Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-09-04 Study SessionDublin City Council Study Session Monday, February 9, 2004 Mayor Marilee Chinnici-Zuercher called the Monday, February 9 Study Session of Dublin City Council to order at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers at the Dublin Municipal Building. The topics I for discussion were: (1) US 33/1NW Corridor and (2) Revised Traffic Calming Program. Roll Call Council members present were: Mayor Marilee Chinnici-Zuercher, Tim Lecklider, Tom McCash, Mike Keenan, Cathy Boring, Amy Salay. Mr. Reiner was absent (excused). 1. - Staff Members: Jane Brautigain, Brandol Harvey, Gary Gundernian, Steve Smith, Dana McDaniel, Paul Hammersmith, Marsha Grigsby, Frank Ciaroclu, Jeannie Willis Mayor ChInnicl-Zuercher moved to adjourn the meeting and enter into executive Session for the discussion of legal and land acquisition matters. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. McCash, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, , yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher reconvened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. U.S. 33/NW CORRIDOR Mr. Harvey stated that during the 2004 Council Goal -Setting session, Council identified this area ZD as a primary concern, Recently, Council has been involved in discussions regarding the Hayden Run Corridor plan. In comparison, the U.S. 33/ -NW Corridor is a much larger region, beginning with Dublin on the cast and Marysville on the west. It includes three counties, multiple townships and multiple school districts. From a tax base perspective, any land use planning affects the school districts. They would prefer to see non-residential development, as residential development provides less tax revenue. Dublin's annexation and growth has been moving steadily westward. There are still several areas in Dublin's exclusive annexation area that are yet to be annexed. The Community Plan calls for the annexations to be complete in year 2010. A primary component of the annexation plan are the water and sewer service agreements with Columbus. In one part of this area, Columbus has exclusive annexation rights; surrounding that is a negotiated area in which either Columbus or Dublin iriay expand. Dublin's southern boundary is already set, and, unless changes Occur, the western boundary is also set. As Dublin has grown, Its utilities have expanded in the west. Now, other players are entering the picture within the negotiated expansion area. The City of Marysville, in concert with Union County, has already constructed water and sewer lines down the U.S. 33 Corridor. In addition, they have crossed the U.S. 33 and also provide service north of U.S. 33. Del -Co Water is also in this area, although they have not penetrated Dublin's negotiated service area. The negotiated area is the only area in which Dublin can grow, if it desires to do so — on either side of and including the U.S. 33 Corridor. Discussion tonight will focus primarily on Jerome Township and the area nearest Dublin, which City COLUIC11 Study Session page 2 Z:1 February 9, 2004 is where most of the activity is occurring. This area has already developed somewhat in single- family residential, although three-fourths of it is yet to be developed. From a natural resources perspective, the area poses both Opportunities and complications. There is a significant amount of woodland in the area and a complicated strearn network -- much more complicated than that Seen In Southern Dublin or Dublin proper. This poses challenges for stormwater management and water quality management, as well as development. Development is occurring in this area, however. Coleman's Crossing in Marysville is a proposed 300 -acre development, of which 454 - acres Would be large-scale retail. Along Industrial Parkway, paralleling just south of U.S. 33, businesses are expanding at a steady pace. Just outside of Dublin on the northwest are several proposals and in Dublin proper at the 161/33/Post Road interchange. Looking at NW Dublin, there is possible expansion in Jerome Twp. It lies just outside the Columbus/Dublin negotiated expansion area. One thousand acres have actually been optioned and another 2,000 acres are targeted for expansion. The expansion is primarily residential, at 2 units/acre, which could equate to 4,000-5,000 housing units. The area is 'List north of Brock Road in Dublin School District. 1_� J ANIOM,111 specifics regarding the developer's plans are unknown, presumably, the water supply will be deep wells, with no specifics known about the sanitary sewers. Also happening in this area is the Tartan West development and Dublin Jerome H1,1);h School. Metro Park is a tremendous attraction to development. In 1997, the Community Plan assumed the Metro Park would be the green buffer edge to Dublin. It was expected to be immediately adjacent to the City of Dublin, occurring on both sides of Hyland -Croy and south of McKItrick. 111 1997, the remainder of the land in the northwest corridor was not closely considered. It was identified as agricultural or rural residential, to be looked at more closely later on. Although Dublin has not looked at the area in detail, development is now occurring, Metro Parks did not develop in the way expected; it is much further north and west in scattered sites. In 2002, the Community Plan was updated to reflect only the actual Metro Park acquisitions. There were no substantive changes in the remainder of the Land Use Plan and the annexation or infrastructure policies, which perhaps Should be changed due to the way Metro Parks is coining into existence. Dublin is concerned about the development occurring in the southern end of the Corridor, The Community Plan assumed a fairly simple 161/U.S.33/Post Road exchange, although a fairly detailed conceptual plan was developed. Also, the land use developing in this area is not as was assumed in 1997. There have been. proposals for the land west of U.S. 33 and south of Post Road. This interchange area is Dublin and primarily Jerome Township property. Jerome Township zoning allows a variety of uses -- heavy retail including building supply, contractor yards, body shops, motels, grocery stores, nightclubs, gas stations, and drive-throughs. With the improvement of this interchange, which is anticipated, the land will be under pressure for development. Most of the area on the southwest side of the interchange is zoned Jerome Township light manufacturing - which means, truck stops and billboards are permissible, There are three adopted land use plans -- Dublin, Jerome Township, and Union County. Marysville is also pursuing land use planning. Because the Community Plan did not plan anything in detail for this area, it also did not address controls. Dublin's plan did not move beyond identifying this as agricultural, low-density rural at .5 to 1.0 Units/acre. City Council Study Session page 3 February 9, 2004 Absolutely no medium or high-density, single-family uses or multi -family uses were identified. The Community Plan did indicate that the light industrial uses along U.S. 33 ought to be supported with expansion, and small amounts of commercial and retail ought to be allowed along U.S. 33. On the south side of 33/1161, it was assumed, like the north side, that it would remain agricultural or develop rural residential. No new roads/rights-of-way were planned, although several road improvements were specified. The light industrial and low density single- family uses abutted each other and residential uses were interspersed. Because of the way the area is developing, however, infrastructure expansion policies may need