HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-12-01 CDC MinutesDublin City Council
Community Development Committee
ZONING CODE REV1Etiv
Saturday, May 12, 8:04 a.m.
Council Planning Room
Attending:
John Reiner, Chau-
Robert Adamek
Greg Peterson
Cathy Boring
Brad Johnson, consultant,
Ratio Architects
Allen Weinstein, attorney, consultant to Ratio Architects
Staff:
Jennifer Readier, Assistant Law Du•ector
Barbara Clarke
Robert Price
Dave Marshall
Paul Hammersmith
Flora Rodgers
Libby Farley
Velma Coen
Citizens:
Chris Cline
Mr. Reiner called the Community Development Committee meeting to order at 8:44 a.m.
Mr. Johnson directed attention to the handout describing the new district, Neighborhood
Commercial (NCB, which has a minimum lot area of 6,444 square feet and maximum lot area of
24,444 square feet -small-scale development. Maximum main floor area is 7,444 square feet. He
stated that this was created in response to an interest for a commercial district that would integrate
with residential neighborhoods.
In response to inquiries, Mr. Johnson indicated that:
• Maximum structure height for SF1 is 35 feet.
• Neighborhood Commercial allows as a Conditional Use dwellings on the upper floor.
• Recycling collection point is listed as a Conditional Use, but it would have no outdoor storage.
This could meet the recycling needs of the neighborhood.
• Restaurants are as Conditional Uses, but the "maximums" will keep them small.
• Convenience shops (e.g., United Dairy Farmers) will be added to the Permitted LJse list minus
gas pumps.
Mr. Marshall referred to the retail business master list for medium intensity retail. He suggested
there are others that could lie appropriate for this area, such as antique, fabric, music or craft shops.
Mr. Johnson stated that the intention of Neighborhood Commercial is to provide daily goods or
services to which the residents could walk. Destination-type of shopping thrives better elsewhere.
Ms. Clarke stated that there is a NC category in the Code now. However, it is not used, as
applications would not make it through the City approval process. She suggested that the new
category would not be used in the future either, as no one wants to live next to neighborhood
commercial.
Discussion continued regarding including restaurants in the conditional use list. Mr. Reiner asked if
it could be stipulated that a restaurant use back up against anon-residential use.
Zoning Code Review Team
May 12, 2001
Page 2
Ms. Clarke stated that nuisance complaints regarding restaurants are usually linked to their success.
The more successful the restaurant, the more activity, noise, etc. is generated to disturb the
neighbors.
Mrs. Boring stated that other contributing factors are size, hours, and outdoor seating.
IVIr. Johnson noted that outdoor seating is prohibited in this district.
ARTICLE FIVE: OVERLAY DISTRICTS
Historic Preservation:
Mr. Johnson will:
• Assure that in 5.3A, the words "including landscaping" are removed.
Mr. Reiner stated that it is the City's intent to encourage, not discourage, the property owners to do
basic landscaping in the historic district.
- In 5.4c (sandblasting), the last word "avoided" will be replaced with "prohibited."
- In 5.5 (demolition provisions), replace "at least one of the following conditions" with "at least
two of the following conditions."
Corridor Development:
• 5.9H (Setbacks), Amend to indicate that setbacks should be scaled to the hierarchy ofthe road.
• 5.9A-f. Put all utilities underground.
• 5.9A-g Maintain easements.
• 5.9A-h All corridor areas be maintained by property owners.
• 5.9F-b "The primary structures shall be............ are the greatest representation..." -change the
word "greatest" to "best."
• 5.9F-c "No loading docks.....facingthe primary roadway." -- add "or utility boxes."
• 5.9E (Signs)-a Clarify "natural materials....to match the primary building...."
Discussion regarding materials and lighting of signs followed.
Ms. Clarke stated the question is if the desire is for something different in the corridors of the City,
where the image is being established, than is required throughout the rest of the City. Perhaps this
would be the place to require stone or brick bases, although those are not required throughout the
rest of the City.
Consensus was to require " a natural material monument base coordinated with the building, and
pin-mounted letters, with back lighting, as opposed to floodlights."
ARTICLE 8 -DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
8.3 Accessory Standards.
AS-02 c. " (swimming pool accessory equipment) ... shall be screened with evergreen landscaping
to the maximum height of the unit...."
