Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-11-17 Council MinutesRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin Ci Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6101 Held September 11, 2017 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Peterson called the Monday, September 11, 2017 Regular Meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 5:30 p.m. in Council Chambers at Dublin City Hall. ROLL CALL Present were Mayor Peterson, Ms. Alutto, Mr. Keenan, Mr. Lecklider and Nis. Salay. [Vice Mayor Reiner and Ms. Amorose Groomes arrived during executive session.] Staff members present were Mr. McDaniel, Ms. Crandall, Ms. Readler, Nis. O'Callaghan, Mr. Foegler, Ms. Goss, Chief von Eckartsberg, Mr. Gaines, Ms. Kennedy, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Papsidero, Mr. Hammersmith, Ms. Rauch, Mr. Stang, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Krawetzki and Mr. Plouck. ADJOU RI�� M ENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Peterson moved to adjourn to executive session for the purpose of discussion of personnel matters related to the appointment of a public official and compensation of a public employee; and for conferences with an attorney for the public body concerning disputes involving the public body that are the subject of pending or imminent court action. Ms. Alutto seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Ms. Salay, yes.; The meeting was reconvened at/:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Dublin Coffman High School students, Tatum Peterson and Jill Wagner led the Pledge of Allegiance. ACNhvOWLEDGEMENT OF PATRIOT DAY — 9/11 Mayor Peterson stated that today, September 11, is observed as Patriot Day in our nation. It is a day set aside to remember those who were killed during the terrorist attacks on the United States in 2001. Today, there are a variety of observances across the country in memory of the American heroes that were lost that day; in honor of the veterans, and the servicemen and women who continue to protect our freedoms; and in recognition of our first responders, who protect us every day. He extended Council's appreciation to Police Chief Heinz von Eckartsberg and Washington Township Fire Chief Alec O'Connell and the valiant men and women who serve alongside them. Patriot Day is an important reminder of what binds us together as Americans, and the continuing strength and resiliency of our country. As we reflect on where we were on that day 1.6 years ago, let us take time to acknowledge all the heroes that protected us and continue to do so. AGENDA MODIFICATION Mayor Peterson stated that unless there is objection from Council, the Citizen Comments portion will be held prior to Special Presentations so that a citizen who is not able to stay for the entire meeting can comment on a later agenda item — Oak Park rezoning. There was no objection from Council. CITIZEN COMMENTS Melvis Houseman, 7134 Snowdrop Court, Dublin, stated that she is a resident of the Oak Park community. They are in support of the rezoning of the townhomes to single-family residential for Subarea D. However, there are three issues they would like Council to consider in the decision-making 1. The look and feel of the community upon entering the main boulevard. The developer is proposing two groups of homes —four homes along each side of the main boulevard facing the clubhouse and the community. These are large horns RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held September 11, 2017 Page 2 of 30 Meeting Form 6101 on lots that will be considerably smaller than what now exists within the community. These four homes on each side of the boulevard will look tightly packed. The residents request that the developer remove one home from each side of the road, thereby creating an increase to the greenspace upon entry and increased lot size for the remaining homes. 2. The maintenance of the private streets and alleys within the proposed area. The residents are very concerned that there will be an increase in maintenance costs. The residents already pay significant property taxes and HOA fees of over $1,100 per year. A further increase in that HOA fee would have a significant impact on the residents. They do not know what the future costs will be to maintain the large clubhouse and the proposed fences between the residential and the commercial lots. Because the City is in a better position to negotiate maintenance pricing, the residents request that the City assume the responsibility of maintaining these streets. 3. Removal of a dirt pile that is located at the back of the community, on Reserve Area F, which is owned by the Citi. It is impossible to use the sidewalk next to that area due to the vegetation overgrowth onto the sidewalk. She requested clarification as to whose responsibility it is to remove that dirt pile and clean up the area for the welfare of present and future residents. Mayor Peterson thanked her for her input regarding the Oak Park rezoning proposal. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS • Update re Glacier Ridge Metro Park Tim Moloney, Executive Director, Columbus and Franklin County Metro Parks thanked Council for the opportunity to pursue this project. Six to eight months ago, discussion with the City began in order to identify opportunities to improve the community's engagement with Glacier Ridge Metro Park. This effort was considered in conjunction with the recently adopted Metro Parks Strategic Plan. At his last presentation to Council, three desired amenities were identified: 1. A dog park. This part of Dublin and the county does not offer a dog park of adequate size. 2. A physical fitness site for integrated family activities. 