Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCom. Dev. Com. 1997 allCommunity Development Committee of Dublin City Council Thursday, January 9, 1997 7:00 p.m. - Municipal Building Atten i e Mr. McCash, Chair Mr. Campbell Ms. Hide Pittaluga Mr. Hansley Mr. Smith Ms. Bobbie Clarke Ms. Boring Jenmar Court residents: Randy Roth Kathy A. Dyer Sharon Huber Jim O'Connell Richard P. Zaborsky Neat P. Johnson Carl and Donna Gleditsch Denny and Kim Durkin Donald and Janice Spangler Mark and Diane Armstrong George Chambers Isaac and Lilian Bolano Eva Chapin Mr. McCash called the meeting to order at 7:1.0 p.m. He stated that the only item on tonight's agenda is the issue of the five properties on Jenmar Court that the city is proposing to sell by auction. He noted that over the Christmas holidays he received a phone call from Randy Roth about concerns the neighbors had about auctioning these properties. At Monday night's Council meeting, this issue was referred to the Community Development Committee. Mr. McCash invited Randy Roth to summarize the issues for the Committee members. Randy Roth stated that their concern is about the transition period for selling these homes. They do not want the homes sold to absentee owners, because if the neighborhood becomes more transient, property values could go down, and the homes may deteriorate. The neighbors are aware that the city has already done a lot to help them. The original plan was for the city to take Community Development Meeting January 9, 1997 Page 2 two of the houses and leave that as open space. The neighbors on Jenmar Court met last night and agreed they would be willing to retain an attorney to put deed restrictions on their own homes, assuming this is OK with their mortgage companies. The neighbors would be willing to uphold the deed restrictions for five years during the transition. Mr. McCash asked if the only deed restriction they are suggesting is ownership, not colors of houses, parking vehicles, satellite dishes, etc. Roth confirmed that they are referring to an owner occupancy deed restriction. Mr. Campbell stated that it would be difficult for each single family owner to go back and change their title work. He asked Mr. Smith if there is another way to accomplish this. Mr. Smith suggested replatting, adding that he did not think the mortgage companies would object. In order to be enforceable, the deed restrictions would have to be on the titles of the properties the city is going to sell. Ms. Boring asked how this is done in Columbus. Mr. Smith answered that Columbus loans money to homeowners at a low interest rate as the city has an interest in the property. Randy Roth stated that the neighbors agreed that they must maintain consensus during this transition period. They want stability for their neighborhood. Mr. Smith stated that it was a city staff decision to sell these properties by auction after the properties were appraised. The auction would be by sealed bids, and the owners would have to sign a document stating that they are aware of the future road alignment. The city's goal is to turn these properties around as quickly as possible. The city expects to receive at least 90% of the appraised value. Mr. Hansley stated it was the city's goal to get the highest value possible, as quickly as possible for these properties. Bobbie Clarke suggested that when the property is sold, a restriction could be placed on the plat. Mr. Smith agreed that it can be deed restricted, but without the other people in the subdivision, agreeing to a deed restriction, there would be no way to enforce it. Mr. Campbell stated that it would be real cumbersome for all the owners to do this. Community Development Meeting January 9, 1997 Page 3 Mr. Smith suggested a restriction for owner occupancy for five years. He would like to see other neighborhood homes have the same restrictions as well. Mr. Smith stated that the city has never done this before and does not have experience in this area, but they could also list the properties with a Realtor. The city felt there was an obligation to turn these properties around as quickly as possible. Randy Roth stated that he does not recommend the city ever doing this again and if any civic association ever suggests it have them give him a call. A neighbor stated he does not like the idea of bidding for these homes because it would not be the best way to attract the average buyer. The closed bid process will invite only the most sophisticated of buyers. Eva Chapin, another neighbor asked a question about the appraised value of these homes and whether they were appraised by people who knew the alignment of the proposed road. Mr. Smith answered yes, and that there was a decision made to sell these homes at 90% of their appraised value. Mr. Campbell stated that the appraisals are not up for discussion here tonight. Mr. McCash stated that what she was asking is if they appraised it as if the road wasn't going to be there, and then deducted for the roadway. Ms. Chapin stated that she would like to know what the numbers are as they are public