HomeMy WebLinkAbout48-05 Ordinance RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Leal Blank, lnc. Form No. 30043
48-OS 20
Ordinance No. Passed
AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL CHAPTER 53,
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, TO ESTABLISH
CHAPTER 53, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
AND STREAM PROTECTION, AND TO ADD
SECTION 153.231 (B)(5) OF THE CODIFIED
ORDINANCES IN THE CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO
WHEREAS, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) has promulgated
new regulations in conjunction with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Phase II requirements; and
WHEREAS, the OEPA has established a General Construction permit and requires
the City to adopt the requirements contained in the permit; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that the drainage and development of land
usually has significant impact upon the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of
Dublin, Ohio; and
WHEREAS, improperly managed stormwater runoff can increase the incidence of
flooding and erosion which potentially endangers human life and property; and
WHEREAS, impervious surfaces increase the volume and rate of stormwater runoff
and potentially allow less water to percolate into the soil, thereby decreasing
groundwater recharge; and
WHEREAS, construction requiring the alteration of natural topography and removal
of vegetation tends to increase erosion; and
WHEREAS, siltation of water bodies resulting from increased erosion decreases their
capacity to hold and transport water; and
WHEREAS, stormwater runoff can carry pollutants into receiving water bodies, thus
degrading water quality; and
WHEREAS, the Community Services Advisory Commission and the Planning and
Zoning Commission have reviewed the proposed amendments and have made
recommendations to Council to adopt these revisions.
NOW, THEREFO , BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin,
State of Ohio, ~ of the elected members concurring:
Section 1. To repeal existing Chapter 53, Stormwater Management, of the Dublin
Code of Ordinances; and
Section 2. To establish Chapter 53, Stormwater Management and Stream
Protection, of the Dublin Code of Ordinances as shown in attached Exhibit "A"; and
Section 3. To add Section 153.231 (B) (5) of the Dublin Code of Ordinances as
follows:
(5) Stream Corridor Protection Zone Appeals for the Dublin Engineering
Division. To hear and decide in specific cases if the terms of Chapter 53, Stormwater
Management and Stream Protection, will be contrary to the public interest where,
owing to special conditions on the land, a variance is necessary when a literal
enforcement of the provisions of Chapter 53, Stormwater Management and Stream
Protection, would result in an unreasonable hardship. In granting such variances, the
Board of Zoning Appeals shall prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards to
maintain the intent and spirit of Chapter 53, Stormwater Management and Stream
Protection.
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank, lnc Form No. 30043
- _ _ -
_ 48-OS Page. 20
Ordinance No. Passed
Section 4. That the City Engineer is directed to create and maintain a Stormwater
Management Design Manual in his office that is available to the public for use when
applying the regulations contained in Chapter 53, Stormwater Management and
Stream Protection.
Section 5. That this ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the
earliest date allowed by law.
Passed this day of ~J-e ~ 2005.
Mayor -Presiding Officer
Attest:
/;j ,1
Clerk of Council
I hereby certify that copies of this
Ordinance/Resolution were posted in the
City of Dublin in accordance with Section
731.25 of the Ohio Revised Code.
uty C k of Council, Dublin, Ohio
Office of the City Manager
5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017
CITY OF DUBLIN_ Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490 M e m o
To: Members of City Council
From: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager~~y ~S
Date: August 31, 2005
Initiated By: Paul A. Hammersmith, P.E., Director of Engineering/City Engineer
ef-
Barbara A. Cox, P.E., Assistant Director of Engineering -Development
Re: Ordinance 48-05: An Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 53, Stormwater Management, to
Establish Chapter 53, Stormwater Management and Stream Protection, and to Add
Section 153.231 (B) (5) of the Codified Ordinances in the City of Dublin, Ohio
Summary:
This is the second reading of Ordinance 48-05. Revisions to Chapter 53, Stormwater Management are
proposed to codify updates made by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) regarding erosion
and sediment control (during and after construction), create a stream corridor protection zone and clarify
some issues that staff has found while administrating the current Chapter since June 1998. The proposed
revisions were forwarded to both the Community Services Advisory Commission (CSAC) and the
Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) for their review and consideration, as directed by Council at their
March 7, 2005 meeting.
Staff will make a presentation that will summarize the proposed revisions and outline the implications of
the proposed revisions.
No changes were made to the following documents that are attached again for your review:
1. Memo from CSAC containing their recommendation
2. Minutes from the various CSAC meetings when the revisions were discussed
3. Minutes and Record of Action from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting when the
revisions were presented
4. Ordinance 48-OSadopting the proposed revisions
5. Chapter 53, Stormwater Management and Stream Protection (Exhibit "A")
6. Draft Stormwater Management Design Manual
7. Map depicting areas where Stream Corridor Protection Zones may apply.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 48-05: An Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 53, Stormwater
Management, to Establish Chapter 53, Stormwater Management and Stream Protection, and to Add
Section 153.231 (B) (5) of the Codified Ordinances in the City of Dublin. Staff is accepting of a third
reading of Ordinance 48-OS on September 19~' if Council desires additional time to review the proposed
revisions.
Exhibit "A "
CHAPTER 53: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND STREAM PROTECTION
Section
53.010 Purpose
53.020 Short title
53.030 Jurisdiction
53.040 Definitions
53.050 Authority
53.060 Required approvals
53.070 Exemptions
53.080 General requirements
53.090 Stormwater design standards
53.100 Dedication of easements and rights-of--way
53.110 Stormwater management plan
53.120 Stormwater management plan application
53.130 Acceptance of stormwater improvements
53.140 Maintenance responsibility
53.150 Enforcement
53.200 Establishment of a stream corridor protection zone (SCPZ)
53.210 Uses permitted in the stream corridor protection zone
53.220 Uses prohibited in the stream corridor protection zone
53.230 Facilities prohibited in the stream corridor protection zone
53.240 Non-conforming structures or uses in the stream corridor protection zone
53.250 Inspection of stream corridor protection zone
53.260 Variances, Waivers or Exemptions
53.270 Appeals
53.300 Erosion and sediment control requirements for construction sites
53.310 General requirements erosion and sediment control requirements
53.320 Standards and criteria for erosion and sediment control
53.330 Soil erosion and sediment control plan requirements
53.340 Erosion and sediment control compliance responsibility
53.999 Penalty
§ 53.010 PURPOSE.
(A) A chapter regulating stormwater from areas of new development and redevelopment for
the purpose of protecting the public health, safety, and welfare; defining appropriate stormwater
management objectives for the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff in the city; providing
for waivers; providing requirements for the protection of water resources; imposing application
fees and procedures; requiring adherence to the plans approved by the City Engineer; providing
for maintenance; and providing for enforcement and penalties for violation.
(B) In order to protect, maintain, and enhance both the immediate and the long-term health,
safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Dublin, it is the intent of the city to enact this
chapter so as to accomplish the following objectives:
Page 1 of 29
Exhibit "A "
(1) To prevent loss of life and loss of property due to flooding;
(2) To protect, restore, and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological quality of
ground and surface waters;
(3) To encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between humanity and nature thus
enhancing the scenic beauty and environment of the City;
(4) To prevent individuals, business entities, and governmental entities from causing
harm to the community by activities which adversely affect water resources;
5) To encourage the protection of natural systems, including groundwater and the use
of those natural systems in ways which do not impair their beneficial functioning;
(6) To assist in stabilizing the banks of streams to reduce bank erosion and the
downstream transport of sediments eroded from watercourse banks;
(7) To provide areas for natural meandering and lateral movement of stream channels;
(8) To minimize the transport of sediments and pollutants to surface water and
groundwater;
(9) To provide high quality stream habitats with shade and food to a wide array of
wildlife by maintaining diverse and connected riparian vegetation;
(10) To provide economical benefits to the city by minimizing encroachment on stream
channels and reducing the need for costly engineering solutions such as dams and riprap;
(11) To protect structures and reduce property damage and threats to the safety of
watershed residents;
(12)To add to the quality of life of the residents of the City of Dublin and
corresponding property values;
(13)To ensure the attainment of these objectives by requiring the approval and
implementation of stormwater management plans for all activities which may have an adverse
impact upon groundwater and surface water.
§ 53.020 SHORT TITLE.
This chapter shall be known and cited as the Stormwater Management and Stream
Protection chapter, hereinafter referred to as the stormwater regulations.
§ 53.030 JURISDICTION.
The stormwater regulations shall apply in all areas within the development jurisdiction of
the city.
Page 2 of 29
Exhibit "A "
§ 53.040 DEFINITIONS.
For the purpose of the stormwater regulations, the following terms, phrases, and definitions
shall apply. Words used in the singular shall include the plural, and the plural, the singular.
Words used in the present tense shall include the future tense. The word SHALL is mandatory
and not discretionary. The word MAY is permissive. Words not defined herein shall be construed
to have the meaning given by common and ordinary use as defined by the latest edition of
Webster's Dictionary.
AGRICULTURE. The art or science of cultivating the ground, including the harvesting of
crops, and the rearing and management of live stock; farming.
APPLICANT. Any person or duly designated representative applying for a permit or other
type of city, federal, or state regulatory approval to proceed with a project.
AS-BUILT PLANS. The final plans amended to include all locations, dimensions,
elevations, capacities, capabilities, as actually constructed and installed.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs). Schedules of activities, prohibition of
practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices (both structural and non-
structural) to prevent or reduce the pollution of waters. BMP's also include treatment
requirements, operating procedures, and practices to control runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or
waste disposal, or drainage from raw material storage.
BLUE-LINE STREAM. Those streams shown on USGS 7.5' Quad maps with solid or
dashed blue lines.
CLEARING. The removal of trees, brush, and other ground cover from a part of the land,
but shall not include mowing.
COMPENSATING STORAGE. Equivalent floodplain storage provided to counterbalance
floodplain filling.
CONSERVATION. The wise use and management of natural resources.
CONSTRUCTION. The erection, alteration, repair, renovation, demolition or removal of
any building or structure; and the clearing, stripping, excavating, filling, grading, and regulation
of sites with connection therewith.
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE. The permitted points of ingress and egress to
construction sites regulated under this regulation which reduce the mud, dust and dirt tracked out
of the site.
DAMAGED OR DISEASED TREES: Trees that have split trunk, broken tops, heart rot,
insect or fungus problems that will lead to imminent death, undercut root systems that put the
tree in imminent danger of falling, lean as a result of root failure that puts the tree in imminent
danger of falling, or any other condition that puts the tree in imminent danger of being uprooted
or falling into or along a stream or onto a structure.
Page 3 of 29
Exhibit "A "
DENUDE. The act of stripping, scraping, and/or scalping a site of vegetation, thus
exposing bare soil.
DETENTION or TO DETAIN. The retardance of, or to retard or slow, the discharge,
directly or indirectly, of a given volume of stormwater runoff into surface waters in a facility that
does not contain a permanent or normal pool of water.
DEVELOPER. Any individual, subdivider, firm, association, syndicate, partnership,
corporation, trust, or any other legal entity commencing proceedings under these regulations to
effect the development of land for himself or for another.
DEVELOPMENT AREA. Any contiguous (abutting) area owned by one or more person(s)
or developed as a single phase or multiple phases (units) and used or being developed or
redeveloped, for non-farm commercial, industrial, residential, or other non-farm purposes upon
which earth-disturbing activities are planned or underway.
DEVELOPMENT or DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY. The alteration, construction,
installation, demolition or removal of a structure, impervious surface or drainage facility; or
clearing, scraping, grubbing, killing or otherwise removing the vegetation from a site; or adding,
removing, exposing, excavating, leveling, grading, digging, burrowing, dumping, piling,
dredging or otherwise significantly disturbing the soil, mud, sand or rock of a site. For the
purposes of this ordinance, this pertains to any development greater than one (1) acre or any size
of development if it is part of a larger contiguous development.
DISCHARGE. The outflow of water from a project, site, aquifer, drainage basin or facility.
DISTURBED AREA. An area of land subject to erosion due to the removal of vegetative
cover and/or other earth disturbing activities.
DITCH. A constructed channel for irrigation or stormwater conveyance.
DRAINAGE. The removal of excess surface water or groundwater from land by surface or
subsurface drains.
DRAINAGE AREA. The area of land contributing surface water to a specific point.
DUMPING. Grading, pushing, pilling, throwing, unloading, or placing of fill material,
composed of earth, soil, rock, sand, gravel, or demolition material.
EARTH-DISTURBING ACTIVITY. Any grading, excavating, filling, or other alteration of
the earth's surface where natural or man-made ground cover is destroyed and which may result
in or contribute to erosion and sediment pollution.
EASEMENT. A grant by a property owner for the use of a specified portion of land for a
specified purpose.
EROSION:
(A) The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice or other geological
agents, including such processes as gravitational creep.
Page 4 of 29
Exhibit "A "
(B) Detachment and movement of soil or rock fragments by wind, water, ice or gravity.
(C) Erosion includes:
(1) Accelerated Erosion: erosion much more rapid than normal, natural or geologic
erosion, primarily as a result of the influence of the activities of man.
(2) Floodplain Erosion: abrading and wearing away of the nearly level land situated
on either side of a channel due to overflow flooding.
(3) Gully Erosion: a type of erosion caused by concentrated runoff that removes soil
such that channels are formed and/or become considerably deeper than what
would otherwise result by normal smoothing or tilling operations.
(4) Natural (Geological) Erosion: the wearing away of the earth's surface by water,
ice or other natural agents under natural environmental conditions of clime,
vegetation, etc., undisturbed by man.
(5) Normal Erosion: the gradual erosion of land used by humans which does not
greatly exceed natural erosion.
(6) Rill Erosion: an erosion process in which numerous small channels only several
inches deep are formed; occurs mainly on recently disturbed soils.
(D) Sheet Erosion: the removal of a fairly uniform layer of soil from the land surface by
wind or runoff water.
(E) Stream Erosion: erosion of the bank or bottom due to the high velocity of flow within the
stream.
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL. Physical, mineral, procedural, and organic
measures to minimize the removal of soil from the land surface and to prevent its transport from
a disturbed area by means of wind, water, ice, gravity, or any combination of those forces.
EXEMPTION. Those activities that are not subject to the requirements contained in this
regulation.
EXTENDED DRYDETENTION. A drainage facility designed to capture the water quality
volume, release 50 percent of it in no less than 16 hours, and the remainder in no less than 32
hours (for a total of 48 hours).
FINAL STABILIZATION. Establishment of a uniform perennial vegetative cover with a
density of at least 70% of the cover for the disturbed area, or equivalent stabilization measures
(such as the use of mulches or geotextiles) employed after all earth disturbing activities have
been completed.
FINSISHED GRADE. The final grade or elevation of the ground surface conforming to the
approved site grading plan.
Page 5 of 29
Exhibit "A "
FOREBAYS. Areas located at detention basin inlets that are designed to trap coarse
sediment particles by separating approximately ten percent of the basin volume from the
remainder of the basin with a lateral sill, rock-filled gabions, a retaining wall, or horizontal rock
filters.
GRADING. The stripping, cutting, filling, stockpiling, or any combination thereof of earth
disturbing activities, including land in its cut or filled conditions.
GRUBBING. Any activity which removes or significantly disturbs the root matter within
the ground.
GROUNDWATER. Water below the surface of the ground whether or not flowing through
known or defined channels.
HYDROGRAPH. A graph of discharge versus time for a selected point in the drainage
system.
MAINTENANCE. The action taken to restore or preserve the as-built functional design of
any facility or system.
NATURAL SUCCESSION: A gradual and continuous replacement of one kind of plant and
animal group by a more complex group. The plants and animals present in the initial group
modify the environment through their life activities thereby making it unfavorable for
themselves. They are gradually replaced by a different group of plants and animals better
adapted to the new environment.
NOXIOUS WEED: Any plant species defined by the Ohio Department of Agriculture as a
"noxious weed" and listed as such by the Department. For the purposes of this regulation, the
most recent version of this list at the time of application of this regulation shall prevail.
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN: Any land susceptible to being inundated by water from a base
flood, which is the flood that has a one percent or greater chance of being equaled or exceeded in
any given year. For the purposes of these regulations, the 100-year floodplain shall be defined
and approved by the City Engineer of Dublin or designee.
OPEN CHANNEL. A ditch, channel, Swale, or other open conveyance that is not a stream
and is used to safely convey stormwater runoff.
ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK: The point on the bank or shore to which the presence
and action of surface water is so continuous as to leave a distinctive mark by erosion, destruction
or prevention of terrestrial vegetation, predominance of aquatic vegetation or other easily
recognized characteristic. The ordinary high water mark defines the channel of a stream.
OUTDOOR ACTIVITY AREAS. Areas where pollutants are or may become more
concentrated than typical urban runoff as characterized by the USEPA National Urban Runoff
Program (NURP), as listed below or otherwise defined by the City Engineer:
(1) Industrial material, waste handling, and storage areas, including but not limited to
loading docks, fuel and other liquid storage/dispensing facilities, material bins, containers,
Page 6 of 29
Exhibit "A "
stockpiles, and other storage containers, waste dumpsters, bins, cans, tanks, stockpiles, and other
waste containers.
(2) Processing, manufacturing, fabrication, cleaning, or other permanent outdoor
equipment or work areas.
(3) Areas where vehicles and equipment are repaired, maintained, stored,
disassembled, rinsed, cleaned or disposed.
OWNER. The person in whom is vested the fee, ownership, dominion, or title of property
(i.e., the proprietor). This term may also include a tenant, if chargeable under his lease for the
maintenance of the property, and any agent of the owner or tenant including a developer.
PARCEL or PARCEL OF LAND. A contiguous quantity of land in possession or owned
by, or recorded as property of the same claimant person as of the effective date of the stormwater
regulations.
PERMITTEE. Any person who has been granted a permit to proceed with a project.
PERSON. Any individual, firm, corporation, governmental agency, business trust, estate,
trust, partnership, association, two or more persons having a joint or common business interest,
or any other legal entity.
POLLUTION. Any contamination or alteration of the physical, chemical, or biological
properties of any waters that will render the waters harmful or detrimental to: public health,
safety or welfare; domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, or other legitimate
beneficial uses; livestock, wildlife, including birds, fish or other aquatic life.
POST-DEVELOPMENT. The average conditions as of the completion of the development
for which a permit has been applied.
PRE-DEVELOPMENT. The hydrologic and hydraulic condition of the project site
immediately before development or construction begins.
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. A professional engineer licensed by the State of Ohio,
skilled in the practice of civil engineering and the engineer of record for the project under
consideration.
PROHIBITED DISCHARGES. Any discharges which are not composed entirely of
stormwater unless authorized under a discharge permit issued by the OEPA.
RECHARGE. The inflow of water into an aquifer.
RETENTION or TO RETAIN. The prevention of, or to prevent, the discharge, directly or
indirectly, of a given volume of stormwater runoff into surface waters in a facility that has a
permanent or normal pool of water.
RIPARIAN AREA. A transitional area between flowing water and land covered by
terrestrial vegetation that provides a continuous exchange of nutrients and woody debris between
land and water. This area is at least periodically influenced by flooding. Riparian areas, if
Page 7 of 29
Exhibit "A "
appropriately sized and managed, help to stabilize banks, limit erosion, reduce flood size flows
and/ or filter and settle out runoff pollutants, or perform other functions consistent with the
purposes of these regulations.
SEDIMENT. Solid material, both mineral and organic, that is or was in suspension, is
being or has been transported, or has been moved from its site of origin by air, water, gravity, or
ice, and has come to rest on the earth's surface either above or below water.
SEDIMENT BASIN. Sedimentation control devices such as ponds or traps that are
designed to collect concentrated runoff from disturbed areas, settle and retain sediment in the
runoff, and discharge the runoff water to a stabilized channel or pipe.
SEDIMENTATION CONTROL DEVICE. Any structure or area which is designed to hold
runoff water until suspended sediments have settled.
SINKHOLE. A depression characterized by closed contours on a topographic map.
SITE. Any lot or parcel, or a series of lots or parcels of land adjoining or contiguous or
joined together under one ownership where clearing, stripping, grading or excavating is
performed.
STABILIZATION. The use of BMPs, such as seeding and mulching, that reduce or prevent
soil erosion by water, wind, ice, gravity, or a combination of those forces.
STORM EVENT. The storm of a specific duration, intensity, and frequency.
STORMWATER or RUNOFF. Refers to the flow of water which results from, and which
occurs during and immediately following a rainfall event.
STORMWATER FACILITY. Any natural or constructed component of the stormwater
management system.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. Refers to the approved detailed analysis,
design, and drawings of the stormwater management system, including erosion and sediment
controls and other management practices for construction activities, required for all
construction.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. All natural and constructed facilities used
for the conveyance and storage of stormwater through and from a drainage area, including, but
not limited to, any and all of the following: channels, ditches, swales, flumes, culverts, streets,
streams, watercourses, waterbodies, wetlands detention/retention facilities, and treatment
devices.
STORMWATER MASTER PLAN. The technical and policy manuals and any subsequent
updates or amendments thereto used by the City Engineer to administer the stormwater
regulations.
STORMWATER QUALITY. Any liquid, solid, or semi-solid substance, or combination
thereof, that enters stormwater runoff in concentrations or quantities large enough to contribute
to the degradation of the beneficial uses of the body of water receiving the discharge.
Page 8 of 29
Exhibit "A "
STORMWATER QUALITY TREATMENT. The removal of pollutants from urban runoff
and improvement of water quality, accomplished largely by deposition and utilizing the benefits
of natural processes.
STREAM. A channel having awell-defined bed and bank, either natural or artificial which
confines and conducts continuous or periodic flowing water in such a way that terrestrial
vegetation cannot establish roots within the streambed. Includes intermittent, ephemeral and
perennial streams and streams identified by USGS or NRCS maps.
STREAM CORRIDOR PROTECTION ZONE (SCPZ). The area set back along a stream to
protect the riparian area and stream from impacts of development, and streamside residents from
impacts of flooding and land loss through erosion. SCPZs are those lands within the City of
Dublin that fall within the area defined by the criteria set forth in these regulations.
STRIPPING. Any activity which removes or significantly disturbs the vegetative surface
cover.
STRUCTURE. Anything constructed or installed with a fixed location on the ground, or
attached to something having a fixed location on the ground.
SUBGRADE. The top elevation of graded and compacted earth underlying roadway
pavement.
SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE. Damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the
cost of restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would be equal to, or would
exceed, 50% of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred.
SWALE. An artificial or natural waterway which may contain contiguous areas of standing
or flowing water only following a rainfall event, or is planted with or has stabilized vegetation
suitable for soil stabilization, stormwater treatment, and nutrient uptake, or is designed to take
into account the soil erodibility, soil percolation, slope, slope length, and contributing area so as
to prevent erosion and reduce the pollutant concentration of any discharge. Also see definitions
for Open Channel and Ditch.
TAILWATER. The water into which a spillway or outfall discharges.
TEMPORARY SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES. Interim
control measures installed or constructed to control soil erosion until permanent soil erosion
control measures are established.
TERRESTRIAL VEGETATION. Upland vegetation and facultative upland vegetation, as
defined in the National Wetland Plant List.
TOPSOIL. Surface and upper surface soils which presumably are darker colored, fertile soil
materials, ordinarily rich in organic matter or humus debris.
WAIVER. A permit of conditional exemption from the regulation in part or in whole, as
specified by the approving agent, in a formal written statement. A waiver from the regulation
shall not be assumed to be in effect, without the expressed written statement from the City.
Page 9 of 29
Exhibit "A "
WATERBODY or RECEIVING WATERS. Any natural or artificial pond, lake, reservoir,
or other area which ordinarily or intermittently contains water and which has a discernible
shoreline and into which surface waters flow.
WATERCOURSE. Any natural or artificial waterway (including, but not limited to,
streams, rivers, creeks, drainageways, waterways, gullies, ravines, or washes) in which waters
flow in a definite direction or course, either continuously or intermittently; and including any
area adjacent thereto which is subject to inundation by reason of overflow of flood water.
WETLANDS Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater with a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands
generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
WORKS. All artificial structures, including, but not limited to, canals, ditches, swales,
conduits, channels, culverts, pipes, and other construction that connects to, draws water from,
drains water into, or is placed in or across the waters in the state.
§ 53.050 AUTHORITY.
The City Engineer is hereby authorized to administer the stormwater regulations. The City
Engineer shall maintain and update this Stonnwater Management and Stream Protection
Ordinance and recommend to City Council for adoption modifications in this Stormwater
Management and Stream Protection Ordinance. The City Engineer shall also develop and
maintain a Stormwater Master Plan, administrative procedures, detailed design studies or
procedures to reflect new construction (including building additions), and/or engineering design
technology necessary to administer this Ordinance.
§ 53.060 REQUIRED APPROVALS.