Mr. Reiner stated that the quality of the screening is not specified. It should stipulate 100% opacity
AS-04 Lot Coverage.
Mrs. Boring stated that many deed restrictions do not allow accessory uses. Should there be a
footnote to that effect?
Zoning Code Review Team
May 12, 2001
Page 3
IVIr. Johnson responded that he prefers to avoid extensive use of footnotes.
Mrs. Boring inquired about confusion in interpretation -- if the City sets guidelines for accessory
use, would some individuals interpret that as taking precedence over a homeowner association's
guidelines?
Mr. Weinstein stated that a city's more liberal zoning does not prevail over the homeowner
association.
Ms. Coen inquired about patio homes and situations in which there is 90-95% lot coverage.
Ms. Clarke stated that the City would have difficulty developing an ordinance with that extent of lot
coverage, which would be approved.
Ms. Coen stated that Muirfield is one ofthe areas that have the least restrictions on rear yard
requirements.
Mr. Marshall stated that people still want to be able to put a shed next to the rear property line.
Ms. Clarke stated that the reason that Dublin has zoning in residential areas is to the limit the
capacity of neighbors to impose on one another. When an individual places a shed next to his
property line in order to get it as far away from his house as possible, he is also placing it as close as
possible to his neighbor's house.
Mrs. Boring inquired if gas pumps would be considered an accessory use.
Mr. Johnson stated that it is not listed as a conditional or accessory use.
Ms. Clarke responded that it would need to be clarified that the conditional uses for this district
include gas pumps. She noted that food and gas are being paired in convenience stores. Should gas
pumping included with the primary business use be considered a conditional use or a permitted use?
The difficulty is that the definition of an accessory use has not been clarified, although it has been
stated that an accessory use must be reasonably connected with the business, limited in scope, and
the secondary activity -could that be gas pumps?
Mr. Weinstein stated that the traffic and interior circulation issues -health and safety issues, argue
that it should be a conditional use. It is a good idea to require a site plan and specific consideration
of that particular activity.
Ms. Clarke stated that her concern is that the Code assures that no one misconstrues that the gas
pumping is only an accessory use. Does it need to be clarified in the definition? She requested the
consultants to determine the best way to include that in the Code.
8-5 Buffer Yard Standards
Ms. Clarke stated that the problem uncovered is that one term, a certificate of compliance, is used to
mean two different things -for plan approval and for building occupancy. They will now be called
"Certificate of Plan Approval" and "Certificate of Zoning Compliance."
8-8 Conditional Use Standards
No modifications.
8-9 Entrance Drive/Sight Visibility Standards.
Mr. Johnson stated that they have been working with the Engineering Division to assure that this
section includes all the standards desired.
Mr. Marshall inquired if the distance between driveways refers to driveways on the same side of the
street or both sides.
Mr. Johnson responded that, as it is written here, it refers to the same side of the street.
Zoning Code Review Team
May 12, 2001
Page 4
Environmental Standards
Mr. Johnson stated that the text incorporates standard regulations.
Exterior Lighting Standards
Mr. Johnson stated that he understands this incorporates guidelines that have not yet been adopted.
Ms. Clarke stated that the lighting guidelines were adopted eight years ago, but have not been
codified. They have been incorporated in all commercial plan districts and been included along
with other conditional uses. Mr. McCash believes they should not be applied in residential areas. It
may be desirable to divide the standards into two areas: in residential districts, strictly require "cut-
off' light fixtures; in commercial areas, consider minimum/maximum ratios.
Mr. Marshall stated that even with those guidelines, the neighbors will complain that there is too
much light. What staff has done administratively is to determine the route a police cruiser would
take through the neighborhood and illuminated that corridor. In small pockets, such as between two
garages, they rely on the traditional jelly-jar types of lighting on the sides of the garages or post
lights, consistent with the residential character.
Ms. Clarke pointed out that City Code requires only one exterior light at the main front entrance of
a house, and there will be no attempt to require more lighting in the residential areas unless there are
citizen complaints, or the crime rate increases.
Mr. Adamek stated that since the City does not require streetlights or more than one light per house,
and there are frequent, unlighted areas of the sidewalk, there should be a minimum standard of
required exterior lighting.