record. Mr. Campbell asked Mr. Smith to get those numbers and provide them to Ms. Chapin. Mr. Campbell stated it is the city's intent to maximum the return on the sale of these properties to try to preserve the city's assets as much as possible. Mr. Donald Spangler 6050 Tain Drive stated that he is a Realtor and would like to know how these will be advertised. Mr. Hansley stated that it was the city's plan to have some unique media coverage on these houses, and give people the opportunity to walk through. Mr. Campbell stated that this is a very exceptional case in that Council went against their own legal counsel's advice in buying these houses. Community Development Meeting January 9, 1997 Page 4 Mr. Hansley stated that based on what he has heard here tonight, he will get a panel of real estate people and ask them their opinion on how to obtain the highest value, in the quickest way possible. Ms. Boring asked Mr. McCash if they would as a committee consider recommending using a real estate agent to protect the integrity of this neighborhood. An average person may see this in the paper, but to the unsophisticated home buyer, using the sealed bid process is not the way to go. Ms. Hide Pittaluga arrived at this time. Mr. McCash and Mr. Campbell gave a brief recap of the meeting, explaining the neighbors have requested deed restrictions for five years. Mr. Smith suggested they put the deed restrictions on the five city -owned homes, that they be owner occupied. In addition, Mr. Roth put deed restrictions on his home, as a representative of the neighborhood. Mr. Campbell made the motion that deed restrictions for owner occupancy for a five -year period be placed on the five city -owned properties plus Mr. Roth's, and that Mr. Hansley explore different methods of sale, and report back to Council. Mr. McCash seconded the motion. The motion carried. Mr. McCash adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m. Asst. 1 of C u cil �es oC s 0/ 7 .9-D 1M O��nhELL_ HARD e. zA �bRsky w I 1CI i - 4� — S NA 6L &q P ,� on � REALTORS` 6050Tain Drive Dublin, Ohio 43017 Off: 614/889 -0808 Fax: 614/889 -1901 Res: 614/761 -1195 Donald G. Spangler REALTOR Community Development Committee Joint Meeting with Tree & Landscape Advisory Commission Wednesday, February 26, 1997 7:00 p.m. - 5800 Building At nding; Tom McCash, Chair Joel Campbell John Reiner Ian Rennick Rich Ferguson Randy Heiligmann Kathryn Epp Mary Newcomb Paula Chope Mr. McCash called the joint meeting to order. Approval of Previous minufes Mr. McCash noted a change to the November 8, 1996 minutes where the word "illumines" should be revised to "lumen." Mr. Campbell moved approval of the meeting minutes of June 25, 1996, September 16, 1996, November 8, 1996 as amended, November 22, 1996, December 2, 1996 and January 9, 1997. Mr. McCash seconded the motion. Motion carried. Tree Preservation Ordinance Mr. McCash noted that this ordinance was introduced at City Council in October and was referred to T &L and CDC for joint review. Mr. McCash explained the need for the legislation which was modeled after the Westerville ordinance. The item remaining to be addressed is a means of providing a credit on a development plan for existing trees on a site. This would encourage developers to save trees and may discourage them from delaying filing of a building permit until after existing trees on a site are cleared. Mr. Reiner asked whether trees on the fence line or rank growth on the border of a property would be part of a trade out or credit. Mr. McCash responded that the intent is that the trade -off credit is for preserving trees in the parking areas or within the development areas. Mr. Heiligmann pointed out that you cannot use the diameter of inches of trunk space as an index because it is not a linear relationship. Landscapers measure trees by their visual impact. He also cautioned that the high quality trees such as oak and dogwoods are those that should be preserved, not clumps of low quality trees. Discussion followed about providing incentives to developers for saving trees and the method of credit given for trees in various locations, i.e., interior tree planting requirements or street tree requirements. Mr. McCash suggested that the City forester propose a set of tree preservation guidelines since tree survival is a part of the issue. The guidelines would not be included in the ordinance which would allow for modification without amending the ordinance. Mr. Heiligmann raised a concern that the City cannot tell a homeowner how to dispense with trees on private property. Mr. McCash explained that this zoning provision is for commercial properties. Discussion followed about provisions related to exemption of trees from preservation requirements. Ms. Newcomb stated that her biggest concern is with the trees at the outside edges of a site where the utilities are brought in. Mr. McCash explained that if the developer removes trees from the easement areas, they will have to be relocated or replaced. Mr. Heiligmann suggested that a credit is preferable to any type of