(A) The requirements of the stormwater regulations shall be implemented, and shall be
satisfied completely, prior to final project approval by the City Engineer. No person shall
conduct any development activity, or subdivide or make any change in the use of land, or
construct any stormwater management system or structure, or change the size of an existing
structure or system, except as may be exempted in § 53.070 hereof.
(B) Any construction plans, specifications, building permits, or other documents approved
by the City Engineer shall be constructed in accordance with all applicable state or federal permit
requirements of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA), Ohio Department of
Natural Resources (ODNR) and/or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. No construction activity shall
commence prior to obtaining applicable permits from these agencies.
§ 53.070 EXEMPTIONS.
With the approval of the City Engineer, the following activities may be exempted from on-site
stormwater runoff control. An exemption shall apply only to the requirement for on-site
Page 10 of 29
Exhibit "A "
stormwater detention or retention facilities. All other design elements such as the storm sewer
system, road culverts, erosion and sedimentation control, and runoff quality shall not be
exempted.
(A) Emergency exemption. Emergency maintenance work performed for the protection of
public health and welfare, however, if the earth-disturbing activity would have required
an approved erosion and sediment control plan, if the activity were not an emergency,
then the land area disturbed shall be shaped and stabilized in accordance with the
requirements of the City.
(B) Maintenance exemption. Any maintenance to an existing system made in accordance
with plans and specifications approved by the City Engineer.
(C)Development-related exemptions. The applicant shall provide to the City Engineer in
writing a request for exemption which shall include a scaled site map, property tax
number, and street address if applicable.
(1) Single-family or duplex exemption. Single-family or duplex residential
construction on a single lot that is not part of a larger common plan of
development.
(2) Any construction which adds less than 500 square feet through expansion of a
building, structure or pavement which results in new impervious area on a project
site.
(3) It is conceivable that development situations not automatically subject to
exemption may exist such that development will have none of the harmful effects
of sediment deposition. Such development situations, subject to City
concurrence, are eligible for a waiver from this regulation. Waiver Requests shall
be made in writing to the City Engineer and shall include sufficient detail to
support that granting a wavier will not be detrimental to abutting properties or to
watercourses, public waters, or to the sewer System.
(D)Scioto River Corridor Exemption. Parcels that are located between State Route 745
(Dublin Road) and State Route 257 (Riverside Drive) which are directly tributary to the
Scioto River.
(E) Regular farming activities on land intended for such use, except when these activities
involve practices which increase storm water runoff and exacerbate erosion and
sedimentation.
(F) Tilling, planting or harvesting of agricultural, horticultural, or forest crops that employ
soil conservations related to agriculture as follows: construction of terraces, terrace
outlets, check dams, desilting basins, dikes, ponds, ditches, strip cropping, lister
furrowing, contour cultivating, contour furrowing, and land drainage and land irrigation
which does not cause an increase in storm water runoff and does not exacerbate erosion
and sedimentation.
(G) Minor earth-disturbing activities such as home gardens and individual home landscaping,
repairs, service connections and maintenance work.
Page 11 of 29
Exhibit "A "
(H) Installation, maintenance or repair of any underground public utility lines when such
activity occurs on an existing hard surfaced road, street or sidewalk (provided the earth-
disturbing activity is confined to the area of the road, street or sidewalk that is hard
surfaced), and does not involve dewatering operations that produce sediment-laden
effluent discharging to surface-lands and/or surface-waters.
Septic tank lines or drainage fields unless included in an overall plan for earth-disturbing
activity relating to the construction of the building to be served by the septic tank system.
Repair or rebuilding of the tracks with-in the right-of--way of a railroad company.
(Stream Corridor Protection Zone. Stream corridor protection zones are not required if a
Preliminary Plan has already been approved for a site at the time this ordinance is passed.
(L) Historic Dublin. Development within this area, as defined in the Zoning Code, shall be
exempt from compliance with the City's storm water quantity regulations but shall be
held in compliance with the City's storm water quality regulations, described in § 53.090,
if the construction activities disturb one (1) or more acres of total land.
§ 53.080 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.
(A) A stormwater management system shall be designed and installed for the development
that will contain features to provide for flood protection, erosion control, and pollution
abatement. The stormwater management system design shall conform to the Stormwater Design
Standards contained in § 53.090 hereof, the stormwater Master Plan and other standards
specified by the City Engineer. The intent of these design standards is to encourage
environmentally sound stormwater management practices; they should go beyond providing
drainage facilities. Developments that sacrifice recharge and upland controls in order to
maximize the number of lots will not be allowed. The city's stormwater management perspective
includes the management of both water quantity and water quality. stormwater management
design shall blend into the natural environment and be aesthetically integrated into site design.
(B) Streams and wetlands subject to protection under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
shall be protected from the impacts of development. Setbacks from streams and wetlands shall
be established and regulated to protect structures from flooding and erosion as well as to
maintain water quality within the stream and wetland. The stormwater system design shall
ensure that the quantity and quality of stormwater flows directed to these stream and wetlands
are maintained as previous to development. Constructed wetlands (including bio-retention
basins) shall be considered subject to these requirements. Existing wetlands shall not be used for
stormwater management or stormwater runoff quality treatment.
(C) All development activity within a special flood hazard area designated by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or any other area as designated by the City Engineer
shall comply with Chapter 151 of the Dublin Code of Ordinances. All development shall be
designed to maintain the flood carrying capacity of the floodway such that the base flood
elevations are not increased, either upstream or downstream. Furthermore, no fill shall be
allowed to be placed in the 100-year floodplain without an equivalent volume of soil removed to
compensate for the loss of the flood storage as defined in §53.200 (G) of this regulation.
Page 12 of 29
Exhibit "A "
(D) The stormwater management system shall not create an adverse impact on stormwater
quantity or quality in either upstream or downstream areas. Offsite areas which discharge to or
across a site proposed for development shall be accommodated in the stormwater management
plans for the development. No stormwater management plan shall be approved until it is
demonstrated that the runoff from the project shall not overload or otherwise adversely impact
any downstream areas.
(E) All proposed stormwater management systems shall be designed to prevent the
pollution of groundwater resources by stormwater, promote safety, minimize health hazards,
preserve natural features, and provide for recharge where appropriate. Neither submission of a
plan under the provision herein nor compliance with the provisions of these regulations shall
relieve any person from responsibility for damage to any person or property otherwise imposed
by law.
(F) Where deemed necessary by the City Engineer, the applicant shall construct storm
drains to handle on-site runoff; provide on-site drainage easements; provide off-site drainage
easements; and provide for the conveyance of off-site runoff to an acceptable outlet in the same
watershed. However, the on-site drainage easements may not encroach on required perimeter
landscaping.
(G) Guidance on stream corridor protection zones (SCPZ) shall be referenced from §
53.200.
(H) Illicit discharges shall not be permitted. Any natural or man-made conveyance or
drainage system, pipeline, conduit, inlet, or outlet (including natural surface flow patterns,
depressions or channels traversing one or more properties) through which the discharge of any
pollutant (including illegal sanitary sewer connections) to the stormwater management system
shall not occur unless the connection is authorized under a discharge permit issued by the OEPA.
§ 53.090 STORMWATER DESIGN STANDARDS.
(A) General. The City Engineer shall develop and maintain administrative policies and
manuals that define accepted design practices, procedures, and guidance materials that shall be
used to satisfy the City's stormwater regulations.
§ 53.100 DEDICATION OF EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY.
(A) Drainage easements or rights-of--ways, as specified in the Stormwater Design Standards,
shall be conveyed by the applicant at no expense to the city for the stormwater facilities within
the development.
(B) When a proposed stormwater management system will carry water across private land
outside the development, the offsite drainage easements as specified in the Stormwater Design
Standards shall be secured by the owner or applicant.
Page 13 of 29
Exhibit "A "
(C) When a development is bifurcated by a stream, wetland or watercourse, the applicant
shall provide a drainage easement or right-of--way conforming substantially to the lines of such
watercourse or open channel, which shall be a minimum width, as specified in § 53.200.
(D) Easements and rights-of--way shall include suitable access as specified herein for
maintenance equipment from public rights-of--ways.
(E) All drainage easements, both on-site and offsite, shall be recorded on a final plat or a
separate recorded document approved by the city. Recording costs shall be the responsibility of
the Applicant. Recorded easements and rights-of--way documents shall be returned to the City's
Finance Department.
(F) Outfall ditches, channels, and detention/retention facilities shall have sufficient rights-
of-way and/or easements for the facility plus an unobstructed maintenance accessway on one or
both sides. Said rights-of--way and/or easements shall be contiguous to public right-of--way or
easement and shall allow for suitable access by maintenance equipment. Where the right-of--way
and/or easement is provided for access only, the minimum width shall be as follows:
Ditch or Channel Minimum Maintenance
To of Bank Width Accesswa Re uired
Less than 16 feet 20 feet on one side
16 feet to 32 feet 20 feet on both sides
32 feet to 55 feet 20 feet on one side and 30 feet on the
opposite side
Over 55 feet 30 feet on both sides
(G) Maintenance accessways shall be sloped no steeper than 1/4-inch per foot. Ponds shall
have a sufficient right-of--way/easement to allow for installation plus an unobstructed
maintenance accessways all around the perimeter of the pond.
(H) A 20-foot easement centered on a storm sewer shall be conveyed to the City when the
storm sewer is not located within dedicated rights-of--way. Easements shall be contiguous to
public rights-of--way and shall allow for suitable access by maintenance equipment.
(I) Overland flood routing paths shall be used to convey stormwater runoff from the
100-year, 24-hour storm event to an adequate receiving water body, stormwater system or
stormwater detention basin such that the runoff is contained within the drainage easement for the
flood routing path and does not cause flooding of residential or commercial buildings or related
structures. Flood routing paths shall be evaluated using the peak 100 year water surface elevation
such that it lies at least one foot below the finished floor elevation of adjoining structures. When
designing the flood routing paths, the conveyance capacity of the site's storm sewers shall be
taken into consideration.
Penalty, see § 53.999
§ 53.110 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN.
(A) A Stormwater Management Plan and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be
submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. Details regarding the contents of the
Page 14 of 29
Exhibit "A "
documents will be created and maintained by the City Engineer in a manual or administrative
policy.
§ 53.120 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION.
(A) It is strongly recommended that the applicant and the project engineer meet with city
staff prior to generating detailed design calculations and construction drawings in order to review
and plan design requirements for a particular project. This application is not a separate submittal
from the stormwater management plan requirements outlined in Section 53.110.
(B) It is the responsibility of the applicant to include in the stormwater management plan
application sufficient information for the city to evaluate:
(1) The environmental and hydraulic characteristics of the affected areas;
(2) The potential and predicted impacts of the proposed activity on community waters;
(3) The effectiveness and acceptability of those measures proposed by the applicant for
eliminating or reducing adverse impacts; and
(C) The stormwater management plan application shall contain:
(1) The name, address, and telephone number of the owner and applicant, and the
entity that will maintain the system;
(2) The maps, charts, graphs, tables, photographs, narrative descriptions, explanations,
and citations to support references, as appropriate to communicate the information required by
this chapter; and
(3) Construction plans and specifications for all components of the stormwater
management system shall be included in the stormwater management plan application, which
shall be prepared or directly supervised by, signed, and sealed by a professional engineer.
§ 53.130 ACCEPTANCE OF STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS.
Subsequent to the applicant satisfying the requirements of the stormwater regulations and
other applicable ordinances, and the issuances of appropriate permits and/or approvals, the
applicant shall, during construction, arrange for and schedule the following inspections by the
city.
(A) During the clearing operation, excavation, after significant rainfall, and at other times
determined by the City Engineer, to assure that effective control practices relative to erosion and
sedimentation are being followed.
(B) All public underground conveyance and control structures prior to backfilling, and all
taps of private underground conveyance systems into public conveyance systems.
Page 15 of 29
Exhibit "A "
(C) Final inspection when all public systems required under the approved stormwater
management plan have been installed.
(D) The professional engineer for the project shall submit a signed and sealed set of as-built
plans, on electronic disk and reproducible mylar brand polyester film drawing sheets, to certify
the system has been constructed as designed and satisfies all conditions of the stormwater
management plan. Where changes have been made to the stormwater management system which
deviate from the approved construction plans, the Professional Engineer shall submit supporting
documentation with the as-built plans, which proves that the stormwater system shall be in
compliance with the stormwater regulations.
(E) Maintenance and compliance inspections of stormwater management systems shall be
conducted on a routine, periodic basis, as deemed appropriate by the city, or as complaints arise
concerning the system. By seeking and obtaining plan approval under the stormwater
regulations, the operator and owner shall be deemed to have consented to inspections by the city
and other appropriate regulatory agencies or departments upon presentation of proper
identification by the representative(s) of the agency(ies) conducting the inspections.
(F) Public improvements. Public stormwater conveyance and control systems may be
accepted for public use after the following minimum conditions have been met:
(1) The applicant shall provide to the City Engineer security according to § 152.045 of
the Dublin Code of Ordinances;
(2) The applicant shall provide to the City Engineer as-built plans according to
§ 53.130(D) of the stormwater regulations; and
(3) The as-built plans have been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
(G) Private improvements. Private stormwater conveyance and control systems may be
approved for use after the following minimum conditions have been met:
(1) The applicant shall provide to the City Engineer as-built plans according to
§ 53.130(D) of the stormwater regulations; and
(2) The as-built plans have been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. It shall
not be legal to use the property (as opposed to the structure) until the as-built plans have been
received and approved by the City Engineer and the stormwater improvements have been
completed as shown on the approved as-built plans.
§ 53.140 MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY.
(A) The installed stormwater system shall be properly maintained and operated by the legal
entity responsible for maintenance in order to achieve compliance with the conditions outlined in
this ordinance. All stormwater management plan applications shall contain documentation
sufficient to demonstrate that the operation and maintenance entity is the legal entity empowered
and obligated to perpetually maintain the stormwater management facilities. Details of this
documentation, including maintenance responsibilities and agreements, shall be included in the
Notes section of development plans and where applicable on the final plats. Final plats shall be
Page 16 of 29
Exhibit "A "
recorded in Delaware, Franklin, or Union County at no expense to the City and shall constitute a
covenant running with the land and shall be binding on the legal entity responsible for
maintenance. Where final plats are not recorded, stormwater management plan and development
plan documentation regarding obligations to perpetually maintain stormwater management
facilities shall be maintained by the City Engineer. The city considers the following entities
acceptable to operate and maintain stormwater management facilities:
(1) Local governmental units, including the county, municipalities, or Municipal
Service Taxing Units.
(2) Non-profit corporations, including homeowners associations, property owners
associations or condominium owners associations, under certain conditions which ensure that the
corporation has the financial, legal, and administrative capability to provide for the long-term
operation and maintenance of the facilities.
(3) The property owner or developer is normally not acceptable as a responsible entity,
especially when the property is to be sold to various third parties. However, the property owner
or developer maybe acceptable under one of the following circumstances:
(a) The property is wholly owned by said applicant and the ownership is intended
to be retained. This would apply to a farm, corporate office, or single industrial facility, for
example.
(b) The ownership of the property is retained by the applicant and is either leased
to third parties (such as in some shopping centers), or rented to third parties (such as in some
mobile home parks), for example.
(B) The stormwater management system shall be maintained by the legal entity. Public
improvements shall have adequate easements, in accordance with § 53.100 hereof, to permit the
city to inspect, and if necessary, to take corrective action should the legal entity fail to maintain
the system properly. The City maintains the right to assess costs of labor and materials for such
corrective action to the responsible party in accordance with usual and customary costs in place
at the time of action.
(C) Maintenance of stormwater facilities shall allow the stormwater management system to
perform as originally designed and permitted by the city and other appropriate governmental
agencies and as set forth in the written plan.
(D) Maintenance shall include compliance with city building and construction codes, and all
other applicable codes.
§ 53.150 ENFORCEMENT.
Guidance on enforcement of this ordinance, including those responsibilities agreed to under
the maintenance agreements, shall be referenced in Section 153 of the Zoning Code. If at any
time the City Engineer determines that the project is not in accordance with the approved plan, or
if any project subject to the stormwater regulations is being carried out without an approved plan,
the City Engineer is authorized to:
Page 17 of 29
Exhibit "A "
(A) Give the legal entity written notice of the corrective action required to be taken. Should
the legal entity fail within 30 days of the date of the notice to complete such corrective action,
the City Engineer may enter upon the property, and take the necessary corrective action and
assess fees for such action to the violator. If fees are not paid by the violator at the time the
service is provided, the City has the right to pursue collection of fees through certification to the
County Auditor, remittance to a collection service, or any other appropriate pursuit for payment.
(B) Take appropriate corrective action in the event of an emergency situation which
endangers persons or property, or both, as determined to exist by the City Engineer.
(C) Issue written notice to the applicant specifying the nature and location of the alleged
noncompliance, with a description of the remedial actions necessary to bring the project into
compliance within five working days.
(D) Issue astop-work order directing the applicant or persons in possession to cease and
desist all or any portion of the work which violates the provisions of the stormwater regulations
if the remedial work is not completed within the specified time. The applicant shall then bring
the project into compliance.
§ 53.200 ESTABLISHMENT OF A STREAM CORRIDOR PROTECTION ZONE.
(A) Stream Corridor Protection Zones (SCPZs) are established as provided in this section.
(B) Streams addressed by this ordinance are those that meet the definition of "stream" in
Section 53.040 of these regulations.
(C) The SCPZ width shall be the width of the FEMA-designated 100-year floodway
plus 20 feet, or in areas where a floodway has not been designated, a width defined by the
following according to the contributing drainage area:
MINIMUM SCPZ WIDTH
BY CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA OF STREAM
Contributin Draina a Area ac SCPZ Width ft
<100 25
101-250 38
251-500 50
501-800 63
801-1200 75
1201-2000 88
>2000 100
In most instances the calculated stream corridor protection zone shall be placed at the
ordinary high water mark on each side of the channel and extend outward. This will result in a
total SCPZ width of two times the minimum SCPZ width (stated in the guidance table above)
plus the width of the stream. However, individual site conditions including, but not limited to,
topography and slope must be considered when determining the precise location of the stream
corridor protection zone and shall be left to the City's discretion.
Page 18 of 29
Exhibit "A"
(D) The width of the SCPZ may be extended to include slopes that are greater than 15% and
begin at a point within the SCPZ. The maximum width of the SCPZ extension shall be to the top
of the slope or to a point up slope, as measured horizontally, where the width of the SCPZ is
doubled, whichever is less. Slope protection widths may be extended beyond these limits at the
City's discretion on a case-by-case basis.
(E) The following are exempt from the terms and protection of this ordinance: grassy
swales, drainage ditches created at the time of a subdivision to convey stormwater water to
another system, the drainage systems, and stream culverts.
(F) The following shall apply to the SCPZ:
(1) The width of the SCPZ shall be measured in a horizontal direction outward from the
ordinary high water mark of each designated watercourse.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in this regulation, SCPZs shall be preserved in their
natural state.
(3) The applicant shall be responsible for determining if jurisdictional wetlands have
been identified within any proposed development site. Where existing wetlands protected under
federal or state law are identified within the SCPZ, the SCPZ shall consist of the full extent of
the wetlands plus any additional setback distance mandated by state or federal permit.
(4) The applicant shall be responsible for delineating a rough layout of the SCPZ,
including any expansions or modifications as required by B through D of this section, and
identifying this setback on all preliminary subdivision or land development plans, and/or
building permit applications. Final development plans shall delineate the SCZP by a metes and
bounds survey. This final delineation shall be subject to review and approval by the City
Engineer or designee. As the result of this review, the Engineer or designee may require further
studies from the applicant.
(5) Prior to any earth-disturbing activity, the SCPZ shall be clearly delineated with
construction fencing or other suitable material by the applicant on site, and such delineation shall
be maintained throughout earth-disturbing activities. The delineated area shall be maintained in
an undisturbed state unless otherwise permitted by these regulations. All fencing shall be
removed when a development project is completed.
(6) If earth-disturbing activities will occur within 50 feet of the outer boundary of the
SCPZ, the SCPZ shall be clearly delineated by the applicant on site with construction fencing,
and such delineation shall be maintained throughout earth-disturbing activities.
(7) No approvals or permits shall be issued by the City Engineer or designee prior to
delineation of the SCPZ in conformance with these regulations.
(8) Upon completion of an approved subdivision, the SCPZ shall be permanently
recorded on the plat records for the City of Dublin.
(G) In order to preserve floodplain storage volumes and thereby avoid increases in water
surface elevations along FEMA regulated streams, filling within FEMA delineated 100-year
Page 19 of 29
Exhibit "A "
floodplains may only occur outside of the floodway plus 20 feet- and must be compensated by
removing an equivalent volume of material. Compensating storage shall be determined by the
volume of material removed above the ordinary high water table and below the 100-year flood
elevation established for that area. Compensating storage shall be provided within the legal
boundaries of the development. No stormwater management facilities required by the City shall
be permitted in the floodplain unless, at City's discretion, the applicant demonstrates that it does
not remove floodplain storage when operating at its design capacity. First consideration for the
location(s) of compensatory floodplain volumes should be given to areas where the stream
channel will have immediate access to the new floodplain within the limits of the development
site. Embankment slopes used in compensatory storage areas must reasonably conform to the
natural slopes adjacent to the disturbed area. The use of vertical retaining structures is
specifically prohibited.
(H) Degraded SCPZs shall be regraded and revegetated such that riparian habitat is
recovered and the streambank stabilized in a manner suitable for the native site conditions.
(I) Stream Relocation
(1) Streams may be relocated if the applicant's design demonstrates, to the
satisfaction of the City, that the following criteria are met:
(a) Maintain or improve geomorphic stability.
(b) Maintain or improve flood storage capacity.
(c) Maintain or lower regulatory flood water surface elevations.
(d) Enhance aquatic and riparian habitats.
(e) Provide increased recreational opportunities.
(f) Produce zero or positive impacts on water and land resources.
(g) Minimize operations and maintenance requirements.
(h) Maximize safety conditions.
(2) The project's design shall be performed by a qualified Professional Engineer
with experience in fluvial geomorphology.
(3) If floodplain boundaries change as a result of the relocation, the requirements of
Chapter 151:Flood Control become applicable.
(J) SCPZ's shall be clearly delineated on preliminary development plans, final plats, final
development plans final construction drawings, building permit site plans and stormwater
management plans. Final plats or applicable portions of the final development plan
documentation shall be recorded in Franklin, Deleware, or Union County at no expense to the
City and shall constitute a covenant running with the land.
Page 20 of 29
Exhibit "A "
§ 53.210 USES PERMITTED IN THE STREAM CORRIDOR PROTECTION ZONE.
(A) Open space uses that are passive in character shall be permitted in the SCPZ including,
but not limited to, those listed in 1 through 3 of this section. No use permitted under these
regulations shall be construed as allowing trespass on privately held lands. Alteration of this
natural area is strictly limited. Except as otherwise provided in these regulations, the SCPZ shall
be preserved in its natural state.
(1) Recreational Activity. Passive recreational uses, as permitted by federal, state, and
local laws, such as hiking, non-motorized bicycling, fishing, hunting, picnicking and similar uses
and associated structures including boardwalks, pathways constructed of pervious material,
picnic tables, playground equipment, athletic fields, and wildlife viewing areas.
(2) Removal of Damaged or Diseased Trees. Damaged or diseased trees may be
removed. Because of the potential for felled logs and branches to damage downstream properties
and/or block ditches or otherwise exacerbate flooding, logs and branches resulting from the
removal of damaged or diseased trees that are greater than 6 inches in diameter, shall be
anchored to the shore or removed from the 100-year floodplain.
(3) Revegetation and/or Reforestation. The revegetation and/or reforestation of the
SCPZ shall be allowed without approval of the City Engineer or designee.
(B) Projects involving public utilities, transportation infrastructure, stormwater management,
stream bank stabilization, or other projects where an environmental and public benefit is
provided (including excavation for providing compensatory floodplain volume immediately
adjacent to the channel) may be permitted within the SCPZ once the design has been approved
by the City Engineer and/or all other applicable review authorities.
(C) Disturbances within the SCPZ (including provision of compensatory floodplain storage
adjacent to the stream) as a result of a permitted use must be mitigated through
revegetation/reforestation.
(D) Crossings of streams and SCPZs for roadways shall be minimized. Crossings shall be
approved at the discretion of the City Engineer if the applicant can demonstrate that alternative
roadway locations are infeasible and that disturbances within the SCPZ will be minimized and
mitigated.
§ 53.220 USES PROHIBITED IN THE STREAM CORRIDOR PROTECTION ZONE.
The following uses are specifically prohibited within the SCPZ:
(A) Construction. There shall be no structures of any kind, except as permitted under these
regulations.
(B) Dredging or Dumping. There shall be no drilling, filling, dredging, excavation, or
dumping of soil, spoils, liquid, or solid materials, except for noncommercial composting of
uncontaminated natural materials and except as permitted under this regulation.
Page 21 of 29
Exhibit "A"
(C) Roads or Driveways. There shall be no roads or driveways, except as permitted under
these regulations.
