wooded as. A 150 -foot electric eas ent runs diagonally acros the
site ith three towers. The sit was zoned R, Rural Distric following its recent anne ation.
Pr erty to the north and Wes is in unincorporated Union ounty, with Glacier Rid Metro
ark taking up most of the roperty to the west. Muirfi d Village Phase 43 is toe ted to the
east_ Tartan Fields is locat d outside of Dublin City limi to the north.
The site plan has cha ed since the first hearing on ecember 12, 2002. The an still includes
423 units, with a gr s density of two units per acr .The cluster homes shit d from 119 to 112
condo u its were added. The
units, one single- f mily lot was dropped (now 95 ots), and eight
wellness center . s now located on the western tde of the site, rather at the middle, several
other subare changed location, and the thro gh street is now more rvilinear. Mr. Turnock
said the text las not changed since last the C mmission's special mee ng in January.
Mr. Tu ock said staff requested text difications to lower th wellness center's height and
re duc the extensive list of permitted u °s. Staff would like the ensities to be set at the rezoning
sta instead of permitting density tra sfers.
03- 102ADM
New Ruralism
T'%- 4 D_Cn111finn
Joint Meeting of Council 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 of the 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 Hilliard/Dublin 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 mindset has to change if the new
03- 102ADM
New Ruralism
Draft Resolution
Joint Meeting of Council 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. From 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 that Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher had m a good suggestion to bring
futurist as a tool in reviewing the trends, demogra cs and market for planning purl
Mr. Messineo asked that the survey results the Appearance Code Commi be
redistributed.
Ms. Clarke asked for clarificati about the suggestion for a futur' to present. At the
time of the Community PI speaker series was held. Is th e intent?
Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher r onded that there could be two ponents to this effort — an
interactive session Council and P &Z, and then a s Sion designed for the general
public. This wo focus on the demographics and ersonalities of the generation
coming forw — there are experts in this type analysis of lifestyles. This wou assist
in unders ding the planning needed for th ture.
In to of a timeframe, it was the cons us to have this scheduled in app imately 120
da
Mrs. Boring moved that Ms. innici- Zuercher and Mr. Spragu erve as the contact
persons for staff on this n ter.
Mr. Messineo second he motion.
The motion was c ied unanimously.
Mr. Reiner ated that the Commission has br ght concerns to Council tonight and has
request tools to change the City. He no that sometimes developers "win" because of
me — laws are not adopted, new id are not considered, and government lags behind.
s suggestion is that those attend the Randall Arendt lecture embrace these concepts
03- 102ADM
New Ruralism
Draft Resolution
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.
03- 102ADM
New Ruralism
Draft Resolution
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. Chin nici- Zuercher asked about the timeframe staff would need to do this research.
03- 102ADM
New Ruralism
Draft Resolution
Study Session
Monday, March 10, 2003
Page 19
Ms. Clarke will report back after discussion with staff.
Report regarding Appearance 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. e
have completed approximately 0 percent of the scope o ork of the Committee, d
would now like Council's inp . The group has worked gether well — it includes eorgi
Peplow, John Messineo, arlie per
of the BIA, vid Meleca and himself tall
member Brandol Harve as worked with the grou , and the various items a now
drafted in ordinance f .The Committee r ed d hundreds of slides to etetmine
what is desired in D lin. They identified the v ious items:
For site develop t:
/sign The draft ordinan decreases the spacing een street trees
increases the caliper to inches.
private landscaping, th ordinance requires thre rees in the front yard,
cted from the City's I' of appropriate trees.
vilinear streets will encouraged.
dards:
f requiring a pe ntage of vinyl siding, t group looked at the type
minimum of .44 mill vinyl, and include a list of accessories to be
.
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 r quired,
especial 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 j g the foregoing quality c nges, there may not be a eed for the diversity
portion. e intent of the effort was o avoid "cookie - cutter" ty subdivisions. Further,
the BI representative has indi 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
onsider 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, /su y aspect should be revie d e due to
the concern abou ubdivisions built all e builder. The similar odls result in
the loss of a div se appearance in the n. Perhaps with a c ain number of
builders invol d in a development, thot be the need for ese standards.
The concer as obviously with an enment built by on uilder.
;div th
. Sal stated that Mr. Driscoll i urrently working within th requirements to build
er 'y into every neighborhoo Why would he then vote ainst this portion —
sity seems to be e easi part?
Kranstuber stated that . Driscoll has concerns wit government requiring diversity,
e to the difficulties /delay which may result from fu er reviews by boards, etc.
