Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDC Minutes 2000 allMINUTES Dublin City Council COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Tuesday, October 24, 2000, 8:00 p.m. Dublin Community Recreation Center Attending: Mr. Reiner Mr. Adamek Jennifer Readler, Asst. Law Director Bobbie Clarke, Director, Planning Division Holly Susong, Planner Paul Hammersmith, Engineering Division Brad Johnson, Consultant, Ratio Architects (Mr. Peterson excused) Mr. Reiner called the meeting to order. He explained that the City has contracted with Ratio Architects to review and update the City's zoning code. He stated that the purpose of this meeting is to determine the preferred manner for the Community Development Committee to review the work at various points and give input and direction to the consultants. Mr. Reiner inquired if the document will be prepared in chapters. He asked Mr. Johnson for his suggestion for meetings with the Committee to review the document as it moves through the development process. Mr. Johnson explained that one third of the document is state statute and case law; the second third is tightly regulated with limited flexibility; and the last third makes it unique to this community. He explained that the consultants will develop a full draft of the ordinance before they forward a draft to the committee. Of that draft, the Committee's attention will be directed specifically to the last third where they can provide input: the definitions, zoning district designations, and the standards for subdivision development and construction. The majority of the consultants' time will be spent on that last third. In general, it does not work well to submit a chapter at a time for review because it is impossible to critique one chapter alone without seeing the entire picture within which it is intended to fit. The first two sections on state statute and case law are already being drafted. After tonight's public input session, development of the third section will begin. An initial set of districts for the community will be drafted. He noted that he is an advocate for multiple districts. The old, traditional zoning codes that had perhaps six to twelve districts were too inflexible and not able to meet the needs of communities. After the districts are determined, permissible and non - permissible parameters, including special exceptions, will be developed for each district. Finally, development standards will be set that are unique for each district. He added that the internal, first full draft should be ready by the end of November. Mr. Adamek inquired if they expected to have less than the present number of districts or more. Community Development Committee October 24, 2000 Page 2 Mr. Johnson responded that they will not have less than the present 16 to 18 districts, but the number will not greatly increase. Ms. Clarke inquired if the Committee is interested in seeing the first draft. Mr. Reiner and Mr. Adamek agreed that the Committee prefers to review the first draft. Ms. Susong noted that a meeting could not be scheduled before the first of December. Mr. Adamek responded that the Committee does not want to delay the document development. He suggested that if it should prove difficult to schedule a meeting with the Committee and the consultants at that time, the document could be forwarded to the Committee. Each of the Committee members could redline their concerns /suggestions. Using those concerns that seem significant and are shared by Committee members, a second draft could be developed. A meeting to review the second draft could then be scheduled. Mr. Johnson asked the form in which they would prefer to see it, and the length of time they would require to complete review of the first draft. He noted that the pages specific to Dublin would be approximately 50 pages. Committee and staff consensus was for a hard copy for review /redlining purposes. They requested one week for review. Ms. Susong noted that they would attempt to provide the document to the Committee on December 1st, and schedule a meeting for one week later. The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Submitted by: Assistant Clerk of Council MINUTES Dublin City Council COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Wednesday, November 1, 2000, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Attending: Mr. Reiner Mr. Adamck Mr. Ciarochi, Director of Development Ms. Grigsby, Director of Finance Mr. McDaniel, Director of Service Mr. Kindra, Director of Engineering Ms. Readler, Asst. Law Director Ms. Clarke, Director of Planning Mr. Reiner called the meeting to order. He noted that Mr. Peterson is meeting with Llewellyn Fauns residents and will arrive after the conclusion of that meeting. Mr. Reiner noted that the focus of tonight's meeting is to review the recommendations for improvements in Old Dublin, as forwarded to Council previously. The Committee is interested in updates on establishment of a parking authority, the financial implications of the drainage improvements, and to determine what is the priority issue on which to spend time and money. He believes that the primary focus is the parking problem. The improvement of aesthetics outlined in the plan will require funding as well. Mr. Reiner noted that some opportunities for the City to acquire land for parking in Old Dublin have arisen, and these items will be discussed by Council and staff at an executive session prior to Monday evening's Council meeting. Council remains interested in exploring the sharing of available parking in Old Dublin, and to that end, the parking authority would be established. Some of the information to be discussed in executive session on Monday may have impact on the items being discussed tonight, and so the discussion tonight may be premature. I-Ie will also take testimony from the audience on what is the prime interest of the Old Dublin businesses /residents in terms of priorities. He asked staff to provide background. Mr. Ciarochi noted that Council previously directed staff to present an RFP for an Old Dublin parking coordinator or contract person. This person's task will be to negotiate with the property owners to identify available parking, and bring parties together that are interested in sharing parking in Old Dublin to meet the needs of the businesses. Staff hopes to have an RFP ready in draft form to present to Council at Monday night's meeting. Staff is also pursuing acquisition of other parcels in Old Dublin for some more permanent type of parking, either municipal -owned public parking or spaced leased by the City for public parking. In response to Mr. Reiner, Mr. Ciarochi stated that it is too premature to quantify the size of parcels available and whether acquisition would resolve the situation. Community Development Committee November 1, 2000 Page 2 Mr. Reiner stated that, in terms of future development, staff may want to make recommendations to Council about how to handle development in Old Dublin and parking requirements. Mr. Ciarochi