(D) Motorized Vehicles. There shall be no use of motorized vehicles of any kind, except as
permitted under these regulations.
(E) Disturbance of Natural Vegetation. There shall be no disturbance of natural vegetation
within the SCPZ except for the following:
(1) Maintenance of lawns, landscaping, shrubbery, or trees existing at the time of
passage of this regulation.
(2) Cultivation of lawns, landscaping, shrubbery, or trees in accordance with an
approved Landscaping Plan submitted in conformance with this regulation.
(3) Conservation measures designed to remove damaged or diseased trees or to control
noxious weeds or invasive species.
(F) Nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring a landowner to plant or undertake
any other activities in the SCPZ provided the landowner allows for natural succession.
(G) Parking Spaces or Lots and Loading/Unloading Spaces for Vehicles. There shall be no
parking spaces, parking lots, or loading/unloading spaces.
(H) New surface and/or subsurface sewage disposal or treatment area. SCPZs shall not be
used for the disposal or treatment of sewage except for:
(1) Undeveloped parcels that have received site evaluation approval and / or permit
approval prior to the enactment of this ordinance.
(2) Dwellings served by disposal /treatment systems existing at the time of passage of
these regulations when such systems are properly sited (approved site evaluation) and permitted
or in accordance with the Delaware, Franklin, or Union County Health Department and / or the
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Existing failing systems which are located within the
SCPZ can be upgraded with approval of the Franklin County Health Department and / or the
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.
(I) Fences and Walls. There shall be no fences or walls.
(J) Agriculture. There shall be no agricultural activities.
(K) Industry/commercial business. There shall be no industrial or commercial businesses
operated.
(L) Ditching/diking. There shall be no ditching or diking of soil in order to convey water.
(M) Removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock, native ground cover/vegetation, oil or gas.
There shall be no removal of any of these substances nor any other change in topography other
than what is caused by natural forces (with the exception of permitted uses or as approved by the
City Engineer).
Page 22 of 29
Exhibit "A "
(N) Herbicides/ pesticides. There shall be no use of herbicides or pesticides except as
approved by the City Engineer.
§ 53.230 FACILITIES PROHIBITED IN THE STREAM CORRIDOR PROTECTION
ZONE.
The following facilities are prohibited within the SCPZ:
(A) Buildings/structures;
(B) Swimming pools;
(C) Signs;
(D) Billboards;
(E) Utility lines or pipes (with the exception of necessary public sanitary, water, stormwater
and public utility transmission lines as approved by the City);
(F) Electric lines (with the exception of transmission lines);
(G) Telecommunications lines (with the exception of transmission lines);
(H) Cable TV lines
(I) Stormwater management facilities; and
(J) Other improvements deemed unacceptable to the City.
§ 53.240 NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES OR USES IN THE STREAM
CORRIDOR PROTECTION ZONE.
(A) Non-conforming structures and uses within the SCPZ, existing at the time of passage of
these regulations, that are not permitted under these regulations may be continued but shall not
be expanded, changed or enlarged except as set forth in this title.
(B) If damaged, destroyed, terminated or abandoned, these structures or uses may be
repaired or restored within six months from the date of damage /destruction or the adoption of
these regulations, whichever is later, at the property owners own risk.
(C) A residential structure or use within the SCPZ existing at the time of passage of these
regulations may be expanded subject to the following provisions:
(1) The expansion conforms to existing zoning regulations.
(2) The expansion must not impact the stream channel or the floodway plus 20 feet
limit.
Page 23 of 29
Exhibit "A"
(3) The expansion must not exceed an area of 15% of the footprint of the existing
structure (or use) that lies within the SCPZ. Expansions exceeding 15% of the footprint within
the SCPZ must be obtained through the variance process.
(D) Non-residential structure (or use) expansions will be permitted only through the
variance process.
§ 53.250 INSPECTION OF STREAM CORRIDOR PROTECTION ZONE.
(A) The Stream Corridor Protection Zone shall be inspected by the City Engineer or
designee:
(1) When a preliminary subdivision plat or other land development plan is submitted to
the City of Dublin.
(2) When a building or zoning permit is requested.
(3) Prior to any earth-disturbing activity to inspect the delineation of the SCPZ as
required under these regulations.
(4) When evidence becomes available that the provisions of these regulations become
violated.
(B) Violations of these regulations will be handled as noted in Section 53.210 C.
§ 53.260 VARIANCES, WAIVERS AND EXEMPTIONS
(A)Exemptions from this section shall be in accordance with Section 53.070 (E) and the
following:
(1) Application for variances, waivers or interpretations regarding where SCPZ's may
apply or SCPZ width shall be submitted to the City Engineer for examination and
adjudication. The applicant may be required to provide analytical data or other
scientific evidence to support variance requests.
(2) The City Engineer reserves the right to exempt some development areas from this
regulation provided that best engineering judgement is used to protect property
from flooding or erosion damage.
§ 53.270 APPEALS
(A) Appeals regarding prohibited uses and facilities, or rulings regarding modification of
non-conforming structures, within SCPZ's, may be made to the Board of Zoning
Appeals.
§ 53.300 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS FOR
CONSTRUCTION SITES
Page 24 of 29
Exhibit "A "
(A) This regulation of the City of Dublin, shall apply to earth-disturbing activities within the
jurisdiction of the City of Dublin at the City Engineer's discretion, unless otherwise
excluded within this regulation under Section 53.070 or unless expressly excluded by
state law, including: land used or being developed for commercial, industrial, residential,
recreational, public service or other non-farm purposes.
(B) Earth disturbing activities associated with construction contribute to the pollution of
public waters through soil erosion and sedimentation. Other construction activities may
cause the discharge or deposition of construction materials and wastes into storm drains
and surface waters. Control programs designed to minimize these problems should
incorporate the planning, inspection, enforcement, and best management practices
defined in § 53.300 through § 53.399.
§ 53.310 GENERAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS.
(A)All development activity subject to these regulations shall be provided with erosion and
sediment control (ESC) practices during all phases of construction.
(B) No construction activity such as grading, cutting, or filling shall be commenced until
erosion and sedimentation control devices have been installed to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
(C) Stormwater discharges during the five-year design storm shall be released to natural
channels at anon-erosive velocity of less than three feet per second unless the channel is
stabilized or otherwise able to withstand higher velocities, as determined by the City
Engineer.
(D)No person shall cause or allow earth- disturbing activities on a development area except
in compliance with the standards set out in this regulation and the applicable items below:
(1) An erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted as part of the Stormwater
Management Plan and approved prior to any earth-disturbing activities on
development areas, including those development areas being a part of a larger
common plan of development or sale. The person proposing such earth-
disturbing activities shall develop and submit for approval a plan, as part of the
final site improvement plans, containing erosion and sediment pollution control
practices so that compliance with other provisions of this regulation shall be
achieved during and after development. Such a plan shall address specific
requirements contained with this regulation.
(2) The erosion and sediment control plan must contain a description of the controls
appropriate for each construction operation covered by this regulation and the
operator(s) must implement such controls. The terms must clearly describe for
each major construction activity (a) appropriate control measures and the general
timing (or sequence) during the construction process that the measures will be
implemented; and (b) which contractor is responsible for implementation (e.g.,
contractor A will clear land and install perimeter controls and contractor B will
maintain perimeter controls until final stabilization). The erosion, sediment, and
storm water management practices used to satisfy the conditions of this regulation
Page 25 of 29
Exhibit "A "
shall meet the standards and specifications in the current edition of Ohio's
Rainwater and Land Development manual or other standards acceptable to the
City Engineer.
(3) Owners and/or operators of projects subject to OEPA's Permit No.: OH0000002
for storm water discharges associated with construction activities shall provide a
copy of its OEPA notice of intent (NOI) submission and storm water pollution
prevention plan (SWP3) to the City Engineer upon request.
(4) The standards outlined herein are general guidelines and shall not limit the right
of the City to impose additional, more stringent requirements, nor shall the
standards limit the right of the City to waive individual requirements.
§ 53.320 STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
(A)The standards and criteria for ESC facilities will be contained in the same administrative
policies and manuals, developed and maintained by the City Engineer, that define
accepted design practices, procedures and guidance materials for stormwater
management systems.
§ 53.330 SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN REQUIREMENTS
(B) The ESC Plan for the site shall be an integral part of the site's stormwater management
plan. ESC Plan requirements and approval processes are defined in §53.110.
§ 53.340 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL COMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITY
(A) Responsibility.
(1) ESC Plan approval does not constitute assurance that the proposed BMPs will
perform in the manner indicated by the design. The responsibility of the proper
functioning operation and maintenance of the BMPs remains with the owner. The
owner shall be responsible for providing any additional means or methods
necessary to meet the intent of these regulations.
(2) It shall be the responsibility of the site owner to provide notification to the City
48-hours prior to commencement of initial site earth-disturbance. In addition, the
site owner shall provide notification to the City, at least 48-hours prior to any
work within or across a stream channel or SCPZ. Furthermore, within 45-days
after Site Final Stabilization has been achieved, it shall be the responsibility of the
site owner to inform the City Engineer that site activities are complete.
(B) Performance Liability. No provision of this standard shall limit, increase or otherwise
affect the liabilities of the developer nor impose any liability upon the City not otherwise
imposed by law.
Page 26 of 29
Exhibit "A "
(C) Ownership and Maintenance. The person(s) or entity responsible for the continued
maintenance of temporary and permanent erosion control measures shall, prior to any
earth -disturbance, be identified to the satisfaction of the City. This party, both during
and after site development, shall be responsible for:
(1) Carrying out all provisions as approved on the erosion and sediment control plan
and required by this standard,
(2) Promptly removing all soil, miscellaneous debris and other materials that may
become spilled, dumped or otherwise deposited on any public thoroughfares
during transport to and from the development site, and taking precautions to
inhibit the deposition of sediment into any sewer system or natural watercourse.
(3) In addition, the developer shall assume responsibility and all costs for removing
any sedimentation deposited in downstream drainage ways or facilities deemed
objectionable by the City to the proper functioning of these downstream areas.
(4) The applicant shall provide a description of maintenance procedures needed to
ensure the continued performance of control practices and shall ensure the
responsible party has adequate funding to conduct maintenance activities as
deemed necessary.
(5) All temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control practices shall be
designed and constructed to minimize maintenance requirements. They shall be
maintained and repaired as needed to assure continued performance of their
intended function. All sediment control practices shall be maintained in a
functional condition until all up slope areas they control reach final stabilization.
Final stabilization shall be determined by the City Engineer.
(D)Inspection and Enforcement.
(1) General Inspection Requirements:
(a) The City Engineer may inspect all site development activities, including
erosion and sediment control devices and facilities while a development
site, when subject to this regulation, is under construction. When facilities
are not constructed according to approved plans, the City Engineer has the
explicit authority to compel compliance with the approved plan and the
objectives and standards of this regulation.
(b) A copy of the approved erosion and sediment control plan shall be
maintained on site, or in a location easily accessible by the applicant and
the City's inspector.
(2) Final Inspection: Prior to final inspection, the developer's engineer shall provide
the site grading plan documenting the intended site final grades.
(3) General Inspection Procedures:
(a) Erosion and sediment control practices for construction sites shall be
inspected periodically by the City to ensure they are being properly
Page 27 of 29
Exhibit "A "
maintained and, if not, the City may compel the owners to make the
necessary repairs at the expense of the owner. When inspections reveal
the need for repair, replacement, or installation of erosion and sediment
control BMPs, the following procedures shall be followed:
(b) When practices require repair or maintenance: If an internal inspection
reveals that a control practice is in need of repair or maintenance, with the
exception of asediment-settling pond, it must be repaired or maintained
with three (3) days of the inspection. Sediment settling ponds must be
repaired or maintained within ten (10) days of the inspection.
(c) When practices fail to provide their intended function: If an internal
inspection reveals that a control practice fails to perform its intended
function as detailed in the ESC plan and that another, more appropriate
control practice is required, the plan must be amended and the new control
practice must be installed within ten (10) days of the inspection.
(d) When practices depicted on the ESC plan are not installed: In an internal
inspection reveals that a control practice has not been implemented in
accordance with the schedule, the control practice must be implemented
with ten (10) days from the date of the inspection. If the internal
inspection reveals that the planned control practice is not needed, the
record must contain a statement of explanation as to why the control
practice is not needed.
(4) Internal Inspections:
(a) At a minimum, all controls on the site shall be inspected at least once
every seven calendar days and within 24 hours after any storm event
greater than one-half inch of rain per 24 hour period. The owner shall
assign qualified inspection personnel (those with knowledge and
experience in the installation and maintenance of sediment and erosion
controls) to conduct these inspections to ensure that the control practices
are functional and to evaluate whether the ESC Plan is adequate and
properly implemented in accordance with the proposed permit schedule or
whether additional control measures are required. The qualified
inspection personnel shall inspect the following:
(b) Disturbed areas used for storage of materials exposed to precipitation shall
be inspected for evidence of or the potential for pollutants entering the
drainage system.
(c) Erosion and sediment control measures identified in the approved erosion
and sediment control plan shall be observed to ensure proper operation.
(d) Discharge locations shall be inspected to determine whether erosion and
sediment control measures are effective in preventing significant impacts
to the receiving water resource or wetlands.
Page 28 of 29
Exhibit "A "
(e) Locations where vehicles enter or exit the site shall be inspected for
evidence of off-site vehicle tracking.
(5) Inspection Reports: Inspectors shall prepare written reports after every inspection.
The inspection report shall describe:
(a) The date and location of the site inspection
(b) Whether or not the approved plan has been properly implemented and
maintained.
(c) Any practice deficiencies or erosion and sediment control plan
deficiencies; and the agreed upon type(s) of corrective action necessary to
rectify any identified deficiencies.
(d) If a violation exists, the City will decide upon the type of enforcement
action taken.
(e) The site manager shall sign and receive a copy of the report before the
inspector leaves the site.
(6) Enforcement. The City Engineer agency shall notify the on-site personnel or the
owner/developer when deficiencies are observed, describing the nature of the
deficiency, the agreed upon corrective action, and the time period in which to
have the deficiency corrected. If after a reasonable amount of time for voluntary
compliance, the corrective actions are not undertaken to the satisfaction of the
City, the City may issue a Notice of Violation pursuant to Dublin City codes
Section 153 and proceed with other enforcement remedies as provided by this and
other applicable provisions of the Dublin City Codes. Where the violations
and/or deficiencies represent an immediate and substantial threat to the public
health, safety or welfare, the City may immediately proceed with enforcement
remedies as provided by Dublin City Codes Section 153 and other applicable
provisions of the Dublin City Codes.
(E) Record Keeping. The applicant shall maintain for three (3) years following final
stabilization the results of these inspections, the names and qualifications of personnel
making the inspections, the dates of inspections, major observations relating to the
implementation of the erosion and sediment control plan, a certification stating whether
the facility is in compliance with the ESC plan, and information on any incidents of non-
compliance determined by these inspections.
§ 53.999 PENALTY.
(A) Whoever violates any provisions of this chapter is guilty of an unclassified misdemeanor
with a maximum fine of $2,500 andlor six months in jail with each day of violation as a
separate offense.
Page 29 of 29
i
s'
DRAFT
Sto rmwate r
Mana ement
g
Desi n
J
Manual
September XX, 2005
Paul A. Hammersmith, P.E.
Director of Engineering/City Engineer
CITE' DL=~il,i~.
DRAFT
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
City of Dublin . Stormwater Management Design Manual 2
September XX, 2005
DRAFT
Table of Contents
Introduction 5
Purpose 5
Applicability 5
Hydraulic design criteria 6
Detention/retention facilities 6
Studied areas 6
Unstudied areas 7
Storm sewers 8
Culverts and bridges ...............................................................................10
Open channels ........................................................................................11
Stormwater runoff quality ......................................................................12
Filter Strips and Swales 13
Wet detention basins and stormwater wetlands 14
Extended dry detention basins 16
Media filters 16
Other BMPs 17
Mosquito Control Considerations 17
Floodplain encroachment calculations 17
Sinkholes 18
Stormwater Management Plan 18
General Requirements 18
Map Content 19
Calculations 20
Erosion and Sediment Control 22
Plan Content 23
Calculations 25
Standards & Criteria for Erosion 8~ Sediment Control 25
APPENDIX 30
City of Dublin .Stormwater Management Design Manual 3
September XX, 2005
DRAFT
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
City of Dublin • Stormwater Management Design Manual 4
September XX, 2005
DRAFT
Introduction
Purpose
The purpose of this manual is to provide City standards and maintain uniformity in design
standards for stormwater management. This also allows the City to provide effective and
efficient review of design data.
Stormwater management is an evolving science. The goal of the City is to be responsive to
updating its standards to reflect the most innovative, creative and cost-effective practices
available. To achieve this goal, this manual will be revised and updated as necessary to reflect
accepted new standard practice s in the area of stormwater management.
Applicability
This manual applies to all projects in the City. This includes the alteration, construction,
installation, demolition or removal of a structure, impervious surface or drainage facility; or
clearing, scraping, grubbing, killing or otherwise removing the vegetation from a site; or adding,
removing, exposing, excavating, leveling, grading, digging, burrowing, dumping, piling,
dredging or otherwise significantly disturbing the soil, mud, sand or rock of a site.
This manual will be effective on September XX, 2005. Any projects that occur after this date
must comply with this manual and the adopted Chapter 53, Stormwater Management and Stream
Protection.
City of Dublin • Stormwater Management Design Manual rJ
September XX, 2005
DRAFT
A. Hydraulic design criteria
1. The City's Stormwater Master Plan shall be used to provide design flows and
detention requirements for major drainage systems within the City.
2. For on-site drainage systems, hydrograph routing methods shall be used to design
stormwater detention facilities, and either hydrograph routing or peak flow
methodologies may be used to design stormwater conveyance facilities.
3. Hydraulic Design Criteria (53.090(B)(1)): Rainfall intensities are to be obtained
from the "Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the Midwest", 1992. Rainfall intensity-
duration-frequency curves, which were developed from this Atlas and which can
be used to determine rainfall intensities, are graphically depicted in the Appendix.
B. Detention/retention facilities. A detention/retention facility shall be installed
on all development projects, unless the applicant demonstrates that the project will not
increase the peak rate of runoff; volume, or frequency of the runoff hydrograph of the site
prior to development. Detention/retention facilities shall be designed in the following
manner:
1. Studied areas. Parcels located within drainage sub-basins established in the
Stormwater Master Plan, or any subsequent update thereto shall comply to the
runoff release rate for each frequency storm specified in the Stormwater Master
Plan.
a. Critical storm controls. Determine the total volume of runoff from a
1-year, 24-hour storm, occurring over each of the site's drainage areas
before and after development.
b. Determine the percent of increase in runoff volume due to development
and using this percentage, select the critical storm from the table:
CRITICAL STORM DETERMINATION
If the Percent of Increase in
Runoff Volume is The Critical
Storm Runoff
Equal to or Rate Will Be
Greater than And less than Limited to:
10 1 year
10 20 2 year
20 50 5 year
City of Dublin • Stormwater Management Design Manual s
September XX, 2005
DRAFT
50 100 10 year
100 250 25 year
250 500 50 year
500 100 year
c. The peak rate of runoff from the critical storm occurring over the
developed site shall not exceed the peak rate of runoff from a 1-year,
24-hour storm occurring over the same area prior to development, as
defined in the Stormwater Master Plan. Storms of less frequent
occurrence (longer return period) than the critical storm, shall have the
peak rate of runoff not greater than for the same storm under pre-
development conditions.
2. Unstudied areas. Detention/retention facilities designed for parcels located outside
drainage sub-basins established with the Stormwater Master Plan, or any
subsequent update thereto shall comply to the following minimum design criteria:
a. Development of sites other than single-family and less than or equal to 2.0
acres shall not release Stormwater runoff greater than 0.2 cubic feet per
second per acre of development. On-site detention storage shall be
provided to achieve these peak flow rates.
b. Development sites greater than 2.0 acres (including single-family lots)
shall provide runoff controls as defined by the MORPC Stormwater
Design Manual.
3. Stormwater detention and retention ponds which are considered by Ohio
Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) to be dam structures regulated under
the dam safety laws of the State of Ohio shall be designed to safely pass the
design flood events as defined by ODNR. Where fill berms are proposed,
calculations supporting the stability of the fill berms are to be submitted by a
licensed professional engineer with demonstrated experience in geotechnical
engineering. The applicant shall design all raised bermed Stormwater ponds
according to current ODNR dam safety criteria (refer to § 53.060 hereof).
4. If the site has multiple drainage basins, the drainage basin divides that exist prior to
development shall be used to determine predevelopment rates of discharge for
each drainage area of the site.
5. Fenced Stormwater facilities are strongly discouraged within the city and shall only
be permitted if approved by the city. The city will consider fencing Stormwater
facilities only where steep slopes which potentially endanger human life are
City of Dublin •Stormwater Management Design Manual 7
September XX, 2005
DRAFT
unavoidable. If fencing is required, the design shall conform to the City's fence
code (Chapter 153 of the Zoning Code) along the right-of--way boundary around
the entire perimeter, including maintenance berms with access for maintenance
vehicles. Other designs may be permitted subject to the review and approval of
the City Engineer.
6. Areas adjacent to stormwater detention and retention basins and ponds shall be
graded to restrict the entrance of stormwater except at planned locations. Where
retention/detention basins are located on the project periphery, the developer may
be required to provide additional landscaping or screening to adequately protect
abutting properties.
7. The minimum requirement for maintenance berms is as follows:
PONDS MINIMUM MAINTENANCE
ACCESSWAY REQUIRED
With erimeter fencing 20 feet around perimeter
Without perimeter fencing 15 feet around perimeter
Access easement 20 feet along a designate corridor between the
pond and a public right-of--way (lessor
accessways are subject to the approval of the
City Engineer
8. Detention/retention basins designed to meet the requirements of this chapter shall
also be designed to meet the stormwater runoff quality requirements.
9. Headwalls shall be required at all storm sewer inlets or outlets to and from
stormwater management facilities. Stone and/or brick approved by the City
Engineer shall be provided on all visible headwalls.
C. Storm sewers.
1. Public storm sewers shall be designed such that they do not surcharge from runoff
caused by the 5-year, 24-hour storm, and that the hydraulic grade line of the storm
sewer stays below the gutter flow line of the overlying roadway, or below the top
of drainage structures outside the roadway during a 10-year, 24-hour storm.
2. Private storm sewers shall be designed such that they do not surcharge from runoff
caused by the 2-year, 24-hour storm, and that the hydraulic grade line of the storm
sewer stays below the gutter flow line of the overlying roadway, or below the top
of drainage structures outside the roadway during a 5-year, 24-hour storm. The
system shall be designed to meet these requirements when conveying the flows
from the contributory area within the proposed development and existing flows
from offsite areas that are upstream from the development.
City of Dublin • Stormwater Management Design Manual $
September XX, 2005
DRAFT
3. Stormwater runoff from offsite areas that discharge to or across a development site
shall be conveyed through the stormwater facilities planned for the development
site at their existing peak flow rates during each design storm. No stormwater
management plans will be approved until it is demonstrated that offsite runoff will
be adequately conveyed through the development site in a manner that will not
exacerbate upstream or downstream flooding and erosion.
4. The minimum inside diameter of pipe to be used in public storm sewer systems is
12 inches. Smaller pipe sizes may be used in private systems, subject to the
approval of the City Engineer.
5. All storm sewers shall be designed and constructed to produce a minimum velocity
of 3.0 feet per second (fps) when flowing full. The City Engineer may impose
additional hydraulic design criteria for any storm sewer system or portion thereof
designed at a supercritical slope and/or with afull-flow velocity in excess of 10
fps; in addition, the outlet ends of all storm sewers shall be provided with
sufficient energy dissipaters and erosion protection.
6. The following maximum lengths of pipe shall be used when spacing access
structures of any type:
PIPE SIZE STRUCTURE SPACING
12 to 18 inches 300 feet
24 to 36 inches 400 feet
42 inches and larger 500 feet
7. All storm sewer systems shall be designed taking into consideration the tailwater of
the receiving facility or waterbody. The tailwater elevation used shall be based on
the design storm frequency.
8. The hydraulic grade line for the storm sewer system shall be computed with
consideration for the design tailwater on the system defined in the Stormwater
Master Plan and the energy losses associated with entrance into and exit from the
system, friction through the system, and turbulence in the individual manholes,
catch basins, and junctions within the system.
9. The minimum cover for storm sewers within the right-of--way shall be one foot
measured from the top outside of pipe to the bottom of underdrain at the back of
curb. Should underdrains not be required, the minimum cover shall be one foot
measured from the top outside of pipe to the top of subgrade at the back of curb.
Outside street right-of--way, a minimum two feet of cover shall be provided
measured from the top of finished ground surface to the top outside of pipe.