Discussion regarding exterior lighting in residential areas continued.
Mr. Marshall suggested that a requirement of one light on a photosensor could be an adequate
minimum standard. The Committee members will individually study the issue and refer
comments/direction to Mr. Johnson at the next meeting.
8-18 Fence and Wall Standards.
IVIr. Adamek stated that he had received phone calls and correspondence thanking him for the recent
legislation regarding fences.
Ms. Clarke stated that an error was likely made ii not considering the commercial needs when
setting a standard for everyone. Dumpster enclosures, which are officially fences, are now not
allowed to be more than four feet in height. Exceptions need to be added to the fence code, and
clarification of the standards for commercial and industrial sites.
Discussion continued regarding PUD specifications/landscape ordinance requi•ements re abutting
zonings/residential fence use.
Ms. Clarke summarized that for commercial and buffering between conflicting uses clarification
will be added.
Ms. Coen requested that clarification for deck fences also be made - is it four feet from the deck or
four feet from the grade? Currently, they are using four feet from the deck.
Discussion continued regarding concrete slabs, railings, lattices and trellises.
Mr. Marshall stated that the current Code states that the driveway may not be wider than the width
of the garage door opening. In the past, the Code allowed a concrete or asphalt pad to be
constructed beside the driveway as long as it did not encroach in the minimum sideyard. The
Zoning Code Review Team
May 12, 2001
Page 5
current S. Lang case, in which there was a concrete slab enclosed with a fence, and similar
scenarios were discussed in regard to Code revisions.
Ms. Clarke stated that this was addressed in the Residential Parking Code, currently tabled by
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr. Reiner suggested that they consider the Muirfield Association bylaws, in which the variables
have been worked out, and use them to develop Dublin's guidelines.
Ms. Readier stated that they used a copy of Muirfield's laws, as well as those from other sources, to
develop the guidelines currently under consideration.
Flood Hazard Area Standards
The Engineering Depai-trnent is reviewing these standards and those revisions will be made next
week.
Mr. Reiner stated that people are foolishly building in the flood zone, and when their properties
suffer flood damage, the government gives them large amounts of money to repair/rebuild without
requiring that certain things are done appropriately for that zone, such as putting all the electric lines
underground. He inquired about the possibility of removing residential zoning from flood zones.
Mr. Johnson stated that the Code covers that.
Mr. Hammersmith stated that the flood plain could be filled.
Ms. Clarke inquired if filling a flood plain is wise, or should it be banned.
Mr. Johnson stated that, currently, the Court's position is that if the owner of floodplain is prevented
from filling or using their land, that could be considered aland-taking, whereas the "no net loss of
floodplain storage capacity" has held up in Court.
Mr. Weinstein noted that there is a distinction made between undeveloped property and floodplain
that is already being put to a reasonable economic use and the request is to do something in addition
to that. A "takings" issue is only going to come up on undeveloped property, where this kind of
restriction would make any use of the land impossible.
Mr. Reiner requested that the consultants write the Code with the greatest restriction possible on the
river right-of--way that is simultaneously legally defensible. He inquired if there is any legislation
which insures that a potential land purchaser is made aware of the fact that a certain percentage of
the proposed land purchase is a flood plain.
Ms. Clarke stated that there is no legislation providing that; however, by policy they have
established the land in the floodway as a no build/no disturb zone. This applies to the new lots that
are being platted. If the buyer of a lot will not be able to do anything with that piece ofproperty due
to floodplain regulations, the most logical step is to make it a no-build zone, so that his expectations
are lowered. They have tried to assure that the parkland includes all of the 100-year floodplain so
that the lots are completely out of the floodplain, and those property owners will not have to carry
flood insurance.
Mr. Reiner stated that using the greenway ordinance to separate the floodplain from their lots is a
nice courtesy to the developer, but he would rather require the developer to keep his development
out of the floodway and the City take usable greenspace as parkland in addition to that.
Ms. Clarke stated that the issue could also be approached with the greenspace "set-aside."
Currently, there is no specification of how much may not be inundated but usable land. Some
projects have shown the proposed detention basins as being a certain size in the parkland, but when
the project is actually engineered, the detention basin runs up to the individual property lines and
there is no usable park left. The most recent example is with Ballentrae.
