HomeMy WebLinkAboutCom Dev Com 1998 allDUBLIN CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMPITEE
Monday, April 13, 1998, 7:00 p.m.
MEETING MINUTES
ATTENDANCE:
Committee members: John Reiner, Tom McCash, Cindy Hide Pittaluga; and Council Member
Adamek
City staff members: Bobbie Clarke, Balbir Kindra, Randy Bowman, Chuck Petty
Camp Dresser & McKee representatives: Christopher T. Calpin, R. Russell Neff, John Aldrich
and Steve Sedgwick
Mr. Reiner, Committee chair, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., and turned the floor over
to Balbir Kindra. Mr. Kindra explained that the purpose of tonight's meeting was to hear a report
and recommendations on the city -wide storm water study recently completed by the engineering
firm, Camp Dresser & McKee. He introduced Mr. Sedgwick, Mr. Neff, Mr. Calpin, and Mr.
Aldrich. He explained that this has been an exhaustive, 3 -year study. In January an executive
summary and draft ordinance were provided to Council. At that time, Council referred the study
to the Community Development Committee for a closer review. The objective tonight is to have
the committee review the chief components of the Master Plan and recommend Council adoption
of the plan by resolution, also recommend adoption of the new ordinance, and refer for
Committee study the financial aspects of the plan in the area of capital improvements and
maintenance program. He then turned the floor over to Mr. Calpin, Project Manager.
Mr. Calpin explained that he would like to review the following: current conditions, purpose of
the study, overview of the City's current drainage system, the methodology used to identify the
capital improvements suggested, contents of the ordinance, funding needs and options, and
recommended Committee actions.
Background
Mr. Calpin reviewed the current storm water conditions in the City. The City is responsible for a
storm water system service area of approximately 20 square miles, which will increase as more
land is annexed. Twenty -four major streams traverse the City with runoff from approximately 35
square miles, so there is runoff into the City from approximately 15 sq. miles over which the City
has no current control. As a result, the City has experienced a significant problem with flooding
and erosion due in part to increased flows and velocities of storm water resulting from
urbanization. Currently, the policy has been to respond to situations on an as- needed basis.
There is no preventative maintenance program in place.
Mr. Reiner inquired how many cities of comparable size have a preventative program in place.
Mr. Sedgwick responded that only approximately 260 cities across the nation have a true
preventative maintenance program
Mr. Calpin explained that the study identified 28 watersheds in the City (east - 17 subwatersheds,
northwest - 5, southwest - 5). With all the streams and precipitation flowing to the Scioto, the
older part of the City is experiencing the greatest difficulty. With 24 major streams, there is only
700,000 linear feet of sewer system; of that, 200,000 or 28 percent is open channel system. This
is unique for a city of Dublin's size; typically, it would be about 10 %.
Mr. Calpin explained that currently the City uses multiple storm water references to develop their
design standards, primarily the MORPC guidelines (1978) and ODOT regulations. Their study
has attempted to combine the two and come up with a more up -to -date and comprehensive plan
for the City.
Purpose:
The purpose of Camp Dresser McKee's study has been to identify ways to: minimize impacts
from future land development, mitigate flooding and erosion problems, improve overall
appearance and environmental quality of streams, and evaluate and recommend revisions to the
City's current storm water regulations and standards.
Methodology
Mr. Calpin explained the methodology used to identify and mitigate the problems: (1) develop a
drainage system using a computerized map and database; (2) identify problems in various areas;
(3) establish policies and performance standards; (4) evaluate existing storm sewer system
performance; and (5) define the capital and operational improvements needed.
First, CDM made an exhaustive study of all the City's atlas maps, then, all the City development
plans, taking out the storm sewer information, and digitized that in an electronic format (using
AutoCad). Finally, all the infrastructure information was entered into a database. This enabled
them to develop a model. They directly digitized 9,000 conduits, 10,000 nodal structures, and
about 450 stream segments. (That database will be provided to the City as a product of the
Master Plan and is valuable information the City can use in the future in other graphic information
systems -- GIS, for instance.)
Then, they identified problems. City staff provided them with a target list, which they used to
send out questionnaires to residents. These were followed up with actual interviews in the field
with the residents. The residents often had a very good understanding of the problems and even
had identified the appropriate solutions. Also, the model was used to identify any other
problems that were not noted by either City staff or residents.
After the problems were identified, the study developed criteria for evaluation of the system. For
example, for residential roadways where road speed is 25 mph, they designed for a 5 -year design
storm (a 20% chance of occurring on an annual basis), a frequent storm. For primary roadways,
like Riverside Drive, they designed for a 100 -year design storm (a 1% chance of occurring on an
annual basis). They also studied culverts for all roadways. In an open - channel system, it is
important to ensure that in the event of a more intense storm, the flood elevation could not
suddenly increase and passing cars become buoyant and be swept away.
2
To allow the Committee to understand the dynamics of that methodology, Mr. Calpin walked
them through an example - one of the problem areas identified as the Billingsley Creek watershed
(off Sawmill Road, near MacBeth Drive and Bright Road). He explained that the digitized maps
were taken and used to develop a model schematic to determine how that system reacts to certain
storm events. Mr. Calpin displayed colored overheads of the digitized map of the creek. The
maps showed cross sections of the stream, structures, including the dam, incremental elevations of
the area, the roadway and its elevations, and the culverts. He ran through a dynamic simulation,
putting in a 100 -year design storm. The model will indicate what is happening in the system at
various intervals and the cubic feet of flooding per second. In this case, at the peak of the storm
(the twelfth hour), the dam is breached and the flooding is occurring at 1,100 cubic feet per
second of flow, about 2 to 2.5 feet of flooding over the roadway. The model is calibrated with
the information the residents give to make certain the results are accurate. They then can come
up with a solution for mitigation. The recommendations were to: replace existing 66 -inch culvert
at MacBeth Drive with a 5.5'x 20' box culvert; replace existing 5'x 22' box culvert at Bright
Road with a 75' wide span bridge; and replace existing 6'x 11' and 5'x 14' box culverts at
Grandee Cliffs Drive with a 6'x 16' box culvert. With those changes inserted into the model, the
effects of the storm were mitigated.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga inquired if this solution addressed the flooding only. Mr. Calpin explained that
this solution does not reduce the volume of flow; it eliminates only the flooding over the road.
The cost of the project would be $816,000. Other alternatives which also address the volume of
flow are much more costly. However, those choices are indicated in the plan. For instance, the
alternative of a detention pond would cost $3.3 million.
Mr. Kindra explained that this is just a working model shown tonight to allow Council to
understand how the models work in identifying solutions. Once Council reviews the budget for
this plan, design options can be discussed. What the study provides to the City is much more
information and better tools to work with in developing solutions. This plan will work hand -in-
hand with the projected land uses approved in the Community Plan. This will allow storm water
issues to be addressed before development. However, this will remain simply information unless
Council adopts the plan, passes the ordinance and it becomes part of the City's codified
ordinances.
Responding to Ms. Hide Pittaluga's inquiry, Mr. Kindra explained that once the legislation is
passed, it will replace the MORK guidelines as the regulatory tool for the City, and the rules
would then be much more stringent.
Mr. Sedgwick explained that the value of the database would be to help the City establish the
preventative maintenance program, enabling them to track all the activity that has occurred and
that which has yet to occur. It will assist in modifying engineering designs. There are a lot of
specifics in the Master Plan that need to be codified also, e.g., release rates. A developer would
'
need to satisfy release rates. The information can be interpolated into any size development. This
will be part of the training process given to City staff so that they can implement the entire plan.
Summary of Recommendations
• 20 capital improvements at a cost of $3.35 million. Of this, $300,000 has already been
initiated through the design of the northeast area at Council's request in 1997. These 20
capital improvements will address 44 types of problems. The breakdown is: eastern area
watersheds - 7 CIF's = $2.1 million; northwest area watersheds - 6 CIP's = $663,000;
southwest area watersheds - 7 CIF's = $638,000
• Enhanced operation and maintenance - $739,000 /year. Breakdown follows:
Current program of response to complaints: storm sewer system = $130,000; detention
basins = $100,000. Enhanced program for scheduled preventative maintenance: storm
sewer system - $417,000; detention basins - $322,000.
