Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/15/2007RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council October 15, 2007 U I 1 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the Monday, October 15, 2007 Regular Meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Dublin Municipal Building. Present were: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, Vice Mayor Lecklider, Mrs. Boring, Mr. Keenan, Mr. Reiner and Ms. Salay. Mr. McCash arrived at 7:05 p.m. Staff members present were: Ms. Brautigam, Mr. Smith, Ms. Grigsby, Mr. McDaniel, Chief Epperson, Ms. Readier, Ms. Puskarcik, Mr. Harding, Mr. Langworthy, Ms. Crandall, Mr. Earman, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Combs, Ms. Huzak, Mr. Gunderman, Ms. Willis, and Ms. Wawskiewicz. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS Chris Jester. Ms. Brautigam briefly described the efforts of these Dublin employees to assist in repairs to the Franklin County warning system, involving weekend work. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher thanked the employees for their efforts in assisting Franklin County. • Resolutions from Franklin County Commissioners Recognizing Dublin Employees Chris Jester and Mike Stidam Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher presented the resolutions of appreciation sent by the Commissioners to Mike Stidam and to Ms Willis, who represented Dublin employee CORRESPONDENCE • Notice to Legislative Authority of Transfer of D5 and D6 permits from Tartan Golf Co. LLC to Golf Club of Dublin LLC, 5805 Eiterman Road & Patio There was no objection to the transfer of these permits. CITIZEN COMMENTS Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road: 1. Commented again regarding yard signs. At the last meeting, he indicated he did not believe in yard signs, as they are politically uninformative and reductive. His comments were triggered by two Council candidates who approached him about placing signs in his yard, and he told them of his opinion but indicated they could place their signs in his yard. He later left a phone message for Council Member and candidate Keenan and then had a conversation with him for approximately 25 minutes. Mr. Keenan did stand up to him and said if Mr. Maurer does not want yard signs in his yard, he will not place his signs in the yard. He has noticed Mr. Keenan's signs, as there is a tone and hue of green in the sign which evokes a kind of piercing, wistful poignancy which he has seen and detected in a good deal of the Irish character and culture. He does commend Mr. Keenan for his independence and courage in "taking him on." 2. Commented regarding "green versus code." By "green," he is referring to the environmental efforts recently discussed throughout the region. If he were to tear down his house on Dublin Road and replace it with a quintessentially green building, he would likely put a substantial portion of the home underground, capitalizing upon the 54 degree constant temperature, and would use solar heat for the winter. His question is: How far would he get with this proposal under the existing Dublin Code? LEGISLATION POSTPONED ITEMS Resolution 65-07 Adopting a Statement of Services for a Proposed Annexation of 5.352 Acres, More or Less, from Washington Township, Franklin County, to the City of Dublin. (Petitioner: Costner Consulting Company; Property address, 7679 Post Road) RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council October 15, 2007 Page 2 fl ',~ ~~ He Resolution 66-07 Adopting a Statement Regarding Possible Incompatible Land Uses and Zoning Buffer for a Proposed Annexation of 5.352 Acres, More or Less, from Washington Township, Franklin County to the City of Dublin, Ohio as Required by Section 709.023(C) of the Ohio Revised Code. (Petitioner: Costner Consulting Company; property address, 7679 Post Road) Mr. Smith reported that these two resolutions were postponed until tonight. Staff is waiting for the county engineer's approval of the legal descriptions for the annexation. Therefore, staff requests that these resolutions be postponed until the November 5 meeting to allow time for the county engineer's review. Mr. Reiner moved to postpone Resolutions 65-07 and 66-07 until November 5. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 80-07 Authorizing the Purchase of a 0.030 Acre, More or Less, Permanent Bikepath Easement from AERC Perimeter Lakes, Inc., located on the South Side of Post Road, West of Holt Road, City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio. Mr. Smith stated that this purchase relates to land needed for construction of a bikepath segment. The purchase price is consistent with the appraisal obtained. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road stated that he had difficulty reading the map. It appears to be a mirror image of the property in question. Mr. Hammersmith agreed that his observation is correct. Mr. Maurer continued, noting his concern with the potential removal of pine trees on the Scoby property. Mr. Hammersmith stated this legislation does not involve Mr. Scoby's property, so it will not impact the trees. Mr. Maurer asked if a bikepath will be installed on the Scoby property as well. Mr. Hammersmith stated that is the intention, and staff is working with the property owner on the tree preservation aspects of this acquisition. Vote on the Ordinance: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. Ordinance 81-07 Authorizing the Provision of Certain Incentives for Purposes of Encouraging the Establishment by Buckeye Dermatology of its Operation and Workforce Within the City, and Authorizing the Execution of an Economic Development Agreement. Ms. Brautigam reported there are no changes to this item subsequent to the first reading. Vote on the Ordinance: Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Ordinance 82-07 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Amended Agreement Regarding the Central Ohio Transit Authority. Ms. Brautigam noted that additional information requested by Council regarding the sales tax matter has been provided. She summarized that sales taxes would increase in the Union and Delaware county portions of the City, however there are very few retail establishments in these portions of the City. Mr. Lhota and Mr. Stitt of COTA are present to respond to questions. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road asked if this amendment is a foreshadowing of an interurban bus and transit system for Columbus and the suburbs. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council October 15, 2007 1 u _l Ms. Brautigam responded that this legislation relates to the composition of the Board of Directors of COTA. However, approximately a year ago, COTA received sales tax approval from the voters and they have a plan going forward for improving their service to the suburbs. COTA is currently working with several prominent businesses in Dublin to determine if that service would be appropriate. In particular, the hospital has been a focus of this discussion. In addition, COTA is working with staff to identify more accessible Park and Ride locations. She believes the services provided by COTA will increase in the future. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked when the increased sales tax would take effect. Curtis Stitt, General Counsel, COTA, 1600 McKinley Avenue, Columbus responded that the tax would take effect 60 days after all of the members of COTA approve the identical legislation Council is considering tonight. The process requires that once the ordinances are approved, a cross filing occurs with the clerks of the other cities. Once that filing process is completed and 60 days passes, the tax would become effective in those areas not currently subject to the tax. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 84-07 Declaring the Improvement to a Certain Parcel to be a Public Purpose and Exempt from Taxation; Specifying the Public Infrastructure Improvements Directly Benefiting the Parcel; Requiring the Owner Thereof to Make Service Payments in Lieu of Taxes; Establishing a Municipal Public Improvement Tax Increment Equivalent Fund and Providing for the Collection and Deposit of Service Payments into That Fund; Providing for the Payment of a Portion of the Service Payments to the Dublin City School District in the Amount It would Otherwise Receive Absent the Exemption; and Authorizing the Execution of Tax Increment Financing Agreements and an Infrastructure Agreement. (Ohio Health -Medical Office Building) Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Ms. Grigsby stated that this provides for establishment of anon-school tax increment financing district for the medical office building being constructed on the Dublin Methodist Hospital parcel. Based upon the other values of office buildings in TIF districts, staff is estimating this TIF district will generate in excess of $110,000 per year in annual service payments. Those dollars will be utilized to fund the infrastructure identified in Exhibit C, with the first priority being the repayment of the ingress lane cost for both the City of Dublin and Ohio Health. Secondly, service payments will be utilized for repayment of Hospital Drive. The third priority is for the Avery/Shier-Rings intersection, as dollars become available. This is anon-school TIF, and based upon that, the payments to the schools are estimated to be approximately $178,000. Staff has provided information on the deferral of the property tax revenues for the other governmental jurisdictions involved. She offered to respond to any questions. Mr. Keenan asked for a quick summary of what split listed is in terms of the county tax list and duplicate. Ms. Grigsby responded that this property is somewhat unique, in that Dublin Methodist Hospital owns the parcel and they are anon-profit organization. Their parcel is therefore listed as tax exempt, except for the building footprint. That footprint will be split-listed, and therefore the service payments will be calculated on the medical office building only, as it is afor-profit venture. Mr. Keenan stated that page 2 of the memo indicates that, "the future value of the medical office building will be exempt for property tax purposes and therefore will not be reflected in the District's real estate assessed valuation." He asked for clarification. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council October 15, 2007 Page 4 J 1 1 Ms. Grigsby responded that they are exempt for property tax purposes because there is a TIF district on the building footprint. That is beneficial to the school district because it will not be considered as part of their assessed valuation for property taxes. However, the split listing will then provide for the value of the medical office building facility for service payments, not property taxes, to be calculated. Mr. Keenan asked if the medical office building comes back into real estate valuation at a later date, when the TIF is repaid. Ms. Grigsby responded that is correct. Ms. Salay asked if there is a timetable for the ingress lane to be built. Ms. Grigsby responded it is programmed for design and construction in 2008. Ms. Salay noted that there had been discussion regarding potential improvements of the intersection of the hospital and Avery-Muirfield with a roundabout when the hospital opens. Is that what the extension of Hospital Drive refers to, or is Point 2 related to a different project? Ms. Grigsby responded that the extension of Hospital Drive is a project which was completed in the 2005-2006 timeframe for the hospital. It is also identified in two other established TIF districts -one, as noted is the Perimeter West TIF. That project also identified other items, such as the interchange. Therefore, any dollars not needed for Hospital Drive can be utilized for the US 33/161 interchange project, once Perimeter Drive is repaid. Ms. Salay asked for confirmation that improvements in the Avery-Muirfield corridor are not the focus of this TIF. Ms. Grigsby stated that is accurate. Mr. Keenan asked if any of these TIF funds can be used in the Avery-Muirfield corridor. Is the language broad enough to include this? Ms. Grigsby responded that there are several existing TIF's currently funding those improvements, including the Perimeter Center, Ruscilli, Perimeter West TIFs, and another TIF for an Ohio Health medical office building constructed a few years ago. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the November 5 Council meeting. Ordinance 85-07 Amending Chapter 76 (Parking Regulations) of the Dublin Codified Ordinances by Amending and Enacting New Sections, Which Provide for More Stringent Penalties to Persons Who Park Vehicles on a Sidewalk, Curb, or Street Lawn Area. Mr. McCash introduced the ordinance. Mr. Smith noted that this ordinance is brought forward upon the request of Council. This violation will be moved from a minor misdemeanor to a first degree misdemeanor, based upon repeat offenses. The offense can result in fines of as much as $1,000 for a third offense within a certain period of time. It is designed to encourage compliance with the law. Staff is recommending adoption at the second reading/public hearing on November 5. Mr. McCash noted that in reading the materials, there seems to be no prohibition in parking in public driveways right along the curb cut. Mr. Smith stated he was not aware that this has been a problem. Mr. McCash stated that it is part of the same issue that this ordinance was to address. Mr. Smith responded that staff will review this prior to the next reading. Mr. McCash suggested that an additional provision be added to prohibit parking within commercial driveways ahead of the building line, unless the space has been specifically approved as a parking space. Mr. Smith stated staff will review this. Mr. Keenan asked that Mr. Smith ensure that there is good communication with the corporate residents about this amendment. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council October 15, 2007 Page 5 1 1 Held Mr. Smith responded that it is Legal staff's intention to work with Community Relations on this, and notify all of the auto dealerships in Dublin of this change. Notice will be sent to all of them. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked that a notice be sent prior to the November 5 meeting so that the business owners have the opportunity to testify if they would like to do so. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the November 5 Council meeting. Ordinance 86-07 Amending Section 73.02 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances Regarding Reckless Operation. Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Mr. Smith stated this is a housekeeping matter. In the past, there was a provision in the Dublin Code regarding reckless operation. When the state updated the OMVI statutes, they dropped the maximum penalty for reckless driving to $150. Staff believes a higher fine is appropriate for reckless operation, as this is a serious offense. Staff is therefore proposing that reckless operation be considered a first degree misdemeanor in the City of Dublin. Ms. Salay asked how the City is permitted to do this when state law provides otherwise. Mr. Smith responded that home rule provisions allow this. Mr. Keenan asked what the first degree misdemeanor means in terms of the impact for someone charged with this. Mr. Smith responds that it involves more points assessed, and therefore increased insurance costs. In times past, OMVI charges were often reduced to reckless or physical control, but the computer tracking system was not available that now exists. Currently, if a charge is reduced, the computer reflects that the charge was reduced. Mr. Keenan asked if the reckless operation charge in Dublin will carry 4-6 points and a reckless operation charge in anotherjurisdiction may carry only 2 points. Mr. Smith responded that if someone is charged under state code, they will receive 2 points. If charged under the Dublin Code, they would receive the higher points. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the November 5 Council meeting. INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING -RESOLUTIONS Resolution 67-07 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union Regarding Wages, Hours, Terms and Conditions of Employment for Employees within the Bargaining Unit. Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the resolution. Chief Epperson reported that on September 21, tentative agreement was reached with the Steelworkers union. On September 25, their membership ratified the contract. A memo in the packet outlines the changes, and the agreement is attached to the resolution. He offered to respond to questions. Mr. Keenan asked Chief Epperson to clarify for the audience the bargaining units represented by the Steelworkers. Chief Epperson responded that the Steelworkers have 87 full-time employees, and most work in the Service areas -Streets & Utilities, Facilities, etc. Mrs. Boring noted that the memo indicates that the Steelworkers union members are now in line with the Healthy Choice program. Are the benefit programs now identical among the union and non-union employees? RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council October 15, 2007 Page 6 1 1 1 Chief Epperson responded that the benefits are identical among the non-union employees and the employees represented by the Steelworkers. The benefits are nearly identical to the plan for those represented by the FOP/OLC, which includes the dispatchers. A meeting will take place on Wednesday to initiate negotiations with the Police officers, sergeants and corporals within the FOP. That is the only group not on the same health plan at this time. Mrs. Boring asked if the orthodontia coverage is the same. Chief Epperson responded that it is the same. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road noted that his comments will require an extensive amount of time. He noted in his review that there is a very complicated conflict between a portion of the contract and the Dublin Charter. If Council agrees that he can bring this up at a subsequent Council meeting, he will defer his comments until that time. Council did not object to his deferral of comments on the resolution. Vote on the Resolution: Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. OTHER • Honorary Street Sign Program Mr. McDaniel stated that this proposal maps out an administrative process for requests for honorary street naming or renaming. Staff is bringing this forward to share with Council the administrative process in place prior to bringing forward legislation for a street name change. The guidance staff is seeking is in distinguishing among honorary street naming, such as "Dave Thomas Boulevard" on SR 161, official renaming of a street, such as with "Kilgour Place," and renaming for safety purposes. There are some fee requirements proposed for such applications. Staff will bring this back to Council as part of the fee ordinance, if Council approves the concepts reviewed tonight. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if the two examples cited paid a fee in conjunction with the street naming/renaming, and if not, why is this now being suggested. Mr. McDaniel responded that fees have not been assessed in the past for this. Having a fee attached is somewhat of a deterrent to requesting a street name change when not warranted. There are costs associated with a street name change, and the City strives to recover the costs incurred, similar to any other type of City service. If Council believes this is not appropriate, staff would not impose fees. Mr. McCash stated that it seems inconsistent to charge a fee to recognize someone who built a tremendous business in Dublin or who was a major contributor to the success of Dublin. Mr. Keenan agreed, adding that there may be citizens the City desires to recognize, but who may not have the means to pay such fees. Mrs. Boring noted that Mr. McDaniel had suggested that the fee portion be discussed at the annual cost study review. Mr. McDaniel commented that in staff's research of other cities, it was found that nearly all cities have a fee associated with a street name change. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it does seem inconsistent to charge them for an honorary street renaming. A request for a street renaming may be different, and the associated costs perhaps should be recovered or a portion of them recovered. Mr. McDaniel emphasized that the fees could certainly be waived by Council or administratively in appropriate circumstances. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council 1 1 1 ctober 15, 2007 e Ms. Salay added that she would expect that staff would have a good sense of what is appropriate for a fee imposition. She would be interested in further discussion about this proposal. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that he was surprised to see the provision that an honorary street name designation would be effective for a period up to ten years. Mr. McDaniel responded that a cap was included, but it could obviously be extended, based on circumstances. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road noted that he strongly recommends that streets not be named in honor of any person until after they have died. He is aware of a number of cases where the renaming of a street with an honorary name designation has turned into a massive embarrassment. Mrs. Boring moved to approve the policies as proposed, with the exception of a fee for an honorary street renaming. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. • Appointment of Acting Clerk of Council Mr. Keenan moved to designate Marsha Grigsby as Acting Clerk of Council for the period of October 18 and 19 for the purposes of legal service, and to designate Judy Beal as Acting Clerk of Council for the period of October 25 through October 29. Mrs. Boring seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. STAFF COMMENTS There were no staff comments. SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCES (CONTINUED) Adopting the 2007 Dublin Community Plan. (2007 Dublin Community Plan - Case No. 07-056ADM) Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the public hearing would begin citizen testimony. Public Testimony Mohsen Riazi, 5283 Reserve Drive Dublin stated that he is the owner of 6800 Post Road, the northeast corner of Post and Avery-Muirfield Drive, under the name of Central Ohio Property Management. He acquired the property a year and a half ago. Since then, he has attempted to work with the City a number of times to rezone the property for a use that fits the existing neighborhood and is acceptable to the City. Recently, he was notified that the City is interested in rezoning the property to low density residential. He has researched his options and spoken with experts. Anyone with whom he has spoken has been adamant that no one would be interested in living on that corner after the roundabout is constructed. His engineering consultant and some other experts are with him tonight to share their professional opinions. He is trying to find a way to develop the property in a way that is suitable for everyone. Mr. Riazi added that he also owns the property to the east at 6344 Post Road. Frank Hinkle. Robert Weiler Comganv appraiser and realtor stated that Mr. Riazi is a long-time friend and client. He has asked him to share his knowledge regarding this property. Mr. Riazi acquired the three acres on the corner through two purchases from different owners. The inside one-acre parcel contains a residence, but it provides the only access to the two acres on the corner. He has assisted with the marketing of this property for over one year, and he had a relationship with the prior RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council October 15, 2007 rage ~ Held 20 owners for three years. In marketing the property, they looked at traffic counts to determine the highest and best use for the property. The northwest corner contains a multi-story office building; the southwest corner contains retail; the southeast corner contains another office development. This is a very busy intersection with 27,000 vehicles per day. They have asked several developers and potential purchasers what use they would propose for that corner, and all responded with commercial. When City staff indicated that a residential use was preferred, he approached several residential developers. No one was interested in proposing a low density residential development on that corner, as the site is too close to the intersection. They indicated they could not sell the units because of the traffic volume. His professional opinion is that residential use presents an "uneconomic" use for that corner. Something that would provide favorable aesthetic appeal for that corner and would not produce high peak hour traffic volumes would be the best use. Commercial development should be considered. The future land use for this site as proposed by this plan precludes that use and proposes an uneconomic use for this corner. His client will not be able to sell the property under the proposed land use. Ms. Salay stated that the Post Road Homeowners Association has informed her that there is a deed restriction on the residential parcel that stipulates that property will remain residential. The homeowners association would enforce that restriction. She assumes the property owner is aware of that deed restriction. Mr. Hinkle responded that the issue is regarding the two acres on the corner, which do not have legal access for commercial development. The only legal access is for a single-family residence. When the two-lane roundabout is constructed, the entire access will be removed. He is not familiar with the deed restriction. However, enforcing that restriction on this property would preclude any use of value for that corner. If the deed restriction were to be enforced, the two acres on the corner must retain their current use, which seems to be an area for dog walking. Behzad Vedaie traffic engineer/consultant for 6800 Avert/ Road, referred to the City's draft Community Plan pages pertaining to this site, the northeast corner of Avery and Post roads. When they initially contacted the City to determine what use for that site would be best for the City, they were told "office" use would be best. In his professional opinion, he would also recommend office use. Then City staff indicated they wished to review that use and requested preliminary drawings. After reviewing the drawings, staff issued many stipulations -building height, location, orientation, shape, number of parking spaces, what portion could be medical, dental and general office -throughout many discussions. They proceeded to the engineering component. Although a traffic study had been completed on the site two years prior, staff required an actual vehicle count, a count that would specify number of trucks versus number of cars. They provided the count. Then staff required a roundabout traffic study based on the business or office type of application. They provided that. Finally, their application was submitted for a final review before being scheduled for Planning Commission review. After that, they heard nothing. When they contacted the City, they were told that staff had to discuss the application with the homeowners association, but the Association never indicated what their concerns were. The Planning staff has invested time in helping them to find the best solution, and in doing so, caused them to expend a tremendous amount of effort -- effort which evidently was not at all needed at that point. If the City is now indicating they desire all residential, there will be a lot of parkland there. Also, the City is proposing to put another roundabout south of US 33 on Avery Road, and all around it, businesses. Around the residential portion, there is greenspace. The City is doing the same thing off of Sawmill Road. Officially, the correct way is to put all the commercial on the corner and the rest can be residential with a transition between the two. They believe that a commercial use on that corner is correct. Residential use, even if it is three units, does not justify the cost the owner has invested in this property. According to real estate professionals, it is very hard to sell property that is owner occupied. If the number of units per acre were increased -- rentals, non- owner occupied -- perhaps it would be feasible. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council October 15, 2007 Page u i He Mr. Riazi stated that he is not aware of any deed restriction. If there were a restriction, it would have a time limit, which would expire in 1-1/2 years. He did check the deeds on file with Franklin County for the two-acre parcel and the one- acre residential parcel. He does not recall any deed restrictions, but he will confirm that tomorrow. Sue Snyder, 6280 Cartwright Lane, Dublin stated that she recently retired from a management position with Solove and Casto. Unaware of any issue about the longevity of the community, she purchased a retirement home in the Ponderosa senior community. Although she has not been involved with the issue, she appreciates the residents' concerns. This is a unique community -something that she had anticipated needing to go to Florida to find, a serene and safe community. The beautiful condo communities being constructed by developers today are not affordable for many seniors. The Ponderosa community has a very "homey" environment and she prays it remains as it is for many years. She made this purchase, trusting she would never need to move again. She asks that Council make the Ponderosa park a part of Dublin's community plan. She thanked Council for all the effort they are putting into the community plan. Mr. McCash stated that this has been a much contested matter over the past two years. The issue is that the land that the mobile homes are located on is owned by another party, not by the individual mobile homeowners. When Ms. Snyder purchased the property, was she made aware of that fact? Ms. Snyder responded that she was not made aware of that. Mr. McCash inquired if she understood that she was purchasing only the home, not the land. Ms. Snyder responded that she was aware that she would need to pay a fee to rent the lot on which the home sits. Mr. McCash stated that he wanted to verify that she was not deceived regarding that fact. Mr. Keenan inquired if Ms. Snyder signed a lease for the lot at the time of purchase. Ms. Snyder responded that she did not. Jim Black, 8206 Riverside Drive, O'Shaughnessy Hills Dublin stated that he comes before Council to ask that they consider a second suggestion to a road change proposed in the draft community plan. The original plan provided for a street to be added from Summitview and follow Club Road to the first unimproved street called Ridge, then travel west on Ridge and turn north. The City already owns the land needed for that plan -- Club Road, Ridge Road, Arrowhead Road, and the road dedication in Wedgewood Hills. The new proposed plan redirects the road north to eventually terminate at the Forest Hill subdivision. It would require the City to purchase 13 additional lots, including purchase of a home on one of those lots --- a large, and needless, expenditure of City funds. He referred to his proposal, which he had asked staff to provide in Council's meeting packet. He reviewed the key points of his suggested layout, including: use the same entrance off of Summitview Road; use Club Road making the marked section two-lane, reverting to one lane at Ridge Road; following the western half of Club Road there is a 60-foot wide dedicated street. Using only the west 30 feet would leave the east 30 feet available to buffer Wedgewood Hills. Then turn down Arrowhead Road, which is one lane; just before Arrowhead empties onto Riverside Drive, turn south across an easement on the three lots as marked and turn back east on Ridge, which the City already owns; rejoin the two-lane road and exit at Summitview. The City already owns all the needed land, except an easement across the three lots on Riverside. Arrowhead could then be vacated, which would meet the Wedgewood Hills residents' desires. The only land purchase necessary would be an easement across the three lots off of Riverside Drive. When the Wedgewood Hills development was approved, he requested the developer to extend the water line along Club Road. If that area were ever to be developed, the applicant would have water access. Although city sewer access is not necessarily needed there, city water is. However, retaining the private RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council October 15, 2007 Page 10 1 1 D septic systems would limit the number of lots that can be developed there. With his proposal, the existing atmosphere will be maintained. Mr. Reiner inquired the average lot size in that subdivision. Mr. Black responded that most are 50 feet by 150 feet. Mr. Reiner inquired if Mr. Black had experienced any problems with his septic system. Mr. Keenan noted that most of the homes sit on three lots. Mr. Black responded that they had built three homes in the subdivision, the first in 1986. At that time, a septic system for three lots was approved. Today, it must be a minimum of .5 acre, which requires combining lots. More important, though, is the issue of water quality. If they could connect to where the water lines were partially run in view of future need and loop the system, water could be provided to the homes. Paul Fox. 5492 Desert Lane, Ponderosa Estates, Dublin stated that he served the country during World War II, surviving three related malaria attacks; he and his wife raised 8 children and put them through college without debt, by having everyone work and contribute. When their last child left home, they sold their nine-room home and moved to the Ponderosa Estates. Their current home is centrally located for them. This park is for senior citizens only and well suited to the retired lifestyle. He requested that Council designate the senior community in the Community Plan. Robert S. Jones, 5481 Desert Lane, Ponderosa Estates, Dublin stated that they have lived at this location for 16 years. The residents have been living for some time now under a great deal of stress related to the security of their homes. A group of people own a total of 100 acres there, 27 acres of which the mobile home park sits on. The owner of the park has attempted to sell the land several times without success. He suggested that the land could be a viable investment for the City. The residents are there and would like to remain. Purchasing the property would be one way the City could resolve the threat posed to the residents and also provide senior housing. Sonia Heffner, 10319 Larcomb Road. Marysville stated that she works for HER Real Estate. She has the property listing at the corner of Post and Avery Road, owned by Mr. Riazi. The agents are trained to obtain the highest and best use for a property. They are financial advisors for their clients. She has had the property listed for four months and has received many inquiries. She is aware that Mr. Riazi is attempting to work with the City regarding an application for use on this property. In the event the City would determine the use should be condominiums, she conducted a search regarding what was sold in Dublin this year. She found there were approximately 170 condominiums sales in the Dublin area in this general vicinity, excluding Muirfield and Ballantrae. The average price range was $170,000. No condominium over $300,000 has been sold in the Dublin area. If the City determines that low density condominiums are the preferred use, Mr. Riazi will need to build some very inexpensive homes in this location. The complexion of that corner will radically change when the roundabout is constructed, and this will be a very busy intersection. She currently has a developer interested in this property for alive-work use. She requests that Council not approve a low density use for this corner. Dublin is capable of doing something more innovative for a mixed use or transition use, something that could satisfy both the people who live and the people who work in the area. The other three corners of the intersection are commercial, and this corner could be a transitional use. Mr. Keenan stated that the lower average price of condominiums would relate to the fact that Dublin has experienced several apartment conversions to condominiums recently. The price of cone-bedroom condominium of this type can range from $100,000 - $135,000, bringing down the average price. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council October 15, 2007 Page 11 1 1 Held Bob Fathman, 5805 Tarton Circle North, Dublin stated that he represents the Muirfield Civic Action Committee, a part of the Muirfield Civic Association, and desires to comment again on the Memorial bridge issue. The Committee reiterates its request that Council consider removing this proposed bridge site from the Community Plan. Recently, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend the same action to Council. Police StealthStats along Memorial between Muirfield Drive and Dublin Road indicate that a speeding issue exists. Over the years, the City has made a great effort to preserve neighborhood integrity and prevent cut-through traffic through the neighborhoods. However, residents from Campden Lakes, Amberleigh, Belvedere, Muirfield and the Community Oversight Foundation have all testified, and there is overwhelming support for removing that proposed bridge site from the Community Plan. He is here tonight to request that Council continue the City's tradition of protecting neighborhood integrity by eliminating this item from the Plan, as it would impact many neighborhoods. He asked when Council would be voting on that part of the Community Plan. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that tonight Council will take public testimony, followed by an overview of the entire plan focusing on the major changes. That will be followed by discussion regarding the southwest land use and the northeast land use. She is not certain that time will allow all of this discussion tonight. Mr. Fathman stated that the bridge would encompass a couple of areas; within which area will it be considered? Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if Mr. Combs anticipates discussing the Memorial bridge issue tonight. Mr. Combs responded that it is unlikely, due to time constraints. Tom Jacobs, 4383 Forest Hill Road, Dublin stated that the subdivision was platted in 1928 and is not amodern-day plan. Staff did not contact any homeowners in the O'Shaughnessy Hills subdivision when staff decided to propose a new plan for this area. He learned of the plan by accident, and took his concerns to P&Z. The Planning Commission said they could not do anything about this; they follow the plan as submitted by staff. He is interested in the north side area. He owns all the vacant lots in that section. If the City is proposing constructing roads through his land or vacating existing roads, staff should be discussing this with him. The new plan proposes a new very circuitous road ending at Forest Hill. What is the reason for this? The City already has dedicated Club Road and available access for a connection at Sandwich Court. The City recently invested a million dollars to acquire land for which there is no access to the back of other than through his property. This action should have merited a phone call to him. Vacating Club Road, however, would please the Wedgewood Hills residents. He noted that a number of lots along Riverside Drive are 200 feet deep, yet this plan proposes a setback of 100 feet. With a 20-acre parcel, this might be possible. However, this proposal would cut his lots in half. That area would amount to two perfectly good building sites of over 40,000 square feet each, which is the minimum requirement for water and sewer in Franklin County. This issue is separate from the park issue. His subdivision already has building setbacks of 62 feet from Riverside Drive. He suggested that the City revise the O'Shaughnessy Hills Plan and vote on that separately before it is incorporated into the proposed Community Plan. Why is the City proposing to cut a City park in half by bringing a road through the middle? That makes no sense to him. Randv Roth. 6987 Grandee Cliffs Drive President East Dublin Civic Association stated that he sent Council and Planning staff a memo detailing the neighborhood's concerns. His comments are in reference to the four area plans for the east side. 1. For the O'Shaughnessy Hills plan, a road is proposed that would run through someone's home. As the City has no plans to purchase that property, placing this in a public document is inappropriate. It makes that property virtually impossible to sell. The O'Shaughnessy Hills plan could not occur until land ownership consolidates, which may be in the very distant future. It would be more appropriate to label this type of plan as "Plans Should Land Ownership RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin Citv Council October 15, 2007 Page 12 C Consolidate." In the Community Plan that plot should be designated R1 - R2, general land use, for legal purposes. 