Zoning Code Review Team
May 12, 2001
Page 6
Mr. Reiner expressed interest in the suggestion that all common ground or parkland be required to
be noninundated land. He inquired if that requirement would be legally defensible.
Mr. Weinstein stated that: (1) floodway is unbuildable, but floodplain is; (2) legally, the suggestion
would not raise a "takings" challenge, but politically, there could be a lot of opposition; and (3) this
would have to shift the land from greenspace to useful, recreational space, as floodplain still
functions as greenspace.
Ms. Clarke stated that, currently, the City does accept floodplain for parkland and the inclusion of
stormwater detention facilities within a public park; however, the City does not give credit for the
actual acreage that it takes to handle their stormwater requirements. The City's view is that if there
were not a floodplain, it would still be necessary for them to come up with stormwater detention. A
utility facility cannot be considered greenspace. However, if it takes one acre to handle their-
stormwater and the park dedication is five acres, the City will accept six acres. The problem
encountered with developers is that, at final engineering, the actual dimensions reveal that the one
acre had changed to four acres. Since density calculations are based on gross acreage, the developer
gains from the credit given for that acreage.
Mr. Reiner stated that the credit should be based only on buildable land, and the rest not allowed in
the credit. He stated that the citizens would likely agree with the position that the floodplain should
not be counted as greenspace.
Mr. Weinstein stated that the opposing argument for not disallowing it is that 99.99% of the time, it
is fine, and this is land on which there will be no structures. This undercuts a public health and
safety rationale. This could possibly be considered over-reaching.
Ms. Clarke suggested adopting these restrictions on land designated as floodway, but that floodplain
not be included in that equation.
Mr. Weinstein stated that approach should be successful.
Mr. Reiner inquired about the usage ofthis land in the calculation of gross density for a
development.
Discussion about density continued.
In response to Mrs. Boring's question, Ms. Clarke stated that, looking at the density unit by unit, the
single family costs more to provide City services; however, when the cost per acre is considered,
the multifamily sometimes costs more.
Height Standards
P. 8-24
Mr. Reiner pointed out that the Code returns to a six-foot fence standard.
Home ~ccunation Standards
Mrs. Boring stated that she has a concern about calculation of traffic volume.
Mr. Johnson stated that if a neighbor complained about excessive traffic generated by a home
business, the City would send out the appropriate staff member to verify that the trips were indeed
exceeding the limit.
Ms. Clarke stated that if the trips are one at a time and not several all together, they should not
cause undue stress on a neighborhood.
Mr. Peterson inquired if the guideline followed is that if the business is conducted unobtrusively,
and no one knows about it or is affected by it, it's then allowed?
Ms. Clarke stated that all home occupations are required to obtain a permit.
Zoning Code Review Team
May 12, 2001
Page 7
Mr. Marshall pointed out that there is a City ordinance requiring business licenses, but this is not
enforced.
Ms. Clarke stated that because Sexually Oriented Businesses are required to obtain business
licenses, it could someday cause a problem because if that requirement is not enforced with other
businesses.
Mr. Price stated that a contractor's license is different from the vendor's license. He has observed
the business vendor's license on the City's books. In most cities, it is used by the Income Tax
Department to track who is running the business and make certain that they file and pay their
quarterly returns.
Mr. Readler inquired why it is not enforced.
Ms. Clarke stated that the Code provides for those licenses to be issued by the City Manager's
office, and no business licenses are issued.
Mr. Peterson stated that the question can be referred to the City Manager's office.
Mrs. Boring inquired if a home occupation is permitted one truck, is aself-employed person
driving a truck a home occupation, or aself-employed person.
Ms. Clarke responded that aself-employed person has his business site somewhere other than his
home.
Mrs. Boring stated that the home occupation issue needs to be studied carefully.
Mr. Reiner stated that the City doesn't want to require that a lady who is simply tutoring 4 or 5
children has to buy a business license.
Mr. Johnson stated that, typically, there are two home occupation classifications. One applies to the
business that is limited to computer work or essentially unobtrusive and unnoticeable. Those are
permitted by right. The second classification may involve another employee, or a volume of
business that is a conditional use. Those have to be scrutinized not only by their neighbors, but also
by BZA to obtain a home occupation license.