Mr. Calpin explained that, like a car, if you do not have a plan for preventative maintenance, the
structures will not meet their design criteria. Structures designed for five -year events will fail in a
two -year event because they would be filled with sediment and debris. This recommendation is
for each catch basin and curb unit (5,100) to be inspected on a five -year basis; detention basins
need sediment removed every seven years and the structure checked.
Mr. Reiner commented that homeowner associations should be required to mow and maintain
their own detention basins. Mr. Kindra responded that the ordinance provides that all new
homeowner associations be required to do so.
Mr. Calpin continued:
• Stormwater ordinance for development will consolidate stormwater provisions, establish
limits on stormwater discharges, require stormwater quality controls, establish
development review provisions, define maintenance responsibilities.
• Stormwater Funding Options.
For existing infrastructure: General Fund - income taxes, ad valorem taxes, sales tax;
User Fees - flat rate, impervious charge; Special Assessment Districts.
For new development: subdivision exactions, fees and permits, fines and penalties, fee -in-
lieu of, connection fees, impact fees.
Recommended Committee Actions
• Accept Stormwater Master Plan Findings
• Recommend Funding Method for Identified Solutions - capital improvements and
operation and maintenance.
• Recommend Adoption of Stormwater Ordinance. Draft provided of "An Ordinance to
Establish Chapter 53, and to Amend Sections 152.002 and 152.050 of the Dublin Code of
Ordinances with Respect to Stormwater Management"
Chuck Petty reviewed the draft stormwater ordinance with the committee. He explained that
11
Section 1 of the Ordinance codifies the stormwater master plan and current practices. Section 2
amends Section 152.002 and replaces the MORPC SWD manual, and Section 3 amends Section
152.050, serving as a housekeeping item, consolidating a number of stormwater references
throughout the code, eliminating a number of redundancies. The new Chapter 53 will standardize
performance and design criteria, incorporate stormwater quality standards, define maintenance
responsibility and establish inspection and compliance standards.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga inquired about provisions for enforcement and penalty. Mr. Bowman agreed
that there is not a strong penalty mechanism to back up enforcement. The penalty section was
actually pulled from the City Code on sanitary sewers. Ms. Hide Pittaluga requested that City
staff consult with the legal department regarding the possibilities of empowering the City in this
section of the ordinance. Mr. Kindra said that a copy of the draft ordinance has been provided to
the City Law Director.
Mr. Reiner inquired about the section regarding headwall requirements. One of the current
problems in the town are the unsightly culverts exposed, particularly in the new subdivisions. He
would like the ordinance to include a headwall requirement for all culvert inlets and outlets to and
from open channels or lakes, and that they be faced with natural stone.
Mr. Sedgewick, Financial Specialist, discussed the financial needs and requirements of the new
master plan.
Capital Improvements The current capital improvements program dedicates $304,000 to a
project on the east side of the Scioto River, which should be implemented in the next 12 - 18
months. There remains about $3,000,000 in capital projects needed in three different watersheds.
These will need a funding mechanism which will necessitate a specific investigation with City
Council to determine the preferred method of financing.
Operation and Maintenance
Currently, the City is spending $230,000 /year on crisis management. An additional $509,000 /year
will need to be dedicated to stormwater maintenance management. Of the 10,000 - 12,000 cities
in the nation, only about 260 cities have put their resources where the problem is: satisfying the
requirements to maintain their system capacity so that when a storm event does occur, their
citizens can receive the service they should expect. Nothing works unless maintained properly.
To summarize, the financial needs are $739,000 for operation and maintenance, plus phasing in
the $3,000,000 in capital project needs in the remaining 19 areas over the next ten years, spending
roughly $300,000 a year towards capital, leaving $1 million/year that needs to be funded for the
stormwater management system.
Council will need to evaluate which alternatives are best for the City. Should they address more
capital improvements up front, delay some of the maintenance expenditures, bond some of the
capital projects with a short-term loan and pay them back over a longer period of time? There are
C
different funding structures the City can use to support this program
For existing infrastructure In addition to the ad valorem taxes, sales taxes and income taxes,
there are also user fees for stormwater utilities (flat rate or impervious charge) and special
assessment districts. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. Is it better to raise property
taxes, sales taxes or income taxes in view of the other needs these funds can be used for -- those
funds can be used broadly. User fees can be collected and dispersed only for stormwater needs.
For new development In the new development that is occurring in the north and west areas, and
other areas to be annexed, there are other options that can be blended with these to provide more
benefit to the City: subdivision exactions, fees and permits, fines and penalties, fee -in- lieu -of,
connection fees and impact fees. Impact fees are specific fees for specific development in a
subwatershed that can be used to expand the capabilities of a city in a specific hydrologic area.
With fees -in -lieu of or connection fees, with a proper master plan which the engineering staff can
use to review developments, a specific connection fee can be developed for the conveyance
system and the downstream retention ponds which will allocate costs to those developers. Even
though they have a release rate on their own property, they will still be discharging water to
downstream facilities. In the same way that water and sewer is handled, there would be a
connection charge as part of the total funding options. With the fee -in -lieu of, the City can allow
a developer to discharge more water at a greater release rate if he pays more dollars to take care
of it downstream. This is a policy issue, but some cities have used it in particular watersheds that
are less developed.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga inquired if Dublin can work as an "island" -- what about the effect on Dublin
of outlying areas which are not using the same standards? Mr. Sedgwick commented that the
Master Plan recommends release rates to be imposed upon the 15 square miles outside the City
jurisdiction. The City has the criteria in hand now to go to those adjacent areas and negotiate that
final discharge rate via an inter -local agreement. Joint funding of projects is sometimes
recommended.
Mr. McCash commented that he did not favor raising taxes or imposing user fees but preferred to
pass the increase on to developers initially, then to absorb the remaining increase in the general
budget.
Mr. Reiner suggested that new developments be required to set up homeowners associations,
which could be charged fees to pay for maintenance of stormwater sewers in their communities.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga asked how implementation proceeds. What is the recommendation?
Mr. Calpin responded that if there was a problem in an area that necessitated a structural repair,
such as culvert replacement, that would be a high priority. Then you would select by the amount
of impact on the community, perhaps determined by whether it is a residential street or main
thoroughfare.
0
Mr. Reiner invited Mr. and Mrs. Holb, residents of 7871 Riverside Drive, to testify about how
they have been or will be impacted by the storm water management recommendations.
Mr. Holb explained that their property has been significantly affected in recent years by an
increase in the flow of stormwater. The City has indicated an intent to replace the old, rusted
culvert there to allow a better flow, but he doesn't believe simply replacing the culvert is going to
handle the heavy flow of stormwater. Opening up the flow will create a more serious problem. In
addition, he lives across the road from 500 acres that is scheduled for development. He
anticipates a critical problem occurring at that time. The stormwater running off that
development will drastically increase and cause more serious flooding. They have resided at their
current address for nine years, along the ravine on Riverside, but is only in recent years that the
stormwater flow has changed. It has washed out the rock in the ravine down to the hard bedrock
and begun to flood his property; it has flooded up to the foundation of his next -door neighbor's
home. His opinion is that road repairs performed upgrade have somehow changed the direction
of the stormwater flow. His wife expressed concern that their property value would be affected.
Mr. Calpin commented that they reviewed the problem. The present culvert does need to be
replaced, but CDM does not recommend replacing it with a bigger culvert. Since it does
discharge near Mr. Holb's property, they do not want to increase the discharge. This needs to be
addressed in the design process. The culvert needs to be realigned somewhat so that the
stormwater flow discharges further away from those properties.
Mr. Petty explained that they have held a preliminary design meeting with EMHT regarding a
number of improvements that are planned along Riverside Drive. That particular problem has
been addressed and a number of recommendations are under consideration. They may reline the
pipe in situ; they are also investigating replacing it and realigning it away from his property.
Mr. Reiner asked Mr. Kindra and his staff to work with Mr. Holb and assure correction of this
problem. If it cannot be corrected, the Holbs may have to be compensated.