to be reviewed. Jerome Township's Southeast Corridor Plan specifically addressed the U.S. 33 Corridor. Generally, the goals were to maintain the rural character of the township, but it also encouraged development along US33. It specified that infrastructure should be coexistent with the land uses, as they occurred. Their goal was to increase the tax base along the Corridor. They reco,mi/ed that the existing residential con(licted with the existiric, commercial. One of their policies taus to acquire part of Frasure Estates, 28 single-family residences, and turn them into new industrial uses. This would serve as a buffer between the existing industrial, the remainder of Erasure Estates and future residential. Although that was listed as the goal, there was no funding source. He noted that the properties mentioned are moderate to valuable properties, and it would be difficult to acquire all those properties at one time and remodel them. Their plan also stated that any site of 25 acres or more must be developed through a planned district process. Jerome's plan called for more light industrial, warehousing and retail uses, and more residential units overall, averaging .75 — 1.25 Units/acre. Their plan also provided that Jerome Township should explore economic development agreements and cooperative service agreements with other jUrisdictions, and that Jerome Township boundaries would be retained within land annexed by Dublin. Union County also has a land use plan for exactly the same acreage as Jerome Township's -plan and some of the same acreage as Dublin's plan. It calls for a higher intensity development than Dublin or Jerome Township's plans; more acreage devoted to higher density residential uses -- 1.75 duf/acre to 3.5 du/acre; more retail/commercial in "village centers;" more light industrial at more locations; more roadways; green belts rather than large open parks. Union County's plan also encourages Plain City to expand eastward and northward toward Dublin and the U.S. 33 Corridor. Mr. Harvey compared the three plans. Dublin's planned residential densities are up to I du/acre; Jerome Township's is Lip to 1.25 du/acre; and Union County is up to 3.5 du/acre. The comparison is similar in all other land uses — lowest in Dublin, higher in Jerome Township and highest in Union County. Looking at infrastructure in the area: the development occurring now is in the middle of the Unserved service area. More fire statl*on/lEMS facilities will be needed for this area. The 1997 Community Plan considered traffic generation as the key criterion upon which land use should be planned. Although Dublin's plan did not include specific development for this area, it did identify it asaproblem area. Dublin is currently working, with MORK and local jurisdictions to conduct the U.S. 33 Corridor Study. The interchange improvements at Post Road and S.R. City Council Study Session page 4 February 9. 2004 161 are on hold until that study is complete. The current transportation plan suggests additional lanes for U.S. 33 west of the 1-270 interchange. The plan also considers: an interchange at McKitrick Road; widening of Cosgray and Post roads at that interchange; and widening of Hyland -Croy from Post Road to Manley Road. Public Utilities In the area of public utilities, Dublin has already expanded to the areas that are easiest to serve. As Dublin has expanded into the northwest area, other utility providers have also entered the Picture, Dublin wouldn't necessarily have to contract with Columbus, but it is a complicated Situation. Dublin has limitations on what can occur in the negotiated expansion area, based upon the agreement with Columbus. 0 Water Regarding water -- what is in place today is a 2 million gallon water tank at Avery and Brand roads; a second water tank is proposed. In Union County, there is one water tank. The water lines extend down Industrial Parkway, north of U.S. 33 and down Brock Road. The Del -Co Water Company is a provider to the north. They have a 2 million gallon water tank at Avery and Brand, very close to Dublin, and a 12" water line down Manley Road. There is the possibility that they could serve further westward than they have. Under the agreement with Columbus, no extensions using Columbus water can ()ro outside the expansion area and be annexed by Dublin. Areas being served within the negotiated service area that are annexed by Dublin can only be served by Dublin. Regardless of the system, no other water provider can connect to Columbus/Dublin waterlines. The agreement was expected to be renegotiated recognizing that the development would change over time. The agreement states, "this agreement will be considered for amendment every five years or sooner." It was last amended in 1993. Another problem with providing, water in this area is that the elevation has changed significantly. Under Dublin's current water system, any elevation above 950 feet would experience low water pressure. In this NW area, there are areas that rise above 1010 feet, so there are also engineering and physical constraints to providing water. 0 Sanitary Sewers The NW area is composed of several sewer sheds. Like watersheds, sewer sheds are defined by a gravity flow. Sewer sheds do not lend themselves to same -system connections unless pump stations or lift stations are used to accommodate topographical limitations. Due to the complexity of topographical features, some sewer sheds run to the north and some to the south. Multiple utility providers in the area complicate the issue further. Union County provides sanitary sewer service along Industrial Parkway. Sewage flows northwest through a combination Of Pumping and gravity sewers. The sanitary sewer now extends north of US 33, and indications are that they intend to serve additional areas north of U.S. 3 )3. Delaware County has facilities in the area, including a sewage treatment facility for Tartan Fields. City Council Study Session page 5 February 9, 2004 One of the key issues with sanitary sewers is Dublin's agreement with Columbus, which provides that: no sewer extensions can be made outside the negotiated expansion area; only Columbus can provide sewer in Dublin's annexed areas; no other sewer provider can connect to Columbus's sewer system; the agreement was expected to be renegotiated within five years. It was last updated in 1993. Currently, only areas that can be served by 'gravity are being considered for Dublin's system. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher inquired why the agreement has not been updated. Mr. Harvey responded that he does not know. He would surmise that it was because there was no development occurring in that area Lint]] the last 3-4 years, therefore, no need to renegotiate was perceived. He noted that Columbus has used the water and sewer policies to facilitate its own arowth. It has 1.) expanded to the west with annexations; there is a pending annexation at the Perry and Madison County lines. Their next move north would be toward US 3 )3. Recent changes to annexation laws have resulted in three different types of annexation: regular (previous law), expedited, and expedited 11. With the Ret4ular annexation, only 51 percent of the property owners in the affected area must silyll the petition. However, unlike the previous law, the County Commissioners must look at the annexation area plus an additional V2 mile radius and conclude that the annexation serves the good of that entire area. The service plan must be more date specific than it was in the past. Should any annexation result in annexing only half of a right-of-way, the Municipality must agree to maintain the entire