03- 102ADM
New Ruralism
Draft Resolution
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.
03- 102ADM
New Ruralism
Draft Resolution
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.
03- 102ADM
New Ruralism
Draft Resolution
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 du/ac, 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.
03- 102ADM
New Ruralism
Draft Resolutioli
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.
03- 102ADM
New Ruralism
Draft Resolution
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 Avery 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.
03- 102ADM
New Ruralism
Draft Resolution
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
AUGUST 28, 2003
.011 OF DUBLIN
Division of Planning
5800 Shier -Rings Road
n, Ohio 43016 -1236
Ph 7DD: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:
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
Barbara M. Clarke
Planning Director
03- 102ADM
New Ruralism
Draft Resolution
XX -03
A RESOLUTION REQUIRING DEVELOPMENT INA RURAL CONSERVATION PATTERN IN
APPROPRJATE AREAS OF THE CITY OF D UBLIN.
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 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
03- 102ADM
New Ruralism
Draft Resolution
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
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.
03- 102ADM
New Ruralism
Draft Resolution
�eS .tj %-33
.q (if: (it ItU\
A- Vision of Piaaaiag
10 Shies -Rings Road
0 , Ohio 43016 -1236
nwae/100:614A10 -4600
fax: 614 - 761 -6566
Web Site: WWW.dubl"ia_ah.us
DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 20, 2003
1. Concept Plan 02 -132CP — Tartan W�Disapproved 5 -2)
Administrative Business
hi d Te
Chair Jim Sprague Ri convened e meeting at 6.30 p.m. Commi loners Rick Gerber, Todd
Zimmerman, Dick tce d Saneholtz were present. C y ring and John Messineo
Bo
arrived just after roll c and approval of the records, at 6 p.m. Staff members present
included: Bobbie C e, Gary Gunderman, Kelly Danne lser, Kolby Turnock, Mark Zuppo,
Matt Hansen, Paul Kristen Yorko, Mitch yanchefsky, and Libby Farley.
Mr. Gerber lade the motion to appro /avor. wary 25, 2003 special meeting minutes
presented Mr. Ritchie seconded. The v ammous in favor. (Approved 5 - 0.)
Mr. erber made the motion to accepments into the record. Mr. err
s onded. and the vote was unanimous ig Approved 5 -0.)
The Commissio n discussed schedu yig an administrative meeting on Thursd43 April 10 to elect
officers and for a thorough disc ssion of the Commission's administrat e rules. Mr. Gerber
suggested a workshop to di
us changing the 11 o'clock rule to o'clock, swearing m
applicants, etc_ Mr. Sane tz will not be available /dvertised 10. s. Clarke noted that the
agendas for both March ommission meetings wouly. Several potential dates were
discussed. Mr. Ranch sky said new officers could bin March, but terms would not
become effective un April. Ms_ Boring then suggesay, April 8 in Council Chambers
if it would work 1 ,Istically_ Mr_ Sprague said the muld be advertised and open to the
public- It was 9 sided this should be a regular meetit dinner. Mr_ Sprague suggested
snacks. After fibre discussion, April 8 was selected a for the adinintstrattve mcettn��,.
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. Ile suggested making a
recommendation to Council about consideration of informing developers that the City v"ould be
interested in pursuing conservation design in plans for future development.
Me 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
03- 102AD1\1
New Ruralism Draft Resolution
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes — February 20, 2003
Page 2
Mr. Sancholtz agreed that "ruralism" had been stressed lately, and everyone seems excited by the
potential results. Iie said according to the Community Plan, rttaining 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 me ng procedures and announced several time limit for tonight's
one case: Staff, 30 minutes; plicant, 60 minutes, andninutes per person from / audience.