responded that the City may want to change its philosophy regarding variances to eliminate off street parking requirements for new businesses. There will likely have to be a partnership arrangement with the City to address parking. The variances granted contribute to the parking problems in Old Dublin. In any event, staff will try to take a comprehensive approach in addressing this issue. Mr. McDaniel stated that in terms of service - related issues, staff has attempted to provide updated status reports to Council for each meeting. There have been no recent changes other than what is on the current list. Staff is currently addressing the water runoff from the north municipal lot which was affected a property owner across the street. A contractor will be engaged shortly for the curb repair needed in front of that building. Some brick sidewalk repair will be done, and he hopes to have staff do a large portion of that. Mr. Kindra reported in terms of stormwater issues that the ordinance on Council's agenda on Monday will provide exemptions for small expansions of lots to serve existing businesses. The parking expansions will not be allowed to damage the downstream property. The memo he provided to Council on September 26 was an attempt to address items on the list reviewed and approved by Council at their Special Meeting in August. Many of the items are intertwined, curbs, drainage, tree lawn conditions, etc. He is hopeful that it will enable some meaningful discussion about the various items, including the cost. At this point, he cannot proceed without further direction from Council. Mr. Reiner asked if the Engineering division will review each parcel for existing stormwater drainage related to using space for parking, and what can be done to work effectively with the upcoming parking authority. Mr. Kindra responded that each parcel must be handled case by case as no two are similar. The applicant will still be required to present an engineering plan for an expansion. The intent, however, is not that staff will design their engineering, but will review their plan. Mr. Reiner noted that his point is that if the City wants the property owners and businesses in Old Dublin to work together to address parking, it will first be necessary to remove `roadblocks" which would hamper this effort, such as stormwater drainage problems. Mr. Reiner further commented that if he were a property owner in Old Dublin, he would likely offer property to a pool if the City were to devise a drainage plan, pave and landscape the lots. This would also upgrade the entire visual aspects of the area. He prefers this approach versus the citizens trying to capitalize on selling land to the City for parking. He suggests that the parking authority is assembled quickly to assess the available land, who is willing to participate, and what the City will need to do to obtain cooperation. This is a first step prior to any improvement of aesthetics in Old Dublin, as this plan proposes. He envisions Old Dublin as becoming a venue similar to Grandview, with restaurants and shops and a lot of activity. To do this requires Community Development Committee November 1, 2000 Page 3 available parking. He asked the Finance Director to comment on the City's financial investments in the past year. Ms. Grigsby noted that in the last 12 months, based upon Council direction, staff has focused on addressing parking issues — acquiring land, such as behind Town Center I where the City paid for development of parking at a cost of $375,000. Currently, there is approximately $580,000 available in the budget which was programmed for addressing parking, either with land acquisition and /or development, or partnering with property owners re development. In discussion with Council in executive session on Monday, staff will explore establishing some tax increment financing districts based upon the potential of improvements which may generate some revenue which could be applied to address the parking issue. In regard to stormwater, the City's current 10 -year capital program for citywide stormwater could be modified to include some of these areas and perhaps extended to an 11 or 12 year plan. The highest priority areas in Old Dublin could be incorporated in the City stormwater plan. For Old Dublin, this year's budget includes $220,000 for Old Dublin; next year's capital budget includes $230,000; and for 2002, $130,000 is programmed. Mr. Adamek asked if staff has ever considered establishing some type of economic district where the income tax dollars generated in the Historic Dublin area could be earmarked for improvements to that area each year. Ms. Grigsby responded that there has been discussion regarding establishing a Special Improvement District, but that would require involvement from the property owners who would make payments each year. There has not been discussion of earmarking income tax dollars generated from the district. Similar to the Thomas Kohler TIF, staff could look at projections for income tax revenues for the district which could be designated for transfer into a Historic Dublin Fund. If this type of district were formed a couple of years into the future, staff could base budgets on the assumption that those revenues would be transferred to a new fund to benefit Old Dublin. Mr. Reiner stated that this policy would need to be endorsed by the other members of Council. Mr. Adamek stated that having a special fund to dedicate to these improvements would make sense, in view of the fact that the current 5 -year CIP does not identify many dollars for Old Dublin projects. Mr. Reiner emphasized that this discussion may be premature due to the land acquisition discussions which will not take place until Monday, November 6. Mr. Reiner invited the public to comment. Al Gleine, Owner of Ha'Penny Bridge stated that although he is not a property owner in the district, he knows what it takes to have a successful business. There has been a slight improvement in pedestrian traffic over the past three years. But he believes that before the City Community Development Committee November 1, 2000 Page 4 focuses on parking, there needs to be more of an effort to draw pedestrian traffic into Old Dublin. Unless something is done quickly, some of the businesses may have to close. The existing restaurants on which the need for parking is focused are not all open during the daytime. It is also necessary to consider separately the areas on High Street north and south of Bridge Street — they have different problems and cannot be lumped together. There are no crosswalks on S. High Street, so pedestrians trying to cross from Biddie's to Ha'penny Bridge are put in a dangerous situation. Being pedestrian friendly is an important consideration, and the area is not pedestrian friendly at present. He believes that enforcement of the existing Code would result in the area being more attractive. The parking problems will be alleviated by allowing gravel lots. Staff's approach to allow paving of smaller sections by