Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutComm Dev minutes 1995 allLand Use, Planning & Economic Development Committee of Dublin City Council February 23, 1995 7:30 a.m. - Development Dept. Conference Room 5800 Shier -Rings Road Minutes of Meeting Attendine: Denise King, Chairperson Judi Stillwell Terry Foegler Mary Bearden The meeting was called to order by Denise King. Approval of Minutes of September 20, 1994 Meeting Mrs. Stillwell moved to approve the minutes of the September 20, 1994 meeting. Mrs. King seconded the motion. Motion carried. Final Plat Procedure Revision Mrs. King noted that Law Director Steve Smith has forwarded his suggestions to Mr. Foegler regarding streamlining the final plat process. Mr. Foegler explained that the issue is legislative versus administrative action of Council. Under the Code, Council must take legislative action to accept land (public right -of way, etc.), and P &Z cannot accept land on Council's behalf. If Planning Commission disapproves a plat, Council should include this item as an "Other" item on their agenda. The law director is working on a broader memo to describe the nature of discretion at the various levels and types of review, and this information will be shared with the Planning Commission as well. Mr. Foegler then briefly explained the zoning process. Basically, the rezoning addresses land use and density issues and then the preliminary plat addresses street layout, parkland locations, waivers, sidewalks, setbacks, street widths, etc., allowing the developer to proceed with designing and engineering of the development. The developer then proceeds with the costly detailed construction drawings. The construction drawings go to bid, a bid is awarded, and all of the improvements are built and installed. The final plat then comes to Council and Council verifies that it conforms with the plans and the preliminary plat. Council accepts the final plat which dedicates the right -of -way, the easements and formally creates the lots. Developers cannot sell the lots until such time as the parcel legally exists - after the deed is recorded. He added that developers sometimes try to rush the final plat process, but the City staff has been instructed that only when all of the public improvements are completed and signed off on can the final plat be taken to Council for approval. Land Use, Planning & Economic Development Committee February 23, 1995 Page Two He suggested that his staff continue to work with the law director on the broader memo regarding the review processes for development. He does not believe the preliminary plat process needs any modification. Mrs. Stillwell noted that she is continuing to work on streamlining the Council agenda with use of the consent agenda format. Status of Economic Development Program Mrs. Bearden reported that she is working on a retention and expansion program using a model from Ohio State University. The program will appoint key players to a task force who will be trained to make calls on businesses. She has met with the Mayor and with Chamber representatives regarding the format of the program. After the 30 or 40 tasks members are identified, each team of two will call on two companies - about 75 businesses have been targeted. The presentations to businesses will be done in June. During the following 60 days, Ohio State will process the response information and provide a draft report to the Economic Development Committee. Any short-term needs of businesses identified in this process will be addressed as soon as possible. Mr. Foegler noted that Council members are welcome to serve on the task force, and division heads are also being invited to serve. Mrs. King thanked Mrs. Bearden for the wonderful progress she has made in taking the lead on this program. Briefing on Potential Annexation Requests Mrs. King explained that the adopted interim annexation policy states that land will be accepted in Union County or in Delaware County only when it straddles the border and can't logically be divided, or when dividing it would create a hardship for the owner. She has concerns that some of the potential annexations under consideration do not meet this criteria. Mr. Foegler stated that he is aware of several pending requests - one piece with the golf course on Brand Road where 80 percent is in the City and a small, irregular piece extends into Union County. The other is with the Starkey piece where the vast majority of land is in Dublin with a small portion outside. The petition for the Starkey property contained an error, and therefore the applicant must start the process over. Mr. Foegler added that staff supports the Starkey annexation because of the bridge which will be put across the property. The Erwin developer and Borror will contribute a percentage to the Land Use, Planning & Economic Development Committee February 23, 1995 Page Three bridge crossing as well. There is another potential annexation that staff has concerns with - the one being pursued by Borror for a piece owned by Columbus Builders Supply which straddles the Union County line. He noted that there is