2. For Summitview Road, they assume that the City has decided not to move Summitview Road and connect it with Summitview on the other side The Association is open to discussion of alternative plans for that area. They would not object to an office or institutional use on the corner, for example, as it would provide an opportunity for the owners of single-family homes on Sawmill Road to sell those properties. 3. Sawmill/SR 161 Plan. The Association would like to include Sawmill Road in the planning area. Perhaps it would be necessary to have more Columbus- Dublin joint ownership along Sawmill Road. It would require dedicating some City resources, such as Police. However, it is one of Dublin's economic lifelines, and not controlling what occurs on Sawmill Road is a problem. The character of the Sawmill-SR 161 area could be retail rather than residential if Snouffer Road were extended and that access opened up. In the past, the City supported the neighborhood's suggestion to extend Village Parkway to the west. When that occurred, the City experienced immediate economic development in that area. The City of Columbus supported this proposal, which was included in Dublin's first Community Plan. Columbus engineer, Dave Younger, stated that Snouffer Road was far enough from the interchange not to block it, should afour-way stop be placed at Snouffer Road. Columbus residents could easily cross from existing Snouffer Road to retail on the Dublin side, generating revenue for Dublin. The East Dublin Civic Association would really like to see this occur versus more multi-family development. It is unique to have a neighborhood that desires regional retail. They believe their fiscal plan would be stronger if that were to occur. 4. Bright Road Area Plan. In 1990, the City of Columbus concurred with Dublin's plan. They commissioned a traffic study, which stated that to make the traffic work at that site it was necessary to remove the light at Billingsley, make Billingsley a right turn in and right out, and divert Billingsley north up to Sawbury/Bright and fully signalize that intersection, which is far enough from the interchange not to jam traffic. At the same time, a long, left-hand turn lane northbound onto Bright Road would occur. Currently, it is six lanes, and six lanes will not accommodate the Emerald Parkway traffic. This need is urgent. They have noticed a change in the new Bright Road area plan. Staff has "backed down" the zoning west of Inverness from Office to Single Family. The East Dublin Civic Association would prefer a large office park in that location. The Village of Inverness is not as interested in the extension of multi-family as it is in a nice office park. He encouraged the City to invest funds in the above plans to make a real change, to think broadly about extending its responsibilities and using the City's financial resources jointly with Columbus. He summarized that first and foremost, however, there is a need to address Sawmill Road so that all the other plans will work. It's been 17 years since their first plan was established. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road stated that Dublin is a unique community from the aspect that most of the City is relatively wealthy. Although he is not at all wealthy, there are few citizens who are cradled within four acres as he is. He believes Dublin may be living in an artificial world compared to the rest of the world. Dublin thinks from the point of view of its possessions and detaches itself from others of different social, economic and philosophical/cultural levels. His major "medicine" consists of atwo-minute daily brisk walk. If the weather is inclement, he travels to the Worthington Mall where he has befriended the security guard. When this individual learned Mr. Maurer was from Dublin, he remarked that he never goes to Dublin unless he absolutely must because he believes the people in Dublin are arrogant, snooty and disdainful. Several years ago, there was a certain group of people who came from an area of the city in which there was no sewer or water service, and they did not know the procedure by which to obtain it. They made statements about the City's priorities for tunnels, bikepaths, and manicured lawns and gardens. Their comments reminded him of a course he once took on the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council October 15, 2007 Page 13 1 1 u French Revolution, which he has never forgotten. In this Chamber, he heard voices making the same objections as those voiced during the French Revolution. He is not suggesting a revolution would occur, but the same social discontent and cultural disconnect between and among social levels exists here in this City. Frequently, Council has discussed "affordable housing." In his view, a model community would be Minerva Park. It is a beautiful, dense, residential community where houses are no more than 10-15 feet apart, yet profoundly attractive. So that type of housing is achievable. Paul Ghidotti, 6840 MacNeil Drive. Dublin stated that his comments relate to the property at 6720 Riverside Drive, which is owned by Invictis Land Holdings and Alan Vrabel, land also known as the driving range, and the ground that surrounds Digger & Finch. Mr. Vrabel asked his company, The Daimler Group, for recommendations regarding development of this land, if it were under their ownership. They presented some ideas to Mr. Vrabel and to the Planning Commission at the Community Plan public forum in August. In their opinion, what the Community Plan proposes for the 40 acres that Mr. Vrabel owns is an underutilization of the site. This is an important site. Its proximity to the key roads in the Dublin road system and its proximity to Historic Dublin provide a great opportunity for economic development on this site. The Community Plan proposes greenspace and minor retail. They have suggested an alternative way to develop it. The northern portion along Tuller Road would present a great opportunity for office/ medical office. The ground to the south of the greenspace area, where Digger & Finch currently exists, could contain that use plus another neighborhood support retail opportunity. The ground to the east and north to Sycamore Ridge is a logical site for transitional housing. They would also relocate the greenspace to the center of the site, providing a green corridor, an amenity for the site, rather than simply having a 200-foot frontage along Riverside Drive. It would make more sense to have the greenspace running east and west on that site to create a pedestrian access and greenbelt all the way to Dublin Village - an access point from the river to Dublin Village. This would be a better utilization, not only for their site, but also for the ground to the east, making it easier to access the river. In the meantime, Mr. Vrabel has been approached by a large-scale senior housing group, which is potentially interested in developing the site. If that were to occur, in addition to the large senior housing component, there would be ancillary uses, such as medical offices and skilled nursing services. In summary, they believe that the importance of this site dictates another review by the City, in particular the opportunity for economic development. Richard Green, 4555 Arrowhead Road. O'Shaughnessv Hills Dublin stated that he is a Cardinal Health employee who has relocated from California to Dublin. What drew him to the Midwest was the untouched, virgin forest at the entrance of the main road of the area in which his home is now located. He had to purchase three plats of land -- there are only four homes on that cul-de-sac. As a property owner and resident of O'Shaughnessy Hills, he can assure Council that he did not receive any notification of the proposed Community Plan. Tonight is the first time that he has viewed the switchback road that would encircle his home on three sides. He is not pleased with that plan. He is proud to be a resident of Ohio and Dublin. He is proud to be employed in the City of Dublin and give his income tax to support the City. While he thought expenses were high in California, he pays twice the property tax in Dublin as in California. He does that willingly because he is preserving one acre of virgin forest. To see that cut with switchback roads that would denude one of the few remaining pieces of virgin forest within this city - 20 minutes from downtown Columbus, the state capitol, makes him very upset. He would like to communicate with staff about this proposal. If it were not for the message on his answering machine when he returned home from work today, he would not know this was on the City Council agenda. This has shocked him. To be honest, he is very happy with the status quo, and he is very unhappy with what he has seen proposed tonight by staff. He is not a proponent of "no change, no development, all things must remain as they are," but it is essential to communicate with the owners of these properties, who are acting as stewards to maintain that virgin forest land, and to RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council October 15, 2007 Page 14 1 Held involve them in the decision-making process. Thus far, he has not been contacted. Others can attest to the same. He would like to propose another alternative to that proposed tonight -maintaining the status quo. There is no great demand to take these small plats and populate them with single-family housing. He is willing to purchase more plats to preserve more of this land. What has been proposed today is to encircle his house on three sides with a City road. He encourages Council to maintain a piece of Dublin that is beautiful and undeveloped. Dennis Thiergartner, 5801 Chatterfield Drive, Dublin stated that he owns one-third of an interest in eight acres at the southeast corner of Shier Rings and Cosgray Roads. As recently as four days ago, he checked the Community Plan at the website and his property was designated "Office" use. This afternoon he checked again, and it is now designated "Mixed Residential/Low Density." Due to the road system which will be carrying heavy traffic, he requests that the City reconsider that as "Office," or at a minimum as "Mixed Residential/Medium Density." 1 Staff Presentation Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher requested that Mr. Combs explain the manner in which the City notified residents throughout the Community Plan process regarding the various areas of the Community Plan that were being discussed. Mr. Combs, Senior Planner, stated that staff has used a full media plan with the help of the Community Relations department. Notification of all the meetings has been provided through the local papers and via the local cable channel. Staff has maintained an ongoing address list of all individuals who have attended the Community Plan meetings and signed in, and notices have been provided to them. Flyers and meeting notifications have been provided to all the civic association presidents throughout the community. Subsequent to the June 2007 draft of the Community Plan, staff has continued to hold public meetings throughout the formal adoption process. They concluded the general public input session of the Community Plan process by providing a 30-day public input opportunity during the month of July. Through that, staff received a variety of input from the public, which was provided in Council's packet. Following the 30-day public input, the formal adoption process was initiated with the Planning Commission. The Commission held three public input sessions based on geographical area during the month of August, and conducted a formal review in September. At that time, the Commission voted to recommend approval to City Council. In their Record of Action for that meeting, the Planning Commission noted 19 issues of concern for Council, as outlined in Attachment A. Substantial issues noted were: • Bikepath connectivity, additional bike lanes, expediting the connectivity of the bikepath; • Transportation and access; • Increasing/providing educational information on the purpose of the Community Plan; • Consideration of property owner rights as the plan moves forward; • Additional educational meetings; • Community plan implementation year by year; • Maintaining rural qualities and characteristics of the greenways; • Ensuring development in Historic District is of an appropriate scale; • Maintaining the Ponderosa community in the southwest area plan; • Removal of Memorial Bridge from the Thoroughfare Plan. Attachment B provides a summary of the changes that have been made in the Community Plan document since June. Land Use definition changes in the new document are noted on page 81-83. For example, the "Secondary Office" classification has been renamed "Standard Office." "General Employment" categories have been renamed "Office/Research/Development." "Large Format Retail" has been removed from the mixed use definitions. It has been noted that mixed uses are applied as designated in the Plan. An attempt was made in the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council