1. Concept Plan 02 -1 I,CP— Tartan West
Kolby Turnock pres ited this PUD concept pl for a residential commun y designed around a
fitness and welln s center. The 211 -acre ite contains five parcels nd is located east of
Hyland - Croy R ad, south of McKlitrick R d, approximately 500 fee forth of Dublin Jerome
High School_ illy a tiny portion of the to along Manley Road is ii elaware County, and the
balance is - 1 Union County. He said t ° north central portion of tl site is heavily wooded and
gave a P erPoint presentation. He - aid there are five streams aning south though the s}te
and ge rally follow the wooded as. A 150 -foot electric eas vent runs diagonall/
the
site nth tlree towers. T was zoned R, Rural Distric following its receon_
Pr erty to the north and in unincorporated Union ounty, with Glacier etro
ark taking up most of thrty to the west. Muirfr d Village Phase 43 is the
east Tartan Fields is local of Dublin City limi to the no
The site pla /changed ed since the first hearing on ecembcr 12, 200 ?_. I�he an still includes
423 units, w ensity of two units per acr _ The cluster honles sllif d from 119 to 112
units, one si lot was dropped (now 95 ots), and eight condo u its were added_ The
wellness celocated on the wester" of the site, rather at the middle, several
other subare location, and the thro gh street is now more r l,._ rvilinear_ Mr. Turnock
said llie text nged since last the C mmission's special me in January.
Mr. Tu ock said staff requested text
rcduc tlrc extensive list of permitted u
sta instead of permitting density tray
lifications to lower tl
Staff would like the d
fers_
wellness center's height and
sitics to be set at the rezoning
03- 102ADM
New Ruralisnl
Tlrafi Re-, olutloll
Joint Meeting. of Council and Planning & Zoning Commission
January 23, 2003
Page 12
Mayor McCash stated that as Dublin revie lubdivision design and implements a new
zoning code, it is important to be co ' nt that people building are for profit
organizations. Dublin should seder providing options — perhaps a base qu
standard or pro forma w' ut adding so many regulations that it becom 400,000
considered result condominium. A the regulations being lt in er cost, usually
paid for by t urchaser.
lhlr!Ritchie stated that the City could allow high ensities, provided there is greenspace
around it. The overall density may not be higher.
Mrs. Boring stated that densit ects everything —more traffic, services, etc. pe
concept is to keep the de ' y the same, but to reconfigure the site design.
Mr. Banchef - noted that there is a development proposed i Jngton that consists of
35 -40 s on 8 acres in the middle of a residential are e neighborhood is very
sed to this and wants the same level of dense 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 continent.
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.
03- 102ADM
New Ruralism Draft Resolution
Joint Meeting of Council 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 of the 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 Hilliard/Dublin 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 mindset has to change if the new
03- 102ADM
New Ruralism
Draft Resolution
Joint Meeting of Council and [Tanning & 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
03- 102ADAI
New Ruralism Draft Resolution
Joint Meeting of Council and Planning & Zoning Commission
January 23, 2003
Page 15
Mr. Lecklider indicated that lie 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. From 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 that Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher had m a good suggestion to bring in
futurist as a tool in reviewing the trends, /demogra es and ma rket for planning pu se<
Mr. Messineo asked that the survey resulppearance Code Commi be
redistributed.
Ms. Clarke asked for clarificati about the suggestion for a futur' to present. At the
time of the Community PI speaker series was held. Is th ie intent?
Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher r )onded that there could be two nponents to this effort — an
interactive session w Council and P &Z, and then a s Sion designed for the general
public. This wo focus on the demographics and ersonalities of the generation
coming forty — there are experts in this type analysis of lifestyles. This wou assist
in unders ding the planning needed forth uture.
In to of a timeframe, it was the cons 'us to have this scheduled in app -imately 120
da
Mrs. Boring moved that Ms. innici- Zuercher and Mr. Spragu erve as the contact
persons for staff on this n ter.
Mr. Messineo second he motion.
The motion was c led unanimously.
X'— ed that the Commission has br gilt concerns to Council tonight and has
to change the City. lie no that sometimes developers "win" because of
re not adopted, new id are not considered, and government lags behind.
is that those attend' the Randall Arendt lecture embrace these concepts
03- 102ADM
New Ruralism
Draft Resolution
Study Session
Monday, March 10, 2003
Page 14
Mrs. Boring stated tl in hearing that different
it is important to w whether a majority of Cc
not, it is a wa of staff time.
r Aor City funding will be p
will support this concept at
X Chi i- Zuercher stat ed that it is i rtant to understand the big pi re before
decision. She believes t Council iZventerested d about all of
Ms. Salay stated that there e many residents w ted in this issue and
she is not comfortable i king any kind of action would want to hear
public testimony as Mr. Hammersmit fered that staff can return wit to a future work
session or to a ebuncil meeting.
Mrs. Bo ' K stated that tZ work sessioZCouncil e does not
aow r public participa
suggestcombined — a at which also
includes public testimont solution is a eting to
focus on this topic.