exempting them from stormwater requirements will be helpful. However, it will not bring new businesses downtown. Mr. Grabill's projects will not be open and operational for quite some time. Quick action is needed to ensure the survival of the existing businesses. He does 60 percent of his business on Saturday, but the only restaurant open is Dublin Village Tavern. He has been unable to persuade the other restaurants to stay open. Parking is not a problem on Saturday daytime. In response to Mr. Reiner, Mr. Gleine indicated that a crosswalk is needed not at the Chamber, but at the Biddie's area in the middle of the block. Mr. Gleine indicated that the merchants have worked hard to bring visitors to Old Dublin, with December strolls, the Farmer's Market, and Arts Festival, etc. They work with the City during the major special events which bring visitors to Dublin. There is a great spirit in Old Dublin, but functionally, it is difficult to coordinate. When they have applied for bed tax funding, they were told that as a for- profit organization, they were not eligible for bed tax funding. There are many efforts underway in Old Dublin to bring visitors, but it is difficult to coordinate without support from the City. They have enjoyed support from the Convention Bureau. While parking is needed, he is not convinced this is a top priority. Mr. Reiner commented that Council has looked at areas such as the historic area of Grandview where the restaurants and shops have done well. The key seems to be providing the parking to enable the traffic to come to the area. The City cannot resolve the problems of the existing mix of tenants, but providing parking will facilitate more restaurant development in the area. In addition, the existing businesses are often closed during events staged by the City. He believes that solving the parking problems and working to get the right mix of restaurants and shops will attract the office workers from the I -270 area around Dublin. This is the key to their future success. Discussion followed about the lack of a cohesive merchants' organization in Old Dublin, and the friction between the residents and businesses in Old Dublin. Mr. Reiner noted that when the Parking authority is created, it will be easy to assess the interest level of the residents and businesses in addressing the problems of the district. He thanked Mr. Gleine for his dedication and commitment to solving the problems in Old Dublin. Community Development Committee November 1, 2000 Page 5 Cindy Walp Waterford Village resident stated that she has been a resident of Dublin since 1983. Completing the bikepath connections to Old Dublin may help resolve some of these issues. She spoke with Engineering staff and has learned that the bikepath connection between Emerald Parkway and Old Dublin is not programmed at this time. There is a plan to extend the sidewalks up to Marian Street, but she proposed that Council consider extending the sidewalk to Llewellyn Farms in order to increase foot traffic from Llewellyn to Waterford, and on up to Indian Hills to Emerald Parkway. Many runners who use the bikepaths cannot connect between Emerald Parkway and Old Dublin. Mr. Adamek stated that the long -term bikepath plan for Dublin Road calls for connections to all of these areas. Because of the topography along Dublin Road and the historic walls, trees and buildings, constriction of the path is very expensive. Currently, the City is extending portions of the bikepath north of Emerald Parkway along Dublin Road to connect to existing sections. A tunnel at Memorial Drive is also programmed, and this is extremely costly. There is a desire to connect this path through Old Dublin to Waterford, but portions of Waterford were not constricted with sidewalks as required in newer subdivisions. This issue must be addressed as well. Council's first priority is to complete the portion already underway, and to then move to other areas. Ms. Walp noted that from Waterford subdivision, it is easy to access Old Dublin. But from Old Dublin to the north, there is no access. Perhaps this portion could be incorporated into the revitalization plan for Old Dublin, as it would help to draw visitors to Old Dublin. Mr. Reiner noted that as currently budgeted, the Dublin Road bikepath north to Glick Road will be completed by 2007. Mr. Kindra stated that staff is presently reviewing plans to connect the path to Waterford and will have cost figures very shortly. Mr. Reiner commented that part of the expense relates to acquisition of easements needed for the bikepath. Recently, a Coventry Woods resident donated an easement for the bikepath. By donating easements and reducing the costs for acquisition of land, the project could move forward more quickly. Mr. Adamek agreed, adding that the need to be environmentally sensitive has resulted in crossing the path from east to west in certain areas, creating the need for tunnels. With costs for the portion from Glick Road to Old Dublin approaching $3 to $4 million, there is no other community in Ohio which is making this size of investment in bikepaths. Ms. Walp volunteered to lend any assistance to the City to encourage residents to donate land for bikepath easements. She asked for a copy of the Dublin Road bikepath plan, and asked if there is any chance that the portion from Emerald Parkway to Old Dublin can be moved ahead. Mr. Kindra stated that staff can provide more specific information on the programming of this portion to her. Community Development Committee November 1, 2000 Page 6 Ms. Walp asked Council to consider bumping this portion ahead, if it is currently in fact not scheduled until 2007. Ms. Grigsby stated that staff will check to verify the programming of this portion. Mr. Reiner endorsed the idea of public recognition for those who would donate easements for the bikepath, i.e., a permanent display /plaque in downtown Dublin, a marker along the bikepath, etc. He thanked Ms. Walp for her interest. Mr. Adamek asked staff to revisit the issue of a pedestrian crosswalk on S. High Street — it seems that it was not warranted and there were some sight distance concerns. Mr. Kindra stated that he recalls that it was not warranted as pedestrian activity was very low; parking on the street was too close and some spaces would have to be removed to allow safe crossing. Mr. Adamek asked that Mr. Kindra recirculate his previous recommendation on this matter. He believes that crosswalks are definitely needed on N. High Street and S. High Street. In looking at the Zande report which contains many aesthetic items, he does not see any of these recommendations making a huge impact short term. The new parking signs in Old Dublin are very attractive, and he suggested that they be augmented to make them a little more bold or visible. Perhaps an historic district sign package should be considered which would include City parking locations as well as businesses, etc. Mr. Gleine noted that there is a Committee studying this for Old Dublin, as the funding was already granted