discretion in the current policy, and it may be appropriate to tighten up this language about parcels which may be developable separately. Mrs. King noted that the existing policy does not encourage the annexation of large parcels of property in Union County for residential development. Mr. Foegler suggested that the Committee report back to Council at Monday's meeting in terms of their recommendation to clarify the policy regarding property which straddles the county lines. He will prepare draft language for this. Mrs. King asked about the status of Mr. Haid's annexation request north of Muirfield in Delaware County. She had told Mr. Haid that this property does not meet the criteria of the interim annexation policy. Mr. Foegler replied that some of the issues which would have to be addressed before this annexation could be considered are: 1. Obtaining sanitary sewer easements from Muirfield; 2. Determining whether water pressure with the Delco system can meet urban fire flow standards; 3. Concord township boundary adjustment issue; 4. Approval from Delaware County commissioners; 5. Columbus and Dublin would have to agree on amending the current sewer service contract boundaries. He added that these issues are complicated and the burden would be on the applicant to work to resolve the issues. This would not be a staff priority at this time. Staff has informed Mr. Haid about the obstacles to be overcome, and Mr. Haid responded with a letter from Delco. Staff informed Mr. Haid that a letter from Delco would not adequately address the issues. Mrs. King noted that she had told Mr. Haid that staff has many other priorities at this time instead of working on residential annexations which are outside of the adopted annexation policy. Other Business Mrs. Stillwell noted that she has had recent conversations with Chris Cline and the Post Road residents who have concerns about the commitment to cul -de -sac Post Road in light of the proposed Super America rezoning and the construction of the Recreation Center on Post Road. The residents are also concerned about any proposed traffic signal to be installed at Post and Avery. They would like some reaffirmation regarding the City's policies relative to Post Road. Land Use, Planning & Economic Development Committee February 23, 1995 Page Four Discussion followed. Mrs. Stillwell suggested that Council pass a resolution reaffirming the existing policies for the Post Road area. Mr. Foegler cautioned that other neighborhoods could then request assurances on matters such as this. He believes that the Community Plan update will address all of these issues. He has told Mr. Cline this. Following additional discussion, Mrs. Stillwell asked Mr. Foegler to draft a letter to the Post Road residents regarding the issues the residents have raised. Mrs. Stillwell noted that she will bring this up at a future Council meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 a.m. Clerk of Council COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE of Dublin City Council Meeting Agenda April 27, 1995 8:30 A.M. City Hall Discussion re Proposed I -73 Corridor Other Business Community Development Committee of Dublin City Council Minutes of Meeting of April 27, 1995 8:30 a.m. Dublin City Hall Attending Denise Franz King, Chairperson Judi Stillwell Peter Zawaly Mr. Kindra Ms. Bearden Mrs. King called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. on April 27, 1995. Discussion on I -73 Corridor Mrs. King stated that she would like the Committee to develop a recommendation to Council regarding the proposed I -73 corridor. Mr. Kindra reviewed the information provided to the Committee in his memo of April 25, 1995, noting that the proposed corridor will extend from Charleston, South Carolina to Detroit, Michigan. Mrs. King noted a correction on the last paragraph of the first page, where it should state "east" not "west." Mr. Kindra agreed. Ms. Bearden, Economic Development Coordinator stated that she has been involved with the Central District 3 Committee over the past three years and has lobbied for the west alignment of the turnpike. She emphasized that in 20 to 30 years, the existing I -270 roadway system will be inadequate to meet the needs generated by economic development. Dublin needs to lobby to be an exit on this turnpike. Employers in the City of Dublin have concerns about the adequacy of roadways to get their employees to work. To protect Dublin's economic development interests, a better traffic pattern is desired on the west side. Some people believe that the roadway will not be developed due to funding problems and other roads in need of repair. Mrs. King has concerns about an outer - outerbelt because of the additional pressures it would create for leap -frog development. This type of development is extremely costly to the taxpayer versus compact development. Mr. Kindra noted that Dublin would not exist as it does today if it were not located along I -270. If Dublin wants to capture future opportunity, the west location of I -73 could help. It is Council's decision to make, though. Mrs. King noted that Dublin residents also value