Mr. Calpin commented that the release rates in the Master Plan can have built into the process in
that area lower rates to decrease the flow sufficiently to correct existing conditions.
Mr. Kindra closed the presentation, asking Council to recommend adoption of the Master Plan by
legislation, and following legal review, adoption of the proposed ordinance. Funding issues
would subsequently be discussed.
Mr. Reiner moved to recommend that Council adopt the master plan.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga seconded the motion.
Motion carried.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga further moved to recommend that Council adopt the new stormwater
ordinance with the revisions, following legal review.
Mr. McCash seconded the motion.
Motion carried.
Mr. McCash summarized that the financial recommendation of the Committee will be to consider
imposing impact fees on developers to pay for the capital improvements. Maintenance and
operation will be recommended to be paid for with general funds.
Mr. Reiner said this could be discussed at goal setting.
The committee thanked CDM representatives for their excellent presentation, a very
comprehensive report but presented very clearly.
Development Standards for Residential Areas
Mr. Adamek reviewed the background. Recently, Council received a memo from Planning &
Zoning informing that in some subdivisions there are no forced homeowner associations who are
responsible for common areas and entryway features. Consequently, the City is requested to
maintain those areas at the City's expense. He is asking the Committee to consider standardized
regulations for all new subdivisions, perhaps mandatory homeowner associations to maintain
common area, entryway features, and detention ponds; included in this could be standardized
fencing regulations. The City could maintain some oversight. If the standards are not being met,
the City could perform the work and charge the association for the work.
Mr. Reiner commented that this committee has discussed these issues in the past.
Mr. Adamek commented that the City may want to maintain some input in the requirements for
entryway features, but he believes that the City should not fund maintenance with taxpayer
money.
Mr. McCash commented that the problem is compounded by the developers using the entryway
features to meet the parkland requirement, and consequently deeding that area over to the City.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga noted that the trend has been for developers to maintain the entryway until the
subdivision is sold out. Perhaps the simplest way to handle this would be for the developers to
create the homeowner association on their behalf - a professional company that could set it up
according to approved guidelines, then deed it over when 70 percent of the homes are occupied.
A standard homeowners association could be structured to address important issues. Some other
issues, such as bikepaths could be addressed as well, and thereby eliminate any later confusion or
dispute with the City.
Mr. Adamek added that if there are deed restrictions, the homeowner association then has the
legal right to enforce the rules.
Mr. Reiner commented that an architectural review board set up through the homeowners
association could be effective in maintaining standards for the community. It can provide a
sensitive means of arbitration between neighbors, eliminating some of that type of conflict
Mr. Adamek said that he had asked Ms. Clarke to attend the meeting to provide her input
Ms. Clarke said a homeowner association with that type of oversight could work for a large
development such as Muirfield. But a homeowner association in each and every subdivision may
not necessarily be the best solution for all issues. Indian Run Meadows, an active association, ran
into some problems with this in the past. In structuring guidelines, it should not be assumed that a
homeowners association for 600 homes can operate the same as one for 2,000 homes.
Mr. Reiner agreed, and suggested a better approach would be for the homeowners association to
hire a consulting architectural review person to serve in this capacity.
Mr. Adamek commented that this could consume the budget of a small homeowner association
quickly. Perhaps an ordinance could set only the formal structure for a homeowner association,
and the association would have the capability of amending their role - setting up an architectural
review committee or hiring an outside consultant for that purpose.
Mr. Reiner commented that he would also like the Committee to discuss development standards
which are needed to upgrade the aesthetics of the south side of the City -- perhaps a master plan
to overlay the Community Plan.
Mr. Reiner asked if they want to schedule another meeting to discuss the elements of the
ordinance.
Mr. McCash suggested that the developer submit a copy of the language for the deed restrictions
as part of the development stage for review. The deed restrictions must include certain items.
Following discussion, the Committee asked Ms. Clarke to provide 3 or 4 sample ordinances from
other communities regarding required homeowners associations.
The next meeting of the Committee was set for Monday, May 4 at 6:30 p.m., prior to the Council
meeting.
Mr. Reiner adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m
Acting erk Council
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Monday, May 4, 1998, 6:30 p.m.
MEETING MINUTES
ATTF,NDANCE:
Committee members: John Reiner, Tom McCash, Cindy Hide Pittaluga, Greg Peterson; and
Council Member Adamek
City staff member: Bobbie Clarke
Mr. Reiner, Committee chair, called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. for the purpose of
discussing an ordinance relating to homeowner associations.
Ms. Clarke explained that at the last CDC meeting on April 13, 1998, she had agreed to research
and bring to the committee tonight copies of similar ordinances from other communities. She
has been unable to locate any ordinance from a municipality which requires the establishment of
homeowner associations for any purpose, and certainly not for the purpose of long -term
maintenance of cul -de -sac islands, entry features, buffer features, etc. She contacted Mr. Reiner
earlier to apprise him of this, and he requested Ms. Clarke to draft such a document. She spoke
with Law Director, Steve Smith, who advised her that the City could not mandate such an
organization. However, she has drafted the document to at least provide a basis for discussion.
Mr. Reiner explained that the need for the ordinance has become evident from past discussions
with residents regarding the maintenance of green spaces. Buffers have been placed around
communities so that as additional development dictates further widening of roads, it can be
undertaken by the City with the minimum of inconvenience to a landowner. This land still must
be maintained. The City would not abdicate any of its responsibility. If land is part of a park
acquisition, it will be maintained by the Parks Department. If it is part of the community's
amenities, those greenways should be maintained by the association.
Ms. Clarke noted that she purposely underlined two references to public parks in the draft
document for the committee's attention. She pointed out that there are currently subdivisions
which have within them public parkland maintained by the homeowner association. This evidently
happend in areas where the landscape plan was intricate. The exterior Hawks Nest along Brand
Road and Muirfield Drive is an example of this, where they evidently felt that over time you could
get better care through the homeowners association. They serve as landscape buffers that are
officially parkland, but functionally, the City does not expect anyone to play there. So they are
spaces that seem to expand someone's backyard; they appear as private places, although they are
public. These are areas that are negotiated. Sometimes the areas that the developer is most
willing to give up helps the City the least in terms of meeting the open -space goals of the
community. The Service Department would have a continuing maintenance problem with it and
the developer will not maintain it into perpetuity, so a homeowners association is a logical
solution -- hence, public parks maintained by homeowners association.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Page 2
As an example, Mr. Reiner pointed out that the Muirfield Association mows several acres of City
ground that they want mowed more frequently than the City is able to do -- sometimes twice a
week.
Mr. Peterson inquired if all homeowner associations are voluntary. Mr. McCash said that some
are mandatory. Mr. Peterson inquired if deed restrictions was the method typically used to
mandate that.
Mr. Reiner explained that when you buy a lot within a subdivision, you sign a warranty deed.
Some of those deeds may simply state that you are a member of a homeowner association and pay
dues thereto for basic purposes. Other association's rules may be very specific, prohibiting
repainting of the house without approval of the homeowner association, parking a Winnebago or
boat in the front yard for more than four days, etc. For this committee's purposes, the interest is
in a land maintenance provision only.
Mr. Adamek agreed that the committee's purpose is simply to require a homeowners association
for the purpose of maintaining the common grounds. This will limit the City incurring more
responsibility for maintenance of land within various subdivisions as they are developed.
Mr. Reiner stated that turning this responsibility back over to the community emcourages
neighborhood pride. Some of the homeowner associations establish garden clubs, and various
landscape projects are initiated to beautify their neighborhoods. This increases the re -sale values
of the homes in those communities.
Mr. Adamek added that in many subdivisions the homeowner associations have additional positive
impacts. Not only do the homeowners come together for financial purposes, but they organize
occasional social activities for the community.
Mr. Reiner inquired if the committee wanted the ordinance to simply mandate homeowner
associations for the purpose of maintaining common areas, or to also give some financial
guidance.
Mr. Peterson stated that the committee is focusing on brand -new neighborhoods, so there would
probably be a need for either guidance from the City or from other homeowner associations. In a
new neighborhood there are no common purposes or rallying points. Some basic guidance would
be necessary.