Mr. Peterson stated that the City's purpose is not to regulate what an individual's business is, but its
impact on his neighbors. It would be the second group that the City would have an interest in. For
instance, the home day care conducted in his neighborhood is disruptive to the neighbors at certain
times of the day.
Mr. Weinstein stated that day care businesses are preempted, as far as a conditional use, due to State
law. Licensing is a separate issue.
Ms. Clarke stated that there was previously a law requiring licensing of day care facilities. After the
State law was passed, it was no longer enforced, but it may never have been rescinded.
Staff will check into the day care law and further study the issue of separating home occupations
into two classifications.
Landscaping Standards
Page 8-29 - Mr. Reiner noted that in the previous discussion items I and J were to be added to
require that all plant materials should be northern grown and have a documented source.
He added that the plant list is too limited.
Ms. Clarke stated that the NRAC provided feedback for this list, and they will be re-examining it to
add additional plants.
Mr. Reiner stated that there is no need to limit people from the hundreds of other good varieties that
are available to them.
Mr. Adamek suggested that a list be put together for NRAC.
Mr. Reiner suggested that Ms. Epp could do this.
Zoning Code Review Team
May 12, 2001
Page 8
Ms. Coen clarified that the approved list of trees does not necessarily mean that trees not on the list
are disapproved, but that they would require staff approval.
Mrs. Boring stated that she would like to see more ornamental street trees.
Mr. Reiner responded that it is advisable to use large, canopy-type trees running east and west;
ornamental trees could be used on the northern and southern axis. He stated that every homeowner
wants to do something different on his own property, and there is no intent to tie the neighborhood
together. However, that is the function of the street tree - to add commonality to the neighborhood.
Ms. Clarke states the objective is not to go for a rural look with 80-ft lots. City ordinance presently
requires the same species on a street and a different species for each street in the subdivision.
Several years ago, a survey of all the street trees in town revealed that half the trees were
crabapples.
Mrs. Boring inquired if a party could ask for a variance from these requirements.
Ms. Coen stated that Campden Lakes did request and was granted a street tree variance.
Mr. Reiner inquired about the addition of item K on page 8-41, which states, " It shall be unlawful
for any person or contractor to act as an arborist in the business or occupation of pruning, treating,
or removing street or park trees from the City without first applying for and securing an arborist
license."
Ms. Clarke stated that this applies to those located on City property -- the street trees or those
located within parks. The electric company is required to obtain a permit, as well, although they
probably never have. No penalty has been specified.
Mr. Reiner suggested additional legislation to prohibit the pruning of trees in the public rights-of-
way. This defeats the purpose of the trees, which is for screening.
Mr. Marshall stated that the requirement on 8-42 for landscaping to be a minimum of 3 feet from
the enclosure in all directions may be problematic. He noted that many times, there is not 3 feet to
work with, for instance, in the case of electric transformers.
Mr. Reiner stated there is a need to group the utility lines along the common property lines to
address the current problem of utility lines running all over properties, just beneath the surface
where they are often inadvertently cut. As a convenience to the citizens, and also as a health and
safety measure, this needs to be addressed.
Ms. Clarke stated that utility lines formerly were installed at the rear of properties, but when the
utility companies were changed a few years ago, the new utility companies installed them in the
front. Due to citizens' concerns, staff met with the utility companies, and in the new lots, no build
zones are being platted. The question is should the utility boxes be isolated in the no-build zones or
closer to the buildable area? The developers' response is that they prefer them to the front or the
side of the lots, as it gives better opportunity to screen them.
Mr. Reiner inquired if there is a common area in which to locate them near the backs of the houses
where the homeowner wants screening anyway, rather than running them up and down the common
space in front of the house.
Discussion contnued regarding legislation requiring utility easements to resolve some of the
problems with the installation of public utilities. Staff will research this further, including the
possibility of having the utilities installed before building permits are issued.
Discussion continued regarding engineering standards to require inspection of laterals to and from a
house. Mr. Reiner suggested that the Building Code could simply require that the laterals be
backfilled with gravel and tamp them with 6-inch lifts. If they collapse, the homeowner can hold
the construction company responsible.