green space and ambiance and a sense of community. She questions whether the same sense of community would exist if the City Community Development Committee April 27, 1995 Page Two increases in size substantially. Mr. Zawaly noted that Dublin may not have choices in where this corridor is routed. He notes that a portion of Muirfield is very close to one of the proposed routes. Mrs. Stillwell commented that MORPC has been studying this issue with citizen involvement. She believes the sense of the Commission is to favor the eastern route because of the many environmental issues on the western side related to the Big Darby. Mrs. King asked Mr. Kindra to investigate whether other suburbs have taken a position on this route and if so, what is their rationale. She asked that members of the Committee review the materials for further discussion of this issue at the next meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 a.m. Clerk of Council COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE of Dublin City Council Meeting Agenda May 11, 1995 - @9:00 A.M. (following Admin. Committee) City Hall Discussion re Proposed I -73 Corridor Other Business Community Development Committee of Dublin City Council Minutes of Meeting of f May 11, 1995 9:15 a.m. - Dublin City Hall Attending Denise Franz King, Chairperson Judi Stillwell Peter Zawaly Mr. Hansley Mrs. King called the meeting to order at 9:15 a.m. on May 11, 1995. A Discussion on I -73 Corridor Mrs. King stated that the Committee needs to decide whether to recommend to Council that they take an official position regarding the location of the highway. She noted that there is growing uncertainty about whether the road will be built. Mrs. Stillwell noted that she understands that the project is a "back burner" issue at this time, and as such, she would not advocate directing any staff resources to the issue at this time. Mr. Hansley agreed with Mrs. Stillwell. He would recommend deferring any legislation about an official position until the Committee has more time to gather information and get more of a sense of the community's position. Mr. Zawaly cautioned that silence could be misinterpreted as disinterest. It is therefore important to communicate that Dublin does have an interest in this issue. Mrs. Stillwell suggested that staff monitor the issue and keep Council apprised of the status. Mrs. King suggested sending a letter to ODOT from the Mayor or City Manager indicating Dublin's interest in this issue, and requesting that the City be kept informed about the status of the project. Mr. Hansley agreed to draft such a letter from the Mayor to send to ODOT and state officials. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 a.m. 6 1 1 1 - > - Clerk of Council CITY OF DUBLIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE of Dublin City Council Meeting Agenda Wednesday, September 27, 1995 7:30 a.m. City Hall 1. Approval of Minutes of April 27 and May 11, 1995 Meetings 2. Discussion re status of I -73 Corridor 3. Discussion re township zoning classifications for area south of Post, north of 33, east of Avery, west of 270 4. Next meeting date Community Development Committee of Dublin City Council Minutes of Meeting September 27, 1995 Attendine: Denise King, Chairperson Judi Stillwell Peter Zawaly Balbir Kindra Mary Bearden Mrs. King called the meeting to order at 7:35 a.m. Mrs. Stillwell moved to approve the minutes of the April 27 and May 11, 1995 meetings. Mr. Zawaly seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Status of I -73 Corridor Mrs. King distributed copies of a map showing where the proposed I -73 would be in proximity to Dublin. She further stated that she has heard that the City of Delaware supports taking the turnpike to the west of Delaware near the airport. Mr. Kindra noted there have been some changes since this version of the map was printed. The blue alignments have been rejected, but all of the green lines are still under consideration. He noted that he will attend a meeting in Delaware tonight on this topic. Mr. Kindra explained that federal legislation has mandated construction of the new intrastate I -73, and within each of the states, the coordinating bodies have given the responsibility to the Department of Transportation. In Ohio, the Turnpike Commission has responsibility for the project. Mrs. King noted that any proposed alternative which would alleviate the traffic pressure at 270 from Route 23 would benefit Dublin businesses and residents. She believes that an eastern route for the corridor would alleviate traffic problems for Dublin. Mr. Kindra noted that MORPC and the City of Columbus have gone on record as favoring the eastern route and incorporated the 270 eastern loop. Mrs. King commented that new transportation projects sometimes attract traffic, resulting in leap frog development which would ultimately lower the quality of life and increase taxpayer cost. These are concerns voiced by residents and businesses in the R & E study. From this standpoint, she would have reservations about any proposed western route. Mrs. Stillwell agreed that she would be in favor