right-of-way. There are three types of expedited annexations. In all cases, 100% of the property owners must sign 1 n the petition for annexation, and no hearing is required. Under Expedited Type 1, the consent of the municipality and the township are required. There Must a written service agreement between the municipality and township as evidence. Under Expedited Type 11, all agreement between the municipality and the township is not required, but It IS understood that the township boundary cannot be diminished. The total annexation cannot exceed 500 acres, and at least 50f0 of its perimeter must be contiguous to the Municipality annexing the property. Mr. Keenan inquired what the service issues were under Type 11. Mr. Harvey stated that either party Could provide the service to the area. E,x �editcd �Te �111 involves an economic development annexation agreement. The definition indicates a Substantial economic development project. The proposal must include a minimum of $10 million in property improvements and $1 million. salary annually. The township boundaries must not be diminished. Finally, there is also the old annexation by the munidpali�t for -publicly owned land. City Council Study Session page 6 February 9, 2004 Under any combination, reparations are required to the township if the township boundaries are reduced. Unless there is a different agreement with the township, State law proposes a reparation schedule in which the municipality reimburses the township over a period of 12 years the taxes gained from the residential real property and the commercial industrial property. In summary, townships are much more protected than they were. Also, joint economic development districts (JEDDS) are encouraged. Working out economic revenue sharing between the municipality and the township is more specific than in previous years. General Planning Development Issues The fact that this corridor was not developed as previously envisioned seriously affects Dublin's land use plans. There is greater development pressure than anticipated,, and the development occurring is a higher intensity than planned. Multiple jurisdictions are updating their development plans and, in some cases, their development codes. Cooperative development agreements and joint economic development districts may co -exist with the annexation proposal. In this area, fire and EMS service facilities must be required, regardless of who serves the area. Dublin's practice of expanding only where Washington Township expands will have to revisited, as the City is put in the position of coordinating more with other townships. It is known that residential and non-residential land uses produce differing "costs to serve." In the Northwest area, the City proposes primarily agricultural and rural residential; revenue- producing land uses are not proposed. If Dublin continues with that type of land use as it approaches build -out, the City will see less revenue and more cost than is presently occurring. Inside Dublin today, there is little industrial zoning and little opportunity for new industrial zoning. The US 33 Corridor is important not only for annexation purposes, but also to provide industrial -type services to serve the commercial users already in Dublin. Dublin, Jerome Township and Union County have all indicated they want to preserve the rural character of that area, yet all three have indicated that US 3_3 ) must be industrial, commercial — a non-residential mix. Some land use incompatibility already exists, and that situation will only increase as both residential and non-residential uses increase. The scattered Metro Parks are not creating the buffered edge desired, but they create more park edge to currently undeveloped land. The more park edge that abuts private land, the more development pressure will be seen. Because it is scattered around, however, the service to that land will be difficult and expensive. In any case, service costs will be substantially greater than what was assumed in 1995. When Dublin has experienced an increase in service demand and a capital project is required, it has been able to access surplus funds to fund those capital improvements. It is not likely that luxury will exist in the future. Jerome and Union County have both publicly stated that they want to pursue multi - jurisdictional economic development and service efforts as essential for fature growth. Summary of U.S. 33 Corridor Study. • Development pressure is substantially growing. • How the Corridor develops influences Dublin's build -out options — whether Dublin annexes, how far it will. annex, and where it does not annex will impact the remainder of Dublin. • Conflicts between low-density residential and cominercial/industrial uses will intensify. • The Corridor involves multiple jurisdictions. City Council Study Session February 9, 2004 page 7 • The Corridor involves multiple public utilities providers, all with unfixed service boundaries — it is primarily "who gets there first." • Provision of public facilities and services will become more complicated and expensive. • Regional awareness of need for multi -jurisdictional cooperation is growing, • No network or coordinating body currently exists to focus coordination in this area. I Council has established as its #1 priority the desire to exercise leadership over the future development of the U.S .33 Corridor. Recommendation: That Dublin City Council assumes a leadership role to form a partnership involving political jurisdictions along the U.S. 33 Corridor from Dublin to Marysville. The purpose of such partnering would be to: • Provide a foruin for sharing information. • Identify corni-tion interests and concerns. • Facilitate an ongoing process to work together. • Develop collective vision for the greater US 33 Corridor from Dublin to Marysville. • Identify individual and collective actions to realize the vision. In order to develop the recommendation, staff recommends that Council refer this to the Community Development Committee in order for them to look more closely at the data and to design a forum and process for pursuing a partnership. Ms. Salay inquired if there was any positive news. Mr. Harvey stated that the good aspect of development pressure is that it will make jurisdictions take notice and assume a more cooperative position. All the affected jurisdictions are in the process of making policy decisions. If Dublin can participate in the process, it call help to make mutually equitable decisions. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if Jerome Township and Union County are updating their community plans. Mr. Harvey responded that Jerome Township is presently updating their community plan. Union County is developing a proposal to update the county plan, but their last update was completed in 2000, so it is not dated. Ms. Chinnicl-Zuercher inquired if Dublin participated in the 2000 County Plan update. Mr. Harvey stated that he was not present at that time and is unaware of Dublin's participation. Mr. Ciarochi stated that he joined the City in August 2000, and he does not recall any discussion On the topic; it Must have been completed prior to that time. Ms. Chinnic]-Zuercher stated that when the City worked on its Community Plan, the City held discussions with all the affected jurisdictions. City COLInCil Study Session page 8 February 9, 2004 Mr. Keenan noted that there are significantly differing opinions between the township and the County. Mr. Harvey agreed that there is broad disagreement on how the township Should develop Z:� Mr. Gunderman stated that to date, the Township planning commission is running smoothly. The planning