Mr. Adamek stated that the developer would likely provide that. Up front, he would make it
known that the development would have a required homeowner association and that the
developer would take care of the common areas only until there was 70% build -out.
Mr. Peterson inquired if guidance would be needed at that point. At 70% build -out, the
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Page 3
development is still very new and no commonality established
Mr. McCash explained that, typically, at 70% build -out the developer sends out notices calling a
meeting of the homeowners association, informing them that they are at 70% occupancy and
reminding them that the developer relinquishes responsibility for the maintenance of the
development to the homeowners association at this point. The residents must elect their own
officers who will run the association. As far as setting the association fees, the developer will set
up a minimum fee initially, based on the cost of maintenance, and the association may later amend
it as the cost of living changes. He added that he did not believe the City should try to set a
minimum fee. He further suggested that the document be drafted by the City's legal counsel to
craft the language to deal with the maintenance of the common areas. Other than that, each
developer may do it differently. For instance, one may state through deed restrictions and the
homeowners association that there will be no fences. In those cases, those requirements would
have come through the Planning and Zoning process before they end up being part of the deed
restrictions that are upheld by their homeowners association. From his perspective, the City
should state only the purpose: the responsibility and cost of maintaining the common grounds.
Beyond that, each association would define its own scope and fee.
Mr. Adamek agreed. In an association such as Muirfield, the cost of maintaining bike paths and
tunnels is unique. Wyndham Village Phase 6 would not need the same budget.
Mr. Reiner asked about enforcement method(s).
Mr. McCash explained that the deed restrictions give the association the right to put a lien against
that property. Whenever the property is sold, any delinquent fees would have to be paid before
the deed could be transferred.
Ms. Clarke said that usually the delinquency is taken care of before then. When a property in
arrears is listed for sale, the homeowners association typically contacts the realtor regarding the
delinquency, and, normally, it is paid at that point.
Mr. Reiner inquired how the City would review the structure of the homeowners associations to
ensure that they are actually "work- able."
Mr. McCash suggested that be part of the Planning and Zoning process for review of the
subdivision. It would be stipulated that there would be a mandatory homeowners association set
up that is filed by deed restriction.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga said that she preferred a very flexible document. She prefers no City
involvement. The City cannot legislate this type of activity. The developer can take care of the
details.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Page . 4
Mr. Adamek agreed that there are enough homeowner associations already established within the
City to provide models for new ones.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga suggested that the City request that all homeowners association agreements be
on file with the City. If sample language is needed for reference, we would have it on hand.
Mr. McCash added that the developers set the associations up, and they already have many
documents to use as references.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga agreed, but suggested this could assist the association after the developer has
removed himself.
Mr. McCash clarified that the intention is to mandate homeowner associations for new
developments only, not to be retroactive for existing associations. This was the committee's
consensus.
Mr. Reiner summarized that the committee will request the City legal counsel to draft an
ordinance that would require each new subdivision by deed restriction to have a homeowner
association that will be responsible for the cost and maintenance of common grounds, entry
features, cut -de -sacs, landscape upgrades, and greenways and rights -of -way included within the
subdivision, but not to include park lands as so designated by the City.
Mr. Reiner adjourned the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Clerk of Council
S:\DATA\COUNCIL\CONMTTE\CONMEV\CDCMIN98.MO4
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Monday, July 13, 1998 - 6:00 p.m.
MEETING MINUTES
ATTENDANCE'
John Reiner, Chair
Tom McCash
Cindy Hide Pittaluga
Bob Adamek
Lisa Fierce
Mr. Reiner called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m., stating that the purpose of tonight's meeting
is to review proposed amendments to the sign code and the height of street light poles.
Sig Code
Mr. McCash noted that this matter was previously referred to the Community Development
Committee. Staff has worked on the previous draft and he has made some additional changes
since the last meeting on this issue.
He then proceeded to review the changes he has made since the last discussion:
The definition of established grade line was changed from finish grade to average pre -
development grade. This change was made in response to the concerns raised about
the Avery Square signage. Any special situations involving sloped sites
could be dealt with at BZA via a variance process.
The definition of ground sign no longer includes pole and pylon because a definition
was added for lollipop signage.
3. The monument sign definition was added to differentiate between a ground sign
and a monument sign.
4. Modifications were made to clarify the definition of the primary image.
5. The pylon sign definition now refers to lollipop signage.
6. In the definition of secondary image, changes were made to provide clarification.
7. A wicket sign definition was added.
8. For prohibited signs in Section 153.154, wicket and lollipop signs are added to the
list.
9. In Section 153.54, paragraph 1, modify the last sentence to read, "Projecting signs may be
permitted as part of a comprehensive sign package in a planned district text and in the
Architectural Review District. Sandwich board signs are permitted only in the
Architectural Review District."
10. In prohibited sign locations, (d), he added street light poles for clarification. In (h),
he added language to close any other potential loopholes.
11. For private traffic and on site directional signs, it was the consensus of the Committee
to eliminate the proposed sentence regarding wicket or lollipop signs so that solid
base directional signs will be used.
12. In the section regarding informational window signs, the last sentence was eliminated
to prohibit product signs in windows, i.e., Bud Lite, etc.
13. In the ATM section, he removed the sentence referring to the Dublin lighting guidelines
as he is not certain that the guidelines address this use. This regulation deals with the
sign itself, and not the area around the ATM which would be lighted for safety reasons.
14. On p. 273, Section 153.158(B) was modified by adding language regarding the maximum
size of a ground sign - the word "monument" should be changed to "ground or
monument ".
The other items on page 273 were changes made by staff relating to primary and
secondary images.
15. In (C)(4), it makes reference to Appendix A. He suggests that staff provide some
graphics for approved sign shapes.
16. On p. 276, (5) this amendment addresses the limitation of colors for secondary
and primary images in relation to trademarks. In view of the case law regarding
trademark restrictions, it was the consensus of the Committee to remove this
language and handle any issues as they arise.
17. On p. 276, (8), the language should read, "Reverse sides of all permanent signs and
structural supports must be completely enclosed."
18. On p. 276, (D), the section on landscaping, the anchor bolt language was removed since it
is not relevant in current installations.
19. hz the section on lighting, (E), the goal is to have limitations on the brightness of a
sign. These were borrowed from another community's guidelines.
20. In the permanent signs Section 153.159, language was added to prohibit walls signs
from obscuring architectural features of buildings. In the subsection relating
to height (2), the reference section number should be 153.161(A).
21. On p. 277A, in the section related to Setback, (4) he explained that currently, ground
signs are required to be setback a minimum of 8 feet from the ROW. Columbus
regulations require a setback of a minimum of 12 feet from the ROW. He is
proposing that ground signs be setback a minimum of one fourth of the
building setback along public ROW and a minimum of thirty three percent
of the lot width or the side yard setback, whichever is greater, from any
property boundary line.
Following discussion, it was the consensus of the committee to require ground signs to be set
back the gr at r o 'f eet or one fourth of the bz it ling c�elb��ck along p- IZC)W and a
minimum of thirty three percent ....
In addition, this section includes language regarding setbacks from street
intersections. Any ground sign located within 50 feet of a street intersection
shall be no closer to the ROW than one half of the building setback line.
Ms. Fierce noted a concern that this could encroach into the parking lot area.
Mr. Reiner expressed concern that the screening requirements could be affected by this change.
Mr. McCash confirmed that the ordinance will be referred by Council to Planning & Zoning
Commission for further review.
Ms. Fierce stated that staff will review the proposed changes to identify any potential problem
areas.
22. On page 27713, the dimensions for a corner lot site to allow two signs were changed from
100 to 150 feet of frontage on at least two public rights-of-way. This bigger frontage
will better accommodate two signs if requested. The two signs shall be no closer
than two thirds the cumulative length of the public ROW frontage. This will push the
signs farther apart on the public ROW.
23. On page 27713, (E) regarding projecting signs, add "and in a comprehensive sign
package for a planned district." A Section (F) was added regarding sandwich board
signs.