October 15, 2007 Page 15 1 1 1 definitions to establish general targets and intents for each land use category. For example, the "Neighborhood Center" is fairly small scale and intended to be integrated with the surrounding neighborhoods. The "Village Center" is larger with uses such as major grocers that serve the greater community use. The "Town Center" development is more of a regional scale development that provides for a higher density housing and a broader mix of uses. The key element that has been added to the plan since the June version is a table that provides general design parameters for each classification within ranges that allow for flexibility on a case by case basis, depending upon the merits of a project. Mrs. Boring inquired about the location of the table. Mr. Combs responded that it could be found in the October version, which is on the CD provided to Council for this meeting and at the City's website. Mrs. Boring stated it is not in the hard copy materials provided for this meeting. Mr. Combs confirmed that is correct. Mrs. Boring stated that she is glad that it is at the website where the public can access it and that a copy has been provided on CD. However, if she is asked to make a major decision, such as the adoption of the Community Plan, she must have a hard copy to effectively review the document. Ms. Brautigam responded that there was not adequate time or resources to prepare copies of the final draft of the plan for tonight's meeting. Therefore, staff did not anticipate that Council would vote on the plan until the next meeting. A hard copy draft will be provided in packets for the November 5 Council meeting. Mrs. Boring noted that she would also need sufficient lead time for a thorough review and to allow time for the public to call her and express their views. Ms. Brautigam suggested that a printed copy of the Community Plan draft could be provided with the November 19 Council packet, which would allow three weeks for review before a vote at the December 10th Council meeting. Mr. Carson provided visual concepts of neighborhood centers, looking at the residential scale of a two-story, office with retail below, and office or residential above The plan considers possible areas for various scales of neighborhood centers in Dublin (pages 82-83): • Neighborhood Center: - Small scale residential/office/retail (1-10 acres) -target of 60,000 square feet retail; - Integrated with surrounding neighborhoods with'/4 mile service area; - Possible location -Tuttle Crossing Boulevard near Wilcox Road. • Village Center: - Mid-sized residential/office/retail (6-20 acres) -target of 125,000 square feet retail; - Include office and higher density residential uses; - On arterials or major collectors; - Possible location -Historic Dublin District or within the future Amlin Village Town Center: - Large scale residential/office/retail (20+ acres) -target of 250,000 square feet retail; - High density residential in close proximity to mixed uses. Serve regional market with good freeway access; - Possible location -the existing Dublin Village Center site. Based on the Planning Commission's recommendation, the Community Plan has also focused on enhancing the area plan descriptions. The area plans are described in detail on page 92. They are concepts only and do not affect existing property rights. Changes in the area plans include: • Bright Road Area Plan RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council October 15, 2007 1 n ~1 - Encourage transportation improvements along the Sawmill Corridor, primarily between the interchange and Billingsley Road. This would necessitate working with Columbus to resolve the issues. - Encourage greater pedestrian/bike connectivity in area and across the river. - Additional changes to Chapter 4, further addressing transportation and pedestrian issues east of the Scioto River One issue of discussion throughout the process is looking at the area between Bright Road and Emerald Parkway. The plan currently shows Mixed Residential, medium density. There are differing views on the issue. The Planning Commission makes no specific recommendations, but this is an issue Council may want to address. The Village of Inverness is an existing residential use, and a variety of office development is proposed by the Plan, consistent with the 1997 plan. Additional residential and office development is recommended. • Historic Dublin Plan - The plan has changed regarding scale/massing/character of future development to ensure it blends with the historic character; - Based on additional technical information received, the new bridge location has been changed to improve functionality. Instead of being parallel with the existing State Route 161 bridge, it has been shifted further north to provide a connection from North Street to Dale Drive. • Summitview Plan - The plan provides options for design solutions such as equestrian-themed development. Mr. Combs noted that the classifications for parks have been updated including all related information. A finished version of Chapter 10 is provided, based on the last joint work session, as well as a finalized appendix which includes the 2006 summary of the Community Survey, and the Ohio Historic inventory and Ohio Archaelogical inventory. The Future Land Use Plan has been reviewed and minor modifications incorporated. The zoning classifications have been verified and corrected, as well as the park and public lands. Some formal requests were included in the packet (attachment D): 1. A written request was received regarding the U.S. 33 Corridor Plan to modify the Office Research & Development Low Density areas to High Density. 2. An additional request was also received to change the zoning on the 100-acre parcel at Houchard Road and SR 161 from low to high density Office Research and development, as well as additional portions along the south fork of Indian Run from Avery Road west to Eiterman and then up to US 33 with Shier Rings Road to the south. Ms. Salay inquired if the requests have been integrated into traffic modeling. Is staff assured that the roads would continue to function as well if the density were changed from low to high density? It would be important to understand the implications of such changes. Mr. Combs responded that additional models have not been run. It would take substantial resources and time to do so. However, there is some buffer built into the model to accommodate conservative alterations. However, he is not sure of the impact of the proposed changes. Ms. Salay stated that she is looking in particular at the Avery/US 33 interchange in relation to a request. That becomes complicated when looking at rush hour traffic and additional density in that area. Many requests have been received, but any changes made "outside of the box" must be carefully considered. Mr. Keenan pointed out that it is essential to be cognizant of the economic development aspect. The City has a very major investment at the Post Road/US 33 interchange. It might be worthwhile to explore those issues. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council October 15, 2007 Page 1 Held Mrs. Boring stated that she agrees with Ms. Salay. If the area becomes too dense, it becomes unattractive due to the difficulty in movement in and out of the area. Mr. Keenan stated that he was merely pointing out the need to ensure a return on the investment made in that area, with all factors considered. Ms. Willis stated that this is part of the COIC area in the US 33 Corridor Plan. Staff is aware that a more refined area needs to be re-visited with transportation demand modeling. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired, from a procedural standpoint, why the map would be changed before traffic modeling has occurred? The Plan can be amended later when the information is available. Mr. Combs responded that this would be a policy direction for Council to give to staff. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it was her understanding after the final meeting that occurred on the results of the traffic modeling to date that the land use decisions made on that modeling information would remain intact. To consider other recommendations, additional modeling might be necessary, and the decision was made not to spend additional money on modeling at this time. 1 L Ms. Brautigam confirmed that was staff's understanding. She suggesting leaving the plan as proposed at this time, and if a developer approaches the City with a request for a high density development in that area, the City can request that the developer assist with the traffic modeling to determine whether the road system would support their proposal. The new Community Plan does provide for amendments to be made should an appropriate situation arise. Mrs. Boring stated that she objects to the suggestion that any high density development proposal could call for a review and amendment of the Community Plan. In her opinion, the adopted Community Plan is the plan. If an applicant proposes a plan that is different from the City's plan, it should not trigger a review and amendment of the Community Plan. If the Plan would need to be amended, that means there is not sufficient flexibility built into the plan. Ms. Brautigam responded that there will be sufficient flexibility in the Plan. However, if in the future a proposal were to be made that would justify an amendment to the Plan, it would be possible with the rezoning to amend the Plan so that all would be consistent. Mr. Keenan inquired if this area is part of the COIC area. Ms. Brautigam responded that it is. Mr. Keenan stated that Council has already discussed that the importance of this area merited that a research and development text be created for it. Ms. Brautigam responded that the text has been created and it is presently being reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Keenan stated that it is important to deal with this at some point and not leave it unaddressed. If this land lies adjacent to the COIC site, it is important that as much land as possible can be developed into research and development. Ms. Brautigam responded that what is being reviewed now really doesn't impact that. What is being decided now is if this will be a low or high density designation in the Community Plan. In 2008, new travel transportation modeling will occur, which will confirm the appropriate density. Simultaneously, staff is working on the COIC zoning regulations. If this area remains low density, the low density regulations in the COIC zoning will apply. If later it is determined the area should be high density, the high density zoning regulations would apply. It will be covered under either scenario. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that until the traffic modeling occurs, the plan as presented by staff would be in place, absent any changes proposed by property owners. Ms. Brautigam noted that the message to the property owners will be that if they wish the City to consider anything different than the adopted Plan, the property owner would need to participate in the cost of the traffic modeling. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council October 15, 2007 Page 1 ~~ 1 Mr. Combs stated that attachment F of the Plan contains a proposed land use modification at the corner of Frantz and Rings Road from "Standard Office" to "Low Density Mixed Residential." Recent information indicates that some of the uses in this area were potentially too intense. The new plan will continue to indicate "Standard Office" on the western portion, but the remaining area would be a "Low Density Mixed Residential," consistent with the residential uses on the remaining three sides. Mrs. Boring inquired if an Institutional Use could come into a Low Density Mixed Residential area. Mr. Combs responded that if it were a public institutional use, there would be a particular designation in the plan. When translated into the zoning code, many types of institutions are permitted in a residential district, in particular, schools and churches. However, some other uses generally associated with Suburban Office and Institutional would not likely be approved. • O'Shauahnessy Hills Area Plan Mr. Combs stated that the plan from 1997 showed a road being built up Club Road on the east side adjacent to Wedgewood Hills, and providing a series of cul de sacs moving down toward Riverside Drive with the intent that major access would be provided off of Summitview and a second access off of Riverside Drive. The purpose of the plan was to provide for an overall reduction in curb cuts along Riverside Drive to resolve safety issues. During the draft plan review, staff heard many comments from residents in the area who were opposed to the Club Road realignment. Given the City's desire to provide for along-term safe access onto Summitview, staff attempted to respond to the public input through the planning process and provide an alternate alignment that would still provide for the adjustment of right-of-way and dedication to achieve a similar two-point access with primary access off Summitview Road as well as a secondary access for the northern portion of the site to Riverside Drive. The intent of both plans is also to provide a primary access point for the northern portion of the development to Summitview Road for safety concerns. Mr. Keenan inquired the location of Mr. Green's property. Mr. Combs indicated the location on the property map. He indicated that this reflects the citizen request to consider cone-way alignment for the southern portion. The proposed vacation of