process has involved many people and there are many opinions, but process is amicable. The Steering Committee is composed of 25-30 individuals. Mr. Gunderman serves on the Advisory Committee and attends the Steering Committee meetings, Mr. Lecklider inquired if lie can see a trend beginning to develop. Mr. GLIndernian responded that the process has just begun. A community survey was recently completed, and the zoning code amendments have been pursued on a different track. Only now are they beginning to formulate goals for the Community Plan process. Mr. Lecklider requested clarification regarding the different track for zoning code amendments Mr. Gunderman stated that the same consultant is preparing the zoning code amendments as is working with the township on the community plan process. The steering committee is involved only with the community plan process. Mr. Harvey stated that as the township considers their land use options, if there is a larger discussion occurring with the neighboring jurisdictions regarding annexations, revenue sharing possibilities and the implementation process, there would be a better opportunity to reach agreement. Mr. Keenan inquired if the water and sewer service is the issue driving the discussion. Mr. Harvey stated that the water and sewer providers certainly are a significant issue. Perhaps there is the opportunity for more than one provider. Mr. Keenan stated that water lines have been extended from Marysville; have sewer lines also been extended? Mr. Harvey affirmed that they have. Water and sewer lines both cross US 33 to the north side of Brock Road. Mr. Keenan stated that it seems odd that the City has not reviewed its water and sewer agreement With Columbus for eleven years. Review of those agreements should be a priority. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that rnay be true, but she is reluctant to open that door until and unless the City has determined if changes are desired and until the Hayden Run discussion has been finalized. It is necessary to have the big picture in mind for the agreement. City Council Study Session February 9, 2004 page 9 Mr. Keenan stated that he did not mean to renegotiate the just *ust to review it, He ZD suggested that what would bring Jerome Township to the table is revenue sharing. I Ms. Ch1nn1ci-Zuercher stated that everyone has the same goal, an increased tax base. She Inquired if Council has a consensus on referring this to the Community Development Committee. If so, what, specifically, is the direction to the committee and the time frame? If Dublin wants to have input through a regional effort, it is important to do so before the Township has progressed too far in its own planning. Dublin's efforts should occur simultaneously with theirs. Ms. Brautigam stated that the other communities will create their own land use and comprehensive plans without seeking Dublin's Input. For Dublin to come foiivard and say that they desire to have input into the township's development process or comprehensive plan process would not be well received. That is the reason staff suggests that a regional forum be developed that is outside any individual jurisdiction's comprehensive plan process to create an overall vision for the Corridor. Dublin is viewed as attempting to grab land and impose its will. She recommended that Dublin not attempt to have input in the township's comprehensive plan process, but pursue the regional forum to try to create something similar in this section of US 33 as was created in the southern portion of US 33, between Columbus and Lancaster. A regional forum process is occurring there that involves both the public and private sectors, and they are developing good regional goals. Dublin Could act as a leader in a similar process here, but there is some trust building that needs to occur. Ms. Chinnicl-Zuercher stated that, was also what she had suggested. However, when Dublin developed its community plan, staff was advised to have discussions with the Surrounding jurisdictions to understand what their plans were. That information would be taken into consideration. It would have been irresponsible not to have done so. One thing that is different today than when the City developed its comprehensive plan is the role of regional planning. The players should recognize that this is a similar concept. Council doesn't know what the outcome of a regional US 33 forum would be. Council should keep in mind that: (1) regional planning is a popular concept, (2) everyone's goal is an increased tax base. The question is how to engage ID everyone in that process. What would Council's goals be for the Community Development Committee'? I Mrs. Boring stated that the goal would be that the Committee develops a plan for the regional planning process. Mr. Harvey stated that the most important aspect of this proposal is that Council initiates discussion and a partnership to forma process. Individually, the jurisdictions are arriving at land I use conclusions, but nothing has been done collectively to develop a regional plan. Dublin would initiate the process and facilitate it, but Dublin would not tell the other Jurisdictions what to do. The Committee would flesh out an outline of how to approach and involve the other jurisdictions. City Council Study Session page 10 February 9, 2004 Ms. Chininci-ZLiercher inquired if there is a difference in elected officials meeting and staffs of ID the different jurisdictions doing so. Will the committee be encouraging a forum of elected officials, or of the municipal staffs? Mr. Harvey stated that the forum would also involve property owners. Are there many stakeholders, and how are they involved in a decision-making process? The process needs to be refined. Mr. Keenan noted some of the jurisdictions are very challenged in terms of staff resources. Is there a way Dublin can help the process without shepherding the process? Mr. Clarochl agreed that is a problem. There is a consultant working with Jerome Township, there is no planning staff. Typically, elected officials prefer to meet with other elected officials. The Hayden Run Corridor discussion is very significant because the policy makers are meeting to discuss the issue. The planners cannot be effective in drawing up the plans until the policy makers have indicated what /where the considerations are. Then the direction must be clearly given to the staff. Council consensus was to refer the issue to the Community Development Committee to develop the process that will be used for a regional Study, such report to be returned to Council within 60- 90 days. Mr. Lecklider noted that if staff discerns a need to move more quickly, they will make Council aware of that need, Mr. Harvey will include copies of tonight's PowerPoint presentation in. Council's second February packet. I Mr. Hammersmith stated that Ms. Willis, City civil engineer, has worked diligently to develop the Traffic Calming Policy and what is anticipated will eventually be the Traffic Calming I - Program. The program would provide an emphasis on education and enforcement first as a preemptive strike on any neighborhood traffic problem, followed by a engineering study, if petitioned. Ms. Willis stated that at Council's 2003 Goal Setting session, Council identified review of the City's Traffic Calming Policy as a 2003-2004 goal. Consequently, staff undertook a comprehensive review of the traffic calming policy, both the written policy and the public outreach component, working with the divisions of Community Relations, Police, the City Manager, the Fire Department, and the traffic consultant, R.D. Zande & Associates, Ms. Willis