24. On page 277, Section 153.161(A) Corporate Office Signs, the number was changed from
two or more stories to three or more stories so that the three story and over building is
entitled to a larger sign. The 270 frontage buildings are all three story buildings, so this
will not impact them. The building setback was increased to 100 feet from the
interstate to be entitled to 100 square feet of signage per story. Buildings set
back less than 100 feet from I -270 shall be entitled to a maximum of 100 square
feet of wall signage. This will provide incentive to move the buildings back from
270 and provide more green area.
Ms. Fierce cautioned that pushing back the building would not necessarily provide more green
space - parking could be reconfigured and fill that space.
Mr. McCash stated that the zoning code would have to be changed to modify the parking
setbacks from the freeway to address this possibility.
24. For wall signs on penthouse structures, p. 277, new requirements are (a) and (b)
providing that the exterior penthouse enclosing walls are of the same material as the
predominant wall material of the stricture, and that the area of the penthouse
is not less than one half the area of the roof. This is to address applications
such as the Sterling and LCI building penthouse applications.
25. For ground signs along 1 -270, the setback is increased from 100 to 150 feet for a sign no
greater than 125 feet in area (revised from 80 feet in area). Pushing the building far
enough back will allow for a larger ground sign. For setbacks less than 100 feet, a sign
is allowed of up to 100 feet in area.
26. On page 278, new provisions were added relating to the S.R. 161/33 corridor district
to ensure that no wall signs are permitted. There have been issues related to the size of
the ground sign for corporate offices and the distinctions between 161 and 270 frontages.
Ground signs would now be permitted to be a maximum of 125 square feet in area, a
maximum of 8 feet tall, provided that the sign is set back a minimum of two thirds of the
building setback along the ROW. This provides the same proportion as ground signs
along 270 frontage. The ROW widths along 270 and 33/161 are different, and thus the
different requirements for setback for these ground signs.
Mr. Reiner pointed out that he believes that 125 square feet is too large in these locations since
the current code allows only 50 square feet.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga commented that the size of a 125 square foot sign is hard to envision. She
suggested that staff install some samples out in the field to illustrate this.
Mr. McCash noted that the speed limits along 270 are much higher than along 161/33 and for
this reason, larger signs would be permitted along 270. He suggested that 100 feet be allowed as
a compromise number.
Mr. Adamek stated that he could not go higher than 80 square feet.
Following discussion, the consensus of the Committee was to compromise with no more than 80
square feet instead of 125 along S.R. 161/33.
Mr. McCash noted that 2 (b) should include facilities of 1h_ = stories, not two. This correction
will be made.
27. On page 279, Entry Feature Signs, language was added that they may only be
externally illuminated and shall be landscaped in accordance with this chapter.
28. On page 281, (L)(2), re gasoline stations, language is added to clarify that price and grade
information on gasoline station signs is considered to be part of the primary image of
such signs and will not be considered secondary image provided generic descriptions
are displayed.
29. In Section 153.164, Table of Height, Area and Setback Requirements, he proposes
changing the ground sign maximum area from 15 feet to 50 feet for schools and
churches along roadways with a 35 mph speed limit.
The Committee members felt that 50 feet is too large in a residential area which is where most
churches are located.
Mr. McCash suggested that 50 feet be allowed in non - residential areas. The church signage
would then be the same as that allowed for an office.
The consensus of the Committee was to leave the signage allowed at 15 square feet in residential
areas.
The minimum setback change for ground signs from 8 feet to 12 feet throughout the table was
agreed upon by the Committee.
Mr. Reiner stated that developers will have to comply with the screening provisions of the Code
as well as the setback change.
Under non - residential, for signs related to development, wall signs will not be permitted.
30. On page 284, for general commerce, the maximum square footage
of a wall sign has been changed from 80 to 50 or 5 percent of the building elevation,
whichever is less. He commented that retail should not be allowed a larger sign than
office. Under the current code, McDonald's on Avery is 80 feet long, and they would be
allowed 80 square feet of wall sign. With this proposed amendment, a wall sign would
be restricted to a maximum of 62 square feet. The signage would become more
proportional to the building size.
The Committee agreed with this change to 50 square feet or 5 percent of the building elevation,
whichever is less.
Mr. McCash pointed out two other changes:
The height of ground signs in non - residential areas which is currently at 15 feet would be
revised to 8 feet, and joint identification signs from 8 feet to 10 feet.
The Committee agreed
Discussion followed about height and width proportionality for signage versus height restrictions
at 8 feet.
Mr. McCash suggested that the appendix could contain some suggested shapes.
Mr. Reiner and Ms. Hide Pittaluga indicated they would prefer to have a height limit of 6 feet.
Mr. Adamek stated he would support 8 feet.
It was the consensus of the Committee to limit height of ground signs to 6 feet. The individual
development text could address signage of greater height.
Ms. Fierce summarized that staff will review the setbacks as proposed to identify any potential
problems with the parking setbacks and other changes.
Mr. McCash confirmed that the changes will be put into ordinance form, introduced at the
August 10 Council meeting and then referred to Planning Commission.
Other B usiness
Ms. Hide Pittaluga expressed dissatisfaction with the Old Dublin Farmers Market signage and
number of vendors. The event is a disappointment in terms of Council's expectations for the
endeavor.
Ms. Fierce stated that the Old Dublin Association is coordinating the market - the City is
providing support in terms of promotion.
Mr. McCash suggested that Ms. Hide Pittaluga contact Joan Eggspuchler to express these
concerns.
Mr. Reiner stated that an issue came up at a meeting he attended last night regarding a Reserve
resident who violated a Muirfield green space with a fence installation. Mr. Marshall promised
that if the fence permit was issued in error, the City will cite them and order it removed.
At this point, Ms. Fierce left the meeting.
Height of Street T ighting Poll
Mr. McCash summarized the history of this issue which was prompted by lighting installation
along the Woerner - Temple extension and Coffman Road project. He explained that the higher
the light poles, the wider dissemination of the light and therefore fewer lights are needed to light
a street. Shorter poles will require more lights. In his view, several things are needed from
Council in terms of policy: reducing the height of the poles; establishing a standard for location
of lights; and establishing a desirable ratio between the light area and the dark area. Dropping
pole heights and maintaining the current spacing of poles will result in a change in the ratio, and
an appearance somewhat similar to the Muirfield Drive area.
Mr. Adamek stated that he would prefer street lighting to be located in the business corridors, not
in the residential areas.
Mr. McCash suggested that in residential areas, accent pods of lighting would be preferable. But
in neighborhoods such as MaeDuff Drive, street lighting would make sense due to the darkness
of the surrounding area. In areas like Tullymore, the subdivision regulations should require a
post light or wall lights on the front of the garage. He has information which he will circulate to
the Committee members, and this matter can be scheduled for discussion at a future meeting. He
further noted that information from the Finance Director is needed in regard to the cost of the
current budget for electricity for street lighting and the projected cost for 15 years out for
additional lighting.
Mr. Reiner indicated he supports the pole lights and garage lights for residential areas. In
neighborhoods, the areas around the schools may need lighting, but other areas may not.
Mr. McCash added that the building code could require pole lights and garage lights for
residential areas, and also perhaps motion sensor lighting in back yards.
He summarized that the issue needs to be addressed in a creative way versus relying on accepted
engineering standards.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m
Clerk of Council
rd
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Monday, July 6, 1998 - 6:30 p.m.
MEETING MINUTES
ATTENDANCE
John Reiner, Chair
Tom McCash
Cindy Hide Pittaluga
Mr. Reiner called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m., stating that the purpose of tonight's meeting
is to review proposed fence code amendments.
Mr. McCash reported that the fence code amendments were referred to the Committee over a
year ago, and a draft was prepared and given to staff. Due to the volume of work at that time,
including the Community Plan, and vacancies on staff, the fence code amendments were not a
high priority. Recently, Mr. Adamek expressed concern with the proliferation of privacy fences
and other issues related to fences, and so the fence code draft was resurrected and some
modifications were made. The goal is to have a uniform approach for fencing regulations across
the entire community which is more consistent with the deed restrictions in the various
subdivisions. This should help to reduce confusion about permissible fences under the Code. He
suggests that the ordinance be referred to Planning Commission.