from bed tax. Unfortunately, because of the setback variance obtained by Grabill on the southwest corner, the setback requirement on the northwest is so far back that signage in that location would be pointless. The whole issue has been stalled in committee. Mr. Reiner noted that the signage would have to be legible to automobile traffic which travels at fairly high speeds through the area. Mr. Adamek pointed out that there are a significant number of parking spaces underutilized in Old Dublin, especially during the daytime. Signage directing folks to available parking would be very helpful. Mr. Adamek noted that the City has a banner program along Bridge Street. Is there any possibility of having banners on High Street and incorporating some of the longer standing businesses? Mr. Gleine stated that he believes that the streetlights along High Street do not accommodate the banners as those do along Bridge Street. The Historic District has two sets of banners which are used at varying times of the year in the City's banner program along Bridge Street. Mr. McDaniel stated that his recollection regarding the banners along High Street were that they would conflict with the alignment of the curb and height of vehicles, and secondly, the ODA did not want banners. Community Development Committee November 1, 2000 Page 7 Mr. Reiner stated that the ODA has a request for banners for the corners at the present time. He believes that Ms. Puskarcik is working on this item. Mr. Adamek clarified that Ms. Puskarcik indicated at the last Council meeting that banners for Historic Dublin were not incorporated in the City banner program at this time. Mr. Adamek stated that he is seeking a way to generate pedestrian traffic, to make this a destination point. He understands ARB's concern about the appearance of Old Dublin, but banners at certain times of years during certain events would be desirable. He would also like to see some of the major businesses /restaurants highlighted in the banners. These would be considered destination points in Old Dublin and would draw visitors. Mr. Gleine requested that if there is any way that the tombstone markers at the entrance to the Historic District could be enhanced, that would be good. Presently, they are very difficult to view and /or read. Mr. Reiner summarized that the Committee supports the banner concept, and that staff should revisit this matter from an historical perspective. The Committee also supports reviewing signage for Old Dublin in some type of package. In addition, a program acknowledging those who donate or contribute to the bikepath program would be desirable. Mr. Peterson arrived at the meeting at this point, following his meeting in Old Dublin The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Clerk of Council Community Development Committee of Dublin City Council Wednesday, December 6, 2000 — 7:00 p.m. — Council Chambers Agenda I. Policy regarding fee waivers for tree replacement II. Discussion re Proposed Improvements for Old Dublin III. Update on Zoning Code Revisions IV. Adjournment iq Office of the Clerk of Council 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, Ohio 43017 -1006 CITY OF DUBLIN Phone: 614 - 410 -4436 •Fax: 614 - 761 -6590 TO: Members of Community Development Committee FROM: Anne Clarke, Clerk of Council for John Reiner, Chairperson Memo RE: Meeting Agenda for Wednesday, December 6 — 7 p.m. — Council Chambers DATE: 11/27/00 The agenda for the next meeting will include the following: Policy re fee waivers for tree preservation Discussion re proposed improvements for Old Dublin Zoning Code (draft sent to you by Planning Division) My understanding from John is that he would like to formulate recommendations on the first two agenda items for Council's consideration at the December 11 meeting. He asked that you review the previous information provided regarding Old Dublin improvements. Thanks! Community Development Committee of Dublin City Council Wednesday, December 6, 2000 — 7:00 p.m. — Council Chambers A_ eg nda Policy regarding fee waivers for tree replacement II. Discussion re Proposed Improvements for Old Dublin III. Update on Zoning Code Revisions IV. Adjournment MINUTES Dublin City Council COMMUNITY DEVELOPMFNr COMMITTEE Wednesday, December 6, 2000 - 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Attending: Mr. Reiner Mr. Adamck Mr. Peterson Mr. Ciarochi, Director of Development Ms. Grigsby, Director of Finance Mr. McDaniel, Director of Service Mr. Kindra, Director of Engineering Ms. Readier, Asst. Law Director Ms. Newcomb, Landscape Planner Holly Susong, Planner Brad Johnson, Ratio Architects, Inc. Policy regarding Fee Waivers for Tree Replacement Ms. Newcomb stated that a staff committee, comprised of Bobbie Clarke, Marsha Grigsby, Fred Hahn, Dana McDaniel and herself, met to develop a policy regarding fee waivers for tree preservation. There are four fee waiver requests pending for Council review, and Council had asked staff for some guidance. Staff attempted to define what constitutes a "heavily wooded site" because those were generally the sites for which waivers were being requested. Staff has devised guidelines, as described in the attached memo to Council dated October 25, 2000. The memo provides examples of pending requests for fee waivers and how this formula would be calculated for those developments. Mr. Reiner stated that the intent of the tree preservation ordinance was to encourage developers to preserve the forested areas on a site through placement of the houses and utilities. There may be some potential legal issues involved, and he asked if the legal staff has reviewed this. Ms. Readier stated that she was not involved in this process and has not reviewed it. Ms. Newcomb stated that staff is not recommending any amendment to the ordinance at this time. However, over the past two years, staff has found that for totally wooded sites, there is no option for placement of houses in a cleared area, resulting in very high tree replacement fees and requests for fee waivers. Ms. Grigsby stated that the tree preservation ordinance has had a positive impact on the development process in terms of making developers mindful of preserving trees at the outset, and this was the intent of the ordinance. From that standpoint, the ordinance has been very effective. The only issue has been with the financial hardship caused in some cases where a site is extremely wooded. Ben Hale, Jr., attorney agreed that the ordinance presents problems in cases where the site is heavily wooded, and he noted that this has been recognized by staff. He suggested that the Community Development Committee December 6, 2000 Page 2 ordinance be amended to incorporate the guidelines proposed by staff, so that these can be handled appropriately by staff administratively. In terms of the Cardinal site, the fees are still very substantial under the calculation proposed by staff. Mr. Reiner agreed that there are problems when a site is totally wooded, and he is not certain this can be