Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-29-01 CDC MinutesCommunity Development Committee October 29, 2001 Page 6 Mr. Reiner inquired how far the City had proceeded in its new landscape enforcement program. Have they confronted all violators to bring them into compliance? Ms. Newcomb stated that the program was originally set up in 1993 on a five -year inspection cycle and was handled by summer interns. Now, all sites have been inspected, and compliance has been largely achieved. The program has moved to a four -year inspection cycle. Mr. Reiner suggested that copies of the original plan be forwarded to the developers with the City's requests for compliance. Mr. Adamek stated that it is important to initiate this program through the homeowners associations, by stating that the City has a trial program that may address some of the needs expressed by their residents. Mr. Reiner inquired how requests for participation would be handled from homeowners of properties not on the scenic roads and not identified by the City. Mr. Peterson stated that if the City is paying 50% of the cost, it has the right to refuse those not identified. If the City is not obtaining 50% of the benefit of landscaping the backyard, it can refuse the request. Mr. Reiner stated that if it were appropriate, setbacks and berming could be addressed in this program. It is much less expensive to do adequate berming than to install and maintain extensive screening. He inquired if berming was a part of the road right -of -way policy. Ms. Clarke responded that it is not. Mr. Reiner stated that now, while the Code is being reviewed /revised, would be the appropriate time to address it. The City needs a berming law. An appropriate land use policy would save the City significant dollars. Mr. Adamek stated that this could be incorporated into the WOW policy. Ms. Clarke stated that the City Code does not require any berming. Screening of a parking lot is required, and there are several options available to achieve this, one of which is berming. Mr. Reiner stated that some homeowners associations have difficulty taking care of their own landscaping needs. Mr. Ciarochi responded that some of them are small. The City is currently working with a small association of 35 homes that may merge with another larger association. Ms. Clarke stated that there is a need to estimate staff hours for this program. Community Development Committee October 29, 2001 Page 7 Following discussion, Committee consensus was to narrow the focus of the trial program to the area from Valleystream to just south of Brigids Close, Indian Run Meadows, Section G, which is the original section. Mr. Reiner will present this recommendation to Council. Mr. Peterson noted that he would abstain from any voting process that could occur on the proposal. Mr. Reiner adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m. ` - 'Cllr; . '�(��tt.('., Assist# Cl k of Council DEC -05 -2001 11:22 FRANKLIN COUNTY PROS December 5, 2001 CITY OF D11RIAN Anne Clark 5200 Pmarold Parkwoy City of Dublin Clerk of Council Ouhlln, Ohio 43017.1066 5200 Emerald Parkway Phone/M: 614-761 Dublin, OH 43017 Fax: 614.761.6590 Dear Ms. Clark: It has come to my attention there is confusion concerning the minutes of the most recent Community Services Committee meeting. Specifically, I am interested in the issue referred to the committee by City Council concerning a tree replacement program in our community. P. 02/02 After reviewing the report prepared by city staff, I realized the road behind my home was possibly an impacted roadway. I mentioned at the meeting if that were the case, not only would I abstain from any vote on the issue but I would not be participating in a program impacting my personal property; I would like the written minutes to reflect my statement. While I did not vote when this issue was addressed by City Council, as I was unable to attend the meeting, I also did not have the opportunity to expressly abstain from the vote, as was my intention. I understand that a tree replacement pilot program will be implemented on Muirfield Drive, which borders by personal property. As I said at the committee meeting, I will not participate in any program implemented by this council to the benefit of my personal property. I am requesting this letter be made part of the record of activity on this issue. Thank you for your attention to this matter and if you have any questions, [Wiffil d TOTAL P.02 DEC -0 -2001 11:22 FRANKLIN COUNTY PROS P.01i02 FR-AN LAN x'01 NT ' �� ;;'�1! ! UT" INi' F_� E N! v-%- 0 Ot I " B � CRIMINAL .DIVISION 373 SOUTH HIGH STREET, 14' FLOOR COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215 TELEPHONE- 614/462 -3555 FACSIMILE TELEPHbNE: 6141462.6143 The following transmission is intended for the below -named individual only- Please advise the named correspondent of this transmission. Thank you- DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Monday, October 29, 2001 — 7:00 p.m. AGENDA • Policy re. Tree Replacement on Private Property ��ow-%'L 7 CITY OF DUBLIN Division of Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road • Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone: 614- 410 -4600 • Fax: 614 - 718 -4346 To: Community Development Committee of City Council