distributed a copy of the revised written policy. She noted that they wanted to ensure that the process began with education and enforcement as the first step. If those steps proved City Council Study Session February 9, 2004 page I I unsuccessful in deterring the traffic problem, the engineering study follows. The street must first be determined as eligible for traffic calming measures: (1) it cannot be identified as a critical emergency response route; (2) the program applies only to existing streets; it will not be considered for future streets. Ms. Chinni c 1 -Zuercher stated that she would assume that developers are required to ensure that new roads are constructed in such a way as to reduce the need for future traffic calming measures. Ms. Willis affirn-ied that is part of the process. Also, the traffic -calming program will be applied in areas ��'herc the traffic patterns are already established. Petition Only the owners of the properties or businesses may sign the petition. There is an 18 -month time limit for the petition circulation. There will be a July I st petition Submission deadline. The reasons for this deadline are: • Each petition will be brought to Council for acceptance of need and for appropriation of the funding for each study. The studies are very expensive and it is difficult for Engineering to budget for studies that may be requested throughout the year. • It will also enable the data to be gathered during the months NvIlIle school is still in session. • If Engineering identifies a critical situation that should be addressed quickly, it can be scheduled in the CfP budget, which is developed in the fall. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if the emergency routes ever change. Ms. Willis stated that they do. MS. CIIIIIIIICI-ZLiercher stated that it Would be necessary to ensure that list is continuously updated, Cornorchensive Stud State : determine whether traffic -calming e one, measures are necessary on the affected street, if j_ so, stage two would be implemented. Stage two: (1) determine the impact to other neighborhood streets if traffic -calming measures were to be implemented on the affected street. (2) identify traffic calming options for the street. Street Priority Ranking Speed Ms. Willis stated that the ranking system has been slightly changed regarding the speed component. The points awarded for 85% speed over 32 have been reduced from 5 to 2 for each mph over. Conversely, points deducted for 85% speed Linder 32 are reduced from 5 to 3. This change was Suggested by Chief Epperson of the Police Department. City Council Study Session February 9,, 2004 page 12 Mr. Lecklider inquired if the suggestion is to be more tolerant of higher speeds. Mr. Hammersmith stated that this point system applies only to street ranking, and it results in a fairer ranking of streets. Previously, the speed component was weighted much more heavily than Z:1 other factors affecting a street, such as cut -through traffic, accidents, or pedestrian generators, Mr. Lecklider inquired why the speed component has not been adjusted equally For mph over the 85% and for mph tinder the 85%. Mr. Willis responded that it is because 32 mph is not an unusual speed in Dublin. It is within a tolerable range. There are other issues more critical than a speed of 32 mph. If the Police Department were to set up a Stealth Check and measured the 85% speed on the road at 32 mph, they would not be overly concerned. Ms. Salay stated that during a previous conversation with Chief Epperson regarding the speed issue, she was told that if the Police ticketed all drivers traveling between 25 mph and 32 mph, they would be ticketing everyone. Because it is best to leave a slight buffer, a driver can usually travel at about 30 mph in a 25 mph zone and not receive a ticket. Mrs. Boring stated that she was told that another reason that a slight cushion is permitted is that all speedometers are not calibrated exactly the same. For two vehicles traveling the same speed, one speedometer may read 30 mph; the other may read 32 mph. Mr. Lecklider stated that his concern is that the threshold is too high at 32 mph. It is nearly entering another speed category, which would indicate a different classification of street, Mr. McCash stated that he is in agreement. Perhaps it would be better to revert to adding 5 points for each mph over 32 mph or a deduction of 5 points for each Mph Linder 30 mph. Unless the drivers are expected to keep their eyes on their speedometers the entire time, which creates another safety hazard, their speeds will fluctuate somewhat. Ms. Brautigam stated that there were some comments that the Traffic Calming Program would be referred to committee. Her understanding was that this Study Session is in lieu of a committee discussion. If so, now is the time to raise any issues. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the difficulty was that, previously, speed was more heavily weighted than other criteria. This made it appear to be of greater importance than the other criteria in street ranking, which was often not the case. • Volume • Local and collector streets would use the same formula to determine acceptable volume of traffic on street. - One point for every 100 vehicles over number of households served multiplied by the ITE trip generation rate for type of household. City COLUIC11 Study Session page 13 February 9, 2004 Mr. McCash stated that each neighborhood has its own inherent volume due to the design of the neighborhood. If the affected area is changed to a lower number of dwellings, there is a lower volume number. How is the affected. area defined? For instance, Fallen Timbers is a loop street and wouldn't be considered part of the affected area for Tara Hill; however, Fallen Timbers and all the cul de sacs off of Fallen Timbers must use Tara Hill in the morning. Therefore they should be counted in the affected area for Tara Hill. Likewise, Adventure Drive, which has two connections -- Coffinan Road and Tara Hill Drive, should have 50% of its households considered part of the Tara Hill affected area. Mr. Hammersmith stated that Council could determine what it will consider as the "affected area." Ms. Willis noted that this study of an affected area is not based on a peak hour situation, but on a 24-hour situation, Typically, the affected area includes those homes that have no choice in the road to use at any time of the day. Mr. Hammersmith stated that study of the affected area has been based entirely on geometries and connectivity, not on other constraints, such as the one described by Mr. McCash. Mrs. Boring inquired if cul-de-sacs are included in the affected area. Ms. Willis indicated that they are included in the affected area. - 20% is the threshold value for acceptable through, or cut -through, trips. It is proposed that the acceptable volume on the street would be the number of households served multiplied by the ITE trip generation rate, multiplied by 1.2 (rate of acceptable cut -through trips) to equal 1. the total acceptable volume for the street, Accidents • Based on accident severity ratio - Must calculate the three-year citywide average. - Must calculate the affected street ratio for comparison to citywide average. • Two points awarded for each percentage the affected street ratio exceeds the city-wide average. • No deduction of points will be made for a street with an accident -severity ratio less than the average three-year Citywide average. 1.