addressed legislatively. Charlie Driscoll The Edwards Company stated that he has reviewed the staff memo and believes their proposal is a workable solution. In single family subdivisions on heavily wooded sites, it is difficult to lay out the streets and home sites in a way that does not impact the trees. The development community would support having staff administer the waivers, as it is important to know at the outset the full costs of a development rather than waiting until a later date and requesting a waiver from City Council which may or may not be approved. Mr. Adamek stated that he believes that the ordinance does need to be amended to include this administrative formula, so that efforts to streamline the development process continue. In the interim prior to any amendment to the ordinance, he world support adopting this formula for administration of fee waivers for tree preservation. Mr. Peterson noted that in the proposed formula, it does state in #3 that Council would have final discretion in a fee waiver. Mr. Adamek stated that this formula provides a basis to treat each development equitably, and it would make the process much more predictable for the developers. Mr. Peterson asked Ms. Readler if adoption of this formula would preclude Council from denying a request for a fee waiver? Has Council ever denied a request for a fee waiver? Mr. Adamek stated that Council has delayed a ruling on fee waiver requests, as in the case of Wyandotte Woods. Council has struggled in particular with fee waivers for heavily wooded sites, and how to treat everyone fairly. Mr. Peterson asked if there is a way a waiver can be handled more quickly at the staff level without having an applicant come to Council. Mr. Adamek stated that this is the goal of having an administrative policy which will be used in the interim until the ordinance can be amended. Mr. McDaniel suggested that the ordinance at some point be amended to include a provision addressing "heavily wooded sites" which could be handled at the staff level under the guidelines in this memo. It would be consistent with the manner in which Council handles fees for the Rec Center, setting fees for certain groups at a lower rate which avoids having continual requests of Council for fee waivers. Mr. Adamek noted that his only concern with having this handled administratively is that other members of Council may have strong opinions on this matter. He suggests that some alternatives be proposed so that the entire Council can select the preferred option. Ms. Grigsby stated that the key issue for developers was knowing at the outset the potential costs of the development, including any tree preservation costs. But if at the outset they know that that the costs of preserving the trees, with fee waivers available to them, is not prohibitively high, they may choose not to do so, defeating the spirit of the tree preservation ordinance altogether. Community Development Committee December 6, 2000 Page 3 Mr. Adamek pointed out that under the proposed formula, however, #2 asks if the developer has utilized proper methods to save trees in the layout of the site plan. If he has not done so, he would not then be eligible for any fee reduction. Ms. Newcomb stated that the intent of the ordinance is to preserve the trees on the site, and if there is not room on the site to replace the trees, then a fee is paid for the remainder. In most cases, the developer has been able to plant replacement trees on the site. Mr. Reiner asked if this requirement is over and above the landscaping requirements. Ms. Newcomb responded that the tree preservation is totally separate — the replacement trees cannot be used for street trees or parking lot perimeter trees. Mr. Adamek moved to direct staff to consider ways to incorporate this formula into the existing ordinance. In the interim, the Committee recommends that the proposed formula be adopted, using a tree for tree total replacement cost analysis as a standard basis for fee waivers for tree preservation. Mr. Peterson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Proposed Improvements for Old Dublin Mr. Ciarochi reported that based upon discussion by Council, staff has pursued the direction of obtaining more permanent parking in the Old Dublin area. In conjunction with that, staff has looked at the possibility of taking the reports Council has received and comparing that to the budgeted funds for 2000 and 2001, and then accommodating some sense of a discussion where the Committee could establish priority areas for staff to focus specific projects on. If parking is a number one priority and if $250,000 to $300,000 is available to develop parking as discussed, then staff would move forward on a project basis to accomplish that. If the second priority is crosswalks at North and High and at Bridge and High, one being $70,000 and the other at $100,000, that would be taken from the budgeted fiords and staff would move on to the next priority. The goal would be to accomplish some of the smaller items within the dollars budgeted. Then, a review of the bigger picture could be scheduled at a future date. This is staff's recommendation at this point. If the Committee would like more discussion at this point of the full report, or if the Committee would like to discuss what areas would be priorities in Old Dublin to be brought to a project type of level versus a conceptual discussion, that can be done as well. Mr. Reiner stated that it was brought to his attention by staff that there is a possibility to obtain some parking space, and this is under negotiation. If $500,000 is budgeted this year, monies may be needed for this project, and the details are not worked out as of this date. Council also needs to set aside $25- 30,000 for a consultant for Old Dublin to work on parking coordination with the various groups. Other items to be considered would be extending a sidewalk down to the Waterford Village area, and the aesthetic improvement of S.R.161 from Old Dublin up to the school with street trees, etc. That may or may not be able to be accommodated in this year's budget, but it does have a lot of visual potential for Old Dublin. Another priority item is completing gaps in the pedestrian access system for Old Dublin. Staff is currently assembling Community Development Committee December 6, 2000 Page 4 the costs for these items for the Committee to then prioritize. He asked for input from the Committee on any other desired upgrades for Old Dublin. Mr. Peterson stated that many of the improvements will be private development driven — what is done with the lot on the corner depends heavily on what is developed around that. Obtaining the costs of the priority projects is a good idea so that Council can then determine what will be purely City driven projects and those developer driven. He agrees with the priorities as listed by Mr. Reiner, and supports moving forward to obtain cost estimates for these items. Mr. Adamek stated that in reviewing the renderings and cost figures, aside