punitive statement. He asked if administration will be more difficult with a credit given for existing trees or with replacement of trees. Mr. McCash explained that all of this would become part of the development plan process in the review of landscape plans. Mr. Reiner asked about the obligations a developer would have to the City if the trees died four to five years after construction. Mr. McCash responded that the guidelines should be developed through the City forester's office. The developer should not receive credit, however, for trees that die. Mr. Campbell stated that Mr. McCash's proposal seems fine to him. In terms of residential lots, Mr. McCash stated that due to the small lot size and the varied locations of houses, it would be difficult to regulate saving trees. Mr. Campbell agreed, adding that not allowing the homeowner to cut down the trees may constitute a taking to the landowner. Mr. McCash affirmed that the focus of this ordinance is for commercial development. Perhaps an incentive could be provided by allowing wooded areas to be counted as part of the parkland dedication credit. Mr. Heiligmann stated that the commission was not aware this ordinance was targeted to only commercial sites. Mr. Reiner recommended that this ordinance cover commercial property only in view of the takings issues which could arise over residential property. Mr. Campbell commented that he is not in favor of totally exempting the large scale residential subdivision entities from this. Ms. Chope commented that often the builders and contractors are careless in regard to tree preservation; it's not always the developer who is at fault. Mr. McCash suggested that for residential subdivisions, requirements for tree preservation be included in the development text. Then, when each of the site plans comes in for review for a building permit, staff could review what is being proposed and add text to protect the trees. Mr. McCash stated that he believes this tree preservation ordinance is a first step in updating the landscape code. Ms. Epp asked if there is any way in which the same ordinance could be used for residential development. Mr. McCasb and Mr. Campbell agreed that for legal reasons, this ordinance cannot be designed to regulate individual single lots. Mr. McCash pointed out that another possibility is having deed restrictions on lots for a large development. Following discussion, it was determined that the Tree and Landscape Commission would meet on Tuesday, March 25 at 7 p.m. at the 5800 Building. Mr. McCash will attend on Council's behalf to continue the discussion. The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. r� Assistant C�le of Coune't Community Development Meeting Tuesday March 18, 1997 7:00 p.m. - 5800 Building Attending Mr. McCash, Chair Ms.Hide Pittaluga Mr. Reiner Ms. Bobbie Clarke Mr. Dave Marshall Residents Ms Ruth Reiss Ms. Mary Eschleman Mr, Rick Gomez Mr. Todd Zimmerman Mr. McCash called the Community Development Meeting to order at 7:20 p.m. The agenda items for tonight will be discussion of possible revisions to the Dublin sign code. He would like to cover the issues of: square footage of signs; the two color issue; closeness to building; and proportionality of signs. He stated the purpose of the Dublin sign code is to enhance the street scape throughout Dublin. He distributed a rough draft of a drawing which shows the proportionality of a sign to a building, to a person and to a car. Ms. Clarke asked what the objective was of having larger street set - backs. Mr. McCash stated that the wider set -back would allow for an open feeling along the right -of- way. The current Dublin sign code allows signs closer than what the City of Columbus allows. Ms. Clarke cautioned that would potentially make every ground sign in Dublin non - conforming. She would like to see a change in the code that would not allow the "lollipop" design of signs, which is a sign on a pole that is currently permitted under Dublin's code. Mr. McCash stated he is trying to accomplish an open vista type look throughout the city, especially as signs relate to the building set -back lines. He does not like the McDonald's sign on Avery Road, it is too big for the building and too close to the road. In response to Ms. Hide Pittaluga, Mr. McCash stated he is using an example from zoning text from the National League of Cities. Ms. Clarke stated concern for having wider set - backs, and the possibility of having to cut back some existing trees in order to see the sign. She would need to drive around the community and visualize what it would look like with broader set - backs. Mr. McCash stated that with all of the mounding for parking areas, it actually hides a lot of nice buildings. Mr. Reiner stated he likes Dublin's streets with the mounding and trees. He does not want to see oceans of asphalt in parking lots. Ms. Reiss stated she likes the idea of lowering the height of signs, she would prefer to see signs under a tree canopy rather than cutting down trees to be able to see a sign. Mr. Gomez stated he does not like the