10. The maximum distance for overland flow shall be 300 feet before entering a
storm structure. Except, that the maximum overland drainage area tributary to the
storm structure shall be no greater than 1.5 acres.
City of Dublin • Stormwater Management Design Manual 9
September XX, 2005
DRAFT
11. The maximum spacing of curb inlets shall not exceed 300 feet, or that spacing
which shall permit a maximum permissible spread. Spread calculations shall be
provided with all storm drainage calculations. Maximum permissible spread is 6'
from edge of pavement for streets less than 28 feet measured back to back of curb.
A 12-foot clear lane shall be maintained for streets wider than 28 feet. A design
storm of 5-years shall be used for determine allowable spread.
12. Yard inlets shall be spaced no farther apart than every third lot. Side and back
yard drains and inlets shall be constructed per the City Standard Drawing. The
property shall be graded in such a way to provide that the stormwater can reach
the inlet through a swale or another measured as approved by the City Engineer.
13. The inverts of all curb inlets, manholes, yard inlets, and other structures shall be
formed and channelized.
14. Storm inlets, yard inlets or catch basin grates shall be of a type to permit safe
crossing by bicycles as approved by the City Engineer.
15. In areas where public safety concerns (specifically with children) and welfare are
an issue, the City Engineer may require that any storm sewer outlet greater than
18 inches in diameter accessible from stormwater management facilities or
watercourses shall be provided with safety grates, as approved by the City
Engineer.
16. Headwalls shall be required at all storm sewer inlets or outlets to and from open
channels or lakes. Stone and/or brick approved by the City Engineer shall be
provided on all visible headwalls.
D. Culverts and bridges.
1. Roadway stream crossings other than bridges shall be designed to convey the
stream's flow for the 25-year, 24-hour storm, with a maximum headwater depth
that does not cause flooding or significantly pressurize the culvert, as defined by
the Ohio Department of Transportation.
2. The minimum inside diameter of pipes to be used for culvert installations under
roadways shall be 12 inches. The minimum inside diameter of pipes to be used for
driveway crossings shall be 12 inches.
3. The maximum slope allowable shall be a slope that produces a 10-fps velocity
within the culvert barrel. Erosion protection and/or energy dissipaters shall be
required to properly control entrance and outlet velocities.
City of Dublin • Stormwater Management Design Manual 'I ~
September XX, 2005
DRAFT
4. All culvert installations shall be designed with consideration for the tailwater of the
receiving facility or waterbody. The recurrence frequency of the tailwater
elevation shall be the same as the culvert design storm frequency.
5. The determination of the required size of a culvert installation can be accomplished
by mathematical analysis or by the use of design nomographs.
6. Headwalls shall be required at all culvert inlets or outlets to and from open
channels or lakes. Stone approved by the City Engineer shall be provided on all
visible headwalls.
7. The minimum cover for culverts within the right-of--way shall be one foot measured
from the top outside of pipe to the bottom of underdrain at the back of curb.
Should underdrains not be required, the minimum cover shall be one foot
measured from the top outside of pipe to the top of subgrade at the back of curb.
Outside street right-of--way, a minimum two feet of cover shall be provided
measured from the top of finished ground surface to the top outside of pipe. The
structural design of culverts and bridges shall be the same as that required by the
Ohio Department of Transportation.
8. Bridges shall be designed such that the hydraulic profile through a bridge shall be
below the bottom chord of the bridge for either the 100-year, 24-hour storm, or
the peak 100-year flood elevation, whichever is more restrictive.
9.100-year HGL (53.090(E)(1)): Demonstrate that the hydraulic grade line resulting
from the 100-year, 24-hour storm does not encroach on the roadway above the
culvert or above the low chord of bridge. The HGL shall be shown graphically on
the storm sewer construction plans or on a tabulation spreadsheet.
10. Velocities (53.090(E)(3)): Tabulate the culvert flow velocities, and demonstrate
that the velocities do not exceed 10 feet per second within the culvert barrel..
11. Tailwater and energy loss (53.090(E)(4-6)): List all tailwater assumptions and
their source for applicable design storm events. List the energy loss assumptions
at the entrance/exit of the structure.
E. Open channels.
1. Where applicable, streams within the City shall be preserved and protected
according to criteria in Section 53.200. Requirements for increasing the
conveyance capacity, repairing streambank erosion damage, restoring floodplain
storage, and/or rehabilitating aquatic or riparian habitat shall be determined by the
City Engineer based on the Stormwater Master Plan or other site-specific criteria
necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare or satisfy pertinent state
and federal regulatory requirements.
City of Dublin • Stormwater Management Design Manual 11
September XX, 2005
DRAFT
2. Wherever possible, drainage tributary to streams, wetlands, lakes, and detention
facilities shall be maintained by an open channel with landscaped banks designed
to carry the 10-year, 24-hour stormwater runoff from upstream contributory areas.
The City Engineer may increase the design storm as conditions require.
3. Alterations to streams and other open channels within FEMA floodplains shall be
designed according to the requirements of Chapter 151 of the Dublin Code of
Ordinances along with the requirements contained with this chapter. All open
channels shall be designed with one foot of freeboard above the design water
surface elevation of the open channel flowing full.
4. Flood relief channels shall be designed to convey the runoff from the 100-year,
24-hour storm, such that a positive discharge of this runoff to an adequate
receiving stream or conveyance system results without allowing this runoff to
encroach into proposed or existing residential dwellings or places of business.
5. Roadside ditches along existing roadways may be required by the city to be
enclosed if ODOT standards for safety and maintenance cannot be satisfied.
6. Capacity (53.090(F)(1)): Demonstrate that the hydraulic grade line resulting from
the 10-year, 24-hour storm does not rise to within one foot of the top of bank.
7.100-year HGL (53.090(F)(2)): Demonstrate that the water elevation resulting from
the 100-year, 24-hour storm does not encroach into proposed or existing
residential dwellings or places of business. The flood elevation shall be shown on
the Stormwater Management Map for the project.
F. Stormwater runoff quality.
1. No person shall:
a. Construct, maintain, operate, and/or utilize any illicit connection.
b. Cause, allow or facilitate any prohibited discharge.
c. Act, cause, permit, or suffer any agent, employee, or independent
contractor to construct, maintain, operate or utilize any illicit connection,
or cause, allow or facilitate any prohibited discharge.
2.Outdoor activity areas within the development site shall be delineated on the
Stormwater Management Plan, and the activities that will be conducted within
them shall be described in the Plan.
3. Runoff from outdoor activity areas shall not be allowed to co-mingle with runoff
from the remainder of the site, and shall be directed to separate treatment systems,
as approved by the City Engineer.
City of Dublin •Stormwater Management Design Manual ~ 2
September XX, 2005
DRAFT
4. The site shall be designed to direct runoff from areas other than outdoor activity
areas to one or more of the following stormwater quality treatment best
management practices (BMPs):
a. Swales;
b. Filter strips;
c. Wet detention basins;
d. Extended dry detention basins;
e. Media filters; or
f. Other approved BMPs.
5. The design water quality volume for these BMPs shall be the runoff from the first
three-quarter inch of rainfall of each and every storm event. Runoff calculations
in this section shall use runoff quality coefficients appropriate for storm events of
less than 1 inch of precipitation under average antecedent moisture conditions.
6. In addition, BMPs shall be designed to accommodate flows exceeding their design
capacity, either by bypassing excess flows, conveying excess flows through the
facility without disrupting its stormwater quality control effectiveness, or storing
excess flows as necessary to achieve the drainage, flood control, and erosion
control objectives of this chapter.
7. Filter Strips and Swales
a. Drainage areas of all swales and filter strips shall not exceed five acres or
possess slopes greater than 2.0 percent. They shall be designed to convey a
hydrograph with the following characteristics:
1. Vh = A*r*P (acre-feet), where:
2. Vh =hydrograph volume, acre-feet
3. A =area tributary to the basin, acres
4. r =runoff quality coefficient
5. P =mean storm precipitation volume = 0.0625 feet
6. Hydrograph duration = 2 hours
b. Hydrograph peak shall be calculated according to the Rational Formula
methodology.
c. Maximum depth of flow shall be no greater than three inches.
d. Swales and filter strips shall be lined with fine, turf-forming, water-
resistant grasses to slow and filter flows.
e. Hydrograph volume (53.090(H)(4)): Show the calculation of hydrograph
volume (Vh) as described in the Ordinance.
City of Dublin • Stormwater Management Design Manual 13
September XX, 2005
DRAFT
£ Hydrograph intensity (53.090(H)(4)): Show the calculation converting the
hydrograph volume to an intensity (in inches per hour) over two hours.
This calculation can be made by multiplying the hydrograph volume (in
acre-feet) by 6, then dividing this quantity by the area (in acres) tributary
to the Swale.
g. Intensity-duration-frequency curve (53.090(H)(4)): Show the intensity-
duration-frequency curve that is used to determine the intensity
corresponding to the time of concentration. This is accomplished by
drawing a curve parallel to the "Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the Midwest "
intensity-duration-frequency curves that contains the point with a 2-hour
duration and the intensity calculated in Step 2 above. An example curve is
shown on Attachment D of this document.
h. Design flow rate (53.090(H)(4)): Show the calculation of the swale/filter
strip design flow rate using the Rational Formula. The intensity used in
the calculation is obtained from the curve drawn in Step 3 above, at a
duration equal to the time of concentration for the tributary area.
i. Geometry (53.090(H)(4)): Show the calculation of the swale/filter strip
cross-section geometry using the Manning Equation. Demonstrate that the
flow depth is no greater than three inches for the design storm calculated
above.
J•
8. Wet detention basins and stormwater wetlands
a. Shall consist of a permanent pool volume (Vb) that does not drain between
storm events, plus an extended detention volume of approximately equal
size above the permanent pool, plus a sediment storage volume at least 20
percent of the volume of the permanent pool. The permanent pool and
extended detention volumes shall each be sized according to the following
equation:
1. Vb = 0.75A*r *P (acre-feet), where:
2. Vb =permanent pool or extended detention volumes, acre-feet
3. A =area tributary to the basin, acres
4. r =runoff quality coefficient
5. P =storm precipitation depth = 0.0625 feet
6.
b. Therefore, the total volume of the facility = Vb + Vb + 0.2V6 = 2.2Vb
c. The outlet shall be designed to release the entire extended detention
volume in no less than 24 hours. A method shall also be provided to drain
City of Dublin •stormwater Management Design Manual 14
September XX, 2005
DRAFT
the permanent pool volume to facilitate the removal of accumulated
sediments and other maintenance activities. The outlet shall also be
designed to minimize clogging, vandalism, and maintenance.
d. The basin design shall incorporate the following features to maximize
multiple uses, aesthetics, safety, maintainability, and compatibility with
the urban landscape:.
e. Basin side slopes above the permanent pool shall have a run to rise ratio of
4:1 or flatter. One foot of freeboard shall be provided.
f. To promote growth of wetland vegetation over 25 to 50 percent of the
pond surface area, an aquatic bench, with 10:1 side slopes, shall be
provided, with a maximum depth of 18 inches below the proposed normal
pool water surface elevation and a minimum of five feet wide. The
aquatic bench shall be planted with hearty plants comparable to wetland
vegetation which are able to withstand prolonged inundation.
g. Basin depths in open water areas shall not exceed 12 feet to prevent
thermal stratification.
h. A forebay or other sediment removal devices designed to allow larger
sediment particles to settle shall be placed at basin inlets. The forebay
volume shall be equal to approximately 10% of the extended detention
volume (Vb). Hard-bottomed forebays shall be required for those facilities
maintained by the City. Alternative bottoms for all other forebay facilities
maintained non-municipal parties shall be approved by the City Engineer
and contingent upon providing details of a maintenance plan which
addresses related potential access issues.
i. Astable vehicular access way shall be provided to forebays and outlets.
j. The wet ponds or wetland shall be designed and maintained in a manner
that maintains to improve water quality (oxygen levels) such that
unwanted vegetation, stagnation and mosquito colonies are prevented and
the water quality remains habitable for aquatic species. The City Engineer
shall develop and enforce design and maintenance criteria that achieve this
objective which may include but is not limited to aquatic habitat design
features, vegetation control measures and mechanical aerators.
k. Stormwater wetlands may be used in place of the permanent pool if
designed and constructed according to recognized wetland design
principles. The wetland shall have a water volume equal to the required
volume for the permanent pool, and shall consist of depressed, heavily
planted areas designed to maintain flow during dry periods in order to
support aquatic vegetation. The amount of surface area required for a
City of Dublin • Stormwater Management Design Manual 15
September XX, 2005
DRAFT
stormwater wetland is typically larger than that of a wet pond due to the
limited allowable depths required for wetland design.
9. Extended dry detention basins
a. Shall consist of an extended detention volume and a sediment storage
volume at least 20 percent of the volume of the permanent pool. The
extended detention volume shall be sized according to the following
equation:
1. Vb = A*r*P, where:
2. Vb =extended detention volumes, acre-feet
3. A =area tributary to the basin, acres
4-. r =runoff quality coefficient
5. P =storm precipitation volume = 0.0625 feet
6.
b. Therefore, the total volume of the facility = Vb + 0.2Vb = 1.2Vb
c. The sediment storage volume shall be no less than 20 percent of the
extended detention volume. The outlet shall be designed to release 50
percent of the extended detention volume in no less than 16 hours, and the
remainder of the extended detention volume in no less than 32 hours (for a
total of 48 hours).
d. The outlet shall also be designed to minimize clogging, vandalism, and
maintenance. The basin design shall incorporate the following features to
maximize multiple uses, aesthetics, safety, maintainability, and
compatibility with the urban landscape:
e. Basin side slopes shall have a run to rise ratio of 4:1 or flatter and
vegetated to prevent bank erosion and minimize drowning risk. Bottom
channels shall be graded shall be such that it drains within 72 hours to
prevent standing water. One foot of freeboard shall be required.
f. A forebay or other sediment removal device designed to allow larger
sediment particles to settle shall be placed at basin inlets. The forebay
shall be equal to approximately 10% of the extended detention volume
(Vb)•
g. Astable vehicular access way shall be provided to forebays and outlets.
10. Media filters
a. Shall consist of a settling basin followed by a filter basin filled with sand,
peat, or amended soil or other media with a diameter between 0.02 and
City of Dublin • Stormwater Management Design Manual 16
September XX, 2005
DRAFT
0.04 inches, as approved by the City Engineer. The settling basin shall
have a settling volume calculated using the following:
1. Vb = A*r*P, where:
2. Vb =settling volume, acre-feet
3. A =area tributary to the basin, acres
4-. r =runoff quality coefficient
5. P =storm precipitation volume = 0.0625 feet
b. The settling basin shall also include a sediment storage volume no less
than 20 percent of the settling volume. The settling basin shall also have a
length to width ratio of at least 2 to 1, and a depth between 3 feet and 10
feet. The outlet of the settling basin shall be sized to release the entire
settling volume within 40 hours (extended drawdown time). The filter
basin shall be designed with a surface area of 600 square feet per tributary
impervious acre, a filter depth of 1.5 feet, and a maximum water depth
above the filter surface of 6 feet.
11. Other BMPs may be recommended to satisfy the requirements of this chapter if
the stormwater management plan for the site demonstrates to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer that these BMPs achieve effluent quality and runoff volume
reduction equivalent to approved. BMPs can be adequately maintained and satisfy
other sections of the stormwater regulations.
12. Mosquito Control Considerations. Growth of aquatic vegetation shall be
restricted to the periphery of detention ponds. The presence of a mechanical
aerator (Section 53.090 (H) (5)), such as a fountain in the middle of the pond, may
be used to make the site more attractive, deter the growth of unwanted vegetation,
and make the habitat more suitable for fish. In general, grading of stormwater
drainage structures shall be such that water is not retained for longer than 72
hours.
G. Floodplain encroachment calculations shall be presented in the following
format:
1.100-year HGL (53.080(B)): Demonstrate that development in a FEMA Special
Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) flood plain does not increase the 100-year flood
elevations. Show calculations or computer model output that demonstrates the
pre-development and post-development flood elevations. Developer should
include an SFHA permit and the appropriate fee with the Stormwater
Management Plan.
2. Compensating storage (53.080(B)): Demonstrate that any volume of fill placed in
the 100-year floodplain is compensated with an equal volume of material
City of Dublin •Stormwater Management Design Manual ~ 7
September XX, 2005
DRAFT
removed above the ordinary high water table and below the 100-year flood
elevation. Show the volume calculation for the fill and the compensating storage.
H. Sinkholes.
1. Construction in Sinkhole Drainage Areas: The immediate area around a sinkhole
should be disturbed as little as possible. The use of mechanized equipment near
the sinkhole should be avoided. Sink areas are known to be unstable for
construction. Structures placed on soil foundations in sink areas may be subject
to both settling and collapse of the sink. Uncontrolled fill placement may present
additional settlement hazards. It shall be required that appropriate geotechnical
studies be done and measures taken to insure structure foundations are designed to
take into account potential sinkhole locations and instability. Such studies shall
account for potential foundation problems for both undisturbed sink areas and
those previously filled by others.
2. The floodplain line for a sinkhole is defined by the sinkhole lip elevation.
Therefore, the storage volume beneath this elevation is the sinkhole floodplain
storage volume. The pre-development floodplain storage volume must be
preserved under post development conditions. If any fill is added in the floodplain
outside the no-fill lines, compensating excavation in the floodplain shall be
required.
3. The no-fill line shall be established by the contour line or interpolated contour line
for the elevation that defines 60% of the floodplain storage volume. The area
encompassed by this line shall be defined as a no-fill zone for all construction
activities. No construction fill will be allowed in this zone.
1. Stormwater Management Plan
1. General Requirements.
a. A stormwater management plan shall be prepared by the applicant for
each proposed development activity and approved by the City Engineer in
accordance with Section 53.120 if the plan demonstrates that the proposed
development activity has been planned and designed, and shall be
implemented and maintained to meet the performance criteria described
herein.
b. This stormwater plan shall be part of the overall submitted improvement
plan and not a separate submittal. Supporting calculations for each design
storm specified in § 53.090 hereof shall be submitted (hard copy and
original copy) and will contain, as a minimum, a runoff hydrograph for the
undeveloped and developed site, stage-storage calculations for the
City of Dublin • Stormwater Management Design Manual ~ 8
September XX, 2005
DRAFT
detention facility, stage-discharge calculations for the outlet structure, and
a runoff hydrograph after routing through the proposed detention facility.
All routing calculations shall account for tailwater conditions of the
receiving facility, and shall be submitted to the city.
c. The Stormwater Management Plan shall be a bound report containing all
pertinent stormwater calculations for detention/retention basins, storm
sewers, culverts, open channels, and other stormwater management system
features, including best management practices (BMPs) specified in the
Stormwater Ordinance. The Stormwater Management Map shall be
included in a sleeve page or pocket of the report. The construction plans
shall be submitted with the report, but not attached to it. The report shall
contain divider pages with labeled tabs that clearly identify the
calculations contained in each section.
2. Map Content.
a. The project engineer shall include in the construction plans a master
stormwater management map showing all existing and proposed features,
including trees. The map is to be prepared on a 24-inch by 36-inch sheet
on a scale not to exceed 1" = 400'. Listed below are the features that are to
be included on the map.
1. based on state plane coordinate system
2. existing and proposed contours at one-foot intervals
3. north arrow and scale
4. predevelopment and postdevelopment subbasins overlaid on the
same map including on and offsite contriburary area. The acreages
shall be shown.
5. Downstream recieivin waterway of drainage system
6. predevelopment and post developemtn overland flow paths to and
from the management basins
7. soil type by subbasin including hydrologic soil group designation
of A, B, C or D
8. Hydrologic boundaries, including all axeas flowing to the proposed
project.
9. Project boundaries and area.
10. Sufficient topographical information with elevations to verify the
location of all ridges, streams, etc. (one-foot contour intervals
within the project's boundaries and for proposed offsite
improvements).
11. High water data or critical flood elevations on existing structures
upstream of, within, and downstream of the project.
12. Notes indicating sources of high water data and critical flood
elevations.
City of Dublin • Stormwater Management Design Manual 19
September XX, 2005
DRAFT
13. Notes pertaining to existing standing water, areas of heavy
seepage, springs, wetlands, streams, and hydrologically sensitive
areas.
14. Existing stormwater management features (ditches, pipes,
roadways, ponds, and BMPs). Existing stormwater management
features are to be shown a minimum of 1,000 feet downstream of
the proposed development unless the ultimate outfall system is a
lesser distance.
15. Subdivision layouts with horizontal and vertical controls.
16. Proposed and existing stormwater management features, including
locations of inlets, swales, pipes, detention/retention facilities,
BMPs, ponding areas, and all works.
17. Delineation and area of pre-development and post-development
sub-basins.
18. Delineate retention/detention facilities and ingress/egress areas for
facilities maintenance.
19. General type of soils by sub-basin and location of soil borings.
20. Ten-, 25-, and 100-year flood elevations for any areas in or within
100 feet of the property. The source of these elevations shall also
be shown on the plans.
21. Description of current ground cover, land use, and an estimate of
the impervious area and percent imperviousness created by the
construction activity by sub-basin.
22. Delineate the stream corridor protection zone along any streams
within or adjacent to the site.
3. Calculations. Stormwater calculations (hard copy and original copy), signed and
sealed by a professional engineer (registered in the State of Ohio) that the plan has
been prepared in accordance with the regulations of the ordinance, and in
accordance with good engineering practices and principles for all stormwater
works, including design high water elevations for all applicable storm events.
Software/models that utilize this methodology and technique and which are
deemed acceptable to the City include but are not limited to SWMM, TR-55,
PONDPAK, HEC-1, etc. The City will not accept methodologies that do not
perform dynamic routing of hydrographs, which include but are not limited to the
Bowstring Methodology, Mass Diagram Analysis, etc. The calculations shall
include the following:
a. Pre- and post-development stormwater flows and stages for the site and
retention/detention ponds for all design storm frequencies pertinent to the
project based upon the requirements of the stormwater regulations,
including, but not limited to, the following:
1. Critical Storm Calculation (53.090)(C)(1-2)): Show the
calculation of the total volume of runoff from a 1-year, 24-hour
storm, before and after development. Show the calculation of
City of Dublin • Stormwater Management Design Manual 2~
September XX, 2005
DRAFT
percent increase in runoff volume, and reference Table 53-01 to
determine the critical storm.
2. On-Site and Off-Site Area Allocation(s) (53.090)(C)(1-2)): Show
the allocation of on-site and off-site area contributory to the facility
for each Stormwater Master Plan sub-basin as follows:
Area Allocation Table Exam le
Sub-Basin On-Site Area Off-Site Area Total (acre)
Identifier # acre (acre
5560 5.4 0.0 5.4
5570 10.5 0.0 10.5
5580 2.4 12.2 14.6
Total acre) 18.3 12.2 30.5
3. Pre-development hydrograph, post-development runoff hydrograph
to the stormwater pond, and the routed post-development
hydrograph discharged from the Stormwater pond.
4. Pre-development and post-development runoff volumes.
5. Stage-area-storage calculations for the Stormwater pond.
6. Stage-discharge calculations for the outfall control structure,
including tailwater assumptions.
7. Release rate calculation (53.090)(C)(1-2)): Calculate the
maximum release rate for each design storm using the critical
storm criteria and referencing Appendix C of the Stormwater
Master Plan and the Area Allocation table. Include a summary of
the release rates as follows:
Stormwater Management Summary Table
1 year 2 year 5 year 10 year 25 year 50 year 100 year
Predeveloped Q
Postdeveloped Q
Allowable Release
Actual Release
Pond Depth/Elev
8. Show the calculation that is used to determine the maximum
release rate for each storm.
9. Stormwater quality control BMP volumes and recovery
calculations. Show calculations or model output that demonstrates
the release of the extended detention volume over the time period
specified in the Ordinance.
City of Dublin •Stormwater Management Design Manual Z~
September XX, 2005
DRAFT
b. Soil storage or curve number calculations per sub-basin, including
impervious calculations.
c. Time of concentration calculations per sub-basin.
d. 100-year floodplain compensating calculations, if applicable.
e. Storm sewer, culvert, open channel and BMP tabulations, including, but
not limited to, the following:
1. Location and type of structures.
2. Length of facility and dimensions, including diameter, height,
and/or width for pipes.
3. Cross-sections for-open channels.
4. Sub-basin areas tributary to each structure.
5. Runoff coefficients or curve numbers per sub-basin for both the
pre-construction and post-construction site conditions.
6. Time of concentration to the inlet of each structure.
7. Each stormwater flow to and from the stormwater structure or
junction point.
8. Hydraulic gradient for the applicable storm event, including losses
through structures with friction and local loss coefficients.
9. Estimated receiving water elevation with sources of information, if
available.
10. Velocities for all facilities and details for provisions to control
erosion.
f. Construction plans including, but not limited to, the following:
1. Overall project plan of roads, lots, and retention or detention
facilities.