from the big - ticket items such as parking, etc., the crosswalks seem very costly. He has observed crosswalk installation in other communities in Ohio, and does not believe the crosswalks need to be this elaborate. They could be $20,000 projects, with an overhead light indicating "crosswalk ", a couple of signs, and pavement striping. There may be some ADA issues related to the S. High Street crosswalk installation, but he believes that it would not be prudent to spend $100,000 and Lip crosswalks. A total of $50,000 for the two would be more reasonable. In the past six to eight months that Council has been discussing these items, his impression is that the crosswalks are not critical enough to necessitate allocating all of these finds prior to other items. He would support installation of these crosswalks, but at a much lower cost than is currently proposed. Mr. Reiner suggested that Mr. Kindra provide some options for the crosswalks, including lower cost designs. Mr. Kindra responded that staff can do this. The Old Dublin Association had requested a decorative type of crosswalk, and so staff provided the costs for that design. The crosswalks can be designed and constructed at a lower cost. Under that scenario, no additional crosswalk work would be needed at Bridge and High Street, as there is already a crosswalk and signage installed. Staff is looking at installation of an audio chirper at this intersection, as suggested previously. For a South High Street crosswalk, staff had indicated previously that parking spaces would need to be removed in order to provide a clear zone for pedestrian crossing. Mr. Reiner noted that the Committee cannot speak for the other members of Council, but he would suggest that the original crosswalk budget be included, along with any other options which would be aesthetic enhancements. Council can then decide whether they want to allocate $170,000 for crosswalks at this point, or allocate those finds for other priorities. Mr. Adamek noted that at the last Committee meeting, he asked the Finance Director to provide some figures on tax revenues generated in Old Dublin should Council decide to create an economic development district. The tax dollars generated in Old Dublin would be designated for future improvements in Old Dublin. Ms. Grigsby forwarded this information to the Committee. Ms. Grigsby stated that the tax revenues generated by the library, the offices and the retail development in Old Dublin were $290,000. Mr. Reiner stated that this money could be reinvested in Old Dublin through the budget process each year. Mr. Adamek asked what funds are budgeted in the 2001 operating budget for Old Dublin. Community Development Committee December 6, 2000 Page 5 Ms. Grigsby stated that there is $220,000 available now that will be rolled over into 2001; in 2001, there is $130,000 programmed; and in 2002, there is $230,000. There is flexibility which would allow the 2002 budgeted monies to be accellerated to 2001. Mr. Adamek asked staff what direction or prioritization is needed from the Committee at this time. Mr. Ciarochi responded that his understanding is that the Committee would like staff to bring back more specific costs for the identified projects, and the Committee will then take this report to Council with their recommendation. Mr. Peterson stated that by that time, the negotiations for parking may be completed. Mr. Ciarochi stated that staff has received a positive response to the proposals for parking, and will soon be in a position to bring something back for Council's consideration. Update on Zoning Code Revision Ms. Susong noted that the Committee has been given the first four chapters of the draft, including the residential districts and the standard districts of commercial and industrial. The planned district chapters are not ready at this time. Mr. Johnson of Ratio Architects has indicated that he would like some input from staff and the Committee on the districts as proposed, and whether some should be eliminated or some added. Staff has just received the draft as well, and they have not had the opportunity to return comments to Ratio to be incorporated into the draft given to Council. Brad Johnson, Ratio Architects pointed out that Mr. Weinstein has reviewed the basic provisions section and believes it is very solid. The second article sent to the Committee relates to the establishment of districts, and outlines and overviews the districts being established and their general intent. The other two articles are the detailed sections relating to the residential districts and institutional /commercial districts. He would like to get a sense from the Committee tonight of whether they are on the "right track" with the districts in order to move forward with the rest of the document. In terms of articles 3 and 4, they propose adding a few different districts to what the City currently has and that some of the existing districts be retained, but tweaked. He pointed out that when they draft zoning codes, they do not write districts intended only for future development. They also include districts intended for existing development, and those districts are never intended to be used for new development. For example, the Old Dublin area is an existing condition in the community and a district must be included specifically for that area to avoid forcing them into a general commercial district. The other types of districts included which are intended for future development only attempt to capture future trends in development as well as the policy set by Planning Commission. There is actually a district being proposed which is potentially intended /utilized for spot zoning - neighborhood commercial. Planners try to avoid spot zoning, but in reality, it can play out very favorably in a community in terms of quality of life. For example, a neighborhood commercial business can be located in close proximity to a residential district and it adds value to that district. There are also some zones proposed for buffering between high intensity and low intensity uses. He also pointed out the two -page layouts for each district: the column on the left page is the district intent and this is not legally binding. It is instead an overview of why the district has Community Development Committee December 6, 2000 Page 6 been set up. Another column includes permitted uses for the districts, and the other column includes conditional uses proposed for the district. On the right page are the basic development standards, i.e., maximum heights, setbacks, etc. They have incorporated the policy direction from the Community Plan and from existing development in Dublin into these standards. He asked Ms. Susong to provide a summary of staff's input on these articles. Ms. Susong noted that Ratio has proposed ER, R -I and R -2 districts which are very similar to Dublin's current R -1, R -2 and R -3 districts with some slight variations. Therefore, staff has requested that they use the existing verbiage to mimic existing districts to avoid