idea of a 15 foot sign either. He urged more control over signs, and would like to see a stricter sign code. Some business owners do not care about the aesthetics of the community, Frantz Road is an example of a beautiful street planned correctly. He stated concern about the recent Marriott approval which includes a larger sign. He does not like to see Council give in on these issues. Mr. Marshall stated that in working with the commercial community, they always want the biggest possible sign they can get. Regarding Mr. McCash's drawing, there will be cars going in the opposite direction, and trees around these signs. Business always say it is hard for their customers to see signs while traveling down the road, looking through the opposing traffic. Many businesses depend upon a "trademark" sign. Mr. Reiner stated that as a businessman himself, his business was done as a PUD, Oakland Park Nursery, and he was required to have a small sign. His sign is done using small wooden carved letters. It is a cultural illness for businesses to think they have to have large signs. Mr. Gomez stated that he does not want to see the whole area south of 161 and the Tuttle Crossing area get too commercialized. Mr. McCash stated his suggestion is to have the signs be allowed up to SO feet. Discussion continued about calculating the signage in relationship to a building. Ms. Reiss pointed out that this may be discouraging other things they want for the community, such as different types of roofing, they do not want to encourage flat roofs. Mr. Marshall stated that the majority of businesses opt for ground signs, and the current formula for ground signs works well. He suggested the committee look at reducing the maximum size for a permitted wall sign. Ms. Hide Pittaluga stated that in terms of the color issue on signs, she has driven around town and thought this issue over, She does not want to make any changes to the current code regarding signs having two colors. She is in favor of backlighting signs, that would give a softer light and is a step in the right direction. Mr. McCash explained that backlighting or "halo" lighting projects a sign against the face of a building. This would provide for a tasteful way for businesses to be seen off I -270 at night. Ms. Hide Pittaluga stated that she would prefer to see some slides of the proposed changes Discussion continued regarding signage off the freeway. Ms. Clarke stated that a sign can be within the code and still be ugly. Having a "tasteful" sign can not be written into the code. Mr. McCash stated on the color issue which Ms. Hide Pittaluga brought up earlier, making these corporations only have one color is sometimes a problem for them, especially if their logo is two colors. Cardinal Health has two colors, black and red. Mostly the second color is just for accent. He suggested changing the code to have the second color of a sign be not more than 10 %. Cardinal Health is the type of business that Dublin wants to attract and retain. Dublin needs these businesses to maintain their tax base, and buy all the parkland which is currently planned. Mr. Gomez urged Committee members not to bend any rules, but to stick to the strict code Dublin has. He is concerned about the Tuttle Crossing area, and about the entire southwest part of Dublin. He doe not like to see any exemptions to the rules. Ms. Clark stated that they always run into a problem with company logos which are copyrighted. What happens if a company has a red, white and blue logo. She suggested if they are not going to stick to having one color, then make it three colors and make it administratively enforced. Mr. McCash summarized, that to have the freeway signs be internally illuminated seems to be ok with the committee. What about the second color accent issue. Mr. Marshall stated there has been federal legislation regarding corporate trademark logos, for example Toys R Us has ten different colors on their trademark sign. If the court rules against locally regulating this, Dublin's sign code will radically change. Ms. Clarke stated that having the 10% accent color would be hard to measure and hard to enforce. Mr. McCash stated that LCI has a tasteful sign which also has two colors in it. He does not think the color issues is as important as the backlighting issue. It is hard to regulate aesthetics of a sign. Mr. Reiner stated everyone is in agreement that ground signs should be lowered, because of the tree issue. Mr. McCash adjourned the meeting at 10:20 p.m. Assistan le c f Cout � G � 35MPN F 0 v = s �� _" - -�-'_ J 1-- fl, _�'! a�`i ,�-- Community Development Committee � of Dublin City Council Minutes of Meeting of April 18 1997 4 p.m. - 5800 Building Attending: Tom McCash, Chairperson John Reiner Balbir Kindra Randy Bowman Ken Richardson Mr. McCash called the meeting to order and stated that the main agenda item for today is the driveway ordinance. The clerk noted that Bobbie Clarke is out of town this week. Mr. Bowman stated that this ordinance involves some in -depth planning issues which will need further discussion