From: Bobbie Clarke, Planning Director, Fred Hahn, Director of Grounds and Facilities Date: October 26, 2001 Re: Tree Replacement on Private Property Background At the September 17 City Council meeting, there was discussion regarding the replacement of trees on private property, specifically along Muirfield Drive. The issue was referred to the Community Development Committee for further discussion. A request was made for the staff to research this issue prior to the Committee meeting on October 29. Through Dublin's development process, a premium has been placed on the installation of landscaping to address a variety of different problems. It has been employed as a buffer between sites, to provide some privacy for residential lots along through roads, to establish a specific "look" along a public street, or to define the line between private yards and public use areas such as bikepaths. Landscaping provided an acceptable design solution at least initially, but in most cases no provisions were made for the long -term care of the plant material. Some landscape solutions were installed a number of years ago and are in need of maintenance. Many of them are located on private property. How they are being maintained, as well as how they should be maintained over the long term needs to be addressed on these mainly "non- commercial" sites. There is no consistent policy in place currently. Frequently landscape material was "overplanted" to provide an immediate impact and now that practice has resulted in overcrowding and decline. Diplodia tip blight has resulted in the recent decline of many of the Austrian pines planted throughout the city. Further, much of the landscape material is located on private property making public maintenance quite complicated. Staff has found that it is easier to deal with a single entity like a homeowners' association, rather than a number of individual homeowners. Commercial sites, for the most part, do not present a problem. They are required under the Code to maintain all "required" landscaping in good condition over the life of the commercial use. These sites are inspected by the city and brought into compliance generally every four to five years. Memo to CDC, October 26, 2001 Issue Identification The staff has identified several issues relating to a policy on tree replacement. For the purposes here, the landscaping involved will be referred to a "buffer trees ". Standard street tree plantings are maintained by the municipality. 1) Should the city maintain the buffer trees (prune, fertilize) on private property or the property owner? If the city maintains, what would extent be? Would the city remove weeds? 2) Access to private property will require some type of access agreement between the city and property owner. 3) Liability issues need to be addressed. Will the city or the property owner be held liable if tree falls on a person /property? 4) What control does city have on private property? What if property owner /Civic Association does not want to maintain trees and shrubs and wants to replace with grass? 5) Does property owner have right to remove city- planted buffer tree? 6) Muirfield Drive is not isolated case. Trees have been planted on private property throughout Dublin. Refer to list below. 7) Do scenic roads as identified in the Community Plan or the Unified Development Code have a greater priority for tree buffer replacement? 8) If the developer implemented landscape features become too costly for the homeowners' association to maintain, what is the Dublin municipal response? 9) If the city is to participate in this maintenance, what are the costs involved? List of Publicly /Developer Planted Trees on Private Property High Visibility: 1) South side of SR161 /US 33 between Frantz Road and I -270 —This extensive landscaping was installed by a developer under a TIF agreement. Maintenance of public right -of -way is by the city. Portions on private property are maintained by individual property owners (Cooker, Embassy Suites, Daimler Office Building). 2) Both sides of Muirfield Drive between Valley Stream and Brand Road — Installed by developer in stages since the mid 1980s. Some areas have much heavier landscaping than others. These buffers are maintained by individual residential property owners for the most part. 3) South side of Woemer- Temple between Emerald and Wilcox - This was installed by the city and maintained during first year by city /city's contractor. After the first year, the individual residential property owners assumed maintenance (easement in place). 4) Frantz Road/SR161 Gateway `Bo Scout Park" —This was installed and is maintained by the city. 5) Killilea subdivision buffer along Emerald Parkway — This was installed by the developer and is maintained by the homeowners' association. 6) Wellington Place subdivision entry feature with ponds along Brand Road -This was installed by the developer and is maintained by homeowners' association. 7) Westbury subdivision entry feature along Brand Road —This was installed by the developer and is maintained by the homeowners' association. 8) Abbey Glen subdivision entry feature on the ease side of Muirfield Drive - This was installed by the developer and is maintained by the homeowners' association. Memo to CDC, October 26, 2001 3 9) Hawks Nest subdivision entry feature - This was installed by the developer and is maintained by homeowners' association. 