having non- conforming uses created for existing R -1 and R -2 districts. Ratio has proposed a couple of multi- family districts, and staff suggests that the densities be lowered to conform with the recommendations of Dublin's Community Plan. Staff would not recommend including a Highway Commercial district because of its intensity — staff envisions more office development for these areas, based on existing zoning. Staff would also like them to remove the minimum size for dwelling units in the districts. A more clear definition is needed for measuring from Future right-of-way. The Historic Business District as Ratio has proposed needs to more closely conform to the ordinance currently being reviewed by Planning Commission. The process is continuing to ensure that all existing uses are incorporated into this draft. Staff also suggests that the draft be more "Dublinized" — the illustrations need to more accurately reflect the districts they are representing. Mr. Reiner commented that Ms. Susong has identified some of the key issues. Dublin is a unique city, with unique laws, and if more time is needed to "Dublinize" this draft, that should be allowed to take place. Perhaps some of the drawings from the Wallace, Roberts and Todd consulting work could be incorporated into this document. Commercial, high intensity use along the highways is not a trend which Dublin has adopted, as evidenced in the office parks along the freeways. It is also important to be mindful of the Historic Business District which is currently being reviewed. Perhaps, the best option would be to have the consultant continue to work with staff and a meeting could be later convened with the Committee for this review. Ms. Susong agreed, stating that this session was scheduled somewhat prematurely. Mr. Johnson indicated that he had anticipated that more work could be done by this point, but with some of the ordinances being revised and the amount of detail to be digested, he had underestimated the time needed to prepare this draft. They would like more time to spend on the detail work needed to "Dublinize" the document. In terms of the illustrations, they have intentionally delayed doing these, as most of the graphics will need revision as the process goes along. Their focus at this time is on the text. Based on input, they will delete the Highway Commercial zone. They included two multi- family districts, as one was intended for existing, higher density multi - family districts and never intended to be used for any future development. In discussion with Ms. Susong today, he determined that in deleting one of these, a small number of apartment complexes would not fit the guidelines that are in the Community Plan. Mr. Reiner asked if a category is really needed for an existing type of high density housing which will likely not be approved in the future? Community Development Committee December 6, 2000 Page 7 Mr. Johnson responded that if such a category is not included in the new code, what may result would be hundreds of homes which would have a district applied to them that would require approval of a variance from BZA to make any modifications. A better solution is to create an appropriate district for that existing use, allowing them some reasonable flexibility to avoid having to seek variances for modifications, with the intention of not using this district again, based on the density preferences in the updated Community Plan. Creating an appropriate district for this group would be preferred over having all of these as a non - conforming use. The intent section would clarify that this zoning district is not intended to be used for future development. Mr. Reiner summarized that instead of setting a definite date for the next review, he suggested that Ms. Susong suggest the next date for review by the Committee, at the time the document is ready for review. Mr. Adamek agreed with Mr. Reiner on this direction to staff. He noted that the consultant provided a Land Use Master List and under `Business, Entertainment, Fitness ", it includes golf course, county club, sport fields and swimming pools. Dublin utilizes those four specific uses in residential districts. Cross - referencing back to the current ER or R -1, those are not appropriate adjacent districts. Obviously, Muirfield subdivision was built around a country club and golf course, so it may be more prudent to include those four uses under "Institutional /Public Facilities." Mr. Johnson explained that under the Business category, the intent is to identify business enterprises, such as a sporting field run for profit. Mr. Adamek stated that a country chub may be a business, but Dublin has built residential communities around these and incorporated them into residential development. They should therefore not be separated if this code is to be truly "Dublinized." Mr. Johnson responded that each of the three residential districts allows golf courses as a conditional use, so it is identified as appropriate for a residential district. He added that the more businesses which exist in a residential district, either by conditional use or by right — the more risk of having cellular towers in the residential districts. There is case law now which supports banning cellular towers from a true residential district. If there is a country club which is not identified as permitted in a residential district, there is a Parks and Recreation district which would allow those things to happen and which is a nice, complementary use that can be woven into a residential district. The hope would be to preserve the integrity of residential districts by keeping out such things as cellular towers. They will be cognizant of Dublin's desire to weave country club /golf course type development in with residential development as they work on this draft. Mr. Adamek also noted that there was reference to an R -3 district in the document, and that should be eliminated. Mr. Johnson stated that they have made note of this. With the Committee's permission, they will proceed to change the ER to R -1, and what is currently listed as R -1 to R -2 to mimic what the City has today. Community Development Committee December 6, 2000 Page 8 Linda Menery, Bohm NBBJ stated that they participated in some interviews with the consultant. From the development community perspective, how is the process moving along in terns of a timeline, and will they be seeking input from community groups and when? Mr. Johnson stated that, based upon comments tonight, he is not certain about the next review meeting date. They have a tentative timeline which indicates public hearings to be held in May. They do want public input as well as key interest group input somewhere toward the latter stages of the process, prior to taking it to Council for adoption. He estimates that input will be sought in early March or April. Ms. Susong suggested that Ms. Menery keep in touch with her on the status. Mr. Johnson noted that they will have a timeline estimate available in the next couple of weeks. The