Mr. McCash noted one suggestion for change. The definition of "fence" within the proposed
ordinance includes shrubbery and hedges. The definition of "hedge" includes living plant
material of vines, trees, shrubs, bushes and combinations. However, if someone wants to install
a stand of pine trees around their property for privacy purposes, he believes this should be a
permitted item and that it should not be considered a fence, assuming that the trees are not
installed in a no -build or in an easement area.
Brief discussion followed, and the other Committee members indicated that they would support
allowing trees or shrubs to be used in this manner without being defined as a fence.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga noted that a decorative trellis could be construed as a fence under the
proposed amendments. Some decorative trellises are very attractive parts of landscaping plans in
residences across the community.
Mr. McCash responded that while a trellis is construed as a fence, the ordinance does not prohibit
trellises.
Mr. Reiner stated that these trellises are a popular item used as an architectural detail.
Mr. McCash explained that a crisscross trellis between two posts with landscape material
growing on it would constitute a fence under this definition. This is in contrast to an overhead
trellis used for shading purposes or as a vertical decorative item.
Minutes of Community Development Committee Meeting
July 6, 1998
Mr. McCash suggested that the trellis be included in the definition of fence, but in the permitted
fences section, it should indicate that a trellis, where permitted, cannot be used to fully enclose a
yard. This could be addressed by adding an item 7 dealing with trellises under permitted
locations and types.
The Committee members concurred.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga asked for clarification about the wire fencing attached to the interior of split
rail fences.
Mr. McCash responded that this restriction is similar to that of the Indian Run Meadows
subdivision and many other subdivision deed restrictions which allows them to install on the
inside of a split rail fence wire of a minimum 3x3 inch square, painted black, to keep animals
constrained. The black paint conceals the wire fence for aesthetic purposes.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga asked for clarification about the portion of yard allowed to be enclosed in this
manner.
Mr. McCash noted that he will add to Section `B" under 150.072 language to specify that all
fences cannot extend more than one third of the actual rear yard depth.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga pointed out that on page two, the word "irregardless" should be changed to
"regardless ".
Ms. Hide Pittaluga asked if the swimming pool fence amendments will compromise safety in any
way.
Mr. McCash responded that the reference to the building code regulations in this section will
address the safety issues.
Mr. McCash suggested that the Commitee recommend to Council that the draft ordinance be
referred to the Planning Commission and that the minutes be forwarded to them for clarification
purposes.
Mr. Reiner moved to recommend to Council that the draft ordinance be referred to the Planning
Commission and that the meeting minutes be sent to them as well.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga seconded the motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
Clerk of Council
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Monday, November 9, 1998 - 7:00 p.m.
MEETING MINUTES
John Reiner, Chair
Tom McCash
Cindy Hide Pittaluga
Greg Peterson
Rick Helwig
Mitch Banchefsky
Bobbie Clarice
Kim Littleton
John Fernsler, Wallace Roberts and Todd
David Rouse, Wallace Roberts and Todd
Eric Kelly, Ph.D., AICP
Mr. Reiner called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. He asked Mr. Helwig to provide an overview of
the southwest plan update project.
Mr. Helwig noted that during goal setting, Council determined that this Committee would
provide oversight to the staff and consultants for the project of updating the southwest area
portion of the Community Plan. Council approved the scope of services for a consultant in mid-
year, and a consulting team made up of Wallace, Roberts and Todd, Duncan Associates, and Eric
Damian Kelly was retained for the project. Tonight, the consultants will provide an update on
work done to date. After tonight, staff would like to proceed with the next step which is the
community input process.
Mr. Fernsler noted that there are several considerations to address the challenge of rapid growth
occurring in the southwest area: look at the nature of private development and providing different
standards if the desire is for different development; identify a civic "glue" which will define the
southwest community and the missing elements; improve the land use element in the adopted
Community Plan in regard to the southwest area; and provide for greater diversity of density
patterns. In addition to these considerations, the interviews with staff pointed to the rate of
growth and whether the City could do a better job of scheduling public improvements to keep
pace with development. A decision was then made to first consult with a land use law expert to
address the feasibility of growth management from the legal standpoint prior to undertaking the
plan preparation.
Mr. Fernsler summarized that the plan process will include: defining the parameters of the
problem; identifying issues, threats and opportunities; data collection and analysis; stakeholder
interviews; review of development patterns and trends; identifying natural scenic and cultural
resources; and legal regulatory analysis. This all will lead to the vision; to concept development
for the southwest; to plan concept; and then to final plan adoption.
Tonight, Mr. Kelly will present his initial conclusions regarding legal and regulatory
possibilities. After tonight, they hope to initiate the process to prepare the southwest plan.
Mr. Kelly noted that the preliminary recommended strategies are for the following:
1. Adequate public facilities regulations which establish development standards requiring
the reasonable availability of designated public facilities for proposed new development,
providing objective standards to address some issues now addressed through negotiation
in the PUD process;
2. Impact fees - regulatory fees used to apportion to new development a fair and
proportional share of the costs of new public facilities necessary to serve that
development, providing a formula system that would provide more predictable results
than the current system of negotiation over many exactions;
3. Phased plan for infrastructure improvements, going beyond but building on the principles
of the city's current CIP, thus providing the City, landowners and developers with a
reasonable long -term schedule for providing facilities necessary to serve continued
growth;
4. Overlay zoning, with mandatory clustering provisions (to ensure the preservation of key
topographic features in private open space) and enhanced design standards, and more
flexible layout of roads, sewer and water; phased infrastructure plan; and overlay zoning.
He then proceeded with an overview of these recommendations for plan implementation as
outlined in his report.
He explained that in managing growth, the zoning and subdivision regulations are inadequate.
The zoning code addresses the use of land, the intensity or density of use, and the height and bulk
of buildings; it is intended to protect established neighborhoods, not to deal with developing
areas. The subdivision regulations address development design, the layout of lots and blocks,
infrastructure design within the tract, and infrastructure costs within the tract.
The timing of development is important as land is a scarce resource and because of the need for
planning for infrastructure and for schools to service the development. To manage growth, there
needs to be a relationship between the location and the timing of development.
He noted that the following are reasons to adopt adequate facilities regulations:
• It will encourage compact /contiguous development
• It will ensure that public facilities are available to new development
• It will create objective standards for issues often addressed now by negotiation
• The Community Plan suggests APF's in a number of areas
The following are reasons to adopt a phased plan for infrastructure:
• Infrastructure investments now are largely reactive to new development, and the City
responds by trying to meet the demand
• A phased plan helps to guide development into desired areas
• Coupled with APF's, ensures that most development goes into the desired areas
• Establishes a phasing plan which helps both the City and the developers, ensuring that
those who build roads coordinate with those building water and sewer and with those
building schools
• Managing infrastructure investments is the primary tool for managing regional growth
• Sewer and water extensions are as powerful as roads in shaping the growth of a region
• Typically, water and sewer extensions are not used as a planning /growth management
tool
• Controls powerful growth shaping tools
• Essential to implement community plan
• Builds on the strengths of current capital budgeting system, but extends it further into the
future
The reasons to implement fiscal impact fees are the following:
• Urban sprawl is a result of subsidies
• Exactions and impact fees can reduce subsidies
• Cities often subsidize sprawl after the fact by allowing development to happen without
adequate services, necessitating subsidies after the development happens with road
widenings, etc.
• Impact fees are essentially the only constitutional form of exaction remaining after the
Supreme Court ruling
• Negotiated exactions are very risky after the Nollan and Dolan cases
• The Community Plan expressly recommends consideration of road, sewer and water
impact fees
An overlay zone would provide enhanced design controls, would include mandatory clustering,
would build on base density and uses provided under current zoning, and would be developed
specifically for the southwest area. An overlay zone can protect corridors, can create private
open space to include stream corridors, forested areas, flood plains, and fence rows. It can
provide an enhanced design, customized to fit the area.