2. Cross-section of retention/detention facilities and BMPs.
3. Typical Swale, ditch, or canal sections.
4. Drainage rights-of--way.
5. Road plan and profile with groundwater elevation shown in profile.
6. Overall project grading plan (at 1-foot contours) and individual lot
grading plans.
7. Density of the project.
J. Erosion and Sediment Control
1. When required by this regulation, a soil erosion and sediment control plan shall be
prepared for the earth disturbance activities. Furthermore, in accordance with the
appropriate requirements of § 53.310, the plan shall be prepared, submitted to the
City, and approved by the City, prior to any earth- disturbance.
City of Dublin • Stormwater Management Design Manual ZZ
September XX, 2005
DRAFT
2. The plan shall serve as a basis for all subsequent grading and stabilization and be
incorporated as part of the final construction drawings.
3. Plan Content.
a. Any person seeking approval of an earth disturbance proposal shall, on a
map rendered from a base derived from the site Stormwater Management
Plan or site grading plan, at a scale not to exceed 1" - 100', provide the
following information:
1. A description of the nature and type of the construction activity
(e.g., low density residential, shopping mall, highway, etc.)
2. Total area of the site and the area of the site that is expected to be
disturbed (i.e., grubbing, clearing, excavation, filling or grading,
including off-site borrow areas).
3. Existing data describing the soil and, if available, the quality of
any discharge from the site.
4. A description of prior land uses at the site.
5. An implementation schedule which describes the sequence of
major construction operations (i.e., grubbing, excavating, grading,
utilities and infrastructure installation) and the implementation of
erosion, sediment and storm water management practices or
facilities to be employed during each operation of the sequence.
6. The name and/or location of the immediate receiving stream or
surface water(s) and the first subsequent named receiving water(s)
and the aerial extent and description of wetlands or other special
aquatic sites at or near the site which will be disturbed or which
will receive discharges from disturbed areas of the project.
4. For subdivided developments where the Stormwater Management Plan does not
call for a centralized sediment control capable of controlling multiple individual
lots, a detail drawing of a typical individual lot showing standard individual lot
erosion and sediment control practices. This does not remove the responsibility to
designate specific erosion and sediment control practices in the Stormwater
Management Plan for critical areas such as steep slopes, stream banks, drainage
ways and stream corridor protection zones.
5. Location and description of any storm water discharges associated with dedicated,
on-site asphalt and concrete plants covered by this permit and the best
management practices to address pollutants in these storm water discharges.
6. A description of the intended maintenance plan with associated frequencies shall be
required for the site.
7. Site map showing:
City of Dublin . Stormwater Management Design Manual 23
September XX, 2005
DRAFT
a. Limits of earth-disturbing activity of the site including associated off-site
borrow or spoil areas that are not addressed by a separate NOI and
associated Stormwater Management Plan.
b. Soils types should be depicted for all areas of the site, including locations
of unstable or highly erodible soils.
c. Existing and proposed contours.
d. A delineation of drainage watersheds expected during and after major
grading activities as well as the size of each drainage watershed, in acres.
e. Surface water locations including springs, wetlands, streams, lakes, water
wells, etc., on or within 200 feet of the site, including the boundaries of
wetlands or stream channels and first subsequent named receiving water(s)
the permittee intends to fill or relocate for which the permittee is seeking
approval from the Army Corps of Engineers and/or Ohio EPA.
f. Existing and planned locations of buildings, roads, parking facilities and
utilities.
g. The location of all erosion and sediment control practices, including the
location of areas likely to require temporary stabilization during the course
of site development.
h. Sediment and storm water management basins noting their sediment
settling volume and contributing drainage area.
i. Permanent storm water management practices to be used to control
pollutants in storm water after construction operations have been
completed.
j. Areas designated for the storage or disposal of solid, sanitary and toxic
wastes, including dumpster areas, areas designated for cement truck
washout, vehicle fueling, and lay down areas.
k. The location of designated construction entrances where the vehicles will
access the construction site.
1. The location of any in-stream activities including stream crossings.
8. Additionally, the plan, as part of the overall stormwater management plan, shall
provide space for signatures of City of Dublin officials. These signature blocks
shall be placed on the stormwater management plan drawings.
City of Dublin . Stormwater Management Design Manual 24
September XX, 2005
DRAFT
9. Statement identifying the name, address, and telephone number of the person(s)
preparing the plan, the owner of the property where the grading is proposed and
the developer and/or person responsible for the development area.
10. A statement indicating that the owner will notify the City forty-eight (48) hours
before commencing any earth-disturbing activity. At the time this notice is given,
the owner shall identify the site manager.
11. The City Engineer may waive specific requirements for plan detail or may require
additional information to show that work will conform to basic requirements of
this regulation.
12. Calculations
a. Any person seeking approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
shall submit design computations and applicable assumptions for all
structural measures for erosion and sediment control. Volume and
velocity of flow shall be provided for all surface water conveyance. This
information shall also be provided for surface water outlets. Specific
guidance for Erosion and Sediment control calculations referenced in
Section 320
b.
K. Standards 8~ Criteria for Erosion ~ Sediment Control.
(A)Non-Structural Preservation Methods. The ESC plan must make use of practices that
preserve the existing natural condition as much as feasible. No construction shall be
allowed within the Stream Corridor Protection Zone defined by these regulations unless
explicitly allowed under Section § 53.210. In addition, construction operations shall be
phased in order to minimize the amount of disturbed land at any one time. Within zones
designated for active construction, tree preservation areas under § 153.140 through 148 or
other protective clearing or grubbing practices shall be designated.
(B) Timing of Sediment-Control Practices. Sediment control practices shall be functional
throughout earth-disturbing activities. Sediment ponds (including sediment basins and
traps) and perimeter controls intended to trap sediment shall be implemented as the first
step of grading and within seven days from the start of grubbing. They shall continue to
function until the upslope development area is re-stabilized.
(C) Stabilization. Disturbed areas must be stabilized as specified in the sections that follow.
(1) Permanent Stabilization
PERMANENT STABILIZATION
Area requiring permanent When to implement controls
City of Dublin • Stormwater Management Design Manual 25
September XX, 2005
DRAFT
stabilization
Any areas that will lie dormant for Within seven days of the most
one year or more recent disturbance
Any areas within 50 feet of a stream Within two days of reaching final
and at final grade grade
Any other areas at final grade Within seven days of reaching final
grade within that area
(2) Temporary Stabilization
TEMPORARY STABILIZATION
Area requiring temporary When to implement controls
stabilization
Any disturbed areas within 50 feet of Within two days of the most recent
a stream and not at final grade disturbance if the area will remain
idle for more than 21 days
For all construction activities, any Within seven days of the most
disturbed areas that will be dormant recent disturbance within the area
for more than 21 days but less than For residential subdivisions,
one year, and not within 50 feet of a disturbed areas must be stabilized at
stream least seven days prior to transfer of
permit coverage for the individual
lot(s).
Disturbed areas that will be idle over Prior to the onset of winter weather
winter
(3) Where vegetative stabilization techniques may cause structural instability or are
otherwise unobtainable, alternative stabilization techniques must be employed.
(D) Construction Access Routes. Measures shall be taken to prevent soil transport onto
surfaces or onto public roads where runoff is not checked by sediment controls. Off-site
tracking of sediments and dust generator shall be minimized, as required under the City's
Ordinance, §97.38.
(E) Sloughing and Dumping.
(1) No soil, rock, debris, or any other material shall be dumped or placed into a
stream or into such proximity that it may readily slough, slip, or erode into a
stream, unless such dumping or placing is authorized by the City Engineer and
when applicable, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for such purposes as, but not
limited to, construction of bridges, culverts, and erosion control structures.
(2) Unstable soils that, in the opinion of the City Engineer, are prone to slipping or
landsliding shall not be graded, excavated, filled or have loads imposed upon
them unless the work is done in accordance with a qualified professional
City of Dublin • Stormwater Management Design Manual 26
September XX, 2005
DRAFT
engineer's recommendations to correct, eliminate, or adequately address the
problems.
(F) Cut and Fill Slopes. Cut and fill slopes shall be designed and constructed in a manner that
will minimize erosion. Consideration shall be given to the length and steepness of the
slope, soil type, upslope drainage area, groundwater conditions, and slope stabilization.
(G)Stabilization of Outfalls and Channels. Outfalls and constructed or modified channels
shall be designed and constructed to withstand the expected velocity of flow from apost-
development, five-year frequency storm without eroding.
(H)Establishment of Permanent Vegetation. Permanent vegetation shall not be considered
established until ground cover is achieved which, in the opinion of the City Engineer,
provides adequate cover with a density of at least 70% and is mature enough to control
soil erosion satisfactorily and to survive adverse weather.
(I) Sediment deposition. Sediment deposition caused by accelerated stormwater runoff over a
development site or by accelerated erosion due to the sloughing or sliding of surface soil
that has been exposed by grading, dumping, stockpiling or any other excavation-related
earth disturbances shall be retarded and confined to within the boundaries of the
development site, during site development.
(J) Sediment Control Practices During Construction. The ESC plan shall include a
description of structural practices that shall store runoff during construction, allowing
sediments to settle and/or diverting flows away from exposed soils or otherwise limiting
runoff from exposed areas. Structural practices shall be used to control erosion and trap
sediment from a site remaining disturbed for more than 14 days. Such practices may
include, among others: sediment settling ponds, silt fences, earth diversion dikes or
channels which direct runoff to a sediment settling pond and storm drain inlet protection.
All sediment control practices must be capable of ponding runoff in order to be
considered functional. Earth diversion dikes or channels alone are not considered a
sediment control practice unless those are used in conjunction with a sediment settling
pond. The ESC plan must contain detailed drawings for all structural practices.
(K) Timing. Sediment control structures shall be functional throughout the course of earth-
disturbing activity. Sediment basins and perimeter sediment barriers shall be
implemented prior to grading and within seven days from the start of grubbing. They
shall continue to function until the up slope development area is restabilized according to
requirements in Section §53.320(C)(1) As construction progresses and the topography is
altered, appropriate controls must be constructed or existing controls altered to address
the changing drainage patterns.
(L) Sediment settling ponds
(1) Concentrated storm water runoff and runoff from drainage areas, which exceed
the design capacity of silt fence or inlet protection, shall pass through a sediment
settling pond. For common drainage locations that serve an area with 10 or more
City of Dublin • Stormwater Management Design Manual 27
September XX, 2005
DRAFT
acres disturbed at one time, a temporary sediment settling pond must be provided
until final stabilization of the site. The permittee may request approval from Ohio
EPA to use alternative controls if it can demonstrate the alternative controls are
equivalent in effectiveness to a sediment settling pond. It is recommended that
smaller sediment basins and/or sediment traps be used for drainage locations
serving less than 10 acres.
(2) The sediment settling pond shall be sized to provide at least 67 cubic yards of
storage per acre of total contributing drainage area. When determining the total
contributing drainage area, off-site areas and areas which remain undisturbed by
construction activity must be included unless runoff from these areas is diverted
away from the sediment settling pond and is not co-mingled with sediment-laden
runoff. The depth of the sediment settling pond must be less than or equal to five
feet. The configuration between inlets and the outlet of the basin must provide at
least two units of length for each one unit of width 2:1 length:width ratio).
Sediment must be removed from the sediment settling pond when the design
capacity has been reduced by 40 percent (This is typically reached when sediment
occupies one-half of the basin depth). When designing sediment settling ponds,
the permittee must consider public safety, especially as it relates to children, as a
design factor. Alternative sediment controls must be used where site limitations
would preclude a safe design. The use of a combination of sediment and erosion
control measures in order to achieve maximum pollutant removal is encouraged.
(M)Silt Fence and Diversions
(1) Sheet flow runoff from denuded areas shall be intercepted by silt fence or
diversions to protect adjacent properties, streams, and stream corridor protective
zones from sediment transported via sheet flow. Where intended to provide
sediment control, silt fence shall be placed on a level contour. The use of other
sediment barriers designed to control sheet flow runoff shall be at the discretion
of the City Engineer. The relationship between the maximum drainage area to silt
fence for a particular slope range is shown in the following table.
SILT FENCE CRITERIA
Maximum drainage area (in Range of slope for a particular
acres) to 100 linear feet of drainage area (by percent)
silt fence
0.5 < 2%
0.25 > 2% but < 20%
0.125 > 20% but < 50%
(2) Stormwater diversion practices shall be used to keep runoff away from disturbed
areas and steep slopes where practicable. Such devices, which include swales,
dikes or berms, may receive storm water runoff from areas up to 10 acres.
(N)Inlet Protection Inlet protection BMPs shall minimize sediment laden water entering
active storm drain systems, unless the storm drain system drains to a sediment settling
City of Dublin • Stormwater Management Design Manual 2$
September XX, 2005
DRAFT
pond. Sediment shall be removed from the storm sewer, to the extent possible, prior to
final approval.
(O) Other controls.
(1) Non-Sediment Pollutant Controls
(a) No solid (other than sediment) or liquid waste, including building
materials, shall be discharged in storm water runoff. The permittee must
implement all necessary BMPs to prevent the discharge of non-sediment
pollutants to the stormwater management system of the site or surface
waters of the state. Under no circumstance shall concrete trucks wash out
directly into an open channel, storm sewer or surface waters of the state.
No exposure of storm water to waste materials is recommended.
(P) Compliance with other requirements The Stormwater Management Plan shall be
consistent with applicable State and/or local waste disposal, sanitary sewer or septic
system regulations, including provisions prohibiting waste disposal by open burning and
shall provide for the proper disposal of contaminated soils to the extent these are located
within the permitted area.
(Q) Trench and ground water control There shall be no turbid discharges resulting from
dewatering activities. If trench or ground water contains sediment, it must pass through a
sediment settling pond or other equally effective sediment control device, prior to being
discharged from the construction site. Alternatively, sediment may be removed by
settling in place or by dewatering into a sump pit, filter bag or comparable practice.
Ground water dewatering which does not contain sediment or other pollutants is not
required to be treated prior to discharge. However, care must be taken when discharging
ground water to ensure that it does not become pollutant-laden by traversing over
disturbed soils or other pollutant sources.
(R) Disposition of Temporary Practices. All temporary erosion and sediment control
practices shall be disposed of within thirty days after final site stabilization is achieved or
after the temporary practices are no longer needed, unless otherwise authorized by the
City Engineer. Trapped sediment shall be removed or permanently stabilized to prevent
further erosion.
(S) Maintenance. All temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control practices shall
be designed and constructed to minimize maintenance requirements. They shall be
maintained and repaired as needed to assure continued performance of their intended
function. The person or entity responsible for continued maintenance of permanent and
temporary erosion controls shall be identified on the Stormwater Management Plan to the
satisfaction of the City.
City of Dublin • Stormwater Management Design Manual 29
September XX, 2005
Office of the City Manager
5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017
CITY OF DUBLIN_ Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490 M e m o
To: Members of City Council
From: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager~Q,,,~ 5 .
Date: August 10, 2005
Initiated By: Paul A. Hammersmith, P.E., Director of Engineering/City Engineer a~
Barbara A. Cox, P.E., Assistant Director of Engineering -Development
Re: Ordinance 48-05: An Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 53, Stormwater Management, to
Establish Chapter 53, Stormwater Management and Stream Protection, and to Add
Section 153.231 (B) (5) of the Codified Ordinances in the City of Dublin, Ohio
Summary:
Revisions to Chapter 53, Stormwater Management are proposed to codify updates made by the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) regarding erosion and sediment control (during and after
construction), create a stream corridor protection zone and clarify some issues that staff has found while
administrating the current Chapter since June 1998. This is before Council for a first reading since it is a
complex issue and a substantial amount of material to review. Staff will make a presentation summarizes
the proposed revisions at the September 6, 2005 Council meeting.
The proposed revisions were forwarded to both the Community Services Advisory Commission (CSAC)
and the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) for their review and consideration, as directed by
Council at their March 7, 2005 meeting.
The new version of Chapter 53 contains the requirements for having Stormwater controls (quantity and
quality), erosion and sediment controls on a project site. It also contains assignments of review, approval,
maintenance and enforcement responsibilities. Staff has created a Stormwater Management Design
Manual. This manual contains the detailed design information that the development community will need
to create their sites.
Council may wish to review the following documents prior to the next Council meeting and contact staff
with any questions or concerns
1. Memo from CSAC containing their recommendation
2. Minutes from the various CSAC meetings when the revisions were discussed
3. Minutes and Record of Action from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting when the
revisions were presented
4. Ordinance 48-OSadopting the proposed revisions
5. Chapter 53, Stormwater Management and Stream Protection (Exhibit "A")
6. Draft Stormwater Management Design Manual
7. Map depicting areas where Stream Corridor Protection Zones may apply.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends a second public reading of the Ordinance 48-OS at the September 6, 2005 City Council
meeting when staff will make a presentation regarding the proposed revisions to Chapter 53 and the
Stormwater Management Design Manual. At that time, staff will be requesting a motion on Ordinance 48-
05.
0
< ~
o' ~ ~ ~
~ -
~
o ~ O
~ Oy d
c= ~ a ~ 1\
m W ~ ~ /
~ ~
r
r~
' _ ~ _
,y`
~
- ~ i
1 k
~T ~
~ r
t
: ~
r ~
1 / ' ~ - ~
. ~ ~ ~
M _
~ - ~ ~
r/~ ~ r
I ~
i
~ ~
~ h ~ ~ ~
~l
~
~n
~ ~
1
j ~ ~
/ 'I
,
~ i
C~ D
O~
O~~
Z ~ ~
m0~ o ~ _ „ ~ r
~ Q ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
(n ~ o No a
~m~ o ~ ~
~C7~
~~rn
OD ~ z
z~
t~
o
~ v` ~
v_,' ~
o ~
m ° ~ ~ 1
~ ~ ~ ~
~ Q
m 3 W
/s
co ~
I(~~~~~~
1
1 i'~ ~ ~
r '4, '
1~
l ~ ~
~r - )
7
e
i}
r I w ~ fl ~
'r"' ~ _ ~ ~~t
S d
~ P
,l~ ~ ~ _ ~3"
r~ ~
~ ~ s
1` ~ ~
t G ~ _
~ ~ ~ ~
~
~
~7
i
~ ~ ~ ~
1 ~
~ ~ ~
~ i~ it
~J _ ~ ~
r' ~ ~
r ~ ~ g
V
~ X
~
~ ~
¦rQ ~ ~ d
~ ~ ~ r~
N
N~Orn
O ~ ~
z-~
O~ ~ ~ ~
cn ~ -
~ o ~
_ °
~ rn ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ° ~ ~ D
r r rn
~rn~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ o rn
~ rn
D ~ z
O~
z ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ rr--
m v ~ \ `s
~ o ~ ~
m a ~ ~
~
f -
I -
~ ~J
~ ~
~ ~ \
C f ~ p. / _
v ~
7 .,1,
V
~~2
- ~ ~ / ,
~ ~
~ ~
` t r I V ' ~ 1
i
~r_ ; ~
~ ~
}
_ ~ E
' ~+I_.,_ ~"".'I III ~ ~
I I ~ - L~
a'g' III ~ % ~~I
fr ~i
t ~
i
~
y ~ f V ' , ate, \ , i~ iii e }~YP,Ji
1~. Nil.?~_ _ l !,T~,~ ~ I ~I x., t,
1 ~ 1,
D
O
N ~O rn
O~~
z-~
O~ ~ ~ o
v~ _ - ~ ~ CD
~ -o m o ~ ~
D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0 r r rn
~-~(n ~ o No a
~ rn ~ m
~ C7 ~ ~ c~
~~rn
-D ~ ~
O~
z ~
DRAFT
APPENDIX
City of Dublin • Stormwater Management Design Manual 30
September XX, 2005
Office of the City Manager
5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017
CITY OF DUBLIN_ Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490 Nl e m o
To: Members of City Council
From: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager^~_ s ,
Date: August 10, 2005
Initiated By: Paul A. Hammersmith, P.E., Director ofEngineering/City Engineer
a
Barbara A. Cox, P.E., Assistant Director of Engineering -Development
Re: Ordinance 48-05: An Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 53, Stormwater Management, to
Establish Chapter 53, Stormwater Management and Stream Protection, and to Add
Section 153.231 (B) (5) of the Codified Ordinances in the City of Dublin, Ohio
Summary:
Revisions to Chapter S3, Stormwater Management are proposed to codify updates made by the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) regarding erosion and sediment control (during and after
.construction), create a stream corridor protection zone and clarify some issues that staff has found while
administrating the current Chapter since June 1998. This is before Council for a first reading since it is a
complex issue and a substantial amount of material to review. Staff will make a presentation summarizes
the proposed revisions at the September 6, 2005 Council meeting.
The proposed revisions were forwarded to both the Community Services Advisory Commission (CSAC)
and the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) for their review and consideration, as directed by
Council at their March 7, 2005 meeting.
The new version of Chapter S3 contains the requirements for having Stormwater controls (quantity and
quality), erosion and sediment controls on a project site. It also contains assignments of review, approval,
maintenance and enforcement responsibilities. Staff has created a Stormwater Management Design
Manual. This manual contains the detailed design information that the development community will need
to create their sites.
Council may wish to review the following documents prior to the next Council meeting and contact staff
with any questions or concerns
1. Memo from CSAC containing their recommendation
2. Minutes from the various CSAC meetings when the revisions were discussed
3. Minutes and Record of Action from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting when the
revisions were presented
4. Ordinance 48-OSadopting the proposed revisions
S. Chapter S3, Stormwater Management and Stream Protection (Exhibit "A")
6. Draft Stormwater Management Design Manual
7. Map depicting areas where Stream Corridor Protection Zones may apply.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends a second public reading of the Ordinance 48-OS at the September 6, 2005 City Council
meeting when staff will make a presentation regarding the proposed revisions to Chapter S3 and the
Stormwater Management Design Manual. At that time, staff will be requesting a motion on Ordinance 48-
OS.
~ A
Office of the City Manager
5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017
CITY OE DUBLIN_ Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490 Me m o
To: Members of City Council
From: Community Services Advisory Commission
Date: August 9, 2005
Re: Proposed Revisions to Chapter 53: Stormwater Regulations
On March 7, 2005, City Council forwarded an assignment to the Community Services Advisory
Commission (CSAC) to review the proposed revisions to Chapter 53: Stormwater Regulations of the
Codified Ordinances. CSAC held meetings on May 10, June 14, July 12 and August 9 during the
proposed revisions were reviewed, considered and discussed. City staff has provided beneficial
background and answers to our questions regarding the proposed revisions to the Stormwater
Regulations.
At the initial meeting on May 10th, we mainly focused on the proposed new section regarding Stream
Corridor Protection Zones (SCPZ), Section 53.200. We went over where these are to be applied, how the
zones are determined, the proposed uses in the zone, and enforcement of the requirements. We believe
that the SCPZ will add a layer of protection for stream corridors that may have otherwise been adversely
impacted by development where no other regulations provide for the preservation of the riparian buffers.
The other proposed revisions were assessed at the second meeting held June 14t". It is our understanding
that the other proposed changes to the Chapter are in line with the requirements of the current Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) Phase 2 and General Construction permits. Also discussed
were how the SCPZ relate to current open space requirements, variance/appeal procedures for the SCPZ,
enforcement of the SCPZ and how to integrate an overview done by the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
At the July 12t" meeting, we provided staff with final comments on the proposed revisions and reviewed
a draft of this recommendation to City Council. We also gave input to questions/comments we had that
we wanted Planning and Zoning Commission's opinion on.
We have been briefed on August 9`" of the review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and agree
that the comments and changes from them only strengthen the code.
In light of the benefits already realized from the existing Stormwater Regulations and the enhanced
environmental benefits from the proposed revisions, we respectfully recommend adoption of the
proposed revisions to amend existing Chapter 53. The newly adopted Chapter 53 is to be titled
Stormwater Regulations and Stream Protection.
CSAC 5/10/OS
Page I of 6
Community Services Advisory Commission
May 10, 2005
Minutes
Commission Members Present: Robin Campbell, Melinda Carr, David Cecutti, Bill
Estabrook, Todd Manifold, and Randy Roth (joined
meeting at approx. 7:15 p.m.)
Staff Members Present: Michelle Crandall, Director of Administrative
Services, Jay Herskowitz, Asst. City Engineer -
Utilities, Paul Hammersmith, Dir. of Engineering
(City Engineer), and Tami Moore, Recorder
Public Guests: Carrie Mayer -Dublin Schools student for a
government class project
I. Call to Order
Vice-chairman Bill Estabrook called the meeting to order.
II. Public Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
None.
III. Approval of Minutes of April 12, 2005 Meeting
Mr. Manifold made a motion to approve as submitted the minutes of the April 12, 2005 meeting.
Ms. Campbell seconded the motion, and the vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion.