development standards section for Dublin is very detailed, and they are attempting to make it very reader - friendly. The definition section, too, is long and detailed in comparison to other communities. These extra details have taken more time to complete. The remaining items to complete the full draft are the subdivision articles. The first full draft should be ready in a couple of weeks. Mr. Reiner stated that Council expects this code to be not only user - friendly and easy to follow, but to bring Dublin to an even high level of standards. Mr. Adamek summarized that the Committee will then review this draft when complete and will serve as a sounding board prior to review by Council or Planning Commission. Ms. Susong agreed. Mr. Adamek stated that the Committee appreciates the opportunity for this initial review, and believe it has been beneficial. Mr. Johnson stated that the next sections currently being drafted are more complex, and the Committee will likely need longer lead time for review prior to their meeting. He requested that the Committee allow a couple of hours for discussion on their meeting agenda, as a full and comprehensive review will require that amount of time. The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m Acting Clerk of Council Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, Ohio 43017 -1006 CITY OF DUBLIN Phone: 614- 410 -4400 Fax: 614 - 410 - 410 -4490 To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Timothy C. Hansley, City Manager Initiated by: Bobbie Clarke, Director of Planning Marsha Grigsby, Director of Finance Fred Hahn, Director of Grounds and Facilities Dana L. McDaniel, Director of Service Mary Newcomb, Landscape Planner Date: October 25, 2000 Re: Tree Preservation Fee Waiver I. Background Memo Previously, City Council requested a policy proposal to apply uniformly to fee waivers related to the tree preservation inance. Council assigned this task to staff for research due to the increasing number of tree waiver requests being submitted. The desire was to approach these as uniformly and objectively as possible. City staff is pleased to inform Council that the tree preservation ordinance is having a profoundly positive effect in achieving certain desired outcomes expressed in the ordinance. Specifically, almost all plans are being designed with up front sensitivity and innovation for the purpose of preserving trees. However, "heavily wooded" sites present a challenge and burden when trying to meet the requirements of the tree preservation ordinance. Strict application of the current ordinance on heavily wooded sites imposes substantial additional development costs. The goal of staff was to find a way to balance the intent of the tree preservation ordinance, "... to promote the public safety, health, and welfare through the preservation and replacement of trees while allowing for the reasonable development of lands [emphasis added] in such a manner that implements the stated goals, objectives, policies and standards of the City" (§153.140, City of Dublin Codified Ordinances) against the actual financial hardship imposed by full implementation. In this effort, staff sought to define what may be deemed `reasonable" under certain circumstances. Staff is not recommending any changes to the existing tree preservation ordinance which requires replacements to equal the combined diameter of the protected trees removed (§ 153.146). The replacement fee is collected only when it is determined that full replacement will result in the unreasonable overcrowding of trees on the site. The fee is based on the excess aggregate of diameter and currently is $100 per caliper inch. R. Interim Conclusions After several discussion sessions, staff attempted to operationally define a "heavily wooded site." This definition )uld be best rooted in a calculation of trees per acre (see memo, dated September 6, 2000 from Mary Newcomb). -Aer examining certain properties, staff concluded that a "heavily wooded site" should be defined as land containing least 100 "protected trees" (six inches in caliper or larger, as defined in §153.141) per acre or 1,000 total inches of "protected trees" per acre. In attempting to satisfy the "what is a reasonable approach" question for heavily wooded sites, staff discovered several additional problematic situations. For example, a former house site with evenly distributed large trees can also present a disproportionate burden under the current ordinance. Based on the variety of different possible scenarios, staff is prepared to make several recommendations. III. Proposed Formula Staff cannot recommend an "automatic' approach to the waiver. The staff believes the expense associated with this ordinance does motivate developers to take tree preservation seriously and to do "a good job ". Given this, staff recommends the following waiver guidelines: 1. Has the developer met all other Code standards, i.e. lot coverage, setbacks, parking, etc.? This would take into consideration any reduced standards approved by the BZA as part of a variance based on a legal hardship or practical difficulty. 2. Has the developer utilized proper methods to save trees in the layout of the site plan, i.e., buildings located to avoid trees, site grading minimized, sensitive utility placement and installation, etc.? 3. If the answer is "yes" to above two questions, then staff would recommend a fee reduction (waiver). If the answer to either is negative, staff would not recommend a fee reduction (waiver). City Council would, of course, have final discretion in this matter. �. Staff recommends that the reduced fee (waiver) should be based on a tree- for -tree calculation, rather than the inch - for -inch mechanism in the code. IV. Examples As shown below, using this method for the four pending requests results in a significantly lower tree replacement cost which can then be considered as a function of the per acre land development cost of a project at the outset. * Total inches removed - 2.5 inches = total number of trees x $250 per tree = total replacement cost ** Total trees removed x $250 per tree = total replacement cost Total inch - for -inch replacement cost _ acreage = cost per acre ** Total tree - for -tree replacement cost _ acreage = cost per acre Inch - for -Inch Tree -for -Tree Cost per Acre Cost per Acre Tree - Total Total Inch -for -Inch for -Tree Replacement Replacement Replacement Replacement Cost* Cost ** Cost * ** Cost * * ** Wyandotte Woods II $236,500 $58,000 $3,942 $967 ( Heavily Wooded Site Blazer Professional $30,800 $7,500 $5,540 $1,349 Campus (Heavily Wooded Site Cardinal Health South $535,400 $125,250 $18,590 $4,349 ( Heavily Wooded Site Dublin Christian Church $31,250 $4,500 $4,883 $703 * Total inches removed - 2.5 inches = total number of trees x $250 per tree = total replacement cost ** Total trees removed x $250 per tree = total replacement cost Total inch - for -inch replacement cost _ acreage = cost per acre ** Total tree - for -tree replacement cost _ acreage = cost per acre