The following are reasons to adopt an overlay zoning:
• It is the best way to implement the community plan goals related to preservation of open
space other than public open space
• It will preserve environmental features
• It will result in an improved development design
• It will preserve the rural character
• It is the best way to accomplish the goals for the southwest area
• It is the best way to retain residential for the community
In summary, Mr. Kelly noted that they are recommending that work now begin on the southwest
area plan study, and that direction be given regarding adequate public facilities regulations by
considering the authorization of a strategic study of steps necessary to put these regulations in
place. They recommend that the consulting team be authorized to develop an impact fee study
for roadways (this will create a model for the water and sewer impact fees) ; and that staff begin
development of a long -range phased infrastructure investment plan.
Mr. Reiner asked what percentage of its budget an average city spends on capital projects.
Mr. Fernsler responded that the average is under 20 percent; Dublin currently spends 40 percent
of its budget on capital projects.
Mr. Reiner asked if Dublin has gone above the normal limits in developing infrastructure to serve
development.
Mr. Kelly confirmed that is the case.
Mr. Banchefsky stated that part of this problem relates to the fact that tax revenues are growing
enough to keep pace with the capital program, and, therefore, how can the City justify not being
able to afford to do the capital projects?
Mr. Kelly responded that this issue does not hold up in court. The courts have ruled that the fair
share of costs attributable to new development can be charged to the developer. The courts do
not review whether a city can afford more.
Mr. Kelly noted that if certain kinds of development provide income and others do not, cities can
lose money on the kind of development that Dublin is currently allowing.
Mr. Fernsler added that, in essence, the 270 corridor commercial development is subsidizing the
residential development in Dublin.
Mr. Kelly suggested that in terms of the community's priorities in the adopted plan and due to
rising land costs, the City should consider shifting their funds into open space investment. He
added that telling landowners they cannot ever develop their land is not feasible when Dublin has
the cash to invest in the land.
Mr. Reiner stated that the issue is one of who is footing the bill in communities for education
costs. The residential development is being subsidized by commercial development.
Community groups are pressuring Council to acquire land, but the money is tied up in
infrastructure commitments.
Mr. Helwig noted that the City has recently made a commitment to land preservation with the
Metro Park project. This land will be parkland in lieu of further residential development and
associated school costs.
Mr. Reiner noted that he supports the concept of phased infrastructure which will allow the City
to manage its money more effectively.
Mr. Kelly stated that capital budgets need to be more long- range. If developers want to invest
their monies at an earlier date than does the City, then let it happen. However, he is not certain
developers would do so. Developers prefer predictability, so if the rules are changed, there needs
to be a transitional period for reasons of fairness. Impact fees can be phased in gradually, and the
likely outcome will be that the developers will pay landowners less for the land because of the
impact fees assessed.
11
Mr. Helwig noted that at Council's direction, staff has moved up the Woerner- Temple Rings
construction; moved up the Avery interchange improvements; moved up the connecting link of
Emerald Parkway over 33; and the Rings Road widening will occur earlier than anticipated.
Those are legitimate reasons to manage growth, in and of themselves. Other projects on the wish
list are the extension of Tuttle and improvement of outlying roads west of Avery. All of these
factors lend perspective to the need for phased infrastructure. He noted that Mr. Smith and Mr.
Banchefsky have provided support for the planning effort. Council has the option of continuing
the southwest moratorium while the plan is undertaken.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga commented that she came tonight to listen. She likes the emphasis on open
space and preservation which has been the policy direction of this Council. She supports
managed growth for the future and is in sync with the recommendations.
Mr. Kelly clarified that their recommendation of purchasing open space arose from their review
of the Community Plan which states the community's desire for more open space. Given the
budget, the City can afford to purchase land, if that is their desire.
Mr. McCash stated that the City has recently adopted new stone water regulations and a tree
preservation ordinance. His concern is with the amount of impact fees for developers based on
densities and with the possibility that they may choose to pursue a higher density to justify the
impact fees.
Mr. Kelly responded that there are no court cases upholding this line of thinking wherein the
landowner believes that the value of his land has been reduced.
Mr. McCash noted that an important Ohio case is not included in this discussion paper - Gerijo,
Inc. v. City of Fairfield. It addressed exactions and takings and is similar to the Billing's case.
Mr. Kelly stated that they have reviewed the leading exaction cases in Ohio and found them
consistent with the Supreme Court rulings. It is still a policy issue for Council. There is no legal
problem with impact fees. The City is already doing this by way of parkland donations and open
space fees.
Mr. McCash stated he would have concerns about being the first community in Central Ohio to
have impact fees. He asked whether there have been maximum density issues addressed in areas
where impact fees are imposed.
Mr. Kelly responded that none of the studies indicate an issue with this - impact fees are charged
on all densities of development. Impact fees create a level playing field, and responsible
developers prefer impact fees versus negotiated exactions.
Mr. Reiner agrees that developers would prefer to know up front the impact fee versus what can
be exacted. He hopes this will set a precedent for other communities in Ohio.
5
Ms. Hide Pittaluga asked how the impact fees are computed and levied.
Mr. Kelly explained that the formula is complicated, but for roadway needs including major
arterials and new bridges, there would be a typical per dwelling unit charge. Credits are given
for property taxes, for gas tax credit, for the developer's provision of an arterial piece of road,
etc.. The final figure would be in the range of $2,000 or under and is a one time, up -front fee,
usually assessed at the time the building permit is issued. In most communities, the fee is
actually paid at the time of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy which is when the impacts
of development occur on the roadways.
Mr. McCash noted that the timing of the assessment could result in impact fees being borne by
the small builder versus the developer.
Mr. Peterson stated that a city could not do both exaction and impact fees.
Mr. Kelly agreed, stating that in an impact fee system, the bigger developers generally overpay
while the smaller developers pay less.
Mr. Peterson commented that these tools can be used for future development; however, the City
already has a problem in terms of catching up the existing infrastructure to meet the current
development.
Mr. McCash asked about the possibility of recreation services being added to impact fees in
order to provide for a swimming pool in the southwest area.
Mr. Kelly stated that in principle, this could be done; in practice, however, the City is already
requiring much in terms of land and park space donations.
Mr. Fernsler commented that community -wide standards for developed parkland are needed -
this cannot be localized to one area of town.
Mr. Kelly noted that it would be difficult to establish "adequate public facility charges" for
facilities such as parkland due to the difficulty of determining when the park is full compared to
determining when a sewer line has reached capacity. For this reason, they suggest starting with
hard surfaces standards, such as roadways, and adding other standards later.
Mr. Banchefsky stated that a plaintiff's attorney in a potential lawsuit would look at things such
as the density levels set in the Community Plan, the MSI study, the open space and street tree
requirements as total costs of development. He has concerns about "pushing the envelope" with
an impact fee system.
Mr. Kelly responded that Dublin's current system of negotiated exactions is at great legal risk - it
is preferable to have standards. He stated that they plan to work with the development
community to eliminate hidden subsidies, to level the playing field, and to make the system
workable.
Mr. McCash asked how the City can continue to obtain what is currently obtained in the
development negotiations and still have the opportunity to adopt impact fees.
Mr. Fernsler stated that this is a matter of perception - not adding to the burden, but adding to the
predictability of the process. With impact fees, developers are aware in advance of what the city
needs. They appreciate predictability.
The overlay district for the southwest will address some of the other items such as development
standards, setbacks, etc. They expect to work with the development community to determine
their needs and desires with a goal of adding clarity and predictability to the process.
Mr. Kelly stated that the City may choose to "push the envelope" and take on a lawsuit due to the
growth pressures. The goal, however, is not to put the City at risk without being aware of those
risks, and to be well positioned if litigation should occur.
Mr. Reiner noted that the Community Plan states that the City should consider impact fees and
guidelines for development. Council has an obligation to the citizens to investigate these
strategies. Development has been subsidized with the City's money to date.
Mr. Fernsler stated that the growth management tools can be implemented on a simultaneous
track with the southwest area plan and all of this could be done in 6 months.
Mr. Reiner stated that the Committee needs to recommend whether or not the moratorium in the
southwest should be continued. The Committee further can recommend that the consultants be
engaged to continue in this process.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga asked how many developments in the pipeline will be affected be a
continuation of the moratorium.