IV. Storm Water Management
Ms. Crandall opened the presentation stating that this is an assignment referred by City Council
for the Commission to review the proposed stormwater management regulations as revised by
City staff. She then introduced Jay Herskowitz, Asst. City Engineer -Utilities, who was present
to provide background information and the changes in the regulations. Mr. Herskowitz stated
that Dublin has had a Stormwater Ordinance in effect since approximately 1998. It was
developed as part of a Stormwater Master Plan project in which Engineering delineated all the
water sheds in the City, identified Capital Improvement Project needs, identified operations and
maintenance budget needs, and since that time have worked to implement the program. Along
the way, there has been some impact from federal regulations that were passed down to the
State-one being the Clean Water Act-that was amended in 2001. It revised the area of land
disturbance above which erosion and sediment controls would be required. The Ordinance that
was developed as part of the Stormwater Master Plan project had already addressed that issue,
but had indicated the rule that was in effect at the time which was 2 acres or greater. Although
utilizing the more current regulations were the day-to-day practice at Dublin, staff thought it
important to revise the Ordinance to reflect the update. Several other minor inconsistencies were
addressed as part of a "laundry list" of recommendations, and Dublin hired the consultant back
CSAC 5/10/OS
Page 2 of 6
who initially worked on the Storm Water Master Plan Project. Work was done over many
months going over the Ordinance, drafting revisions, consolidating some sections in the Code
and adding some entirely new sections where staff felt the need to be pro-active in terms of flood
plain management. This process was completed in October of 2004, and then staff developed a
report for Council who felt it was important to have an advisory group look at the proposed
changes.
Mr. Estabrook opened the floor for questions or discussions. Ms. Campbell questioned why
when Dublin has had experts working on this for six to seven months is it being brought before
this Commission? Mr. Herskowitz replied it was to have the public involved for buy-in and
acceptance of the revisions. He also pointed out that there is a new Code section where Dublin is
proposing to control development adjacent to streams, and the City is very sensitive to the impact
that might have in terms of people's ability to develop their land. Therefore, staff reached out to
several groups to get "stakeholder feedback." In addition to the public, this has also included
other consulting firms, builders, etc. Ms. Crandall added that if Council had not assigned this
project to CSAC, they probably would have had a Council committee review it in more detail.
Mr. Estabrook asked if the review had been complete by other City entities. Mr. Herskowitz
replied that the City's Land Use and Long-Range Planning (LU&LRP) staff is still reviewing it
in terms of implementation and consistency with other code sections such as the tree ordinance.
There is an adopted Resolution for the City to begin conservation design, and the new Code
section on the stream setbacks relates to the conservation design. Ms. Crandall added that
eventually the Planning & Zoning Commission would review some elements of the proposed
code section relating to how it is implemented. Mr. Herskowitz stated that the City Manager
asked LU&LRP to consider presenting this material, perhaps in parallel with the CSAC review
or maybe after its review, and that is still being worked out. In response to Mr. Estabrook asking
if they were reviewing it on the same timeline, Mr. Herskowitz replied that it has not yet been
decided.
Mr. Estabrook asked if there is any section of the proposed revisions that needs more attention
than others? Mr. Herskowitz replied that Section 53.200 is the new proposed stream setback
requirements noting that Legal has reviewed it, and it basically restricts people's ability to
develop adjacent to areas where flooding may occur. Some of the Engineering staff see this
simply as an extension of other rules that are already part of the City code. The stream corridor
protection zones that were developed here are an attempt to mimic what essentially are the
floodways of streams-the areas where the flood water velocities are more severe and where
flooding potential and risks to the public are concerns. What this proposed section would do is,
based on the contributing drainage area to any proposed development site, you could refer to a
table in the Ordinance for the recommended setback criteria that has been developed based on a
hard scientific type of review. Many jurisdictions in the Columbus area are considering this-
Columbus for example-and as part of the project The Ohio State University analyzed aerial
photography for streams in Central Ohio over a 30-year period and were able to predict
mathematically what the meander zones are for streams based simply on the contributing
drainage area. Mr. Herskowitz stated that he sees developers being able to use a recommended
setback established in the regulations as a benefit to them because gathering the data is a very
expensive process, and the City is essentially doing that work in areas where FEMA has not
already provided data. Mr. Manifold clarified that this includes setbacks for both landscaping
and a house or building. Mr. Herskowitz agreed it does and explained that the City has dealt
CSAC 5/10/OS
Page 3 of 6
with issues in areas that were developed in the 70's and 80's where homes encroached on
channels, and the City has had to do expensive engineering studies and restoration projects.
Mr. Estabrook stated that there seems to be many changes to 53.200, and Mr. Herskowitz
clarified that this section is entirely new. Mr. Estabrook asked if the Army Corps of Engineers
and FEMA standards are the starting point for the regulations. He also asked if this is going to
provide more protection and regulation in a vast part of Dublin, or a small part of Dublin, or is
this primarily designed for the newly developed areas? Mr. Herskowitz replied that it is
primarily designed for areas where FEMA has not provided information. The City already has
regulations to guide it in being protective of the public and the environment in areas where
FEMA has conducted studies and have physically mapped those areas-being the Floodway +
20 restriction. What Ohio State and other jurisdictions are trying to come up with is how to
estimate that in areas where FEMA has not provided that data.
Ms. Carr asked if the City had solicited builder input on the proposed regulations. Mr.
Herskowitz replied that it had and provided copies of a letter dated November 16, 2004 from the
BIA, and stated that the City has addressed the issues outlined in the letter. Mr. Herskowitz
noted that the stormwater management revisions were originally being reviewed along with
topsoil management but since had been separated into two issues. Mr. Herskowitz went on to
address a question on what other federal regulations might be impacted by this section. He
stated that where an Army Corps of Engineers permit for wetlands connected to a stream or
where there is an OEPA permit for disconnected wetlands, then those permit conditions govern.
Mr. Estabrook asked about the process for these regulations after the City adopts them such as
whether MORPC signs off on them? Mr. Herskowitz replied they do not; however, for
floodplains to be modified, you must have ODNR approval.
Mr. Estabrook referred to the section regarding re-aligning streams. Mr. Herskowitz stated that
if someone wants to conduct a stream restoration project in a stream corridor protection zone, the
City would likely permit it. It is not the intent to preclude activity that would have a positive
effect. Ms. Campbell asked about whether a road widening would be permitted. Mr. Herskowitz
replied that there is language that would allow the City of Dublin to conduct activities that are
essential to provide a public service like roads or utilities, i.e., constructing new facilities in an
existing area. The City would not necessarily relocate a stream to construct a road, but it may
span it with structures.
Mr. Cecutti asked Mr. Herskowitz what he would anticipate the public feedback to be. Mr.
Herskowitz replied that there was a very extensive stakeholder process conducted mostly by
Columbus in the Big Darby and Hellbranch water sheds to develop these stream protection
zones, which are 200 feet in some cases. Dublin's are very reasonable. For example, for less
than 100 acres of drainage area they are 25 feet from top of bank, and for over 1000 acres of
development it may be capped at 200 feet. Ms. Campbell asked if these proposed revisions are
being done in anticipation of future growth of Dublin's boundaries? Mr. Herskowitz replied that
it is simply Dublin recognizing it needs to do a better job from an environmental and a flood
control perspective of managing streams in urbanizing areas. It is intended to avoid the potential
of the City needing to spend public money to restore or do flood control in an area that is
recognized as being prone to flooding. Ms. Carr is a civil engineer and stated that she has done
stream restorations where the project ends up costing millions of dollars because a stream starts
to meander towards someone's house. This type of regulation helps the City to not have to deal
CSAC 5/10105
Page 4 of 6
with such issues after the fact. If the builders are not showing great opposition to it, then that is a
plus for the City. Mr. Manifold asked if the person who would not agree with this policy is
someone wanting to build a house closer to the stream but is restricted. Ms. Carr agreed that is a
potential situation as well as developer who perhaps could get two more houses in a subdivision.
Mr. Herskowitz stated there is plenty of language for non-conforming uses for existing structures
and have borrowed from some of the FEMA rules where if an improvement is less than 50
percent of the footprint then it might be grandfathered in. He stated that is was Engineering
staff's intent that existing variance language in other parts of City codes be utilized if anyone
wanted to formally have a stream corridor protection zone reconsidered. LU&LRP is helping to
outline this process, and this should be determined over the next several months.
Ms. Carr asked if there is any regulation currently in place where someone could designate an
easement and turn it over to the City? Mr. Herskowitz replied that he works on a grant team who
pursues Ciean Ohio Water Funds money to purchase land adjacent to streams or other apparent
areas. The EPA has a Construction Grant Program called 319 for non-source point pollution,
and that is the only type of project they will consider where conservation easements are being
donated. The funds are only used for stream setback or stream slope stabilization projects or
stream restoration projects. In response to a question from Ms. Carr, Mr. Herskowitz stated that
those grant funds are more project-specific, and the proposed regulations are more an across-the-
board attempt to deal with areas that are prone to flooding. Some have likened the stream
corridor protection zone to free retention basins because the water has a place to back out, and
pollutants and sediments can settle out, then when the rain is done, the water goes back into the
stream. It also reduces velocity when you connect the flood plain to the channel.
Mr. Estabrook referred to the stream that runs along the south side of the Dublin Cemetery
asking what is being done there? Noting he was referring to a stream along Clover Ct./Monterey
Dr., Mr. Herskowitz responded that the City is building retaining walls in that stream because
erosion was beginning to occur near the footprints of homes so this work is being done to contain
the stream. Establishment of a stream corridor protection zone would be a way to avoid this type
of situation from the beginning.
Ms. Campbell asked how the proposed regulations would impact easements that homeowners
have given to the City of Dublin if there is a stream involved with an easement. Mr. Herskowitz
replied it would not have an impact. For example, sanitary sewers are typically constructed in
the low-lying areas, which would be adjacent to streams, so those easements would remain in
effect. Emergency maintenance activities that City staff would need to do to maintain a facility
would be a permitted use. Usually easements are areas where construction is prevented anyway
because public utilities need access for maintenance.
Ms. Carr referred to the regulations stating "being preserved in its natural state," asking if the
City of Dublin is responsible for enforcing that? Mr. Herskowitz stated that this is still being
determined, but the City has Code Enforcement Officers who are responsible for enforcing the
Tree Ordinance and he suspects it would be those staff members. Mr. Herskowitz stated that the
City of Dublin is required as a Phase 2 permit community to do public education and outreach.
This would be a great opportunity to promote the new regulations. He also noted the flexibility
of staff in working with the public to resolve problem situations.
' CSAC 5/10/05
Page 5 of 6
Ms. Campbell asked how much acreage in the City of Dublin this would impact? Mr.
Herskowitz responded that the City has GIS mapping utilizing aerial photography and the blue
line streams actually show up. He believes there are approximately 50 miles of streams in the
City, estimating that approximately 25 miles of that are mapped by FEMA so those floodplains
are already established. These regulations would affect the other approximately 25 miles of
streams. Dublin will be flexible with developments that are in the pipeline now, but will try to
get support where it can. Mr. Herskowitz noted that one thing that makes the Dublin regulations
easier to implement is the inclusion of a table (vs. just a formula) that lists ranges.
Mr. Estabrook asked if curb and gutter are required in all new-build areas in Dublin? Mr.
Herskowitz responded that stormwater management systems must be proposed and reviewed
with all new development. Mr. Hammersmith added that the City standard does require it on all
streets as part of the storm sewer system.
Mr. Herskowitz presented some handout materials to help establish what is or is not a stream.
He added that the City focused on a definition that talks about "terrestrial vegetation,"which is
vegetation that grows in most places except for in streams. That helps differentiate a stream
from a swale, ditch or open channel where the setback would not apply.
Ms. Carr asked if the City would allow developers to utilize this setback zone to meet open space
dedication requirements. Mr. Herskowitz replied that he does believe it to be the intent of
LU&LRP to permit this setback as part of the open space requirements. Ms. Carr asked if that
would be considered beneficial or detrimental. Mr. Herskowitz replied that these might be the
areas where the wetlands or streamside vegetation might tend to be so he sees it as beneficial.
Ms. Carr noted that it would likely help with developer buy-in if this setback is included as part
of the open space dedication.
Mr. Roth noted that the City widened the floodplain a number of years ago and that it already
established a no-build zone. Mr. Herskowitz replied that the Floodway + 20 (ft. on either side) is
the established code. He clarified that the new regulations would pertain to areas where the
floodways have not been defined by FEMA.
Mr. Estabrook stated that because these proposed regulations are still under review by other
entities (currently internal review by LU&LRP staff for implementation), he asked that further
discussion be delayed until the June 14 meeting. If anyone has questions that arise, they could
be referred to Ms. Crandall or Mr. Herskowitz. Mr. Herskowitz stated that he would follow-up
specifically on the questions relating to a variance process and whether the City is allowing this
land to be used towards the open space requirement. Mr. Estabrook stated that e-mail is likely
the best means for this communication.
Mr. Herskowitz stated that he is involved along with several other staff on the Mid-Ohio
Regional Planning Commission {MORPC) Greenways Committee, and they have offered to
provide a presentation to CSAC if interested. He had brought along a 6-minute videotape of the
ZO-minute presentation and offered to make that available along with other materials on
watercourse management, etc.
Mr. Estabrook summarized that the group would first review the information in more detail and
be prepared to take action at the June 14 meeting. This will provide an opportunity for Mr.
CSAC 5/10/OS
Page 6 of 6
Herskowitz to get answers on the issues under question, and LU&LRP the opportunity to address
any issues they might have on the proposed regulations. Mr. Herskowitz noted that he is meeting
with LU&LRP later in the week. Mr. Herskowitz stated that he could provide an overview for
the Commission on some of the other changes outlined in his report. Mr. Estabrook asked that
information be ready for the June meeting.
Ms. Crandall noted that she would be providing the Commission a draft report on the summary
and recommendations for Deer Management discussed at previous meetings. This report will be
e-mail to CSAC members for review prior to the next meeting. Comments can be e-mailed back
to Ms. Crandall or provided at the next meeting to Tami Moore.
V. Next Meeting: June 14, 2005
Ms. Crandall will not be in attendance at the June 14 meeting; however, Mr. Herskowitz will be
there to address the stormwater management issue.
VI. Adjournment
There being no further business, Mr. Manifold called for a motion to adjourn, seconded by Ms.
Campbell. All in favor, the meeting was adjourned.
CSAC 5/10/OS
Page 1 of 6
Community Services Advisory Commission
May 10, 2005
Minutes
Commission Members Present: Robin Campbell, Melinda Carr, David Cecutti, Bill
Estabrook, Todd Manifold, and Randy Roth (joined
meeting at approx. 7:15 p.m.)
Staff Members Present: Michelle Crandall, Director of Administrative
Services, Jay Herskowitz, Asst. City Engineer -
Utilities, Paul Hammersmith, Dir. of Engineering
(City Engineer), and Tami Moore, Recorder
Public Guests: Carrie Mayer -Dublin Schools student for a
government class project
I. Call to Order
Vice-chairman Bill Estabrook called the meeting to order.
II. Public Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
None.
III. Approval of Minutes of Apri112, 2005 Meeting
Mr. Manifold made a motion to approve as submitted the minutes of the April 12, 2005 meeting.
Ms. Campbell seconded the motion, and the vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion.
IV. Storm Water Management
Ms. Crandall opened the presentation stating that this is an assignment referred by City Council
for the Commission to review the proposed stormwater management regulations as revised by
City staff. She then introduced Jay Herskowitz, Asst. City Engineer -Utilities, who was present
to provide background information and the changes in the regulations. Mr. Herskowitz stated
that Dublin has had a Stormwater Ordinance in effect since approximately 1998. It was
developed as part of a Stormwater Master Plan project in which Engineering delineated all the
water sheds in the City, identified Capital Improvement Project needs, identified operations and
maintenance budget needs, and since that time have worked to implement the program. Along
the way, there has been some impact from federal regulations that were passed down to the
State~ne being the Clean Water Act-that was amended in 2001. It revised the area of land
disturbance above which erosion and sediment controls would be required. The Ordinance that
was developed as part of the Stormwater Master Plan project had already addressed that issue,
but had indicated the rule that was in effect at the time which was 2 acres or greater. Although
utilizing the more current regulations were the day-to-day practice at Dublin, staff thought it
important to revise the Ordinance to reflect the update. Several other minor inconsistencies were
addressed as part of a "laundry list" of recommendations, and Dublin hired the consultant back
CSAC 5/10/OS
Page 2 of 6
who initially worked on the Storm Water Master Plan Project. Work was done over many
months going over the Ordinance, drafting revisions, consolidating some sections in the Code
and adding some entirely new sections where staff felt the need to be pro-active in terms of flood
plain management. This process was completed in October of 2004, and then staff developed a
report for Council who felt it was important to have an advisory group look at the proposed
changes.
Mr. Estabrook opened the floor for questions or discussions. Ms. Campbell questioned why
when Dublin has had experts working on this for six to seven months is it being brought before
this Commission? Mr. Herskowitz replied it was to have the public involved for buy-in and
acceptance of the revisions. He also pointed out that there is a new Code section where Dublin is
proposing to control development adjacent to streams, and the City is very sensitive to the impact
that might have in terms of people's ability to develop their land. Therefore, staff reached out to
several groups to get "stakeholder feedback." In addition to the public, this has also included
other consulting firms, builders, etc. Ms. Crandall added that if Council had not assigned this
project to CSAC, they probably would have had a Council committee review it in more detail.
Mr. Estabrook asked if the review had been complete by other City entities. Mr. Herskowitz
replied that the City's Land Use and Long-Range Planning (LU&LRP) staff is still reviewing it
in terms of implementation and consistency with other code sections such as the tree ordinance.
There is an adopted Resolution for the City to begin conservation design, and the new Code
section on the stream setbacks relates to the conservation design. Ms. Crandall added that
eventually the Planning & Zoning Commission would review some elements of the proposed
code section relating to how it is implemented. Mr. Herskowitz stated that the City Manager
asked LU&LRP to consider presenting this material, perhaps in parallel with the CSAC review
or maybe after its review, and that is still being worked out. In response to Mr. Estabrook asking
if they were reviewing it on the same timeline, Mr. Herskowitz replied that it has not yet been
decided.
Mr. Estabrook asked if there is any section of the proposed revisions that needs more attention
than others? Mr. Herskowitz replied that Section 53.200 is the new proposed stream setback
requirements noting that Legal has reviewed it, and it basically restricts people's ability to
develop adjacent to areas where flooding may occur. Some of the Engineering staff see this
simply as an extension of other rules that are already part of the City code. The stream corridor
protection zones that were developed here are an attempt to mimic what essentially are the
floodways of streams-the areas where the flood water velocities are more severe and where
flooding potential and risks to the public are concerns. What this proposed section would do is,
based on the contributing drainage area to any proposed development site, you could refer to a
table in the Ordinance for the recommended setback criteria that has been developed based on a
hard scientific type of review. Many jurisdictions in the Columbus area are considering this-
Columbus for example-and as part of the project The Ohio State University analyzed aerial
photography for streams in Central Ohio over a 30-year period and were able to predict
mathematically what the meander zones are for streams based simply on the contributing
drainage area. Mr. Herskowitz stated that he sees developers being able to use a recommended
setback established in the regulations as a benefit to them because gathering the data is a very
expensive process, and the City is essentially doing that work in areas where FEMA has not
already provided data. Mr. Manifold clarified that this includes setbacks for both landscaping
and a house or building. Mr. Herskowitz agreed it does and explained that the City has dealt
CSAC 5/10/OS
Page 3 of 6
with issues in areas that were developed in the 70's and 80's where homes encroached on
channels, and the City has had to do expensive engineering studies and restoration projects.
Mr. Estabrook stated that there seems to be many changes to 53.200, and Mr. Herskowitz
clarified that this section is entirely new. Mr. Estabrook asked if the Army Corps of Engineers
and FEMA standards are the starting point for the regulations. He also asked if this is going to
provide more protection and regulation in a vast part of Dublin, or a small part of Dublin, or is
this primarily designed for the newly developed areas? Mr. Herskowitz replied that it is
primarily designed for areas where FEMA has not provided information. The City already has
regulations to guide it in being protective of the public and the environment in areas where
FEMA has conducted studies and have physically mapped those areas-being the Floodway +
20 restriction. What Ohio State and other jurisdictions are trying to come up with is how to
estimate that in areas where FEMA has not provided that data.
Ms. Carr asked if the City had solicited builder input on the proposed regulations. Mr.
Herskowitz replied that it had and provided copies of a letter dated November 16, 2004 from the
BIA, and stated that the City has addressed the issues outlined in the letter. Mr. Herskowitz
noted that the stormwater management revisions were originally being reviewed along with
topsoil management but since had been separated into two issues. Mr. Herskowitz went on to
address a question on what other federal regulations might be impacted by this section. He
stated that where an Army Corps of Engineers permit for wetlands connected to a stream or
where there is an OEPA permit for disconnected wetlands, then those permit conditions govern.
Mr. Estabrook asked about the process for these regulations after the City adopts them such as
whether MORPC signs off on them? Mr. Herskowitz replied they do not; however, for
floodplains to be modified, you must have ODNR approval.
Mr. Estabrook referred to the section regarding re-aligning streams. Mr. Herskowitz stated that
if someone wants to conduct a stream restoration project in a stream corridor protection zone, the
City would likely permit it. It is not the intent to preclude activity that would have a positive
effect. Ms. Campbell asked about whether a road widening would be permitted. Mr. Herskowitz
replied that there is language that would allow the City of Dublin to conduct activities that are
essential to provide a public service like roads or utilities, i.e., constructing new facilities in an
existing area. The City would not necessarily relocate a stream to construct a road, but it may
span it with structures.
Mr. Cecutti asked Mr. Herskowitz what he would anticipate the public feedback to be. Mr.
Herskowitz replied that there was a very extensive stakeholder process conducted mostly by
Columbus in the Big Darby and Hellbranch water sheds to develop these stream protection
zones, which are 200 feet in some cases. Dublin's are very reasonable. For example, for less
than 100 acres of drainage area they are 25 feet from top of bank, and for over 1000 acres of
development it may be capped at 200 feet. Ms. Campbell asked if these proposed revisions are
being done in anticipation of future growth of Dublin's boundaries? Mr. Herskowitz replied that
it is simply Dublin recognizing it needs to do a better job from an environmental and a flood
control perspective of managing streams in urbanizing areas. It is intended to avoid the potential
of the City needing to spend public money to restore or do flood control in an area that is
recognized as being prone to flooding. Ms. Carr is a civil engineer and stated that she has done
stream restorations where the project ends up costing millions of dollars because a stream starts
to meander towards someone's house. This type of regulation helps the City to not have to deal
CSAC 5/10/OS
Page 4 of 6
with such issues after the fact. If the builders are not showing great opposition to it, then that is a
plus for the City. Mr. Manifold asked if the person who would not agree with this policy is
someone wanting to build a house closer to the stream but is restricted. Ms. Carr agreed that is a
potential situation as well as developer who perhaps could get two more houses in a subdivision.
Mr. Herskowitz stated there is plenty of language for non-conforming uses for existing structures
and have borrowed from some of the FEMA rules where if an improvement is less than 50
percent of the footprint then it might be grandfathered in. He stated that is was Engineering
staff s intent that existing variance language in other parts of City codes be utilized if anyone
wanted to formally have a stream corridor protection zone reconsidered. LU&LRP is helping to
outline this process, and this should be determined over the next several months.
Ms. Carr asked if there is any regulation currently in place where someone could designate an
easement and turn it over to the City? Mr. Herskowitz replied that he works on a grant team who
pursues Clean Ohio Water Funds money to purchase land adjacent to streams or other apparent
areas. The EPA has a Construction Grant Program called 319 for non-source point pollution,
and that is the only type of project they will consider where conservation easements are being
donated. The funds are only used for stream setback or stream slope stabilization projects or
stream restoration projects. In response to a question from Ms. Carr, Mr. Herskowitz stated that
those grant funds are more project-specific, and the proposed regulations are more anacross-the-
board attempt to deal with areas that are prone to flooding. Some have likened the stream
corridor protection zone to free retention basins because the water has a place to back out, and
pollutants and sediments can settle out, then when the rain is done, the water goes back into the
stream. It also reduces velocity when you connect the flood plain to the channel.
Mr. Estabrook referred to the stream that runs along the south side of the Dublin Cemetery
asking what is being done there? Noting he was referring to a stream along Clover Ct./Monterey
Dr., Mr. Herskowitz responded that the City is building retaining walls in that stream because
erosion was beginning to occur near the footprints of homes so this work is being done to contain
the stream. Establishment of a stream corridor protection zone would be a way to avoid this type
of situation from the beginning.
Ms. Campbell asked how the proposed regulations would impact easements that homeowners
have given to the City of Dublin if there is a stream involved with an easement. Mr. Herskowitz
replied it would not have an impact. For example, sanitary sewers are typically constructed in
the low-lying areas, which would be adjacent to streams, so those easements would remain in
effect. Emergency maintenance activities that City staff would need to do to maintain a facility
would be a permitted use. Usually easements are areas where construction is prevented anyway
because public utilities need access for maintenance.