� Previously, accidents were not taken into account in ranking street priority. On Tara Hill, however, it was discovered that the accident severity ratio was a significant component in determining the need for traffic -calming measures, Mr. McCash inquired the definition of accident severity ratio. Ms. Willis responded that it is the number of injury accidents to the number of total accidents. Mr. McCash stated that the citywide comparison takes into account all the other streets in the City as opposed to only residential streets. City Council Study Session page 14 February 9, 2004 .Mr. Hammersmith stated that the calculation could be made after removing all the arterials and freeways, taking it down to locals and connectors for the base comparison. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that removing the freeways from the equation makes sense, but the arterials are within the City and perhaps should not be removed. Mr. McCash stated that he would be more interested in seeing the comparison conducted on streets of the same speed classification, or all residential streets. Mr. Hammersmith stated that it is a relative ranking system used to establish priority. The severity ratio could be lowered, but it shouldn't make a significant difference in ranking. A sample calculation could be done to determine what the severity ratio would be. Mr. McCash stated that lie would be interested in seeing that calculation. Pedestrian Generators • Affected streets would be awarded points for additional pedestrian features. - Street has a school zone — 3 ) points - Street provides direct access to a City park --- 2 points Other public facility — I point Examples: bikepath access points, tunnels, soccer fields, municipal pools Ms. Willis stated that it is no longer assumed that every street will receive traffic -calming measures. If a street receives less than 20 points, the City will continue to work with the residents, focusing on education and enforcement. If the street receives between 20 and 35 points, it qualifies for localized treatments, such as raised crosswalks or speed humps, which are less expensive than a full traffic -calming measures. If the street receives more than 35 points, it qualities for the full traffic -calming program. Mr. Lecklider stated that lie would like to see other options mentioned than just the raised crosswalks, Mr. Hammersmith stated that the language would be shortened to state "localized treatments," with no specific feature Suggested. Ms. Salay stated that through Stealth Checks, the City is able to identify streets with speed issues without necessarily needing a petition from. the neighborhood to analyze the problem. Mrs. Boring stated that it was vital to get the neighborhood's approval on any traffic -calming measures. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the City can identify candidate streets, but the City cannot proactively go into a neighborhood where, perhaps, traffic -calming measures would be unwelcome. City Council Study Session February 9, 2004 Em-nneerin,L,/Concentual Plan & Implementation • Development of Conceptual Plans • Landscaping - Will be installed as a traffic -calming measure/feature page 15 Z, Additional landscaping/aesthetic treatments will be installed as determined necessary by the City Engineer at the direction of City Council. Funding and Installation • Streets will be ranked by year according to the priority ranking established • Any new streets added to list in a following year will be ranked below those already placed on the priority list. Mr. Lecklider inquired what the City's response would be if, as a result of the traffic study, it was determined a stop sign was warranted, Ms. Willis stated that if it is warranted, the stop sign would be installed. Mr. Lecklider noted that the policy states that for the purposes of this program stop signs are not considered a traffic calming measure. Ms. Willis stated that a stop sign is not a traffic -calming measure. The two are exclusionary. If a stop sign is warranted by state standards, it is installed on that basis, Mr. Hanirnersmitb stated that a caveat would be included in the policy for clarification purposes to state: "...unless determined warranted, stop signs and traffic signals are not considered for traffic -calming purposes. Mr. Lecklider referred to the second petition described in Step 3: Conceptual Plans/Implementation (A) TI-affic-Ceiliiiingilfc,astires Selection Proeess, He suggested that the City be responsible for collecting that information. Although the residents must initiate the process with the original petition, at this point in. the process, the City should be responsible for the data collection. He added that this process was not followed in the recent Tara Hill Traffic Study. Ms. Willis stated that a survey to the households in the affected area was used instead to determine the residents' preferences. Mr. Hammersmith clarified that when a recommendation for traffic measures is finally identified, that recommendation will be circulated in the manner of a petition throughout the Tara Hill neighborhood to gain, 90% of the residents' signatures. That percentage is high, but it is an attempt to ensure that the neighborhood supports the measure and that residents will not later request Council to remove the devices after $50,000 has been spent to install them. City COUI-IC11 Study Session February 9, 2004 page 16 Mr. McCash stated that 90 % percent is required for the residents on Tara Hill Road. What about the residents on neighboring cul de sacs? Ms. Willis stated that 67 percent of the residents on those streets must agree. Mr. McCash stated that those residents do not have any other access out, SO Why Wouldn't a similar level of concurrence be desired of them? Mr. Hammersmith stated that the difference in level of support is that the residents on the directly affected street are impacted more by the device(s) than the residents on the side streets. Mr. Lecklider recommended a direct mail method for the second petition rather, than staff ri-iembers going door-to-door in the neighborhood for signatures. Mrs. Boring stated that staff Would not receive 90% response from the neighborhood. Ms. Salay inquired if the City has ever implemented traffic -calming under the current requirement that there by a 90% signed agreement of the neighborhood. What about Martin Road? Mr. Ciarochi stated that with Martin Road, staff was only able to secure 85% of the property owners' signatures, and Council determined that was "close enough," I Mr. Lecklider stated that he predicts the result of that requirement will be that no traffic calming will occur. It isn't fair to put the neighborhood through this process and, in the end, the program not be approved by 90% of the neighborhood. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher inquired what percent Mr. Lecklider would recommend. Mr. Lecklider responded that there should be a reasonably solid response to the direct mail survey. Ms. Salay stated that is not likely. During a recent Community Relations survey, staff was thrilled that an unusually high percentage has responded to the survey, and that number was much lower than 90 percent. Ms. Willis stated that a recent Engineering survey went to 225 Tara Hill. Road homes. She received a 47% response rate. Mr. McCash stated that it is probably a case of 50% of the neighborhood being too busy or uninterested in being involved in the traffic calming process in their neighborhood. Mr. Lecklider noted that the 90% requirement would appear to be rewarding those who are not involved, not those who are involved. City Council Study Session page 17 February 9, 2004 Ms. ChinnICI-ZUerchcr stated that it would fall upon the neighborhood to convince a sufficient number of residents to sign on. Ms. Willis stated that the City Could also facilitate responses to the second petition through such efforts as direct mailings to the households and public meetings. However, the intent is that it is the neighborhood's responsibility to achieve sufficient neighborhood support. Mr. McCash stated that there were some residents in the Monterey Drive/Waterford area who initially supported the traffic -calming measures but later strongly objected to the devices. Would it be possible to review the data and see what level of support there was for that traffic -calming effort? Ms. Salay stated that Waterford Village was a unique situation, timing was everything. Dublin Road was interrupted when the sewer was under construction. To reach the Historic District or cross SR 161, it was no longer possible to take Rings Road to Dublin Road, turn left and proceed north. Another way had to be found -- it was easy to cut down Monterey Drive. During this time, Waterford Village experienced a problem with speeding traffic, and traffic -calming measures were petitioned. By the time the speed humps were installed, Dublin Road had re- opened, and Monterey Drive was no longer a popular cut -through route. That neighborhood probably Would no longer qualify for traffic -calming measures. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it is curious that the temporary closure and its possibly temporary impact on Monterey Drive were not taken into consideration before traffic -calming measures were implemented. It would have seemed logical to have waited until Dublin Road re- opened and evaluated Monterey Drive at that point to determine if traffic -calming measures were needed. Ms. Salay stated that it was a small group of very motivated, very vocal and very organized residents who made that happen. She stated that if the Waterford Village example is disregarded because it was primarily a response to a temporary problem with cut -through traffic, and if the fact that Martin Road was not able to achieve the 90% neighborhood signatures is considered, then there is not a good example of this policy at work. Did Tara Hill achieve 90% of the residents' signatures? Ms. Willis responded that 90% had been received on the initial petition, but the process has not moved to the second petition phase. Mrs. Boring stated that it is more difficult to achieve 90% with a small neighborhood of 20 homes than with a neighborhood of 200 homes. Tara Hill should not have the difficulty that Martin Road homeowners experienced. Mr. Hammersmith stated that it is a question of what percent Council is comfortable with. Staff can only share from their experience. They do not disagree with Council's concern; 90% is a high threshold. City Council Study Session February 9, 2004 page 18 Ms. Salay stated that although the residents may all agree that there is a problem and traffic calming should be considered, it would be difficult to achieve 90% agreement on a specific device. Council consensus was to use 80% as the guideline for desired number of signatures. Following the second petition process with Tara Hill, staff will report to Council and that number may be refined, if needed. Ms. Willis stated that the entire policy is meant to be a guideline for staff. It is not a set of rigid rules but an attempt to ensure that whatever traffic -calming measures are placed on the road are Z:� acceptable to the neighborhood. Hopefully, Council would not then receive demands from the neighborhood for traffic -calming measures to be removed. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the rect' language will be amended to reflect tonight's di In 1011. Public Education Outreach Ms. Willis stated that the Engineering division has partnered with the division of Community Relations, and a spiral -bound, color booklet, called the "Dublin Neighborhood Traffic -Calming Pro-rarn -- Solutions for a Safer Community" has been prepared [displayed sample]. The book is ,in enhanced education/enforcement tool. It provides comprehensive information for Dublin residents on City/resident responsibilities, City traffic -calming programs, time frames, and types of traffic -calming measures. A. table provides an overview of the responsibilities of both residents and the City. The traffic calming measures each include a picture of that type of device implemented at a location within Dublin. The booklet also includes a petition form for the affected street and area. The street address and the name of the property owner, as it currently reads on tax records, will be filled in on the petition. Noted at the bottom will be the number of required petition signatures to meet the 90% threshold for the street or the 55% threshold for the area. Also created was a traffic -calming postcard as a direct mailer for individual households within a neighborhood when necessary. To date, it has been used twice — (1) for MacBeth and MacDuff to request neighborhood surveillance support, and (2) solicitation of applications for the Tara Hill Comprehensive Traffic -Calming Task Force. Mrs. Boring inquired if it is staff s intention to provide the guide to the neighborhood representative only, or to all homes. Ms. Willis responded that they would be provided primarily to the neighborhood representatives. Ms. Chinme)-Zuercher noted that the quality of this document makes it a very expensive document. The same information could be provided in a less expensive document. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the printing is not as expensive as one would expect. Currently, the policy is printed on the basic 8.5" x 11" sheet of paper. City Council Study Session page 19 February 9, 2004 Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she has no problem with the more interesting format. What makes the document expensive is the use Of four colors and the spiral binding. Also, the document must be revised next year, when more roads are added. The document includes traffic calming cost estimates -- more information that will likely require a future update. It is desirable to have a document that, in terms of printing, has versatility, not too costly to change. Mr. Hammersmith responded that staff considered those factors. fie added that the mock-up used here for display purposes is of a heavier paper stock than will be used in the actual printing. Ms. Willis noted that the presentation was completed. Mr. Lecklider referred to the listing of critical emergency response routes. He has concerns with excluding some roads. He is not aware of any traffic -calming measures on Earlington Parkway. Ms. Willis stated that is meant for Dublinshire. Those two streets run from Coffman Road to Muirfield Drive. There are traffic -calming measures on Dublinshire — protective parking and raised crosswalks. Mr. Lecklider stated that Earlington Parkway extends from Coffman to Brand Road. Mr. Clarochi stated that Dublinshire and Earlington connected extend from Coffman to Muirfield. Those two streets could be separated. Mr. Lecklider inquired why the list excludes Earlington Parkway from traffic calming. Ms. Salay stated that there are not many homes are on Earlington Parkway. Ms. Willis responded that this section lists the streets that have been identified by Chief Woo as critical emergency routes to the neighborhood. Mr. Lecklider stated that the asterisk refers to the note at the bottom that states, "these streets will receive no additional traffic calming measures." This would seem to indicate that Sells Mills, Dublinshire Drive and Earlington Parkway have traffic -calming measures in place and no additional traffic -calming measures would be considered. Ms. Willis responded