with the Planning division. Mr. McCash asked the clerk to keep a list of the issues, since he plans to bring the ordinance back before Council very shortly. lie noted that the recent court ruling against the City with respect to a resident parking vehicles in a driveway forward of the building setback line has prompted this ordinance. In the court ruling, it was determined that the current Dublin Code did not prohibit such parking. Mr. McCash noted that Section 153.210 of the Dublin code, paragraph B deals with side - loading garages and prohibits parking in front of the building setback line when there is a side - loading garage. He noted that for some houses, the garage is designed to be right on the building setback line, so anyone parking in the driveway is in essence parking within the building setback line. He asked about the distinction between a side -load garage and a front -load garage. Mr. Bowman stated that he believes the Planning division's intent was to rework the Code so that "driveway" was redefined, eliminating the lack of clarity in the Code. They also plan to restrict additional parking bay areas in driveways. Mr. Bowman added that Mr. McCash should talk with the Planning division regarding the intent of the ordinance. In response to Mr. Reiner, Mr. McCash stated that front - loading garages are not addressed in the ordinance. Mr. McCash stated that his concern is with prohibiting a person from parking in his /her own driveway with a front - loading garage. Most residential neighborhoods have front - loading garages. Mr. Kindra agreed that the language could be misleading, but does not think the ordinance prohibits anyone from parking within their own driveway. Mr. McCash stated that he could understand prohibiting parking on the driveway approach, within bike paths, or in the City's right -of -way, but this seems to prohibit parking on the building setback Community Development Committee Minutes April 18, 1997 Page Two in your own driveway. Mr. Bowman stated that he understood that Planning's intent was to reaffirm prohibiting vehicular parking areas created by widening out driveways. Mr. McCash stated that this will cause a lot of public protest as it is presently drafted. The title currently reads, "related to driveways, sidewalks and bike paths" and tinder paragraph A of Section 150.035, it states "the Chief Building Official is inspecting driveway construction which is outside of the public right -of- way." Therefore, the word "driveway" should be removed from the title. In paragraph A of Section 97.40, it states, "All work shall be done under the supervision and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer." Driveway approaches should be inspected, but not private driveways. Mr. McCash asked it' the intent is to allow materials other than concrete for both residential and commercial driveways. Mr. Kindra responded that 99 percent of all driveways are concrete, and it has not been a problem. He is not opposed to changing the required materials, but the City has maintained concrete as the standard building material over the years. He added that the inspection of asphalt material is much more difficult than concrete. Mr. McCash commented that he has heard of more problems with concrete driveways involving bad materials. Mr. Reiner asked if they regulate building setback lines. Mr. McCash stated that they are gearing this toward the driveway approaches. Mr. Bowman stated that it is staff's preference to keep the Code as generic as possible, and to reference engineering specifications or standards instead. Mr. Kindra noted that the City has also permitted brick driveways in the Wedgewood areas. Mr. McCash stated that there is not a problem with brick materials, basically it is whatever is required by the manufacturer. Mr. Bowman stated that some sections of the Code date back to the early 70's and are specific as to how many bags of concrete mix are used. This is not appropriate for the codified ordinances. Mr. McCash stated that he would like to see a minimum standard for both asphalt and concrete driveways, perhaps as established by the City Engineer. Mr. Kindra stated that the rating itself is not a problem, but he doesn't have the manpower to enforce such standards. The enforcement of these standards should be the responsibility of the Community Development Committee Minutes April 18, 1997 Page Three Chief Building Official. Mr. McCash noted that his last concern is with paragraph B, regarding the grading of 3/8 inch per foot. The ADA standards have a maximum grade of a 1 to 50 cross slope, which is basically a quarter inch per foot. Mr. Kindra asked if he had concerns with the longitudinal slope. Mr. McCash responded that the 5 percent longitudinal slope is technically a ramp under the ADA guidelines. Perhaps it should state that sidewalks and bikepaths shall have a longitudinal grade of less than 5 percent Mr. McCash emphasized that his main concern with this legislation is that people not be prohibited from parking in their own driveways. In his subdivision, deed restrictions