Ms. Carr referred to the regulations stating "being preserved in its natural state," asking if the
City of Dublin is responsible for enforcing that? Mr. Herskowitz stated that this is still being
determined, but the City has Code Enforcement Officers who axe responsible for enforcing the
Tree Ordinance and he suspects it would be those staff members. Mr. Herskowitz stated that the
City of Dublin is required as a Phase 2 permit community to do public education and outreach.
This would be a great opportunity to promote the new regulations. He also noted the flexibility
of staff in working with the public to resolve problem situations.
CSAC 5/10/05
Page 5 of 6
Ms. Campbell asked how much acreage in the City of Dublin this would impact? Mr.
Herskowitz responded that the City has GIS mapping utilizing aerial photography and the blue
line streams actually show up. He believes there are approximately 50 miles of streams in the
City, estimating that approximately 25 miles of that are mapped by FEMA so those floodplains
are already established. These regulations would affect the other approximately 25 miles of
streams. Dublin will be flexible with developments that are in the pipeline now, but will try to
get support where it can. Mr. Herskowitz noted that one thing that makes the Dublin regulations
easier to implement is the inclusion of a table (vs. just a formula) that lists ranges.
Mr. Estabrook asked if curb and gutter are required in all new-build areas in Dublin? Mr.
Herskowitz responded that stormwater management systems must be proposed and reviewed
with all new development. Mr. Hammersmith added that the City standard does require it on all
streets as part of the storm sewer system.
Mr. Herskowitz presented some handout materials to help establish what is or is not a stream.
He added that the City focused on a definition that talks about "terrestrial vegetation," which is
vegetation that grows in most places except for in streams. That helps differentiate a stream
from a swale, ditch or open channel where the setback would not apply.
Ms. Carr asked if the City would allow developers to utilize this setback zone to meet open space
dedication requirements. Mr. Herskowitz replied that he does believe it to be the intent of
LU&LRP to permit this setback as part of the open space requirements. Ms. Carr asked if that
would be considered beneficial or detrimental. Mr. Herskowitz replied that these might be the
areas where the wetlands or streamside vegetation might tend to be so he sees it as beneficial.
Ms. Carr noted that it would likely help with developer buy-in if this setback is included as part
of the open space dedication.
Mr. Roth noted that the City widened the floodplain a number of years ago and that it already
established a no-build zone. Mr. Herskowitz replied that the Floodway + 20 (ft. on either side) is
the established code. He clarified that the new regulations would pertain to areas where the
floodways have not been defined by FEMA.
Mr. Estabrook stated that because these proposed regulations are still under review by other
entities (currently internal review by LU&LRP staff for implementation), he asked that further
discussion be delayed until the June 14 meeting. If anyone has questions that arise, they could
be referred to Ms. Crandall or Mr. Herskowitz. Mr. Herskowitz stated that he would follow-up
specifically on the questions relating to a variance process and whether the City is allowing this
land to be used towards the open space requirement. Mr. Estabrook stated that e-mail is likely
the best means for this communication.
Mr. Herskowitz stated that he is involved along with several other staff on the Mid-Ohio
Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) Greenways Committee, and they have offered to
provide a presentation to CSAC if interested. He had brought along a 6-minute videotape of the
20-minute presentation and offered to make that available along with other materials on
watercourse management, etc.
Mr. Estabrook summarized that the group would first review the information in more detail and
be prepared to take action at the June I4 meeting. This will provide an opportunity for Mr.
CSAC 5/10/OS
Page 6 of 6
Herskowitz to get answers on the issues under question, and LU&LRP the opportunity to address
any issues they might have on the proposed regulations. Mr. Herskowitz noted that he is meeting
with LU&LRP later in the week. Mr. Herskowitz stated that he could provide an overview for
the Commission on some of the other changes outlined in his report. Mr. Estabrook asked that
information be ready for the June meeting.
Ms. Crandall noted that she would be providing the Commission a draft report on the summary
and recommendations for Deer Management discussed at previous meetings. This report will be
e-mail to CSAC members for review prior to the next meeting. Comments can be e-mailed back
to Ms. Crandall or provided at the next meeting to Tami Moore.
V. Next Meeting: June 14, 2005
Ms. Crandall will not be in attendance at the June 14 meeting; however, Mr. Herskowitz will be
there to address the stormwater management issue.
VI. Adjournment
There being no further business, Mr. Manifold called for a motion to adjourn, seconded by Ms.
Campbell. All in favor, the meeting was adjourned.
CSAC 6/14/05
Page 1 of 4
Community Services Advisory Commission
June 14, 2005
Minutes
Commission Members Present: Robin Campbell, Melinda Carr, David Cecutti, Bill
Estabrook, Todd Manifold, and Randy Roth
Staff Members Present: Jay Herskowitz, Asst. City Engineer -Utilities, Paul
Hammersmith, Dir. of Engineering (City Engineer),
Gary Gunderman, Asst. Dir. of Land Use and Long
Range Planning and Tami Moore, Recorder
Guests: none
I. Call to Order
Vice-chairman Bill Estabrook established that there was a quorum present and called the meeting to
order.
II. Public Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
None.
III. Approval of Minutes of May 10, 2005 Meeting
Mr. Manifold made a motion to approve as submitted the minutes of the May 10, 2005 meeting.
Mr. Cecutti seconded the motion, and the vote was 6-0 in favor of the motion.
IV. Deer Management Report
Mr. Estabrook asked if everyone had received and reviewed the Deer Management Report to
Council drafted by Ms. Crandall. Ms. Campbell noted a change in spelling the work "aerial". Ms.
Carr stated that she had not yet completed her review of the report. Mr. Estabrook stated that the
topic would remain open until later in the meeting. After the Stormwater Management review and
discussion, the members returned to this topic. There were no additions or other revisions
suggested. Mr. Roth made a motion to approve the Deer Management report with the word revision
noted. Ms. Campbell seconded the motion, and the vote was 6-0 in favor of approval. The report
will be forwarded on to City Council.
V. Storm Water Management
Mr. Estabrook summarized that last month the CSAC members had requested two things: 1) that
any member having questions or needing additional information while further reviewing the
stormwater management regulations be able to contact Jay Herskowitz directly, and noted that
correspondence had successfully taken place; and 2) that Mr. Herskowitz report back to
Commission members after talking to Land Use & Long-Range Planning. Mr. Herskowitz stated
that he would like an opportunity to guide the Commission through his report highlighting the
revisions to the Stormwater Management Regulations. He noted that the first page which provides
an introduction and background had been sufficiently covered in the last meeting, and he went on to
Page 2 of his memo dated May 6, 2005 "Proposed Revisions to Chapter 53 - Stormwater
CSAC 6/14/05
Page 2 of 4
Management Regulations." Mr. Herskowitz went through the report highlighting the revisions and
additions in each section and addressing any questions.
Mr. Roth commended Mr. Herskowitz on the overall clarity of the Regulations/Ordinance and how
well the definitions assisted in understanding them.
Mr. Estabrook asked for clarification on the language in Section 53.070 that exempts less than 500
ft. of construction asking if that includes the building and parking area? Mr. Herskowitz read the
code section clarifying that the exemption pertains to any expansion of building, structure or
pavement of less than 500 sq. ft. which results in new impervious area on a project site.
Related to Section 53.090, Mr. Estabrook asked if the City uses retention ponds for irrigation
purposes for public right-of--way, etc. Mr. Herskowitz responded that Avery-Muirfield does have a
well and pump system for irrigation. Mr. Hammersmith clarified, however, that typically wells are
used to recharge the ponds and any irrigation is off the public water supply so the ponds are not
used as a source for irrigation. On the same section, Ms. Carr noted the 12 ft. maximum depth on
retention ponds and asked if it establishes a minimum depth. Mr. Herskowitz stated that it is site
specific.
Mr. Herskowitz introduced Gary Gunderman, Asst. Dir. of Land Use & Long-Range Planning. In
reviewing Section 53.300, Mr. Gunderman stated that he had found language typically related to
zoning as well as more technical, hydrologic data that relates to engineering and determined that it
may be more appropriate to provide atwo-step variance process. Mr. Herskowitz stated that this
revised process was then reviewed and approved by the City's legal staff and had just been e-mailed
to CSAC members that day. It creates a new section called Appeals to address where anyone who
wants to have a permitted use in a Stream Corridor Protection Zone not in compliance with the
ordinance, they are provided an opportunity for Appeal. In the case of a developer wanting to
dispute the width of a Stream Corridor Protection Zone or whether it should apply in a particular
area, that would go to the City Engineer.
Mr. Gunderman informed the Commission that because Chapter 53 does contain zoning-related
issues, particularly in sections 210, 220 and 230, he would like to provide the Planning and Zoning
Commission and opportunity to review it (at least informally).
Mr. Herskowitz displayed a map showing areas (in red) where the new regulations would be
enforced upon development, as well as areas where it does not apply because the land does not have
a stream through it or it has already been platted or developed. Mr. Gunderman noted that there are
areas currently outside the City not shown on the map where the regulations would be enforced if
annexed. Mr. Gunderman noted that the areas shown in blue are FEMA-mapped flood zones and
therefore already regulated. Also shown in blue are areas such as Heather Bluff where the land has
already been preliminarily platted and the regulations will not apply. Mr. Gunderman noted that
there are some areas shaded blue because they have very old plats, but the plats are not populated on
all lots, and there is some potential for them to be consolidated and redeveloped. If that happened,
the new regulations would then be implemented. The map also shows areas in white where there is
rural housing-built before the City developed-that have potential to be consolidated and
redeveloped, and the City would at least attempt to have the regulations apply (i.e. O'Shaughnessy
Hills).
CSAC 6/14/05
Page 3 of 4
Mrs. Campbell pointed out that a stream is constantly moving and changing and wanted to ensure
that if a tract of land is changed significantly enough over time that there is flexibility in
enforcement. Mr. Herskowitz replied that the Zones would protect property as a stream moved
within a meander belt.
Mr. Herskowitz referred back to discussion at the May 10 meeting reiterating that the BIA had been
involved in reviewing the regulations and their issues had been addressed.
Ms. Carr asked how the Stream Corridor Protection Zone would relate to the zoning open space
requirements and asked how much this would change the nature of development in the community?
Mr. Gunderman responded that conservation design standards could call for exactly the same area
where these regulations would apply or a stream protection zone could perhaps delineate a larger
open area. However, the regulations would not dramatically change the fundamental character of
development from what we would expect under conservation design.
Mr. Herskowitz stated that he would prefer to present the Stormwater Management Regulations
along with a recommendation from CSAC to the Planning & Zoning Commission at the July 24
meeting, informing them that the plan is to move forward with a recommendation to Council in
August. Mr. Hammersmith noted that Council wanted to make sure that a review and
recommendation of the regulations moved forward in a timely manner and had requested a report
back from CSAC in July. He suggested that instead there be a progress report to Council in July.
CSAC will meet on July 12 to determine a formal recommendation on the regulations, then the
Planning & Zoning Commission will review it on July 24. CSAC will meet again on August 9 to
hear the comments from the Commission and finalize its recommendation to Council for the August
15 meeting. Mr. Herskowitz stated that he would make final revisions and provide a clean
document to CSAC members by the July 12 meeting.
Mr. Estabrook asked the members for any additional comments or questions.
Mr. Roth praised the clarity of the document and noted that he liked what is being done regarding
safety features on the design of storm water retention. He asked for clarification on whether the
Stream Corridor Protection Zone is consistent with what FEMA would impose, or is Dublin taking
it further? Mr. Herskowitz responded that the zone essentially mimics the City's Floodway + 20
requirement. Mr. Hammersmith pointed that these regulations help the City by establishing similar
protection in areas FEMA has not studied. Mr. Roth asked if FEMA later chose to study a stream
within Dublin's Stream Corridor Protection Zone, would that take precedence over this regulation-
generally questioning the permanence of Dublin establishing the zone. Mr. Gunderman responded
that if FEMA restudied it and decided that the flood hazard had increased and included areas along
streams that had not been previously regulated by FEMA, they would be thankful that Dublin had
already protected those areas similarly to what FEMA would do.
Mr. Roth asked what effect diverting or piping stormwater from one area to another might have on
stream corridor widths. Mr. Herskowitz stated that what the Ohio State and ODNR study found was
that the most significant variable was not land use or impervious area, it was the acreage-not in
determining flows, but in determining how the meander pattern occurs. The FEMA floodplain
analysis does not factor in the meander. Mr. Hammersmith added that he believes the City is very
conscious about erosion protection as a result of any waiver. Mr. Herskowitz provided an example
of a recent project review and noted that the City is willing to consider site-specific data provided
CSAC 6/14/05
Page 4 of 4
by a developer if collected in accordance with Dublin's criteria. If a waiver of a Stream Corridor
Protection Zone was considered, it would likely be an adjustment of a width.
Mr. Roth also asked about lots that have deep slopes where the owner may want to build up high
but within the protected area and wondered if that would be dealt with by BZA. Mr. Herskowitz
read a code section that reserves the right to consider slopes and widen the zone. Mr. Roth clarified
he is referring to narrowing it. Mr. Gunderman responded that if a property owner wants to do so, it
would require that an engineer working on the owner's behalf provide calculations to account for
the difference in terrain and submit data for consideration by the City Engineer. BZA Appeals
would be reserved for what Mr. Gunderman referred to as homeowner-based permitted/prohibited
land use issues such as accessory structures in protected areas.
Regarding this same issue, Ms. Carr asked if Dublin was looking at an area where the slope is
extremely steep on one side and perhaps a variance is needed, but because of that the floodplain is
all to the other side of the stream and a much wider area for the stream corridor would be desired
there, could that be considered? Mr. Hammersmith responded that the conservation design element
would provide for that. Mr. Gunderman added that the thing that is helpful about this process is that
Dublin will almost always implement it when there is an application for a new development
proposal. Proposals must include a set of site drawings and engineering calculations for stormwater
runoff, and staff would site where the floodway protection area should be on the drawings. The
Engineering staff could adjust the zone accordingly. There are some places where the regulations
will be needed, but the City won't have that kind of a new development plan, so staff may not have
that opportunity is all cases. Mr. Herskowitz added that FEMA did a technical bulletin for areas
just outside of floodplains that says you are not supposed to build the face of a foundation within
20' of the floodplain limit because of a residual flooding risk unless geotechnical analysis supports
it. Dublin could also consider that type of data in an effort to provide flexibility.
Mr. Roth referred to the letter from the BIA dated November 16, 2004, stating that the City had
considered their suggestions on topsoil management and wetlands. Mr. Herskowitz noted the third
suggestion in the letter was regarding the requirement and timing for a survey stating the City
agreed with the BIA's suggestion on that issue as well. There were no other major issues.
Mr. Estabrook summarized the schedule as outlined previously for continuing the review and
recommendation on the proposed regulations. Mr. Herskowitz stated he would e-mail the modified
text to CSAC members prior to the next meeting. There were no additional questions or comments
on this issue.
VI. Next Meeting: July 12, 2005
Mr. Estabrook noted that attendance for both the July and August meetings may be challenging with
the vacation season, but the Commission hopes to follow the plan for moving the review and
recommendation on the regulations along as outlined.
VII. Adjournment
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
CSAC 6/14/05
Page 1 of 4
Community Services Advisory Commission
July 12, 2005
Minutes
Commission Members Present: Melinda Carr, David Cecutti, Todd Manifold and Tom
Merritt,
Staff Members Present: Barb Cox, Asst. City Engineer - Dev., Paul
Hammersmith, Dir. of Engineering (City Engineer),
Michelle Crandall, Dir. of Administrative Services and
Tami Moore, Recorder
Guests: none
I. Call to Order
Chairman Tom Merritt established that there was a quorum present and called the meeting to order.
II. Public Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
None.
III. Approval of Minutes of June 14, 2005 Meeting
Mr. Merritt noted that minutes from the June 14, 2005 meeting had been distributed electronically
prior to the meeting and asked if everyone had an opportunity to review them. Several members
had not yet reviewed the minutes, so Mr. Merritt recommended that the Commission review the
minutes prior to the next meeting and they would be place on the agenda for approval at the August
9 meeting.
IV. Stormwater Management Regulations
Mr. Hammersmith introduced Ms. Cox, Asst. City Engineer - Dev., noting that due to the recent
resignation of Mr. Herskowitz, she would be taking over the Stormwater Management Regulations
revision process. Mr. Hammersmith stated that a draft memorandum of what would become
CSAC's recommendation to City Council on the proposed revisions to Chapter 53: Stormwater
Regulations, had been distributed for initial review and comment. It was noted that the date of the
next CSAC meeting, referenced in the memo, was incorrect and should be August 9. The
recommendation on the proposed ordinance and revisions is to be presented to City Council at the
August 15 meeting. Mr. Hammersmith highlighted the key issues in the memo that generally
outlines the review process that had taken place during the three CSAC meetings and the four major
issues/questions that had been discussed.
Mr. Merritt asked if staff anticipates the Stream Corridor Protection Zone (SCPZ) requirements
being applied to any particular location in Dublin. Mr. Hammersmith replied that a draft map had
been reviewed at the June CSAC meeting and is currently being updated. The map will be available
for review again at the August meeting. Mr. Hammersmith noted that the SCPZ requirements will
not retroactively apply wherever there is already a Preliminary or Final Development Plan
approved, or in existing or established areas within the City, or where a FEMA designation already
exists along stream corridors.
CSAC 6/14/05
Page 2 of 4
Mr. Hammersmith acknowledged that Council had assigned CSAC the task of reviewing and
considering the proposed revisions to the stormwater regulations. Because the Planning & Zoning
Commission deals with many zoning and development-related issues, staff wants to involve them
by providing an overview of the revised regulations and an opportunity for them to give comments
back to CSAC for consideration. That meeting will be held on July 21, and then CSAC will meet
again on August 9 to consider their input and prepare in final form its recommendation to City
Council for the August 15 meeting.
Mr. Merritt asked if staff anticipates the Planning & Zoning Commission having any major
concerns regarding the stormwater regulations. Ms. Cox explained that P&Z will likely have many
of the same questions brought up by CSAC, and she plans to address those in her staff report as well
as inclusion of the CSAC meeting minutes to date on this issue. She noted that the P&Z meeting
will begin at 6:30 p.m. on July 21, and this issue is scheduled first on the agenda with a time limit of
30 minutes. Ms. Cox stated that in general the P&Z does not review construction details so she
expects more zoning-related issues like how the zone relates to the open space requirements, the
permitted and restricted uses established in the SCPZ, enforcement and appeals to BZA.
Ms. Cox previewed the PowerPoint presentation that will be shown to the Planning & Zoning
Commission and asked for input on any revisions. Mr. Hammersmith stated that CSAC would also
receive an electronic copy of the staff report going to P&Z in their Packet on July 15. Any
comments from CSAC can go to Tami Moore (tmoore e,dublin.oh.us) and forwarded to appropriate
staff. (Copies of the slides from the PowerPoint presentation are attached for reference.)
Ms. Crandall asked if the proposed regulations included consideration for impervious pavement.
Mr. Hammersmith stated that it had been researched, but there are not a lot of places it would apply
in Central Ohio. Ms. Cox added that it has to be done right to work and is difficult with the rock
and clay in this area. Also, it should only be done in a parking lot that would not be plowed or
salted often as salt or grit will block the porous nature of the surface. It may be an application
appropriate for a parking lot in a park or a facility that is not used in the winter. The proposed code
revisions do not preclude it being done.
Ms. Carr asked if the code regulations addressed bio-retention. Ms. Cox responded that it is
permitted and Dublin has worked with a few developers who have been willing to try it. Ms. Cox
said that initially staff had issues with the developer demonstrating enough information that they
met the removal rate. She also noted that currently there are not different standards for that type of
retention. Mr. Hammersmith added that staff will continue to clean up the ordinance prior to the
August 9 meeting, and one thing that will be taken out is some of the detailed design requirements.
These will be handled within the administrative code section, which may be an appropriate place to
include different requirements for bio-retention. Ms. Cox continued with the PowerPoint
presentation.
Mr. Merritt asked if the BIA is aware of proposed revisions and the impact on the development
community. Ms. Cox replied that they are aware noting that the new EPA regulations are in effect
so developers have already been required to follow those requirements. Dublin's code revisions are
intended to bring those requirements down to a local level to help with enforcement.
In discussing the increased preservation of riparian corridors within the SCPZ, Ms. Cox talked
about providing a list for comparison by the Planning & Zoning Commission to provide
CSAC 6/14/05
Page 3 of 4
clarification of what is and is not permitted within the SCPZ. There was discussion about
"invasive" species, and it was noted that vegetation could be removed as long as it is being replaced
with something else so it doesn't disturb the stabilization.
Ms. Cox discussed the requirement for new development to have the SCPZ shown on preliminary
and final development plans and all subsequent building permit applications. Ms. Carr asked about
the City requiring builders to supply an educational guidelines sheet to help the homeowner
understand the regulations in the SCPZ. Ms. Cox replied that the City struggles with that same
issue in the no-disturb and no-build zones. The City requires that the information is recorded on the
plat and that serves as the official documentation. She stated that it would be difficult for the City
to enforce requiring the builder to provide information to the buyer. Ms. Carr expressed the need to
somehow get the word about the SCPZ restrictions to the homebuyer in a way they can understand
it for it to be effective. Mr. Hammersmith agreed that better public education needs to happen for
both Planning and Engineering requirements such as this, and the City will strive to find a
mechanism to provide better communication. Ms. Cox noted the effort the City had made with the
Ameberleigh North development with the developer displaying the master plan for the park in their
model or sales trailer so potential buyers knew what would developed.
Ms. Cox asked for input from CSAC on the draft presentation and for any information they may
want staff to discuss with the P&Z Commission for feedback. Mr. Hammersmith noted that they
would be providing feedback on P&Z's reaction to the new SCPZ regulations.
Ms. Carr stated that something was discussed at a previous meeting that may affect the P&Z
Commission or how the regulations are written. The issue was the potential to adjust the SCPZ if
there is an area where it is really steep along one side of the stream. In this case, would Engineering
staff have the ability to adjust where the creek falls within the SCPZ rather than it being centered on
the creek as it appears to currently be written. Ms. Cox stated that a request to provide flexibility
based on topography could be addressed in the appeal process. Ms. Carr questioned whether
Engineering staff would be able to request an adjustment based on how it is currently written. Mr.
Hammersmith agreed it is a good point and staff will review it.
Mr. Manifold had a general question not related to the Stormwater Management topic. He asked
about the mass of pipe located in the Memorial Tournament parking lot south of the Bogey Inn.
Mr. Hammersmith was not familiar with any project in Dublin, but he noted that the last time he
saw a similar situation it was associated with a staging area for a City of Columbus project and
presumed that is likely the case.
V. Next Meeting: August 9, 2005
Mr. Merritt noted that CSAC intends to complete its review of the Stormwater Management
Regulations at the August 9 meeting and requested that Ms. Moore send an additional a-mail
reminder to CSAC members reminding them of the meeting prior to the agenda and minutes
distribution a-mail.
VI. Other
Ms. Crandall provided a brief update on the Deer Management issue. Council did hear CSAC's
recommendations and was in favor of them. Some of the different methods were discussed, and
more specifically they discussed the bow- hunting program in New Albany, noting that it would be
more difficult in Dublin to find an appropriate space. Council also requested additional information
about the spread of Lyme Disease. Council requested that staff work on a plan for more detailed
CSAC 6/14/05
Page 4 of 4
implementation of each of the recommendations. Ms. Crandall noted that she and other staff are
meeting with Dr. Burton and Mr. Reid Thompson of the Ohio Wildlife Center to discuss a strategic
plan and educational components for deer management in Dublin. She also noted that the City has
filled the new position of Nature Education Coordinator who will assist with this component.
VII. Adjournment
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT'
Minutes Excerpt -July 21, 2005
Page 1 of 6
(Prepared 8/4/05)
1. Chapter 53 -Stormwater Regulation Proposed Revisions
Barb Cox said staff was requesting that the Commission review these proposed changes, and
any comments or information received tonight will be forwarded to the Community Services
Advisory Commission for their consideration. Ms. Cox said also, there is a minor change
needed in the Zoning Code under the powers of the Board of Zoning Appeals in Chapter
153.231.
Ms. Cox said the revised Stormwater Regulations need to be in compliance with the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency's NPDF Phase 2 and the General Construction permits.
Ms. Cox said Dublin's current Chapter 53 applies to all development and there are very few
exemptions. She said the Stormwater quantity control is required to predetermine the
release rates based on Dublin's Stormwater Master Plan. It also requires Stormwater quality
control during construction and post-construction control that is permanent for the first flush
of water which, which at the time of adoption of them in 1998, was considered to be a half-
inch of rain.