Zoning Code Review Team
May 12, 2001
Page 9
Loading Standards
Mr. Marshall suggested changes in the number of minimum number of berths pre gross floor area.
Lot, Yard and Density Standards
No changes.
8-49 Fences shall be placed within easements. Mr. Marshall stated that when they review fence
permits, staff looks at easements shown on the final plats.
Page 8-49 Public Site and Open Space Fee.
Mrs. Boring inquired why the City asks for a minimum fee of $850 for open space in an area where
there is no open space.
Ms. Clarke stated all parks do not result from donation during development. However, every
homeowner has a responsibility for contributing to the open space and recreational system of the
City.
Satellite Dish Standards - Pa e
The Law Department is reviewing this section. Ms. Readier stated that there can be no local
regulation of the small satellite dishes.
Sign Standards
Mr. Marshall will forward a list of suggested modifications to the consultants.
However, on Corporate Signs along Interstate District, page 8-55, staffrequests committee input.
Ms. Clarke stated that the sign ordinance was written for office headquarter buildings, not for
buildings that abutted I-270. It needs to be updated. She noted that Mr. McCash has had interest
and input on this subject in several discussions. He has expressed a dislike for signs made up of
plastic letters on a building, preferring illumination of an opaque letter.
Mr. Johnson stated that the concern they have with the City signage is that there are quite a few
items that are not content neutral.
Mr. Weinstein stated that signs are protected by the First Amendment, «~hether they are commercial
or non-commercial. If the sign code regulates signage based on the content of the sign, or if one
user is allowed a kind of sign that another is not, that code is content based and is subject to strict
scrutiny, the highest level of judicial scrutiny. If the regulation is content neutral, that is, regulated
by size and location, that is subject to a lesser scrutiny.
Mr. Johnson stated that they have tried to keep the essence of what the City is trying to accomplish,
yet write it in a way that is content neutral and much more legally defensible.
Ms. Clarke stated that the corporate signs along the interstate were intended to be a special welcome
to the corporate headquarters. The Legal Department has indicated that it is dangerous to give
someone greater benefit of signage than another.
Mr. Reiner stated that perhaps they should stay with the ground signs.
Mrs. Boring stated that she also prefers the ground signs, including the possibility of allowing the
ground signs along the Interstate to be increased to 100 sq. ft.
11~Ir. Adamek stated that he likes the wall signs, if they're done to the scale of the business, and he
likes the Marriott and Embassy signs along the highway.
Zoning Code Review Team
May 12, 2001
Page 10
Mr. Weinstein stated that is the reason for the T.C~.D.'s along the highway. [travel oriented
destination] However, the limit is six. It is possible to just limit the highway sign to the logo.
Discussion continued regarding highway signage, including size, location and distance from the
highway.
Ms. Clarke stated that the standard setback throughout the community is eight feet from the right-
of-way, whether it is a residential street or interstate.
Mr. Johnson stated that one standard is to acknowledge the speed of traffic. If you are allowing a
40' sign on a local street as well as on an arterial, the traveler on the arterial could argue that you
are giving the traveler on the local street preferential treatment, as they have a more visible sign.
Ms. Clarke stated if a distinction is to be made, it should be 20 square feet on the local street versus
50 square feet on the interstate. However, given the users on the local streets -schools and
churches, will anything be gained by making the change?
Mr. Adamek stated that he does not see an advantage in making the distinction.
Mr. Weinstein stated that the real issue is if the sign is visible at a greater speed. That is the reason
for a larger sign on the interstate highways.
Mr. Marshall suggested that they start with the largest sign that is City compliant, 50 square feet.
Discussion continued regarding ground monument signs.
Mr. Weinstein stated that every community has to make atrade-off. While some people may know
where they are, the visitor does not, and that poses a traffic safety problem. So the community
needs to make a trade offbetween aesthetics and the public health and safety, specifically in sign
size and placement.
Ms. Clarke pointed out that all the changes worked out in the Council subcommittee three years ago
were never adopted.
Mr. Marshall stated that this draft reflects most of those recommended changes.
Discussion continued regarding use of a 3' x 5' ratio.
Mr. Reiner adjourned the meeting at 12:20 p.m., noting that continued review of the Zoning Code
revisions will resume on May 24 at 7:00 p.m.
Submitted by:
Assistant Clerk of Council