Mayor McCash a ed with the concept of a Speci ouncil Meeting. It is a tough issue
and it is import t to be fair to everyone. In ter of City subsidies, the issue becomes
how to cal to a uniform subsidy across th oard — if, in fact, any subsidy is
approve
M1/eecklider thanked the members,,0fCSAC for the time spent in review and
Report and Discussion Regarding Conservation Zoning — Planning & Zo ning
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.
03- 102ADM
New Ruralism Draft Resolution
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.
03- 102ADM
New Ruralism
Draft Resolution
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. It 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.
03- 102ADM
New Ruralism Draft Resolution
Study Session
Monday, March 10, 2003
Page 17
Mr. Reiner stated that in Muirfreld, 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.
03- 102ADM
New Ruralism
Draft Resolution
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_
03- 102ADM
New Ruralism Draft Resolution
Study Session
Monday, March 10, 2003
Page 19
Ms. Clarke will report back after discussion with staff.
Report regarding Appearance Code Q6mmittee
(Committee Cha/Un.They e Peplow s present for this discus on.)
Mr. Kranstuber rthat he nts to advise Council of e status of their work.
have completed mately 0 percent of the scope o ork of the Committee, d
would now like C inp The group has worked gether well — it indudes eon
Peplow, John M arlie Driscoll of the BIA, vid Meleca and himself taff
member Brandoas worked with the grou , and the various items a now
drafted in ordinaThe Committee revie d hundreds of slides to etermine
what is desired i. They identified the v ious items:
For site develop
1) Tree pe. The draft ordinan decreases the spacing een street trees
an increases the caliper to inches.
2) r private landscaping, th ordinance requires three rees in the front yard,
selected from the City's I' of appropriate trees.
3) Curvilinear streets will encouraged.
For sign standards:
In lieu of requiring a pe ntage of vinyl siding, t group looked at the type
siding, a minimum of .44 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 what is
recomme ed is that a certain num r of design elements are r quired,
especia for street facing and cor er facing sides.
The last ite
ity
c nges, there may not be a eed for the diversity
o be addressed is divers' What the Committee m propose is that by
implemen ' g the foregoing qual
portion. e intent of the effort was o avoid "cookie- cutter" ty subdivisions. Further,
the BI representative has indi 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
onsider 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 �d due to
the concern / divse ubdivisions built all by th ame builder. The similar yodels result in
the loss of appearance in the s ub vision. Perhaps with a c ain number of
builders inva development, there ould not be the need for ese standards.
The concer viously with an ent" � development built by on /builder.
Ms. SaYy stated that Mr. Driscoll i - urrently working within th . requirements to build
diver y into every neighborhoo Why would he the/vote ainst this portion —
div siy seems to be the easi part? Kranstuber stated that riscoll has concerns rnment requiring diversity,
ue to the difficulties /delay which may result from fu ews by boards, etc.
03- 102ADM
New Ruralism
Draft Resolution
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report — August 28, 2003
Page 16
3. Discussion — New Ruralism 03- 102ADM
Rcqucst: 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 pennissible.
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.
03- 102ADM
New Ruralist
Draft Resolution
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
03- 102ADM
New Ruralism Draft Resolution
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.
03- 102ADM
New Ruralisnl
Draft Resolution
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes — August 28, 2003
Page 5
Mr. Ritch sked if lie wanted to velop four parcels (tw acres), were they cons' °red four
lots o ie. Ms. Clarke said th vas four half -acre lots. development can onl e a half -acre.
Question from the a fence] Can a variance e requested, if it is re ned? Ms. Clarke said
those processes e always available. U ly, a lot size variance oes not go to BZA, but
would have e considered. Gene y, people want smal , not bigger lots than t Code
permits. e said Mr. Banchefsk ould think about that
Mr. Messineo asked a4paifiistratively, what protJorfis arise from splitting j4i<kesidential District
along the centerlin Cosgray Ditch at the cDowell property. Mr. ombs said no boundaries
are being dete fined tonight. It would wever, create a little di culty administratively.
Mr. er reiterated that the minission needs to m a recommendation to Ci ouncil on
two districts.
Ms. Clarke said ity Council may never ange the zoning. How er, staff thinks that is t
right thing o and will sponsor a zoning application for t purpose. These are s arate
assig ts. She wants to be h st about having rezomn roposal in the works. T first step
in process is to establis4AKe new zoning districts.