Ms. Cox said the current Code includes Stormwater Management Plan submittal
information, the requirements needed in a plan, how the maintenance is supposed to operate,
and that the regulations are enforceable.
Ms. Cox said revisions required by the EPA include changing the volume and equations for
Post Construction Permanent Runoff Control to come into compliance with the permit. She
said it went up to the first 3/4-inch of rain, instead of the current '/2-inch. She said there are
also different draw-down times and details on how ponds and controlled measures are to be
designed. She said Dublin's standards need to be updated to meet EPA requirements.
Ms. Cox said the EPA was also requiring detailed information to be in an enforceable format
for erosion sediment control while projects are under construction.
Ms. Cox said there are details on redevelopment sites because Dublin requires it on all
projects and there are few exceptions, this is not currently outlined in the current version of
the new Code because the City does not give developers options like the EPA. She said
Dublin's is more stringent that what the EPA would require.
Ms. Cox said revisions that staff has requested include adding the exemptions to the quantity
control. She said the Historic District outlined in the Code will be used and those projects
that happen in the District, currently there is a step that happens...staff takes many of those
to City Council for Stormwater Waivers on just the quantity control. She said that
exemption in the Code will eliminate that step and the projects can be processed faster.
Ms. Cox said the current Code does not include an exemption for small site plan additions.
She said if generators or parking spaces are to be added, staff would like to include these
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes Excerpt -July 21, 2005
Page 2 of 6
(Prepared 8/4/05)
changes as an exemption also to alleviate a full engineering study being necessary when a
small addition is being added to the project.
Ms. Cox said another recommended Code revision is for a Stream Corridor Protection Zone
which will be discussed later. She said because of the Stream Corridor Protection Zone, the
staff requests to update the title of Chapter 53.
She said the minor clarifications on the details are itemized in the May 6, 2005 memo to
CSAC included in the Commission packet.
Ms. Cox said a new Emergent Sediment Control section was at the end of the new chapter
and it consolidated all of the City requirements on Emergent Control into one section so that
there is one point of reference.
Ms. Cox said the EPA timeframes for stabilizing the denuded (bare area) part of the site are
being added in this ordinance.
She said the details on the using of the temporary sediment settling basins, etc. on the site
during the construction, as required by the EPA are detailed in the revised Code.
Ms. Cox said the EPA has become more stringent on the maintenance/inspection and
recordkeeping done by the contractors and developers on site. She said the necessary plan
information details are to be added to the revised Code.
Ms. Cox said the Stream Corridor Protection Zone area is being recommended to be added
to the Code to help restrict land disturbances within the stream and riparian areas. She said
it was an expansion of the floodway, plus 20 requirements included in Dublin's Flood
Control chapter. She said staff feels that this will accommodate the natural meandering and
protects property and stream banks from erosion, and will improve the water quality in
Dublin's streams.
Ms. Cox said there are more restricted things that can go in the Stream Corridor Protection
Zone than permitted. She said construction, drudging, vehicle storage or driving,
disturbance of top soil or the vegetation, and private utilities are not permitted. She said
permitted uses include open space, passive recreation areas, removal of damaged trees, re-
vegetation, reforestation, and any public roadway to promote infrastructure with minimal
disturbance.
Ms. Cox said the Stream Corridor Protection Zones would be applied in new developments
and redevelopments of projects that do not currently have an approved Preliminary
Development Plan. She said they would not be retroactive into the rears of existing homes.
She said they will not be applied where FEMA has already designated a floodway or a
floodplain. Ms. Cox said it is for areas outside those already studied areas to try to protect
the streams. She said the information will be shown on the preliminary and final
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes Excerpt -July 21, 2005
Page 3 of 6
(Prepared 8/4/05)
development plans, and subsequent building permit plans, similar to floodways, no-build
zones and no-disturb zones (protected areas) are shown.
Ms. Cox showed a slide of a map highlighting where the Stream Corridor Protections Zones
would apply.
Ms. Cox said the appeals process, for delineation for the actual zone, the width, and the
location will be worked out with the City Engineer. She said after the fact, once established,
if they are on a plat, individual property owners wanting to go into that area for a deck, shed,
etc. will go to the BZA for review and approval with the revised Code. That power and
duty is being added to the BZA responsibilities.
Ms. Cox said the revisions will be seen as a slight increase in retention and detention basin
sizes seen on the development projects due to the '/2-inch to 3/4-inch volume change and
some of the detention times that they are required to do. She said more realistic quantity
control measures for Historic Dublin, plus removal of a step to City Council for those
waivers.
She said increased preservation requirements along the streams with the Corridor Protection
Zone will be seen. Those areas will have to be designated on the site plans. She said on the
preliminary and final development plans lines may be seen that are fairly new because of
this Code change. She said they would also be shown on single-family development final
plats.
Ms. Cox asked for input or recommendations from the Commission.
Ms. Reiss commented that she found it difficult the staff report because so much was
changing and there were so many cross outs, renumbering, etc.
Ms. Cox agreed that it was difficult to read, but she wanted the Commission to see what
changes were being done instead of just providing a clean copy.
Ms. Reiss referred to Section 53.070, Exceptions to the requirements where it covered
development related exceptions, single-family or duplex and the Scioto River Corridor
exemption which was everything from SR745 to SR257. She asked why that whole area
was being exempted.
Ms. Cox said the area between Dublin Road and Riverside Drive was an exemption
currently in the Code. She said the reason for it was that the City wanted to level out when
the water gets into the Scioto River. She said those areas are directly connected to the river.
Ms. Cox said if detention was done on that, it would slow up the water so that it gets into the
stream/creek that goes straight to the river. She said if slowed, that peak is going to come,
probably at about the same time that the peak is coming from other things up stream and it is
essentially to try to get the water out of those directly connected areas quicker so that when
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes Excerpt -July 21, 2005
Page 4 of 6
(Prepared 8/4/05)
the areas that have been detained upstream are finally getting into the creek, into the system,
everything is not going on at the same time in those properties next to the river. Ms. Cox
said it would be an overload on those properties. She said it was a timing issue.
Ms. Reiss said the reason EPA instituted these requirements was to increase the ug alitY of
our water. She asked since these directly drain into the Scioto River which goes into Griggs
Reservoir which goes directly into our drinking water supply, would not those be areas that
you would want to...
Ms. Cox replied that they are not exempted from the water quality control but from the
water ug antitX control. She said it was the volume of water, not the cleansing of the water.
She said there is not exemption from the cleaning of water of that first 3/4-inch of rain for the
first construction. Ms. Cox said the only part that is being exempted is the uq antitX control
and the timing of when that water exits the development's system.
Ms. Reiss asked if it still had to exit clean.
Ms. Cox agreed.
Mr. Messineo referred to Jane Brautigam's memo to City Council dated March 1, 2005,
where she stated that staff proposed that sections of the existing ordinance that reference
specific quality and quantity calculation methods and design criteria be deleted and moved
to an administrative design manual. He understood that the EPA had new quantity and
quality standards and that was why this was being instituted.
Ms. Cox said the new EPA standards were not so much for quantity as quality.
Mr. Messineo asked if the proposed Code changes would reduce Dublin's current water
quality.
Ms. Cox said it would not reduce the current water quality. She said the difference in the '/2
and 3/4 inch was the ualit calculation. She said the first 3/4-inch of rain is what washes the
parking lots, roofs, and roadways of dirt, debris, trash, litter, oils, etc. and it has to be
detained and cleaned before it gets into the creek system and subsequently into the river.
Mr. Messineo asked if the 3/4-inch represented a more stringent requirement.
Ms. Cox agreed that it was more stringent than Dublin's current 1/2-inch. She said Dublin's
Master Plan set predevelopment release rates. She said the quantity of water has to be
detained down to what the Master Plan requires from each of the development sites. She
said the number is conservative.
Mr. Messineo asked what "this is going to be moved to an administrative design manual"
meant.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes Excerpt -July 21, 2005
Page 5 of 6
(Prepared 8/4/05)
Ms. Cox said that was a step that has not been addressed yet by staff. She said mathematical
equations are not typically codified which was done in 1998. She said in this instance, the
Code has to be changed to update the standard to what the EPA wants to be done. Ms. Cox
said staff would like to pull some of the detailed engineering things out because they do get
update from time to time. She said it would be easier to change Dublin's policies rather than
the Code and run a reference in the Code that this design manual has to be followed.
Mr. Messineo understood that current Code had a Stormwater section.
Ms. Cox said it was in the Public Works section of the codified ordinances.
Mr. Messineo asked if a design manual was being proposed that will be referenced as
Ms. Cox said yes. She said the standard drawings work that way now.
Ms. Boring asked if this was the same as the CDM (Camp, Dresser, and McKee) map.
Ms. Cox said she believed the streams were taken off of the CDM map, but staff produced
the map.
Ms. Boring noted that the underground hydrology markings were not included.
Ms. Cox said no, because it was a surface stream.
Ms. Boring asked how the underground water could be protected.
Ms. Cox did not recommend that it be in the Stormwater Management section because it
deals with rainwater and surface runoff. She suggested it might be more of a Building Code
issue with drainage what happens with basements.
Ms. Boring asked if this proposed ordinance had been reviewed thoroughly by the
Community Service Advisory Commission (CSAC).
Ms. Cox said CSAC had reviewed it and it would go back to them because City Council had
asked them to formulate a formal recommendation.
Mr. Bird suggested that there be a motion made to acknowledge that the BZA taking on the
appeal process.
Ms. Wanner said in Chapter 253, Board of Zoning Appeals -Powers and Duties, it lists
what they do. She said it was a new section that would be added for the powers of the BZA
to review stormwater appeals.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes Excerpt -July 21, 2005
Page 6 of 6
(Prepared 8/4/05)
Mr. Smith said Council was not looking at the Commission to give BZA the power to do
this, they are just looking for its blessing as the planning authority to say they understand
this alters the Zoning Code.
Mr. Gerber said this looked fine. He said to go any deeper, there would need to be a
workshop.
He said City Council assigned this to CSAC, not the Commission.
Mr. Smith said whenever the zoning code is being changed or amended, the Commission
needs to be made aware of them and their approval is requested.
Mr. Messineo asked if this was coming before the Commission for ratification at some
point.
Mr. Gerber made a motion to recommend that City Council adopt the revisions that the
Community Service Advisory Commission has undertaken.
Mr. Gerber made a motion that the Commission supports this. Mr. Zimmerman seconded
the motion. The vote was as follows: Ms. Reiss, yes; Ms. Jones, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes;
Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Ms. Boring, yes; Mr. Messineo, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Approved 7-
0.)
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT
Minutes Excerpt -July 21, 2005
Page 1 of 6
(Prepared 8/4/05)
1. Chapter 53 -Stormwater Regulation Proposed Revisions
Barb Cox said staff was requesting that the Commission review these proposed changes, and
any comments or information received tonight will be forwarded to the Community Services
Advisory Commission for their consideration. Ms. Cox said also, there is a minor change
needed in the Zoning Code under the powers of the Board of Zoning Appeals in Chapter
153.231.
Ms. Cox said the revised Stormwater Regulations need to be in compliance with the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency's NPDF Phase 2 and the General Construction permits.
Ms. Cox said Dublin's current Chapter 53 applies to all development and there are very few
exemptions. She said the Stormwater quantity control is required to predetermine the
release rates based on Dublin's Stormwater Master Plan. It also requires Stormwater quality
control during construction and post-construction control that is permanent for the first flush
of water which, which at the time of adoption of them in 1998, was considered to be a half-
inch of rain.
Ms. Cox said the current Code includes Stormwater Management Plan submittal
information, the requirements needed in a plan, how the maintenance is supposed to operate,
and that the regulations are enforceable.
Ms. Cox said revisions required by the EPA include changing the volume and equations for
Post Construction Permanent Runoff Control to come into compliance with the permit. She
said it went up to the first '/4-inch of rain, instead of the current '/2-inch. She said there are
also different draw-down times and details on how ponds and controlled measures are to be
designed. She said Dublin's standards need to be updated to meet EPA requirements.
Ms. Cox said the EPA was also requiring detailed information to be in an enforceable format
for erosion sediment control while projects are under construction.
Ms. Cox said there are details on redevelopment sites because Dublin requires it on all
projects and there are few exceptions, this is not currently outlined in the current version of
the new Code because the City does not give developers options like the EPA. She said
Dublin's is more stringent that what the EPA would require.
Ms. Cox said revisions that staff has requested include adding the exemptions to the quantity
control. She said the Historic District outlined in the Code will be used and those projects
that happen in the District, currently there is a step that happens...staff takes many of those
to City Council for Stormwater Waivers on just the quantity control. She said that
exemption in the Code will eliminate that step and the projects can be processed faster.
Ms. Cox said the current Code does not include an exemption for small site plan additions.
She said if generators or parking spaces are to be added, staff would like to include these
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes Excerpt -July 21, 2005
Page 2 o f 6
(Prepared 8/4/05)
changes as an exemption also to alleviate a full engineering study being necessary when a
small addition is being added to the project.
Ms. Cox said another recommended Code revision is for a Stream Corridor Protection Zone
which will be discussed later. She said because of the Stream Corridor Protection Zone, the
staff requests to update the title of Chapter 53.
She said the minor clarifications on the details are itemized in the May 6, 2005 memo to
CSAC included in the Commission packet.
Ms. Cox said a new Emergent Sediment Control section was at the end of the new chapter
and it consolidated all of the City requirements on Emergent Control into one section so that
there is one point of reference.
Ms. Cox said the EPA timeframes for stabilizing the denuded (bare area) part of the site are
being added in this ordinance.
She said the details on the using of the temporary sediment settling basins, etc. on the site
during the construction, as required by the EPA are detailed in the revised Code.
Ms. Cox said the EPA has become more stringent on the maintenance/inspection and
recordkeeping done by the contractors and developers on site. She said the necessary plan
information details are to be added to the revised Code.
Ms. Cox said the Stream Corridor Protection Zone area is being recommended to be added
to the Code to help restrict land disturbances within the stream and riparian areas. She said
it was an expansion of the floodway, plus 20 requirements included in Dublin's Flood
Control chapter. She said staff feels that this will accommodate the natural meandering and
protects property and stream banks from erosion, and will improve the water quality in
Dublin's streams.
Ms. Cox said there are more restricted things that can go in the Stream Corridor Protection
Zone than permitted. She said construction, drudging, vehicle storage or driving,
disturbance of top soil or the vegetation, and private utilities are not permitted. She said
permitted uses include open space, passive recreation areas, removal of damaged trees, re-
vegetation, reforestation, and any public roadway to promote infrastructure with minimal
disturbance.
Ms. Cox said the Stream Corridor Protection Zones would be applied in new developments
and redevelopments of projects that do not currently have an approved Preliminary
Development Plan. She said they would not be retroactive into the rears of existing homes.
She said they will not be applied where FEMA has already designated a floodway or a
floodplain. Ms. Cox said it is for areas outside those already studied areas to try to protect
the streams. She said the information will be shown on the preliminary and final
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes Excerpt -July 21, 2005
Page 3 of 6
(Prepared 8/4/05)
development plans, and subsequent building permit plans, similar to floodways, no-build
zones and no-disturb zones (protected areas) are shown.
Ms. Cox showed a slide of a map highlighting where the Stream Corridor Protections Zones
would apply.
Ms. Cox said the appeals process, for delineation for the actual zone, the width, and the
location will be worked out with the City Engineer. She said after the fact, once established,
if they are on a plat, individual property owners wanting to go into that area for a deck, shed,
etc. will go to the BZA for review and approval with the revised Code. That power and
duty is being added to the BZA responsibilities.
Ms. Cox said the revisions will be seen as a slight increase in retention and detention basin
sizes seen on the development projects due to the `/2-inch to '/4-inch volume change and
some of the detention times that they are required to do. She said more realistic quantity
control measures for Historic Dublin, plus removal of a step to City Council for those
waivers.
She said increased preservation requirements along the streams with the Corridor Protection
Zone will be seen. Those areas will have to be designated on the site plans. She said on the
preliminary and final development plans lines may be seen that are fairly new because of
this Code change. She said they would also be shown on single-family development final
plats.
Ms. Cox asked for input or recommendations from the Commission.
Ms_ Reiss commented that she found it difficult the staff report because so much was
changing and there were so many cross outs, renumbering, etc.
Ms. Cox agreed that it was difficult to read, but she wanted the Commission to see what
changes were being done instead of just providing a clean copy.
Ms. Reiss referred to Section 53.070, Exceptions to the requirements where it covered
development related exceptions, single-family or duplex and the Scioto River Corridor
exemption which was everything from SR745 to SR257. She asked why that whole area
was being exempted.
Ms. Cox said the area between Dublin Road and Riverside Drive was an exemption
currently in the Code. She said the reason for it was that the City wanted to level out when
the water gets into the Scioto River. She said those areas are directly connected to the river.
Ms. Cox said if detention was done on that, it would slow up the water so that it gets into the
stream/creek that goes straight to the river. She said if slowed, that peak is going to come,
probably at about the same time that the peak is coming from other things up stream and it is
essentially to try to get the water out of those directly connected areas quicker so that when
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes Excerpt -July 21, 2005
Page4of6
(Prepared 8/4/05)
the areas that have been detained upstream are finally getting into the creek, into the system,
everything is not going on at the same time in those properties next to the river. Ms. Cox
said it would be an overload on those properties. She said it was a timing issue.
Ms. Reiss said the reason EPA instituted these requirements was to increase the ualit of
our water. She asked since these directly drain into the Scioto River which goes into Griggs
Reservoir which goes directly into our drinking water supply, would not those be areas that
you would want to...
Ms. Cox replied that they are not exempted from the water quality control but from the
water u4 antitX control. She said it was the volume of water, not the cleansing of the water.
She said there is not exemption from the cleaning of water of that first 3/4-inch of rain for the
first construction. Ms. Cox said the only part that is being exempted is the uq antis control
and the timing of when that water exits the development's system.
Ms. Reiss asked if it still had to exit clean.
Ms. Cox agreed.
Mr. Messineo referred to Jane Brautigam's memo to City Council dated March 1, 2005,
where she stated that staff proposed that sections of the existing ordinance that reference
specific quality and quantity calculation methods and design criteria be deleted and moved
to an administrative design manual. He understood that the EPA had new quantity and
quality standards and that was why this was being instituted.
Ms. Cox said the new EPA standards were not so much for quantity as quality.
Mr. Messineo asked if the proposed Code changes would reduce Dublin's current water
quality.
Ms. Cox said it would not reduce the current water quality. She said the difference in the %2
and 3/4 inch was the uq alitX calculation. She said the first 3/4-inch of rain is what washes the
parking lots, roofs, and roadways of dirt, debris, trash, litter, oils, etc. and it has to be
detained and cleaned before it gets into the creek system and subsequently into the river.
Mr. Messineo asked if the 3/4-inch represented a more stringent requirement.
Ms. Cox agreed that it was more stringent than Dublin's current %2-inch. She said Dublin's
Master Plan set predevelopment release rates. She said the quantity of water has to be
detained down to what the Master Plan requires from each of the development sites. She
said the number is conservative.
Mr. Messineo asked what "this is going to be moved to an administrative design manual"
meant.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes Excerpt -July 21, 2005
Page 5 of 6
(Prepared 8/4/05)
Ms. Cox said that was a step that has not been addressed yet by staff. She said mathematical
equations are not typically codified which was done in 1998. She said in this instance, the
Code has to be changed to update the standard to what the EPA wants to be done. Ms. Cox
said staff would like to pull some of the detailed engineering things out because they do get
update from time to time. She said it would be easier to change Dublin's policies rather than
the Code and run a reference in the Code that this design manual has to be followed.
Mr. Messineo understood that current Code had a Stormwater section.
Ms. Cox said it was in the Public Works section of the codified ordinances.
Mr. Messineo asked if a design manual was being proposed that will be referenced as
Ms. Cox said yes. She said the standard drawings work that way now.
Ms. Boring asked if this was the same as the CDM (Camp, Dresser, and McKee) map.
Ms. Cox said she believed the streams were taken off of the CDM map, but staff produced
the map.
Ms. Boring noted that the underground hydrology markings were not included.
Ms. Cox said no, because it was a surface stream.
Ms. Boring asked how the underground water could be protected.
Ms. Cox did not recommend that it be in the Stormwater Management section because it
deals with rainwater and surface runoff She suggested it might be more of a Building Code
issue with drainage what happens with basements.
Ms. Boring asked if this proposed ordinance had been reviewed thoroughly by the
Community Service Advisory Commission (CSAC).
Ms. Cox said CSAC had reviewed it and it would go back to them because City Council had
asked them to formulate a formal recommendation.
Mr. Bird suggested that there be a motion made to acknowledge that the BZA taking on the
appeal process.
Ms. Wanner said in Chapter 253, Board of Zoning Appeals -Powers and Duties, it lists
what they do. She said it was a new section that would be added for the powers of the BZA
to review stormwater appeals.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes Excerpt -July 21, 2005
Page 6 of 6
(Prepared 8/4/05)
Mr. Smith said Council was not looking at the Commission to give BZA the power to do
this, they are just looking for its blessing as the planning authority to say they understand
this alters the Zoning Code.
Mr. Gerber said this looked fine. He said to go any deeper, there would need to be a
workshop.
He said City Council assigned this to CSAC, not the Commission.
Mr. Smith said whenever the zoning code is being changed or amended, the Commission
needs to be made aware of them and their approval is requested.
Mr. Messineo asked if this was coming before the Commission for ratification at some
point.
Mr. Gerber made a motion to recommend that City Council adopt the revisions that the
Community Service Advisory Commission has undertaken.
Mr. Gerber made a motion that the Commission supports this. Mr. Zimmerman seconded
the motion. The vote was as follows: Ms. Reiss, yes; Ms. Jones, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes;
Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Ms. Boring, yes; Mr. Messineo, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Approved 7-
0.)
Office of the City Manager
5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017
CITY OF DUBLIN_ Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490 M e m o
To: Members of City Council
From: Community Services Advisory Commission
Date: August 9, 2005
Re: Proposed Revisions to Chapter 53: Stormwater Regulations
On March 7, 2005, City Council forwarded an assignment to the Community Services Advisory
Commission (CSAC) to review the proposed revisions to Chapter 53: Stormwater Regulations of the
Codified Ordinances. CSAC held meetings on May 10, June 14, July 12 and August 9 during the
proposed revisions were reviewed, considered and discussed. City staff has provided beneficial
background and answers to our questions regarding the proposed revisions to the Stormwater
Regulations.
At the initial meeting on May 10th, we mainly focused on the proposed new section regarding Stream
Corridor Protection Zones (SCPZ), Section 53.200. We went over where these are to be applied, how the
zones are determined, the proposed uses in the zone, and enforcement of the requirements. We believe
that the SCPZ will add a layer of protection for stream corridors that may have otherwise been adversely
impacted by development where no other regulations provide for the preservation of the riparian buffers..
The other proposed revisions were assessed at the second meeting held June 14th. It is our understanding
that the other proposed changes to the Chapter are in line with the requirements of the current Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) Phase 2 and General Construction permits. Also discussed
were how the SCPZ relate to current open space requirements, variance/appeal procedures for the SCPZ,
enforcement of the SCPZ and how to integrate an overview done by the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
At the July 12th meeting, we provided staff with final comments on the proposed revisions and reviewed
a draft of this recommendation to City Council. We also gave input to questions/comments we had that
we wanted Planning and Zoning Commission's opinion on.
We have been briefed on August 9th of the review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and agree
that the comments and changes from them only strengthen the code.
In light of the benefits already realized from the existing Stormwater Regulations and the enhanced
environmental benefits from the proposed revisions, we respectfully recommend adoption of the
proposed revisions to amend existing Chapter 53. The newly adopted Chapter 53 is to be titled
Stormwater Regulations and Stream Protection.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
JULY 21, 2005
CITY OF DUBLIN_
lad Uu aid
Leq Raga Phnaiag
5800 Shier-IGags Road
DubBn, Ohio 43016-1136
Phone: 614.410-4600
Fmr.6l4-410.4747
Web Sib: www.duldin.oh.us
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
1. Chapter 53 -Stormwater Regulation Proposed Revisions
Engineering Division presentation of proposed revisions to Chapter 53, Stormwater
Regulations.
MOTION: To recommend that City Council adopt the revisions to Chapter 53 -Stormwater
Regulations, and also adopt a minor addition to Section 153.231, which authorizes the Board of
Zoning Appeals to grant variances to portions of Chapter 53.
VOTE: 7 - 0
RESULT: The motion was approved, and both revisions will be forwarded to City Council
with a positive recommendation.
RECORDED VOTES:
Ms. Reiss Yes
Mr. Saneholtz Yes
Ms. Boring Yes
Mr. Messineo Yes
Ms. Jones Yes
Mr. Zimmerman Yes
Mr. Gerber Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
INNk~~~Z(rY"
Anne Wanner
Senior Planner