of diverting the traffic away from Dublin. There is increasing capacity concern with I -270 now, even with the lanes to be added. Mr. Zawaly commented that he does not see the turnpike as a need for economic development. Community Development Committee September 27, 1995 Page 2 Mr. Kindra emphasized that the money for the turnpike cannot be used for existing projects, such as improving 270. He will continue to keep Council informed of developments about the corridor. The Committee members agreed that at a future date, Dublin may want to take a position, but at this time, it is advisable to wait. Mr. Zawaly added that Dublin may want to take a position at a point where the route would affect something of importance to Dublin. Ms. Bearden stated that she met with Mr. Habig of MORPC on this matter recently. She noted that there is a strong preference to use as many existing roads as possible, meaning that money will be spent on upgrading existing systems. Mr. Habig indicated that they don't anticipate there being new traffic, but simply the same volume of existing traffic. Hopefully, some of the traffic will be diverted away from the 161 to High Street portion of I -270 (Dublin to Worthington) and onto an outerbelt to the west which would be a positive for Dublin. Ms. Bearden agreed with staying involved in the process and not taking a position at this time. Mrs. King noted that even though this route is being considered as a limited access highway at this time, she can envision future pressure from companies who want to relocate along the turnpike, put in more exits, and create another I -270 situation with the same level of intensity which would result in greater traffic problems for Dublin in the long run. In the short term, it could reduce traffic congestion. Township Zoning Classifications for the Area South of Post North of 33 East of Avery , West of 270 Mrs. King stated this issue was added to the agenda, hoping the information would be ready by the time the Committee met. The clerk reported the Bobbie Clarke was out of town, and the information was not available at this time. Mrs. King asked that the clerk check with the Development Department about when the information would be available. Other Business Mrs. Stillwell commented that the city -wide fence standard had been referred to this Committee. Mrs. King stated that the first step would be to review the existing ordinance on fences and to then look at what other communities have in place for fencing restrictions. She will talk to some of the neighborhood associations about a city -wide fence standard. Community Development Committee September 27, 1995 Page 3 Following brief discussion, Mrs. King asked that a memo be sent to the Planning Commission informing them that the city -wide fence issue has been assigned to the Community Development Committee and that it will be discussed at a meeting in October. She asked that the memo mention that the matter arose from the Brighton Park fence issue. The memo should request the Commission's thoughts and recommendations on this issue by phone or by memo to the Community Development Committee. If they prefer, the Commission members can share their thoughts with Mr. Zawaly at a meeting and he can pass the information on to the Committee. Mr. Zawaly briefly updated the Committee on the status of the Appearance Code. The Planning Commission may be recommending that another review body be established to enforce a proposed appearance code. The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 a.m. Clerk of Council Community Development Committee of Dublin City Council DRAICT Minutes of Meeting October 25, 1995 Attending: Denise King, Chairperson Judi Stillwell Bobbie Clarke Mrs. King called the meeting to order at 7:30 a.m. The clerk reported that Mr. Zawaly is unable to attend due to a court hearing. Mrs. King noted a correction to page 1 of the minutes of September 27. It should read, "She further stated that she has heard that the City of Delaware supports taking the turnpike to the west of Delaware near the airport." Strike the rest of the sentence which follows. Mrs. Stillwell moved approval with this correction. Mrs. King seconded the motion. Motion carried. Township Zoning Classifications for Area South of Post, North of 33, East of Avery, West of 270 Ms. Clarke distributed a zoning map of the area to the Committee which shows the outdated township zonings in annexed areas as well as the Post Road area. She noted that the Dublin Code Section 1121.03 states that the City will enforce the township zoning until such time as the City establishes its own zoning. She pointed out the township non - conforming zoned Ponderosa trailer park piece, the exceptional use township zoning which permits a variety of commercial uses for the Dublin Party House, and the RI and PIP township parcels. There are also parcels shown on the map with township zoning of R -lA and R -111. Mrs. King noted concerns with a city - sponsored rezoning of an area where an owner resides on the property. Homeowners have indicated that they cannot afford to stay in their homes once they are