10) Buffer along north side of Hayden Run, east of Dublin Road — This was installed by the city in connection with round widening and is maintained by four individual property owners. 11) Pomante residence at the northeast corner of Post and Muirfield Drive - This includes crabapples installed by the city after Muirfield Drive widening. It is maintained by the property owner. 12) Future Park Place subdivision Hyland -Croy frontage treatment (WOW elements). 13) Future Post Preserve subdivision pond and entry feature on the north side of Post Road (WOW elements). 14) Future Bishop's Crossing subdivision on Hyland -Croy Road (WOW elements). Low Visibility 15) East side of Wilcox Road between Innovation and Heather Glen Boulevard - This was installed by the city and maintained during first year by city /city's contractor. After the first year, the individual residential property owners assumed maintenance (easement in place). 16) heather Glen North bikepath screening — This was installed and is maintained by the city. 17) Woods of Dublinshire/Timber View Drive bikepath screening — This was installed and is maintained by the city. 18) Brighton Park subdivision hedge /pillar buffer along south property line —This was installed by developer and is maintained by homeowners' association. 19) Paglieri property buffer adjacent to Muirfield Phase 44 — This was installed by the developer and is maintained by individual Muirfield property owners. 20) Kamer Place buffer — This initial buffer was installed by the city while the sanitary sewer lift station was in operation and the remainder was installed with the vacation of lift station easement. This is maintained by the city. 21) Donegal Cliffs entry feature - It was installed by the developer and is maintained by homeowners' association. 22) Zigo residence northwest corner of Rings /Wilcox Road buffer, bikepath screening was installed by the city and is maintained by the homeowner. 23) Future Post Preserve subdivision western buffer — To be installed by the developer and to be maintained by the individual property owners. Rough Estimate of Muirfield Drive Replacement Costs The following estimate is based on the plan for the Muirfield Boulevard landscape treatment in the Indian Run Meadows development text. The estimate is for private residential property only and does not include median, commercial, or park replacement (see attachments). Cost per 300 lineal feet = $4,730 Total lineal feet from Post Road to Brand Road (private residential) = 6,100 lineal feet 6,100 _ 300 = 20.3 X $4,730 = $ 96,019 Memo to CDC, October 26, 2001 4 Possible Sources of Funding 1) Hotel /Motel Tax [refer to attachment, Section 35.32 (E)(2)(a)(3 & 6)] 2) Tree replacement fees [refer to attachment, Section 153.146(B)] 3) Set up a tree grant program for the replanting of trees on private property in highly visible areas (i.e. scenic roads), possible 50/50 match with property owner 4) Bikepath funding for landscaping (existing) — $15,000 per year 5) Street tree replacements (existing) - $22,000 per year Attachments: Plan — Muirfield Boulevard Landscape Median Treatment Private buffer sections along Muirfield Drive Section 35.32 — Hotel /Motel Tax Section 153.146(B) — Tree replacement fee Access agreement (sample) r w x CL l7 CD ro rt w ..A 0 \ mm V E C C P T C f Z o o " �. � w X 0 O 6 h p q • 7 • w y TO • �+ o • � K o o g yti � a 7 O � o r�' � • 1Tj s G • 31 � • a °� r E q + Q r 0 n y C M ^ a t O M X .y A 0. 7 A N C7 � i ■ O 0 N N � a • � 0 o D A ►� r r q • 7 0 a r w x CL l7 CD ro rt w ..A 0 \ mm V E C C P T C f � Ci O O -A O ^i r v r Z Z D O M Q m x -i Z o o " 0 � w X 0 O 6 h q • 7 • w y p • o • � K ' O g yti � z w J u 0 0 • o � � • a °� r E Q b n y Z N a N P X A 7 � Ci O O -A O ^i r v r Z Z D O M Q m x -i S45 SEC 3 �4 I ✓ ! A OR % 4 % lz" 10 oFbui q "DVH i b DUB 'NS Pit NSH SE - PH Ov; r SE OT c r- 'B- E .1 J via !q tr JJND A It JI d.Q :zhl: j -II—L -T ON R - D -I&M "Iv Nu 3 A Y MOR. T POST PI:I! ih S'jj)$THrRST0NE \V OAD RET CE Tkfz skc 1 A 131 4 Dublin, Ohio Code of Ordinances 1 § 35.32 IMPOSITION OF TAX. (A) For the purpose of providing revenue to enhance the city's appeal to visitors and tourists and for the further purpose of providing revenues to promote and publicize the city, an excise tax of 3% is hereby levied on transactions by which lodging by a hotel or transient accommodation is or is to be furnished to transient guests, pursuant to R.C. § 5739.02(C)(1) and furthermore, an additional excise tax of 3% is hereby levied on transactions by which lodging by a hotel or transient accommodation is or is to be furnished to transient guests pursuant to R.C. § 5739.02(C)(2). (B) Although the above levies are separate and distinct for purposes of determining distribution, the combined amounts of 6% are hereby referred to as the "Hotel /Motel Excise Taxes "" (C) The tax applies and is collectible at the time the lodging is furnished regardless of the time when the price is paid. The tax does not apply to lodging furnished to the state, or any of its political subdivisions, or any charitable organization for the lodging of transient indigent individuals. (D) For the purpose