prohibit parking in the driveway. Street Lighting Mr. McCash noted that the issue of creating a policy for street lighting throughout the City was referred to the Committee previously. Mr. Mndra stated that he has provided Mr. McCash with a copy of a policy, but this policy addresses parking lots only. Mr. McCash stated that residents are concerned with the height of the poles in residential neighborhoods and the levels of illumination. He is concerned about the Woerner - Temple extension between Trinity Park and Heather Glen and the amount of light on the residential portion. Part of this extension will be commercial and part residential. Brief discussion followed about the height of street lights, space between poles, wattage and color of illumins which would be appropriate for a Dublin standard. The Engineering division will provide the Committee with some samples of standards used elsewhere. Mr. McCash adjourned the meeting at 5:15 p.m. Clerk of Council Community Development CommitteeY of Dublin City Council Monday, June 16, 1997 Minutes of Meeting Present: Mr. McCash, Chair Mr. Reiner Mr. Helwig Ms. Clarke Mr. McCash called the meeting to order at 6 p.m., noting that tonight's agenda focuses on discussion of proposed sign code changes for the US 33/161 corridor. Mr. Reiner asked if the intent of the sign code changes would be to help market land west of Avery. Mr. McCash responded that this corridor is a gateway to Dublin. He would prefer to see this land used as commercial, corporate office development versus retail, multi - family or industrial use. With the high speed limits along 33/161, larger signs are needed for recognition purposes. He would recommend signage which is aesthetically tied in to the site for office development, including naming rights for the larger sites along this area. Mr. Reiner noted that the setbacks would have to be changed if larger signs are permitted. He believes that 50 -foot signs are adequate along 161; areas along I -270 could use larger signs. Ms. Clarke noted that users along the freeway are allowed 80 square feet of signage, but few have taken advantage of this. Mr. Reiner recommends keeping the signage limit along 33/161 as 50 square feet since previous applicants have had to comply with this requirement. If it is modified, there will be a proliferation of requests to increase the signage size. Mr. McCash suggested that the larger signs be allowed for corporate office development only. Ms. Clarke noted that there are problems with this definition, i.e., Gordon Flesch is not actually corporate office as identified in the Code since it includes warehousing, distribution and fabrication on portions of the site. It would be important to clarify the language if this change is made. Mr. Helwig noted that increased square footage of signage is a small price to pay for the dividends it brings to the community in terms of the tax revenues from office development. Ms. Clarke noted that the City is nearly out of freeway frontage and the 33/161 corridor will be the next growth area. The same sign advantages should be offered there as along I -270. Mr. McCash noted that the setbacks would have to be adjusted for larger signs, possibly to half of Community Development Committee June 16, 1997 Page 2 the building setback line. Mr. Reiner noted that P &Z members have indicated that they would like more Council direction on signage issues as they are confused about Council's desires in terms of signage. Mr. McCash agreed that if P &Z makes a recommendation which is then overruled by Council, it is not a good situation. Mr. Reiner suggested that P &Z be given assurance from Council that their decisions will be affirmed. These issues should not be negotiable ones. Mr. McCash stated that the purpose of signage regulation is for aesthetics. The size and spacing of lots impacts signage size - large lots should be entitled to larger signs and smaller parcels should have appropriate smaller signage. Mr. Reiner suggested that the number of acres and amount of freeway frontage should be a consideration in signage allowed. Mr. McCash stated that he believes 400 to 500 feet of frontage would be the minimum amount for larger signage to be allowed. Mr. Helwig offered to put together some mock -ups of signage samples. He believes that Tim Kelton of Ruscilli would assist in this effort. Mr. Reiner emphasized that he does not want to see a row of signs along this area of 33/161. It has been done right in the past, and he doesn't want to have it changed. Mr. McCash noted that the size of the wall sign should be a percentage of the wall area to which it is attached. The code now allows 80 square feet, but this allowance should be proportional to the building. Mr. Helwig will prepare mock -ups of signage and setbacks for the area for the Committee's further review at a later date. Discussion followed about roadway development and the possible need for impact fees to cover future maintenance costs for infrastructure. Mr. Helwig noted that viable cities must achieve a balance with a good tax base