rezoned commercial due to the increased taxes. Ms. Clarke responded that the county auditor bases taxes on recent transactions in the area - the zoning does not affect the tax rate. Following discussion about prioritization, it was agreed that the area south of Post Road would be the focus of the initial effort. It is also important to follow through with rezoning annexed areas to Dublin zoning classifications, as prescribed in the Code. The next phase should be for the areas which have been annexed and which still have township zoning classifications. Ms. Clarke recommended that other than the office flex space near the Justice Center, the area south of Post Road would most appropriately fit into the SO zoning category. Discussion followed about the impacted property owners who could view the City action as a downzoning. Since the City is currently undertaking the Perimeter Drive extension and needs the cooperation of property owners in acquiring the right of way, it was determined that the recommendation to Council be that any city - sponsored rezoning effort for the area south of Post be put on hold for 6 months to a year. Mrs. King summarized that the Committee has reviewed the materials provided by the Planning Director, the scope of the problem is less than originally thought, the appropriateness of immediate action is not clear, and therefore the Committee recommends that no action be taken at this time. Ms. Clarke offered to have staff update the Committee within 6 months to a year to re- evaluate and to report on the status of right -of -way acquisition. Mrs. Stillwell suggested that the report to Council include the fact that while reviewing the Post Road area, the Committee became aware of areas in the southwest which should be addressed. Ms. Clarke suggested that the Planning Commission review this an), initiate appropriate rezonings. Mrs. King summarized that the Committee recommendation to Council will be to review the areas with township zoning and initiate appropriate city action to change them to City zonings, giving highest priority to industrial use classifications, non - conforming uses, exceptional uses, and the trailer park. City -Wide Fence Standards Mrs. King reported that the Brighton Park developer is now taking action to create a homeowners' association for the development. The existing City fence Code was provided to the Committee for their review. Mrs. King suggested deleting chain link and privacy fences from the permitted fences section and moving them to the prohibited fences list. There is still a need to permit privacy fences, however, for swimming pool enclosure. Ms. Clarke noted other needs for fences - dog runs, landscaped trellis work, "big dog" fences, and for tennis courts and pools. These needs must be addressed in the ordinance revisions. She suggested that a chain link fence be a permitted type of fence for a tennis court, that it be black, within the buildable area of the lot, and that the height be restricted. The Committee agreed that the goal is to create a standard more closely aligned with the Indian Run Meadows standard and substantially restrict privacy fences. The intent is to maintain an open space feeling in neighborhoods. Ms. Clarke commented that there is a desire for consistency. The Indian Run split rail type fence has been established in broad areas across Dublin subdivisions. The other type of established fence is the Muirfield fence. �3 ,4 t Discussion followed about the specific changes to be made in the existing fence Code. Ms. Clarke suggested that the entire fence Code be reworked in view of the many suggested revisions. She estimates that this process would take about 6 months. Following discussion about a proposed moratorium on fence permits in the interim, the Committee agreed that an interim fence Code should be proposed to Council with the understanding that within a period of one year, the entire chapter will be rewritten. Mrs. King noted that the interim changes include: 1. Deleting chain link and privacy fences from the list of permitted fences under Section 1309.04; 2. Adding the option of facing the split rail fence with black wire mesh to the definition; 3. Deleting items (1) and (2) under Section 1309.03(b); 4. Under Section 1309.03(b), strike "Permitted privacy fences are:" and insert after air, "the design of which must be approved by the City Planning Director "; 5. Under Section 1309.05, delete the words "or metal chain link "; Other concerns expressed by the Committee to be addressed in the chapter revisions over the next year are: retaining picket fences as permitted in view of the popularity of neotraditional design; allowing black chain link fencing for tennis courts; exploring whether decorative iron fences should be allowed. Input from designers, developers, and neighborhoods would be an important part of this process. Ms. Clarke suggested that the penalty section be checked to ensure that it is current. Mrs. King noted that she will recommend to Council that the Law Director be asked to draft the revisions to the fence code to be brought to Council for adoption as an interim