right-of-way is shown in red. Mr. Keenan inquired the approximate location on the Community Plan map. Mr. Combs indicated the approximate location. Ms. Salay stated that the intent was to provide a creative street layout and have primary access off of Summitview Road versus Riverside Drive. Were there other objectives as well? It might be preferable for the Plan to define the objective versus a specific plan to achieve it. Mr. Combs responded that it is the intent of the plan. Staff was trying to provide for an alternate roadway out, given the potential for having on-site sanitary and looking for a feasible cut-through for anorth-south road to provide a connection to the northern portion of the site. The intent was also to consider opportunities to combine lots to produce developable lots -- modifying the right-of-way through purchase or swapping of right-of-way to create new buildable area to achieve a road alignment through the area that would address the same issues as Club Road. Mrs. Boring stated that it would be preferable to address the issue in a narrative form. Drawing a map of the area and the suggested solution creates a problem for the property owners who may want to sell their homes. Even though a plan may not be expected to occur for 30 years, a potential buyer researching the Community Plan and discovering the City's plans for the property will not purchase the property. Overlaying a plan for existing homes is doing a great disservice to the current RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council October 15, 2007 Page 19 1 1 ~~ property owners. She objects to being that precise with along-term objective. She is concerned about this area and any other area handled in a similar manner. Mr. Reiner inquired whether the basis on which staff included this road in the plan was the area opposition to the existing Club Road. Mr. Combs responded that other than the Memorial Bridge, Club Road was the issue that received the most attention. There was clear opposition to actually constructing Club Road in the existing right-of-way. Mr. Reiner inquired if the opposition came from the neighbors to the east. Mr. Combs confirmed that the opposition was from the Wedgewood neighborhood. Based on substantial public input, staff attempted to find a compromise. This alternate solution was proposed and reviewed through the public process. Mr. Reiner stated that Mr. Black raised an interesting point when he said that sanitary sewer might not be needed in this area if the lots were of adequate size. Did the City conduct any studies to determine what size lots would be necessary to permit septic systems, or was that option not considered? Mr. Combs responded that the tracts shown conceptually on the plan are one and a half to two acres, which would make on-site septic systems feasible. Mr. Reiner noted that he finds it interesting that no opposition has been expressed regarding that idea from the individuals who have spoken tonight, who appear to be the major landowners. The City's policy, whenever possible, is to have larger estate lots with privacy, as was described by the gentleman who relocated here from California. He concurs with Mrs. Boring's comment that use of a general scope defining the City's objective for an area is preferable to detail. He participated in a previous meeting where direction was given to delete Club Road in response to public input. The former group majority has become the minority, now that the rest of the citizenry has shown up to object to the alternative. He commends staff on their attempt to define an alternative solution. At this point, however, he is not sure how the road should be laid out, or if a more general scope of intent should be substituted. Ms. Salay asked if the public notification procedure for this area was the same as that made for any other neighborhood. Were individual notices sent to property owners that their specific area was scheduled for discussion on a particular date? Mr. Combs responded that type of notification did not occur. The practice was to incorporate the names/addresses of those individuals who signed up on the public comment sheets into the meeting notice list for the Plan review. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that it is her understanding that the civic association presidents received meeting notices, and it is incumbent upon the presidents to notify their membership of the meetings. Mr. Combs responded that was the practice. However, near the end of the process, staff became aware that there was no civic association for this particular area. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that this area is part of the Eastside Civic Association. Mr. Combs responded that in that case, they would have received notices from their civic association throughout the process. Ms. Salay noted that was her point. Although the group in attendance tonight has arrived late in the process, they are welcome. The City welcomes their input. There was no desire to exclude anyone. As a matter of fact, Mr. Stoycheff was present at most of the meetings -- so there was at least one representative from their neighborhood. Staff did not intend to do anything negative to their neighborhood. There was an objective, and this was identified as a possible solution. No specific property implications were made. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that one of the speakers referenced the areas the City owned. There is a map designating property ownership by color, but there is no map key. He requested clarification of the City-owned property. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council October 15, 2 1 1 1 Held age Mr. Combs identified that on the maps. Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired if that is the extent of City-owned property. Mr. Combs responded that it is. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that the speaker implied that the City owned a considerable part of that area. Mr. Combs responded that the resident was referring to the areas in the 1997 plan that identify several areas as public parkland, but those are areas that are floodplain. Mrs. Boring inquired about the parkland in the center of the site. Mr. Combs responded that is currently owned by the City. Jim Black, 8206 Riverside Drive. O'Shaughnessy Hills, Dublin stated that he owns property in the southern area. For 30 years, he and Mr. Jacobs have been purchasing lots in an attempt to create a workable situation for the City. Mr. Jacobs owns the blue area; he and his wife own the green area. Mr. Stoycheff, Mr. Loveland and one other individual own other large areas. At one time, there were 300 lots; now there are nine property owners. It is finally becoming workable. No one wants to destroy this beautiful, treed area. His idea was to present the City with a simple suggestion that would prevent land and trees from being destroyed. There would be a simple one-lane road, little traffic, no curbs and gutters, on septic system so the density could be limited. With that, it would be possible to save nearly everything that an effort has been made to keep. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the clarification Vice Mayor Lecklider was seeking is in reference to the term Mr. Black used about ownership by the City. Mr. Black responded that the City does own the section previously pointed out. The City also owns all of the streets. They were dedicated when the City accepted the subdivision, but they have never been improved. If those streets were used now, there would not be a need to buy any lots. They already belong to the City. He believes it is possible to save nearly everything they made an effort to work for. Mr. Keenan inquired if all the streets were uncut. Mr. Black responded that the only street that has been cut is Arrowhead Road. They would prefer to limit the development, and having the homes on septic systems would achieve that. When he built the existing homes, the rule was one house per three lots or'/4 acre. If the requirement is now one home per acre, the result is less development. Mr. Reiner inquired Mr. Black's opinion of the optimum lot size in his subdivision, based on the current septic system requirements. Mr. Black responded that he believes it is approximately 40,000 +/- square feet. Mr. Reiner inquired about the inclusion of leach beds for the systems. Mr. Black responded that the existing homes have either leach beds or aeration systems. Mr. Reiner inquired if it is his opinion that these homes would not require City sewer services. Mr. Black responded that it is his opinion that City sewer would not be needed, however, City water would be needed. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that concludes tonight's discussion of the O'Shaughnessy Hills area. Mr. Combs stated that the request was made earlier this evening regarding the corner of Shier Rings and Cosgray Road. This area is currently shown on the plan as Low Density/Mixed Residential; the request was to revise that to Medium Density. Another request was related to the corner of Avery and Post roads, which is shown as Low Density/Mixed Residential. Finally, there is the Sawmill/161 Area Plan, which also contains a proposal for Mixed Residential/Low Density. The plan provides for setbacks along Riverside Drive and an east-west greenway corridor with a variety of housing types that link to the future neighborhood center at the corner of Riverside and SR 161. That concludes his presentation. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council October 15, 2007 1 1 I Held 20 e Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired how Council would like to proceed with the review. Council had originally indicated that after staff's presentation, they would discuss the Southwest Corridor. Is that still their preference? There is a significant amount of detail to address, yet all of the information is not provided. • Tuttle Crossing area and its extension westward Mr. Combs displayed a map of the Hirth Road area detail -the portion generally from Emerald Parkway west to Old Wilcox and to Old Avery Road. Ms. Salay stated that she did not review this specific area, but it appears that a lot of detail has been added. She inquired if this is what was presented to the Planning Commission. Did the Hirth Road residents have the opportunity to attend and participate? Mr. Combs responded that they did. The information was forwarded to them for a neighborhood meeting, as well. Mrs. Boring inquired if it would be helpful if the City's design recommendations were displayed as well. Mr. Combs stated that there have been no changes to this plan since the June version. Ms. Salay requested that Mr. Combs review the site detail -location of existing homes, where Tuttle Crossing goes through, pointing out the homes, roads, and anything additional that was added since the June version. Mr. Combs stated that on the corner of Hirth Road and Tuttle, there is a neighborhood park that has been integrated by providing for a higher density mix of residential that transitions south to the Old Dublin Woods subdivision. There is a mix of different residential types that work up to the Tuttle Crossing area, then west to the Old Wilcox Road as a variety of different office uses. In this general area, there are mixed uses that would serve all the surrounding residential in Dublin as well as future development to the south in Columbus. To the west, in the area of neighborhood services, there would be buildings up close to the street with pedestrian spaces and connectivity to the surrounding residential developments. Moving west to the Avery Road corridor and the intersection with Tuttle, additional residential uses are provided with smaller office uses on the corner and residences that are within walking distance to the neighborhood center. Mr. Keenan noted that the township park is located in the vicinity. Mr. Combs stated that the park connects to Wilcox Road; to the north are athletic fields related to the church. Ms. Salay noted that she has received a couple of calls from Vineyard Church. Where is that located on the map? Mr. Combs stated that the plan shows it as it currently exists with a plan that part of the property could be redeveloped to help add to the residential uses adjacent to the park. Mr. Keenan noted that the church does not seem to exist in the plan. It has been overlaid with another plan. Mrs. Boring stated that as she indicated previously, she cannot support a Community Plan that has plans overlaid on existing homes and churches. When everything else around a site is defined, that will set the tone. She cannot support anything that overlays a current residential or church use. Ms. Salay asked if the church is in the plan or not. Mr. Combs responded that the Plan shows the site layout as it exists today. Ms. Salay clarified that what is being changed is the vacant land around the church, not the church land itself. Mr. Combs agreed. Mr. Combs continued, noting that the concept of Tuttle Crossing between Emerald and Avery is shown with the concept of a neighborhood center that provides for a pedestrian RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council October 15, 2007 Page 22 core across Tuttle and access to surrounding residential to the north and to the south. The view looks to the southeast and Old Dublin Woods subdivision is in the background with a transitional residential and a corner park at Hirth Road. For the remainder of the southwest area, there have been no changes of substance since the June 2007 draft. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked Mr. Combs to display the map which includes the Ponderosa Estates. Mr. Combs noted that the map shows the inset of the detail just discussed, with Avery Road running from north to south, the future Tuttle extension to the west to the CSX railroad, and Ponderosa would be the subarea labeled as mixed residential. As noted in the presentation, the Commission asked Council to consider modifying the Plan to remove that bubble and to maintain the Ponderosa on the Plan map as it exists today. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if the area delineated on the map includes the entire 100 acres owned by the Ponderosa owner. Mr. Combs responded no, adding that there is additional acreage in the general area that is also noted in the plan as office use around the intersection of Tuttle and Avery. Moving west, that transitions to mixed residential and single-family residential. Ms. Salay asked if that ties in with Tuttle Crossing Boulevard generally working with property boundaries, or is it very conceptual? Mr. Combs responded that it is very conceptual, but staff has tried to look at the existing parcel lines to denote the concept of pushing the alignment south, but to still provide for a greenway corridor east-west along the roadway, and minimizing impacts on the properties. Ms. Salay asked if there is a roundabout denoted at Avery and Tuttle. Mr. Combs responded that it is conceptual only, given the traffic volumes in the area. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked for the projected timeframe for completion of Tuttle Crossing. There has been discussion with Columbus and others about this. Is it ten years out, or 30 years? Ms. Brautigam responded that it is more likely in the vicinity of 10 to 15 years. There has been much development along Hayden Run at Cosgray, and staff believes that that kind of development will provide a lot of traffic up Avery Road. Staff therefore wants to protect Dublin citizens by providing adequate roadways. Tuttle extension is not in the five-year CIP, and is likely 10 to 12 years out. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked how this connects with the COIC. Ms. Brautigam responded that Tuttle would proceed to the west to Houchard that would then move north across 161, ultimately making a curve around McKitrick Road and its intersection with US 33. That intersection is targeted in the Major Investment Study as a potential intersection in the distant future. Ultimately, the Tuttle Crossing extension will serve as Emerald Parkway does in another portion of the City, looping around the southern portion of the City to the northwest. Mrs. Boring noted that on the current map, existing single family development is listed in some areas. She agrees with the Commission that the same treatment should be given to the Ponderosa development, denoting existing residential development on the Plan - not leaving it as a bubble. Mr. Reiner agreed. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked why the existing development was noted in the Plan in some places, but not in others. Mr. Combs responded that at the beginning of the process, the review covered the areas studied in the 1997 Plan. Based on what development potential existed and inquires that occurred, staff made some assumptions about what would develop over time. Mr. Keenan inquired if Amlin was also removed from the map. He does not see it denoted. Mr. Combs responded that it is included in the next portion of the plan. Mr. Combs noted that consistent with the Ballantrae plan, the Community Plan suggests a Rings Road bypass that would connect Cosgray to Rings. Additional residential RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council October 15, 2007 Nage development would occur around the mixed uses at the village scale. Cosgray Road would also be re-configured based on future transportation improvements in conjunction with development to the south in Columbus. The Tuttle Crossing extension would occur to the northwest, connect to Houchard and head north into the US 33 Corridor plan. The lighter green areas on the periphery are residential conservation design developments of a lower density. Ms. Salay stated that the practical effect would be to de-emphasize Cosgray Road. Mr. Combs responded that the idea is that Cosgray Road --from the start of the village area further to the north up to Shier Rings -- would be kept at a residential scale, particularly through Amlin, maintaining a "village" feel. Based on modeling, most of the traffic in that area will attempt to reach I-270 through the Tuttle Crossing extension. The Tuttle extension would be of an Emerald Parkway level to facilitate the major traffic. At the same time, the pedestrian-oriented streets would downplay that with a residential scale. Mr. McCash inquired how one would be able to travel out of Amlin with all that traffic. There is a railroad track on the east side of Amlin and afreeway -Tuttle Crossing extension -- on the west side. (At this point, afive-minute break was taken for videotaping purposes.) Mr. Combs noted that the primary access points for that area would be Cosgray heading south to Tuttle and the Rings bypass heading east to Rings and Tuttle. There are also potential limited access points into the grid network. Ms. Salay inquired about the church site. Mr. Combs responded that there is an institutional use -the church --surrounded by mixed uses with a conceptual village green in the center. Mr. Keenan noted that Washington Township owns four acres in that area. Mr. Combs responded that the Township owns parkland on the corner. The vision is to build from that concept. Mr. McCash inquired if it would be fair to say that without Tuttle Crossing extended across the railroad tracks, the development to the west would be severely limited due to traffic constraints. Mr. Combs responded that is correct. The general idea of the plan is that development would occur as the Tuttle Crossing extension is phased to the west to accommodate that development. The idea of the Tuttle extension is to provide a beltway to have access from SR161 and the northern portion of the City to Tuttle Crossing. The densities would be downplayed on the periphery through the Hayden Run corridor to maximize open space and provide greenway and pedestrian linkages into the Village. The density would be increased within the area of the Village. Mr. McCash responded that the Tuttle extension, which will provide direct access to 1- 270, would allow greater opportunities to develop even further to the west. Mr. Combs stated that the intent is to provide access for employees from the south and southwest areas to the Central Ohio Innovation Center, and that residential development in this area will provide housing for those future COIC employees. Mr. Reiner noted that at one time there was discussion regarding not having the Tuttle extension cross the railroad tracks in this location. Mr. Combs responded that early in the process there was discussion of another alignment -- Tuttle extended west, through this alignment, then connecting with Cosgray Road. Later in the process, in negotiations with county engineers, they learned that Union County did not provide for the extension of the road further to the west, as does Dublin's plan. Discussion revealed that the best option for extending an arterial north would be via a Houchard Road extension. Mr. Reiner inquired if crossing the railroad tracks would be the best option for Dublin. Mr. Combs responded that it is. It is necessary to facilitate the long-term goals for the COIC. It will be necessary for the viability of the COIC to move employees from all RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council October 15, 2007 Page areas of the City without having to rely on US33 and I-270. The Tuttle extension would serve as the main through roadway for through trips in the City. Mr. Reiner stated that the early discussion was that the roadway would be routed on the inside of the tracks and curve up to that area, serving only as an internal roadway. Mr. Combs responded that it was one of several iterations that was considered. The decision was made to take that option out of the transportation modeling process. Ms. Brautigam stated that another factor is that as the City moves west, it is within the Columbus exclusive service area. However, Columbus has no ability to provide adequate water and sewer for a substantial development. The Columbus interim plan shows that area as very low density. Further to the west is Madison County, which has a comprehensive plan that indicates very low density of one unit per five or ten acres. The Darby watershed lies to the west. Dublin's understanding of the land use in that area is that it will be very low density residential. The purpose of the roadway will be to move traffic from the northwest area down to the Tuttle Crossing area and take traffic off of US 33 and 1270. It will also take some traffic off of Avery Road. Mr. McCash stated that there is a very large portion of Columbus land just south of Tuttle Crossing on the other side of the railroad tracks. That can be expected to be developed at the highest mixed use, retail, ormulti-family of 50 units per acre. This development will result in a serious traffic bottleneck problem. Providing the opportunity for additional traffic flow in that location will also provide the opportunity for high intensity retail use . Ms. Brautigam stated that Columbus has control over the zoning of that area. Their plan is to build many residences there. All the vehicles heading to I-270 would then overload Dublin's streets. If the Tuttle extension does not occur, those vehicles will travel up Avery Road to the US 33 intersection or try to find a way through Cosgray, Rings or Wilcox Roads. The intent is to intercept those vehicles along the southernmost border of Dublin with a road of adequate capacity that will take them to I-270. This would keep all of that traffic out of the Dublin neighborhoods. Mrs. Boring inquired if Dublin would ask Columbus to share in the costs. Ms. Brautigam stated that a Columbus representative to a MORPC committee has raised the idea of working with Dublin to identify ways to have the developers pay for these roadways. Mr. McCash inquired about the arrangement Columbus has with the existing new developments in that area to cost share. Ms. Brautigam responded that she is not aware of specific arrangements or amounts, but she does know that they have received some monies. Mr. McCash responded that it is only minimal, and provides nothing with which to build a road. Mrs. Boring stated that at one of the Community Plan work sessions, Dublin resident Terry Hofecker pointed out that his home was "eliminated" in this plan. Mr. Combs stated that he does not know of the specific location, but the City tries to save all the historic sites in the area, so this one can be highlighted as well. Mr. Keenan inquired if staff had done any investigation to determine the long-term viability of the CSX railroad lines. Mr. Combs responded that for the long term, CSX is looking at this for a freight corridor. The Ohio Rail Hub concept is now moving through the state legislature. They are looking at the concept of a passenger railway that would link the entire region. This could potentially be one of the lines that would connect Columbus to the Terre Haute/Fort Wayne area. Consistent in the plan is an attempt to set aside buffer areas along the rail line, should this option become feasible in the future. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired the time frame for this plan. Mr. Combs responded that in general, the entire planning document looks at a planning horizon of 20 to 30 years. Full build-out to the west may not occur until year 2050. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council October 15, 2007 Page Held 1 1 20 Mr. Reiner inquired if Columbus were to refuse to share in the costs of extending Tuttle, would Dublin re-think or revisit this plan? Ms. Brautigam responded that staff reevaluates the plan yearly. In her opinion, this roadway would be very beneficial to the City of Dublin. It is not being built to benefit Columbus; it is being built to protect Dublin. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that in view of the future COIC, it would be wise to look at what type of infrastructure would move people to work. Those employees will not all live in Dublin. Dublin is always impacted by the land use decisions of neighboring entities and may need to expand its infrastructure to move that traffic through the community. However, the original purpose of this extension was to move employees to the COIC area. Mr. Reiner responded that is the reason that the first iteration of the plan was for an internal road, to use Houchard Road as an internal circulation device for the Dublin citizens to access the COIC. He would like to watch this carefully, including the zonings that occur and their density. He does not want to see all of the Columbus traffic moving through Dublin and Dublin paying for the infrastructure need created by the Columbus development. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if there is any recommendation for a change. Mrs. Boring moved that the Plan be amended to show existing homes and businesses. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that he is concerned that action would give residents a false sense of security. He is not advocating for the existing use to be eliminated, but it is important to educate the citizens on the future reality. Something similar has happened at Post and Avery Roads. There is now a different development in place than was originally planned. There are bubbles in some places in the Plan and details in others. Mrs. Boring stated that there are also notations of "existing single family" in some places and not others. Why are "single family homes" denoted where none exist, while existing homes have no denotation? There is the same problem on Summitview as with Ponderosa Estates. She cannot support the Plan unless this is addressed. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that he would surmise that where single family is denoted, it is owner occupied, not tenant-occupied. Those neighborhoods are indicated. Mrs. Boring responded that Ponderosa is also a neighborhood. Vice Mayor Lecklider pointed out that it is unique from the traditional neighborhoods that are identified in the Plan. Mrs. Boring agreed that Ponderosa is unique. It, too, needs to be recognized in the Plan. Mr. Reiner agreed. Ponderosa Estates is unique, and recognizing it in the Plan gives direction to future developers. The fact that the residents do not own the land on which their homes are situated may impact their future, but the City should attempt to preserve their homes and their property. He doesn't want to take a position of not supporting the Ponderosa residents. They are an existing community of long-time residents. Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired what direction that provides to future developers. If someone should purchase that land next year and seek a rezoning, what direction does recognizing the existing use in the Community Plan give them? Mr. Reiner responded that identifying the Ponderosa community in the Community Plan is a statement that as of now, the City is satisfied with the zoning that exists there. If he were a developer seeking land, he would look at the City's Community Plan and then analyze his needs and where he wants to develop. It would not be the same as the "bubble" diagram at the Village Center at Sawmill Road. In that location, the City wants to encourage change and achieve something wonderful for the community. The Ponderosa community, however, is a group of Dublin residents who have been part of the community for a long time. In his view, including the Ponderosa Estates in the Community Plan carries a message that the City's position is that they should remain as is. Hopefully, it will remain that way. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council October 15, 2007 Page Vice Mayor Lecklider emphasized that he is not suggesting that the City turn someone out of their property, and hopes everyone understands that. However, given the circumstances under which they reside on the land, he is concerned that the City's actions could leave the residents with a false impression concerning the future. Mr. Reiner responded that it is a good point to bring up tonight. They do know their situation could be precarious if the landlord decides to sell the property. His point is that the City owes it to the residents to stand by them in this situation. Mr. McCash stated that he believes the area could be designated in whatever manner Council desires. Both Mr. Reiner and Vice Mayor Lecklider have made good points. Council's action will provide no real protection for the residents. Should the existing landlord or some future owner wish to eliminate the community, they could terminate the leases, give them time to relocate and then rezone it. Then the problem from the landowner's standpoint is resolved. It is important to be cognizant of the fact that whatever the City does, that issue still exists. The City is not solving the problem for the residents. Ms. Salay stated that she was very disturbed this summer to hear at a Community Plan open house many of the Ponderosa residents saying that they believed that City staff and City Council members wanted their area to go away. That could not be further from the truth. None of Council is insensitive or indifferent to the plight that the Ponderosa residents face. The idea that the City can prevent things happening in the future, though, is irresponsible. Theirs is a complex and precarious situation. There are multiple stakeholders. The landowners have rights as well. This is a business, and the operators have already made it known that if there is a purchaser who is willing to pay the right price, they are interested in selling the entire 100 acres. That is their intent and eventually what will happen here. Therefore, she would like to suggest that there is a mixed use "bubble," and within that "bubble" show the streets of the existing Ponderosa community. Additionally, Dublin needs to aggressively pursue affordable senior housing for the community. She is not certain the form that would take, but there needs to be an alternative for these and future senior residents. Sale of this property is inevitable. With the development that is occurring in that area, it seems very unlikely the mobile home park will exist at that location 20, 30 or 40 years from now, so Dublin needs to plan for the future. There is a lot of vacant land in the southwest and more that will be coming in for development. As part of one of those developments, the City could set aside some land for affordable senior housing. There are different county, state or federal resources available to help achieve this. Adding the component of "affordable" would facilitate government assistance, and subsequently, alternative housing for seniors on a fixed income to continue to live in Dublin. To her, that is the best solution. She would like to suggest that staff resources be designated to research the concept of affordable senior housing. Two years ago, there was a temporary committee which worked only on securing the present location of the Ponderosa community. That might not be the wisest course of action long-term. She would like the City to work on devising a real solution. Mr. McCash stated that extending Tuttle Crossing to the west would result in greater pressure to develop that acreage. Ms. Salay agreed. Two years ago, a developer wanted to develop the balance of the southwest area. They had almost all the land in contract, but because of changes in the market, that did not occur. At some point the market will rebound, and the development will occur. Mrs. Boring stated that she spoke with the Ponderosa owner last night, and they have no intention of selling the land at this time. Ms. Salay responded that is because no one is interested in buying the property at this time. Mrs. Boring stated that she has two comments/questions: 1. She has said repeatedly stated that the existing land uses included in the Community Plan affect the determination of future land uses. Therefore, she is confused. If everything around this small "bubble" is identified, there should not RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS October 15, 2007 Page 27 1 1 ~: be a problem with a future developer. The pressure will exist to maintain something compatible with what is already existing. 2. She has visited the National Churches housing development on SR 161, and those are exceedingly small. She does agree that the City should pursue affordable senior housing. However, if she were a Ponderosa resident and heard the term, "government subsidies," she would suggest that government subsidize what already exists and maintain what exists. Ms. Salay responded that perhaps it is an option; she does not know. She is not suggesting that the housing needs to be an apartment-type complex. There are ways to build individual units. Does the government subsidize mobile home parks? She would not necessarily be opposed to that. There would be challenges with sewer lines in the area and EPA regulations. There could be a considerable expense involved to tie in. If there are options available, then the need is not so great. The reality is that the Ponderosa residents do not own the land. This is a family business, and it is not possible for anyone to require, as a condition of sale, that the business continue to operate. Mrs. Boring responded that the City has had occasions when a family owns land and wants to rezone it for a business use. They simply apply for a rezoning. It is a process. But for a City to change the designation of the existing use in the Plan is another matter. She will not support this Community Plan if the Ponderosa community is not identified in it. Mr. McCash inquired if the land to the east and south of the Ponderosa community is designated as "Secondary Office." Mr. Combs confirmed that is correct. Mr. McCash asked if that designation would in fact put more pressure on developing Ponderosa into something other than the existing use, if there was a desire to develop the entire area once the Tuttle Crossing extension is completed? Mr. Combs responded that it would come down to the policy question of how closely Council and the Planning Commission abide by the Community Plan. Mr. McCash inquired if it would be preferable not to have that area designated as Secondary Office, but as Residential, similar to the Ponderosa. Mr. Combs responded that is a modification Council can direct staff to make. There is an additional consideration of the traffic volume at that intersection. Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired if that is a practical solution. Mr. McCash stated that if it designated as Office, it is easy to rezone it. If it is designated as Residential, it is more difficult to rezone. Mr. Reiner noted that the market would determine that at a later date. Mr. McCash responded that the existence of the Ponderosa would be determined by the market as well. If the intent is truly to preserve the Ponderosa as long as possible, then Office use should not be designated for the land around it. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if Mrs. Boring has a recommendation. Mrs. Boring moved that: (1) the Ponderosa Estates be included in the Community Plan as existing housing, and (2) that all of the existing historical structures be maintained in the Plan. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher referred to the previous discussion about Terry Hofecker's house. Is it classified as an historical home? Mr. Combs responded that he believes it is. An attempt was made to maintain all the historic farmsteads in the Community Plan as potential for the national register. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher confirmed that the policy is that the Plan will have all historic homesteads designated within it. There is no need for a motion from Council regarding this. Mr. Combs responded that is correct. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS October 15, 2007 Page 28 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher reiterated Mr. McCash's concerns about the surrounding area to Ponderosa being designated as Secondary Office. Mrs. Boring responded that she is satisfied, given the Mixed Residential identification surrounding it. Mr. McCash noted that the Ponderosa and the Mixed Residential area all belong to one property owner. Mr. Combs confirmed that the red portion is all part of the larger parcel including the Ponderosa. Mr. McCash stated that if the land is not subdivided when it is sold and the purchaser wants to redevelop it all as Office, he would likely terminate the lease and proceed. That is why the entire parcel must be designated as one use. Ms. Salay stated that she does not believe including the Ponderosa on a map provides them with much assurance. Providing an affordable housing alternative would be better. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that she does not disagree, and she has been looking into some options as well. That would be a separate item, however, for Council to give direction to expend staff resources to pursue. Following brief discussion, Mrs. Boring clarified that the motion as amended is to remove the land use "bubble" designation shown in the plan, to include the aerial view, and identify it as the existing Ponderosa Park in the 2007 Community Plan. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion as amended. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, no; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. Mr. Keenan noted for the record that this is a private property issue, and that this Council will not ultimately deal with this matter. Future City Councils will have to make this determination. Mr. McCash moved that the two red square areas in the Ponderosa vicinity, currently owned by the same owner as Ponderosa and denoted as Secondary Office be changed to Residential. Brief discussion followed. The motion died for lack of second. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher thanked everyone attending for their participation in tonight's discussion regarding the Community Plan. She noted the need to set additional meetings for continued review of the Plan. Following review of the potential meeting dates and conflicts, it was the consensus of Council that the discussion of the Community Plan will continue at the Monday, November 5 Council meeting. Ms. Brautigam confirmed that staff can provide hard copy of the draft plan to Council by October 29. It will include the revisions made tonight by motion of Council. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Mr. Keenan reported that he recently attended the Dublin Arts Council Board meeting. The Veterans Committee met on Friday morning, and progress continues. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Mayor -Presiding Officer L.~~c~- ~ Clerk of Council