of the proper administration of this chapter, and to prevent the evasion of the tax it is presumed that all lodging furnished by hotels or transient accommodations in this city to transient guests is subject to tax until the contrary is established. (E) Sixty days after the passage of this chapter, all revenues generated- by the provisions of this chapter shall be disbursed as follows: (1) Twenty -five percent of the revenues shall be placed into a holding account, which is hereby established, in which revenues payable to the City Visitors and Convention Bureau will accrue through each quarterly period of a calendar year and be paid to the Dublin Visitors and Convention Bureau on the twentieth day of the month following the close of a quarterly period. (2) (a) Seventy -five percent of the revenues shall be designated within the city's annual budget for the following purposes: 1. Additional Convention and Visitors Bureau expenses beyond the 25% of the tax mandated for this purpose by state law; 2. Cultural arts; : "American Legal Publishing Corporation" Dublin, Ohio Code of Ordinances 2 7- 3. Beautification of public property; 4. Improvement of the historic district; 5. Special events; - (i � 6. Any other project or expenditure which would enhance the city's appeal to visitors and tourists. (b) Any community organization which wishes to apply for this portion of the tax revenues shall submit a written proposal, along with an annual budget, each year prior to the budget hearings to the City Manager by a date to be established by the City Manager. The proposals shall be presented to Council during the annual budget hearings, during which a representative of each applicant shall be present to discuss its proposal. Council shall review and approve, modify, or disapprove the proposals at the same time that the annual city budget is approved. Council may also provide an opportunity for further applications for funding throughout the year, in its discretion, if tax revenues are available. (c) Revenues referred to in division (E)(2)(b) above shall be used primarily to promote activities within the city and shall not be expended for travel and related costs which are used to take residents out of the city, unless Council determines that there is a case where special circumstances make it appropriate. An exception to this section may be made if the city allocates funds to a Dublin "Sister City" organization to be used, among other purposes for activities in relation to a "Sister City" which has been officially designated as such by an ordinance or resolution of Council. (d) Any community organization or other grantee which receives any portion of the 75% of the revenues designated pursuant to division (E)(2)(a) herein shall submit a final account detailing the usage of all such funds in a form to be acceptable to the Finance Director within 90 days following the function or event; or, in the case where no such specific function or event is contemplated, partial accounts shall be filed on a quarterly basis until such time as all such revenues have been utilized and accounted for. (3) The Dublin Arts Council (DAC) receives 25% of actual revenue from the hotel /motel tax fund for a three year period commencing in 1998. (a) After the initial three year period this funding method would be evaluated. "American Legal Publishing Corporation" Du O hi o Co de of O r d inance s 3 (b) The DAC would continue the Art in Public Places program as it is currently structured. (c) The DAC will become the organization through which all arts grants are directed. (d) City Council would appoint, as their representative, one member to the DAC Board. (e) On an annual basis, in conjunction with the fall review of hotel /motel grant applications, the Finance Committee will review the DAC's subsequent year's budget and their current long -term financial plan. (f) Based upon the Finance Committee's review and the revenues estimates for the three year period, a recommendation by the Finance Committee to City Council may be made to modify the subsequent year's distribution to the DAC. § 35.33 TRANSIENT GUEST TO PAY. (A) The tax imposed by this chapter shall be paid by the transient guest to the vendor, and each vendor shall collect from the transient guest the full and exact amount of the tax payable on each taxable lodging. (B) If the transaction is claimed to be exempt, the transient guest must furnish to the vendor, and the vendor must obtain from the transient guest, a statement specifying the reason that the sale is not legally subject to the tax. If no statement is obtained, it shall be presumed the tax applies. (C) No transient guest shall refuse to pay the full and exact tax as required by this chapter, or present to the vendor false evidence indicating that the lodging as furnished is not subject to the tax. ('80 Code, §§ 182.03, 182.09) (Ord. 133 -87, passed 12- 21 -87) Penalty, see § 35.99 § 35.34 VENDOR TO COLLECT TAY. No vendor shall fail to collect the full and exact tax as required by this subchapter. No vendor shall refund, remit or rebate to a transient guest, either directly or indirectly any of the tax levied pursuant to this chapter, or make in any form of advertising, verbal or otherwise, any statements which might imply that he is absorbing the tax, or paying the tax for the transient : "American Legal Publishing Corporation" Zoning Regulations § 153.146 (D) Compliance. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation, including public utilities, to fail to abide by the terms of any tree preservation plan or tree removal permit issued by the city. If, in the opinion of the city, the necessary precautions as specified in the tree preservation plan were not undertaken before construction commenced or are not maintained at any time during construction, a stop work order will be issued by the city until such time as the permittee complies with these precautions.. (Ord. 95 -96, passed 10 -5 -98) Penalty, see § 153.999 § 153.146 TREE REPLACEMENTS. (A) Replacement trees. The total number of caliper inches of replacement trees for a site shall equal or exceed the combined diameter of the protected tree(s) removed. All replacement trees should be of a deciduous species which is indigenous to the region and shall be made with new trees of not less than two and one -half inches caliper. Replacements shall be made within one year of the date of the removal of any trees for which such replacement is required. All replacement trees shall otherwise conform to § 153.135(C) of the Landscape Code. (B) Replacement fee. In the event the Planning Director or designee determines that full replacement would result in the unreasonable crowding of trees upon the lot, a fee equivalent to the cost of the excess aggregate caliper shall be paid into the city's general fund to be used for reforestation on public property. The fees collected under this section shall be deposited with the Department of Finance to the credit of the general fund. The fees required to be paid by this section shall be used solely for the planting of trees on publicly owned property. The municipality shall expend additional funds for tree removal and /or tree pruning from other funds. This fee shall be reviewed annually as part of the Fee and Service Charge Revenue /Cost Comparison System. (C) Tree replacements on developed single-family residential lots. Tree replacements will not be required on single - family residential except when a protected tree has been removed from a No -Build Zone /No Disturb Zone and /or Tree Preservation Zone. In the event that a protected tree is removed from a No -Build Zone /No Disturb Zone and /or Tree Preservation Zone, the total number of caliper inches of replacement trees shall equal or exceed the combined diameter of the protected tree(s) removed. All replacement trees should be of a deciduous species which is indigenous to the region and shall be made with new trees of not less than two and one -half inches caliper. In the event the Planning Director or designee determines that full replacement would result in the unreasonable crowding of trees upon the lot, a fee equivalent to the cost of the excess aggregate caliper shall be paid into the city's general fund. It is to be used for reforestation on public property. Replacements shall be made within one year of the date of the removal of any trees for which such replacement is required. All replacement trees shall otherwise conform to § 153.135(C) of the Landscape Code. (D) Replacement plan. Tree replacements shall be indicated on a plan, drawn to a scale of not less than 1" = 50', which includes the proposed location and a plant list to include quantity, species, installation size, and total replacement caliper inches. This plan shall be approved by the Planning Director or designee. 1998S-4 264G ACCESS AGREEMENT The City of Dublin's contractor will be installing mounding and trees this spring along the Woerner- Temple extension. The plant material and mounding will be installed partially on your property in accordance with the landscape plan dated April 9, 1999. The contractor will be given instructions to work during the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The contractor will be directed to perform the installation with the utmost care. If there is any damage to your property, it will be returned to its original condition. Lot #50, Trinity Park Section 2, Phase 1 5839 Castleknock Road, Dublin, OH 43016 1. I/We are the property owners of ffe a1Syj::;gddress in Trinity Park. 2. I/We have received a copy of the prcN�W �lp dated April 9, 1999, and accept the provision of the plan is it re es to ur property. 3. IfWe hereby authorize the City of Dublin and/or contractor to enter my /our property for the purpose of installing mounding and plant material according to the Killiney Lane Buffer Plan dated April 9, 1999. I /We hereby authorize the City of Dublin and/or contractor to enter my /our property during the one -year guarantee period to maintain the plants, if necessary. 4. I/We understand that after the one -year guarantee period, the City of Dublin or contractor will not be responsible for maintenance or replacement of the plant material. 5. I/We agree to hold the City of Dublin and/or its contractor harmless as to installation of plant materials on my /our property. C OO Michael A. Cookson (Signature please) Date Please sign both copies. One is to be returned to the City of Dublin, the other is for your records. Please return by Wednesday April 14, 1999. Thank you very much.