measure with the understanding that a more thorough review will be done over the next 6 months to a year. Other Mrs. King noted that a letter was sent on October 19 from General Assembly members seeking the City's response to a survey about I -73 preferences. They have asked for a response by October 31. Since Council does not meet in the interim and since the matter was referred to the Committee, she would recommend that the Committee respond and then report back to Council. Following discussion, the Committee agreed to check options 2 ( "I oppose rerouting I -73 along 270 West), 4 ( "I prefer to participate in the existing working group ") and 5 ( "this is not a high priority for my community and no action is needed "), adding language that the matter is not a high priority compared to other projects except to the extent of diverting traffic from 23 that adds to the congestion on 270. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 a.m. Clerk of Council C �4 z O U z OI 0 _�A nwr 1 • ■ \• uuu .gyp G• ■- 1!1 J r HOW � Ili \III 11 . - ■ , `� ®. viol MISSION WON _ iG1,.11011000 O� �j�n,� �� ..;111 ' ���►`'� : _ � a e 4 CHAPTER 1309 Fences 1309.01 Purpose. 1309.02 Scope. 1309.03 Definitions. 1309.04 Permitted fences. 1309.05 Swimming pool fences. 1309.06 Corner and through lot fences. 1309.07 Maintenance. 1309.08 Permit and inspection. 1309.09 Compliance required; conflict p rovisions. 1309.99 Penalty` Cu rrCK -t CROSSREFERENCES Fencing required around junkyards - see Ohio R. C. 4737.05 et. seq. Electrical and barbed wire fences - see GEN. OFF. 521.07 1309.01 PURPOSE. The purpose of this chapter is to establish regulations controlling the use of fences, hedges and walls whereby the lot owner in a residential district may have the privilege of privacy and landscape design within his own lot with due consideration to the environment of his neighbor, the appearance of the community and the safety of the public and the indivi- dual. (Ord. 44 -79. Passed 5- 7 -79.) 1309.02 SCOPE. (a) This chapter shall apply to all residential districts as the same are defined by the Zoning Ordinance and official map of the Municipality. This chapter shall not apply to rural, commercial, or industrial districts as they are defined in the Zoning Ordinance except as specifically required by the use of the term "all" districts. (b) The fence regulations herein shall not apply to any permanent fence structure four feet or less in height erected prior to the effective date of this chapter. (Ord. 44 -79. Passed 5-7-79.) 1309.03 DEFINITIONS. (a) "Fence" means any structure composed of wood, iron, steel, shrubbery, hedges or other material erected in such a manner and positioned as to enclose or partially en- close any premises or any part of any premises. Trellises or other structures support - ing or for the purpose of supporting vines, flowers and other vegetation when erected in .ch position as to enclose any premises or any part of any premises shall be included with- in the definition of the word "fences ". Structures erected other than on lot lines or in close proximity to lot lines, which have solely an ornamental purpose and which do not in fact serve the purpose of enclosing or partially enclosing premises or of separating premises 1988 Replacement A.e A-C-5 Q�prowCX r] 5 from adjoining premises, shall not be 04 u I " V , ; V1 DI ore C -to✓ within the definition of the word "fences ". 11 (b) "Privacy fence" means a fence de to inhibit public view and provide seclusion and, when viewed at right angles, havi more than fifty percent (50 %) of the area of its vertical plane, the area within a recta lar outline enclosing all parts of the fence in its vertical plane, closed to light or air (1 "Basket weave or "wo�enfence" cane r slats of flexib or semi l - flexible at a arance of a pl ted basket. (2) "Lo ver" or "ventila ' g fence" means a place at an angle or po 'tinned so as to pendicu to its vertical ane. 13 c Q4 " a fence m de of interwove strips rial in whi the pattern ha the nce made of a eries of sla pro 'de air but to fleet light er- (c) "Open ornamental fence" means a fence usually made of wood constructed for its beauty or decorative effect and, when viewed at right angles, having not less than fifty percent (50 %) of the area of its vertical plane,the area within a rectangular outline enclos- ing all parts of the fence in its vertical pla.ne,.open to light and air. Permitg open ornamen- tal fences are: �.I Ma b e t atv.0 I.