that they have been. Mr. Lecklider stated that there are none on Earlington Parkway. Mr. Hammersmith stated that an emergency vehicle traveling down Brand Road to Dublinshire must first turn on Earlington Park -way to get to Dublinshire. Ms. Willis agreed to revise the report to separate the two streets. Z:� City Council Study Session page 20 February 9, 2004 Mr. Hammersmith stated that the Fire Department does not want traffic -calming measures added to those roads because they are critical emergency routes. Mr. Lecklider stated that under B- #10, "This program ... does not apply to. . ...nor to existing 7 subdivision streets that are intended to be extended in the future." Is ten years a reasonable period of time to wait for traffic calming? This plan should be reasonable. Tullymore is a very long street that has never been extended. There are people who have lived on it for over ten years. At this rate, traffic calming cannot be addressed for another two years. Hopefully, that is the exception, not the rule. Ms. Salay stated that both Tullymore and Tara Hill roads should have been listed as critical emergency routes. Ms. Willis stated that Chief Woo wanted both included in the emergency access routes. However, it was necessary to inform him that area has already petitioned the City for traffic - calming measures, and it would not be appropriate to exclude them at this time. Ms. Salay noted that it would be important for the City to be aware of this fact, however, and not approve any traffic -calming devices that could impede emergency response efforts. Mr. McCash stated that having them on this list would eliminate speed buirips, but perhaps not other types of traffic -calming measures. Ms. Salay stated that her understanding is that some devices are more problematic than others. Perhaps those devices that do not present a problem to emergency response vehicles need not be excluded. Ms. ChinniCI-ZUerchcr inquired clarification regarding Chief Woo's direction. It would appear that his intention was that the designated streets be excluded from all traffic -calming devices. Ms. Willis responded that most of the streets on the list have a speed limit higher than 25 mph. Only three do not: Dublinshire Drive, Earlington Parkway and Sells Mills. However, there have been comments from Brand Road and Riverside Drive residents that those streets are increasingly becoming neighborhood -type streets. The intent is to ensure that those streets do not receive traffic -calming measures. They are critical for emergency services. Ms. Salay stated that the City is working with Tullymore and Tara Hill residents. It is important to make them cognizant that speed bumps are not desirable — nothing vertical. Ms. Chinni ci -Zuerch er inquired if Mr. Lecklider would like to suggest a more appropriate time limit for traffic -calming consideration. Mr. Lecklider stated that he is simply concerned that ten years is too long to wait. City Council Study Session page 21 February 9, 2004 Mr. Hammersmith stated that the concern is that traffic devices would be implemented that are no longer effective when the streets are connected. Mrs. Boring stated that there are two traffic -calming devices that are very reasonable and easy to be modified — the rumble strips and protective parking. Those could be in a different category as temporary measures. Mr. Lecklider stated that consideration Should be given to a street that has reached a certain length and existed at that length for a certain period of time. Today, if a plan were to be presented which included a street of "Tullyinore length," the City would look at that proactively and would include traffic -calming features in the planning process. If the City can plan such features into the street design before a street is built, it should be able to extend the same consideration before a street is completely extended. Mr. Hammersmith stated that he would suggest that 60-75% of the street must be in place and the future point of termination known before traffic calming is considered. I Mr. Lecklider inquired if staff typically knows where a street would be terminated. Mr, f larninersmith stated that they do, from. the preliminary plat. They knew Tullymore would extend to Hyland -Croy. Ms. Chinnicl-Zuercher asked that staff take that matter under advisement and also review the list of Mr. McCash's suggested changes. Mrs. Boring stated that Mr. McCash's list includes an item she would also like to discuss — that is the issue of loop streets. The policy states that loop streets would not be considered for traffic calming. Mr. McCash stated that Fallen Timbers is an example of a loop street. That was addressed a little earlier. Mrs. Boring stated that there was discussion about it as part of an affected area, but the policy states that it would not even be considered for traffic calming. Ms. Willis stated that B -7 states that the street "is not a loop street within a neighborhood or subdivision," Mr. McCash stated that there are traffic -calming needs on Fallen Timbers and Valley Stream. Mrs. Boring, inquired how big a loop street would be. Donegal Cliffs is a loop street. Mrs. Boring stated that several years ago the Engineering Division addressing the loop street I stated that a loop street serves only the immediate neighborhood. City Council Study Session February 9, 2004 page 22 Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher requested that staff also take that issue under advisement. Mr. Hammersmith stated that they could choose not to exclude this type of street. Mrs. Boring inquired if the Traffic Calmi.mg, Plan was reviewed by CSAC. Mr. Hammersmith indicated it was. Mrs. Boring requested that when an issue is sent to Council for review, that staff include any related committee minutes. It will help Council with their review, Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the next step for staffwould be to take Council's comments under advisement, revise the policy if/where the Suggestions appear reasonable. If they do not appear to fit, do not include them. Then bring back a final draft to Council. Mr. Hammersmith stated that they would like to do that for the first meeting, in March. ,Mrs. Boring inquired if staff have ever received a resident request to have the speed limit raised on a particular road, based on the 85th percentile? Mr. Hammersmith responded that they have received recommendations from Engineering staff to do so, and from Council -- for Emerald Park -way. Ms. Willis noted that staff is proposing to raise speed limits on Emerald Parkway, Perimeter Drive and S.R. 161. The City desires to encourage traffic in certain areas and discourage it in others, and certain corridors are under consideration for an increase in speed limit. Mr. Hammersmith stated that local streets will remain at 25 niph. It is based on geometries; that is the way the street was designed. Ms. Willis added that the speed limit is also determined by State statute. Residential streets, prima fascia, are to have a speed Iii -nit of 25 mpli. The traffic study discussion was concluded. Ms. Brautigarn ill be stated that at the next Council meeting, the Jenmar Court Noise Study will reviewed. Because many residents may attend the meeting, staff requests that this item be 1. moved to the beginning of the agenda and that the meeting start time be moved forward to 6:45 pill. Council consensus was to revise the meeting agenda accordingly. Mr. Keenan noted that lie and Ms. Chinmci-Zuercher would be absent. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. City Council Study Session Feb]-Uary 9, 2004 Judy Beal, Deputy Clerk of Council page 23