Ms. Clarke responded that two developments have concept plan approval. She will provide an
inventory to Council of any projects affected by a continuation of the moratorium.
Mr. Peterson moved to recommend to Council that the southwest moratorium be extended for 6
months.
Mr. McCash seconded the motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Fernsler stated that by the end of May, they can have a draft southwest plan ready for
adoption.
Mr. Reiner asked if the Committee would like to recommend to Council that the impact fees
process be continued.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga moved to continue with this process.
Mr. Peterson seconded the motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga asked for an estimate of the consultants' fees for these services.
Mr. Kelly stated that a fixed price will be given to the City, and they will not bill overruns. The
number will be in the "six figures ". In the future, impact fees collected can be used to pay for
updates to the fee structure
Mr. Fernsler noted that this will be a collaborative effort with staff. The first step will be to
identify the process; then come to agreement about whether the consultant or in -house staff will
do the work; then agree on appropriate levels of effort and assign rates. He indicated that he will
have some figures late next week for the initial part of the project.
Mr. Kelly emphasized that impact fees are designed to be across the board for every type of
development. Council, however, can set policies regarding impact fees based on such things as
peak hour generation of traffic, etc.
Mr. Helwig noted that staff will prepare legislation for the extension of the southwest
moratorium for introduction on December 7.
It was the consensus of the Committee to direct staff to prepare this legislation.
The meeting was adjourned at 9 p.m.
Clerk of Council
Community Development Committee Meeting
of Dublin City Council
Monday, December 14, 1998
7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers Municipal Building
Present:
Mr.
Reiner, Chair
Ms.
Hide Pittaluga
Ms.
Grigsby
Ms.
Clarke
Mr.
Helwig
Mr.
Kindra
Mr.
Petty
Mr. Steve Sedgwick, Camp Dresser & McKee
Mr. Rusty Neff, Camp Dresser & McKee
Mr. Chris Calpin, Camp Dresser & McKee
Mr. Steve Grassbaugh, Squire Sanders & Dempsey
Mr. Reiner called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m. on Monday, December 14, 1998.
Mr. Kindra introduced the consultants from Camp Dresser & McKee and Mr. Grassbaugh,
attorney from Squire, Sanders & Dempsey. He stated the consultants are ready to make a
recommendations about funding of the plan.
Mr. Sod,-Wick, gave a slide presentation which summarized the funding of the Camp Dresser and
McKee stormwater study. He stated that stormwater management funding is currently a hidden
cost within the general fund of the city. Existing development costs approximately $130,000 a
year, and future development will cost $1,000,000 a year, to comply with regulations of the Ohio
EPA.
Mr. Grassbaugh explained the current method used for financing these costs are from the general
fund. Several financing methods are available including impact fees for capital improvements
only, tax increment financing for capital improvements only and for public improvements that
directly benefit new development.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga asked whether impact fees, would be a one time fee and what would be the
long term effects.
Mr. Grassbaugh responded that a one time fee would be paid when the land is developed. I-Ie
stated impact fees are not received favorably because sometimes the fees have no direct benefit to
the project being developed. Other options would be a voted tax, special assessments for capital
improvements, or a stormwater system charge. The stormwater charge would include capital
improvements and operational and maintenance costs for everyone within the City limits, not just
for new development.
Community Development Committee
December 14, 1998
Page 2
Mr. Sedgwick explained that Camp Dresser and McKee has done a master plan study for the
City. They looked at all watersheds within that area. The red lines on the drawing indicate the
City limits, which is the area where the fees can legally be applied. Other zones indicate the
exclusive area for Dublin expansion. Lastly, there is the negotiated water service area and what
the impacts of that development would be. The two options for cost allocation categories are:
Land Area Only and Impervious Area Option only. The Land Area Only is the land that is
undeveloped today within the city limits plus exclusive service area, which is the only land left to
be developed. The Impervious Area Option is anything that precludes or creates a problem in the
downstream systems. As Mr. Grassbaugh stated, fees cannot be imposed on the new
development only, but one must look at existing development as well. This fee must be fair and
equitable over every acre. What they are recommending, and what is legally defensible, is a
stormwater management utility fee of $1.75 a month per unit. Over ten years it will pay for all
the costs per residential unit within the City of Dublin. This rate will be evaluated every year for
revision. This would include all residential properties. There are five systems similar to this
operating in Ohio currently: Wooster ($2.90/ERU); Upper Arlington ($2.75 /ERU); Columbus
($1.64 /ERU); Forest Park ($3.00 /ERU); Cincinnati ($2.11/ERU). Seven cities in Ohio are
currently considering implementation of this.
Mr. Sedgwick explained the method of calculating this fee. Every residential property is charged
one flat fee. For non - residential, the square footage of the building plus the parking lot is used to
compute the ERU's. Under this system, everybody pays - churches, schools, commercial and
residential. Mr. Sedgwick emphasized that Council has several options available when making
the decision of financing stormwater management. One option would be to charge with no
connection fee - $1.75 /mo. /unit for a steady revenue source. Another option would be
$1.31 /mo. /unit with a connection fee, for a variable revenue source. He emphasized they can
only charge for the area within the city limits.
Mr. Reiner thanked the representatives from Camp Dresser and McKee for their work on the
stormwater management plan for the city. He asked how this might impact future economic
development for Dublin.
Mr. Grassbaugh commented that many of Dublin's neighbors currently have a system in place. It
is merely an additional cost of doing business.
Mr. Reiner stated that Council is currently in the process of evaluating impact fees, along with a
host of other issues. Does the Ohio Supreme Court have a limit regarding fees that can be
imposed.
Mr. Grassbaugh stated that there is no statute forbidding this. In Ohio, the laws rely heavily on
Community Development Committee
December 14, 1998
Page 3
home rule and case law. There is a case currently pending from Beaver Creek. In California,
impact fee are done routinely. It would be difficult to add stormwater fees if there is also a street
impact fee.
Mr. Reiner asked about the connection fee.
Mr. Helwig stated that water and sanitary sewer connection fees are commonplace in Ohio and
throughout the country, but stormwater fees are just starting to emerge. Some cities have charges
for EMS runs, yet others consider that a service of government. One option is to continue to
"pay as you go," but he would urge Council members to consider thinking long term. Dublin is
currently a desirable location, and this should not discourage development.
Mr. Helwig added that because of its excellent tax base Dublin is in the position to continue
paying for this out of general fund.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga commented that this system is needed, but it is a tough sell from a residential
standpoint. She can see this as being unpopular.
Mr. Sedgwick suggested that other municipalities have held public hearings, or formed a citizens
group and given them an opportunity to explain this. It is a matter of educating people about the
issue and the benefits of the solution.
Mr. Reiner stated he believes these charges to be fair and equitable.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga commented she is more hesitant, especially in view of the impact fees
Council is considering now.
Mr. Reiner stated that is a separate issue. He would recommend this be presented to all of
Council to discuss the options available.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga stated the City is currently spending $100,000 for reactive maintenance. They
need to look to the future and the expected growth of Dublin.
Ms. Grigsby noted that about 15 years ago, water and sewer charges were a new concept.
Previously, income tax dollars paid for these costs. Water and sewer fees were phased in
gradually so people became accustomed to paying for their own infrastructure, and people
adjusted to the fees.
Mr. Reiner stated that if you consider the concept exclusive of the connection fee, the cost is less
Community Development Committee
December 14, 1998
Page 4
than $24 a year. He is comfortable with the fees proposed for the stormwater plan
Ms. Hide Pittaluga suggested a very nominal fee, such as 75 cents per month to phase in this
concept.
Mr. Sedgwick noted they provided several alternatives for structuring the fees. It can be done on
a sliding scale. They did not expect a finite answer tonight.
Mr. Reiner asked that the Clerk set a future meeting time in January with the five Council
members not present tonight and for Mr. Sedgwick to give this presentation. He would like all of
Council to hear the presentation.
Mr. Reiner adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
Judy Pen ,
Assistant Cler c of Council