�r g1 CtC k _W i rC. (1) "Rail" or "split rail fence" means a fence constructect 01 narrow, whole or split, wooden timbers placed horizontally between upright supporting posts. (2) "Picket fence" means an open fence made of upright poles or slats (d) "Chain link fence" means a fence usually made of metal consisting of loops of wire interconnected in a series of joined links. (e) "Barbed wire fence" means a fence made with metal wire having sharp points or barbs along its length. (f) "Stockade" or "palisade fence" means a fence constructed with a row of large pointed stakes placed upright against each other having more than fifty percent (50 %) of the area of its vertical plane closed to light or air. (g) "Electrified fence" means all fences or structures, included in which or attached to which, is any device or object which emits or produces an electric charge, impulse or shock when the same comes into contact with any other object or any person, animal or thing, or which causes or may cause, burns to any person or animal. (Ord. 44 -79. Passed 5 -7 -79. ) 1309.04 PERMITTED FENCES. Fences shall be permitted in required yards as follows, except as otherwise provided in the Zoning Ordinance or other Municipal ordinances. (a) Open Ornamental Fences. Shall be pe mitted in residential zoning districts. Chain Li Fences. S N perm e, n all zoning di tricts only in ear and side ards. Such nces mted paral 1 to and on, o approximate on, the C men prope line t not exce 'ng five feet ove the Hato 1 grade. (c) ri c nces. Shaitted in 11 z ning dis 'ct only in rea yards. S h fences all comply w the yard re irements of a ermitted ace sory boil g and sh not exceed ven feet in h ht above the tural grade. 1309. 05 BUILDING CODE 6 (d) Shrubbery or Hedges. Shall be permitted in public facilities and residential zoning districts. (e) Electrified Barbed Wire and Stockade Fences Are hereby prohibited in resi- dential districts. (f) Other Fences. The Manager may permit other fences similar in character and design to one or more of the permitted fences herein upon application. (Ord. 44 -79. Passed 5 -7 -79. ) 1309.05 SWIMMING POOL FENCES. Swimming pools located within all zoning districts of the Municipality shall be surround- ed by wooden privacy fence not less than four feet in height; and all openings, doorways and entrance into the pool area shall be equipped with gates of equal height with the fence, which gates shall be provided with latches and locks. Aboveground swimming pools shall not be included within the definition of "swimming pool' as used in this section. (Ord. 73 -79. Passed 8- 6 -79.) 1309.06 CORNER AND THROUGH LOT FENCES. Where a rear or side yard abuts a street, fences otherwise permitted in side or rear yards shall not extend into required yards. However, this provision shall not prohibit permitted rail or split rail fences erected in such side or rear yards parallel to and not nearer than one foot to the side or rear property line, at a height not to exceed three feet above the natural grade. (Ord. 44 -79. Passed 5- 7 -79.) ` 1309.07 MAINTENANCE. Such permitted structures shall be maintained in good condition, be structurally sound and attractively finished at all times. Any grounds between such structures and property lines shall be well maintained at all times. Any such structures permitted on the property line shall be designed, constructed and finished so that the supporting members thereof shall face the property of the owner of the fence. (Ord. 44 -79. Passed 5 -7 -79. ) 1309.08 PERMIT AND INSPECTION. (a) Any fences which may be permitted shall require the issuance of a permit by the Manager after the same has been approved by him. (b) Each property owner shall determine property lines and ascertain that the fence thus constructed does not deviate from the plans as approved by the Manager issuing permits and does not encroach upon another lot or parcel of land. The Muncipality shall furnish such inspection as is deemed necessary to determine that the fence is constructed in accordance with plans submitted for permit, provided however, that the issuance of such permit by the Municipality shall not be construed to mean the Muncipality has determined the fence is not encroaching upon another lot, nor shall it relieve the property owner of the duty imposed upon him herein. (Ord, 44 -79. Passed 5 -7 -79. ) 7 Fences 1309.9 1309.09 COMPLIANCE REQUIRED; CONFLICTING PROVISIONS. (a) Fences shall be designed, erected, altered, reconstructed, moved, anchored, positioned and maintained, in whole or in pest, strictly in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. (b) To the extent that the provisions of this chapter shall be included in or similar to restrictive covenants contained in any deeds of record or recorded plats or approved sub- divisions, or the contents of an approved zoning plan, then the contents of such restric- tive covenants, approval of plats or subdivisions or plans shall control to the extent they are not in conflict with this chapter. (Ord. 44 -79. Passed 5-7-79.) 1309.99 PENALTY. �k Whoever violates any provisions of this chapter, shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars ($100.00). Each day that such violation continues shall constitute a separ- CU1^f ate offense. (Ord. 44 -79. Passed 5-7-79.) 1987 Replacement Community Development Committee of Dublin City Council Minutes of Meeting November 21, 1995 Attending_ Denise King, Chairperson Judi Stillwell Peter Zawaly Mrs. King called the meeting to order at 6:55 p.m. Approval of Minutes of October 25, 1995 Meeting Mrs. Stillwell moved approval of the minutes. Mrs. King seconded the motion. Vote on the motion - Mrs. King, yes; Mrs. Stillwell, yes; Mr. Zawaly, abstain. The meeting was adjourned at 6:58 p.m. Clerk of Council