Mr. Zimmerman e a motion for approv#11ccause the standards ar ore compatible with the
Historic Dub ' development patterns, vide better consistency th adopted design guid ' es
for the itectural Review Dis 'ct, and enhance the A s administration and public
revi process, with a reque iat the Thomas McDo 1 letter be included in e Council or
packet. Mr. Mess' o seconded the motion s. Boring . asked why boundaries were
not being establishe . Ms. Clarke said no pr rties were being rezon y this action, it only
adds two distri to the Zoning Code. N oundary lines are bein t by this.
The e for approval was as f ows: Mr. Ritchie, yes r. Gerber, yes; Ms. Bo ' g, yes; Mr.
ieholtz, yes; Mr. Mess' o, yes; and Mr. Zim an, yes. (Approved .) Mr. Gerber
thanked everyone for g' ing input. Mr. Ritchie d Mr. Combs had done ood 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.
03- 102ADM
New Ruralism Draft Resolution
Dublin Planning and "Zoning Conunission
Minutes — August 28, 2003
Page G
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 1 5,000 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 du/ac, 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. Sanelioltz 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.
03- 102ADM
New Ruralism
Draft ResolUtioil
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. Gunder 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 turned 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
mowing.
03- 102ADM
New Ruralism Draft Resolution
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 snake 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. Gunderinan 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.
03- 102ADM
New Ruralism
Draft Resolution
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 western 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 " ruralism 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 lie did not really like what was shown on the,slides.
Ms. Boring said she could support smaller lots onl 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.
03- 102ADM
New Ruralism Draft Resolution
Dublin PIanning 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 Avery 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 Conunission 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.
03- 102ADM
New Ruralist
Draft RPCnhitinn
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%
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 ruralisnl 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; Mr. 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.
03- 102ADNI
New Ruralism Draft Resolution
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
AUGUST 28, 2003
..Cali OF Dt :aLl\
Division of Planning
'00 Shier -Rings Road
I i, Ohio 43016 -1236
Ph6rieTDD: 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:
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
Barbara M. Clarke
Planning Director
03- 102AD1\1
New Ruralism
Draft Resolution
XX -03
A RESOLUTION REQUIRING DEVELOPMENT INA RURAL CONSERVATION PATTERN IN
APPROPRIATE AREAS OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN.
c+1
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 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
03- 102ADM
New Ruralism
Draft Resolution
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
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.
03- 102ADM
New Ruralism
Draft Resolution
_01"I 0F 111 L' LI N
Division of Planning
5800 Shier -Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236
Ime/f00: 614A10A600
fax_ 614 - 161 -6566
Web Site: WWW.dublin.ah.us
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
FEBRUARY 20, 2003
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.
RESULT: This request will be forwarded to City Council.
STAFF CERTIFICATION
Barbara M. Clarke
Planning Director
03- 102ADM
New Ruralism
Draft Resolution
1-
- -• I I I .� � r I I r
Glacier Ridge -
Metro Park
fl 1y � t
I ,
,`11 1 }• � yq
— u •
�r
v
Liberty Township
� JX
[1 l :Fl t X 14 .t 1 • , 1 } 1 �, w C•
^9 ■ _ °"lt"' S ...' r , r. `[. '}t k ' t r g f 5 i } � F ,"' r !�C ..},` .�7
[:4. �., `^ 4 •67�'VZ5 - CSC � : i *t 'r - ! k ' } t � A 'lT�ji { y,
�2 '°ti,. � f � 7 i � �IY �, I. _._,t �` '� kq 1. k�k� 7� t � }; ' - r ¢' •'
r T L l
S i ' i 1P '. ° Y
J } l f ;' •`* p ' Z�j�...
I l str
S • � c, i r f, �± I ■ � 1 J
y.
I+ �� 7
ly
t )] 1' f t t 1. '. t✓A 7 li, 1. '
t
��...r3;��41��,�F I .;s'3:.�1►� q.. irn� r 'Sti I -�,1 • L �l'} �r `
—
Na
Potential Rural Conservation Land
Within Dublin and the Dublin
Exclusive Annexation Area
N
w B 0 0.250.5 1 1.5 2
S Miles
Legend
D cwpomte urnk
�5
47.86
. 13
757,50
Parads
NE
25.58
=14
20.81
Q
cit of ouw
7
162.48
LUM
29.64
Future Developed lands (Acres)
�8
112.74
X 16
76.68
µ 1
266.58
I9
146,85
X17
47.42
328.87
X10
333,27
LE - L-118
41.41
C13
161.87
=11
93.68
1 19
228.75
4
62.52
12
348,34
:�. 20
85.12