and high end residential development. Ms. Clarke pointed out that the Tischler report for the Community Plan was based on Council's direction that Dublin must be able to afford its lifestyle for the future. It gives consideration to the costs of rendering services and the sources of generating income. If Council is not Community Development Committee June 16, 1997 Page 3 comfortable with the Tischler report, this should be revisited. Mr. McCash stated that a balance must be struck between residential and commercial development. If people who work in Dublin can afford to live in Dublin, traffic will be reduced on the roadways. Discussion followed about the need for gathering places for the community on a year round basis. Mr. Reiner stated that he is not in favor of scattered parcel development. Mr. Helwig suggested that Council identify some benchmark communities, and have the elected officials and business leaders from Dublin visit these cities. Discussion continued about the freeway signage issues. Mr. McCash noted that he would prefer to see signage parallel to the 161 frontage, similar to a title under a picture versus a tombstone look. It would also be more cost effective to have one sign face. Mr. Reiner emphasized that adequate setbacks are an extremely important part of this issue, Discussion followed about the Avery/Muirfield /33/161 interchange and the traffic congestion. Mr. Helwig stated that ODOT does not want to add capacity at this interchange because this portion of 33 feeds into 270 and would add to that congestion. Mr. Helwig noted that the 161 /Avery interchange is an issue that the Transportation Task Force is looking into. The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Clerk of Council DUBLIN CITY COUNCII. COUNCIL, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Monday, September 8, 1997, 6:00 p.m. Council Conference Room MEETING MINUTES ATTENDANCE: Committee Members: Tom McCash, Committee Chair Cindy Hide Pittaluga John Reiner Bobbie Clarke, Planning Division Director Cathy Boring, Council Amy Salay, Candidate for Council Robert Adamek, Candidate for Council Avery Road Retail Center. The committee discussed the proposed signage at the new development of Avery Road Retail Center: (1) Central sign - This sign approval was part of a rezoning package heard by Council on . The rezoning was approved except for the sign text. This was tabled to the last night's meeting where it was passed with a vote of 4 -2 with one abstention. Committee members are not satisfied with the proposed location of the primary shopping mall sign. The committee discussed the advisability of another location for that sign. Consensus of the committee was that it might be strategic to reconsider the sign approval. Ms. Hide Pittaluga inquired what the rules were for reconsideration. Mr. McCash said that Mr. Kranstuber called Steve Smith, who advised him that reconsideration was permissible but should be done at the next regular council meeting. In which case, this would have to be on the agenda for the next meeting. (2) Individual tenant signs - The shopping centers are permitted one central sign with internal illumination, and the anchor store gets a large, internally illuminated sign - -the grocery store, in each case. The individual tenant stores get sign boards and canopies (can be printed); those signs are illuminated with gooseneck lights. On the Avery Road side similar signage has been approved, but instead of signboards, cut -out letters are pin- mounted on the store wall, available in 5 colors, also illuminated by gooseneck lighting. However, Drug Emporium has applied (or at least discussed with Dave Marshall) for a permit for a internally illuminated plastic sign. Proposed Revisions to Sign Code: Mr. McCash, chair, passed out copies of a revised draft of the Dublin sign code, noting that all changes are reflected by striking out the old text and inserting new text in capital letters. Page 264B: ESTABLISHED GRADE LINE. Changed the word finished to predevelopment. Addresses situations such as the proposed Avery Road Retail Square sign, in which case the developer has built up the land on which the sign is to be positioned by 8 feet. Adding the height of the sign to that elevates the sign to the height of a highway sign. The committee discussed control of sign height using predevelopment, finished, or street curb guidelines. Ms. Clarke commented that it seems best to control the finished grade in subdivisions through P & Z and establish the sign height from finished grade. Committee discussed the additional problem with artificial elevation of the site at Avery Shopping Center with fill dirt. Mr. McCash suggested that Council consider writing an ordinance that will control how much fill dirt can be brought in to elevate a site. Mr. Reiner agreed, trees can do much to obscure elevations, but trees die; it is much better to architecturally make them correct. Committee consensus was not to make this change. Page 265: MONUMENT SIGN. Changed the word wall or base to wall or other physical structure which is not a part of the building. This suggested change is also due to the recent difficulties over the Avery Road Square sign. Committee members agreed to the change. Page 27213: 153.158 (B) SIZE. Added the following language: for monumental signs, the maximum size of the overall structure shall not exceed one and one half times the allowable sign area. Example: If you have 50 sq. ft of sign, you cannot have more than 25 sq. ft. for rest of sign structure, for a total 75 sq. ft. Ms. Clarke said that staff is always pushing developers to do monument -type signs. If you make it difficult to do monument signs, you are going to see a lot more pole signs. Mr. Reiner responded that it was preferable to avoid pole signs, so he preferred not to make that more difficult to achieve. Discussed definitions for monument, entry way, and joint identification signs. Mr. McCash said you need to change the definition of an entry feature sign so that it can not be considered a monument sign, maybe because one can be two - sided, the other not. He will take a look at this and see if he can come up with a distinguishing definition. It was Committee's consensus not to add the language, as it was too limiting. Corporate Signs Provisions - color options not changed Page 276:153.159 (B)WALL SIGNS. ADDED (b) Wall signs shall not obscure or cover architectural features of the building, such 2 as but not limited to arches, sills, window, cornices, moldings, trim, transom or lintels. The top, bottom or side of any sign shall be no closer than two feet to any architectural feature and Mr. McCash said two examples of this problem are: the Airtouch Cellular and the one on LCI. This would limit their signs to within two feet of the window. So when a building is designed, they will need to make certain that the wall sign is integrated into the plans for the building. Unfortunately, 99% of the time, the sign has been an afterthought. Ms. Clarke asked: Do I assume from this that the John Alden sign would not have been approved with this provision? The response was yes. Committee members agreed to this addition Page 276: (same section as above) ADDED: and a secondary color not exceeding 10% of the sign area. Following discussion, committee consensus was to not to allow a second color ADDED: Buildings that are set back 100 feet from the Interstate shall be entitled 100 square feet of signage ........ Multi-story building set back less than 100 square feet from the Interstate shall be entitled to a maximum 150 square feet..... Mr. McCash explained that traffic is moving along the interstate at a good speed, and the increase from 100 to 150 sq. ft. gives a sign that is more readable at that speed. Ms. Clarke recommended keeping the amount of signage the same, no matter how many stories. Planning is trying to encourage 2 or more stories. Following discussion, committee consensus was to leave it all as it is except end the sentence immediately after "...150 square feet of wall sign age." (End of sentence) This change and increase in signage was not approved. Page 276. (Same section continued) ADDED: A wall sign may be attached to a penthouse if all the following apply: (a) The exterior penthouse enclosing walls are of the same material as the predominant wall material of the structure; (b) The area of the penthouse is not less than 1/2 the area of the roof; (c) All wall signs attached to a penthouse shall be externally illuminated. Following discussion, committee consensus was to approve Page 276: 153.158 (E) LIGHTING. ADDED: -- intensity not exceeding 70 lumens per square foot of sign area. Mr. McCash explained that one lumen is equivalent to the light of one candle light in one square foot. A 60 -watt bulb is about 1,000 lumens. The amounts of 70 lumens (section a) and 150 lumens (section c) are tentative. Mr. McCash will study the appropriate lumens and add later. Following discussion, committee members agreed to use the lumen as a measure. Page 276. 153.159 (B) STATE ROUTE 161/US 33 CORRIDOR DISTRICT. ADDED: (1) Wall signs along SR 162/US 33 are not permitted, and (2) Ground signs shall conform to the following: (a) Minimum setback and size shall be no less than that described in Section 153 except as modified herein. (b) Ground signs for corporate office facilities shall be permitted to be a maximum of 125 sq. ft. in area and a maximum of 8 feet provided the sign is set back a minimum of 300' -S.R. 1611US 33 ROW width /2 + 1/4 building setback. Signs shall be either externally illuminated, backlit or cut metal. Plastic or fabric faced signs are not permitted. Mr. McCash said the minimum setback for 33 needs to be the same as 270. Right now the minimum sign setback is 8 ft. back from ROW, 15' high and 50 sq. ft. maximum area. Committee consensus was to strike (2)a re. Minimum setback. No decision was made on the remainder of the proposed change. It will considered at the next meeting. Committee told Ms. Clarke to provide information on Avery Square signage in next Council packet. Mr. McCash adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m. 0