3. A BMX/mountain biking opportunity. Although Council expressed an interest in all three amenities, he had indicated that it was unlikely all could be pursued initially. Their efforts were narrowed to the fitness challenge course and the dog park. • Challenge Course - With phase one of the Challenge Course, there is room for adaptive growth, such as parking, shaded facilities for education or static fitness equipment. The course will include "up/over" and "over/under" features, rings area, balance beam, pipe crawl, rope climb, tire run, a "trees" upper -body and lower -body challenge, a large cargo net and a frog jump. This central area is comprised of bluestem grass, a native prairie grass. At this time of the year, that grass is six feet in height. They will integrate the challenge course elements within that prairie grass, creating a different type of experience. Park users will be able to immerse themselves in nature. The next course element will not be visible until successive moves along the trail. This project will exceed the Scioto Audubon course. The challenge course will be appropriate for ages pre -teens to seniors. A paved, 1.5 -mile fitness loop will encircle the grassy course area, and can be used in conjunction with the challenge course. • A 2.5 -acre dog park. Approximately 1.5 acres of that will be mowed grass, double -gated area with a paved entrance; a concrete path will also loop down to the woods. Dog park patrons can use one or both. The wooded space is comprised of mature trees without much undergrowth and will touch upon Hole 1 and part of Hole 18 of the Frisbee golf course. Typically, dog parks are opened before the turf becomes established. However, this is established turf that is being converted via under -seeding with different turf grasses — mature on opening day. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held_ Dublin City Council September 11, 2017 Page 3 of 30 Meeting Form 6101 • Costs are approximately $370,000. Some work has already been out to bid. The cost of the asphalt and concrete is $170,000 and the challenge course amenities cost is $113,000. The other site amenities -- dog park fencing, benches, drinking fountains, etc. will be performed in house or contracted — that is the only remaining rough estimate. Three additional miles of trail in Glacier Ridge will be paved, but that cost is included in Metro Parks' overall park maintenance budget. Phase 1 of the three -phased project is described above. This will also be a Metro Parks — City partnership effort. The input of Parks and Recreation staff members was critical in defining the course elements and their location. The City is interested in using the course as an alternative site for programming, including group and individual fitness classes. The City could potentially schedule corporate wellness programs there, making it a destination for local businesses. It will provide an opportunity for outdoor group fitness activities. City staff also expressed an interest in using the course for summer camp fitness activities. Currently, Glacier Ridge does not offer opportunities for summer camps. In summary, this has been a great project to have worked on with the City. Ile is interested in moving on to Phase 3 and beyond. Council discussion: Vice Mayor Reiner inquired if the fitness course is laid out with two parallel tracks. Mr. Moloney responded affirmatively. It is not a single track. Two individuals can move through the course elements at the same time, a good location for a staged race. Vice Mayor Reiner thanked Mr. Moloney for his efforts since first meeting with Council a year ago. At that time, Mr. Moloney indicated Metro Parks would pursue a project to upgrade Glacier Ridge, and Council appreciates the effort he has invested in doing so. Vice Mayor Reiner thanked City staff, Metro Parks staff, and the citizens -- specifically Eric Krause, who had significant input, and Metro Parks landscaper Steve Brown. This project will upgrade that quadrant of the city. Ms. Alutto inquired if the inner loop around the challenge course will offer "escape hatches." Mr. Moloney responded affirmatively. Ms. Alutto inquired if there would be any drainage issues for the dog park, as are sometimes seen with other dog parks. Mr. Moloney responded that there would not. That prairie grass has been in place for many years. The area is built in a way to drain, but as the grass is lowered, they will be monitoring the effects. If further drainage efforts are needed, there is sufficient topography to do so. Ms. Amorose Groomes inquired if they have the capacity to water it in the event of a significant drought. Mr. Moloney responded that there is the capacity, but they probably would not do so. Some of the core grasses there are very drought -tolerant grasses, and they are over - seeding with different grasses that also do well in a drought environment. Ms. Salay inquired if there would be separate large and small dog areas. Mr. Moloney responded that as it is designed today, there would not. That decision was based on research that indicates the trend now is not to have separate spaces. In their Walnut Woods dog park, they seldom have users of the small dog park. However, there is sufficient: acreage at Glacier Ridge that, if determined to be needed, additional area could be added. The challenge is that they don't want to prevent small dogs from using the wooded area. Mr. Lecklider inquired about the size of the Walnut Woods dog park. Mr. Moloney responded that the large dog area is just over two acres; the small dog park is approximately an acre. The single dog park at Glacier Ridge would be their largest dog park by a significant amount. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held September 11, 2017 Page 4 of 30 Meeting Form 6101 Mayor Peterson expressed Council's appreciation to Mr. Moloney and his staff for their efforts and commitment to our community. Council looks forward to continuing to partner with them on this project. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Peterson asked if any Council member requests removal of an item proposed for the Consent Agenda. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated she has one small correction for the August 28 meeting minutes. On page 13, in her comments regarding the stonewall adjacent to the turf at the Golf Club of Dublin, she would like it clarified that the inspectors "would have required a railing to be in place." There is no railing in place there, because the grade was lowered so that a railing would not be required. Mayor Peterson moved approval of the two items on the Consent Agenda with the August 28 meeting minutes amended as indicated. Vice Mayor Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes; Ms. Arnorose Groomes, yes. • Approval of Minutes of Council meeting of August 28, 2017 • Resolution 65-17 (Introduction/ public hearing /vote) Accepting the Lowest and Best Bid for the Bridge Maintenance - Dublin Recreation Center and Bridge Improvements - Muirfield Drive at Dublinshire Drive Project. (Project No. 17-023.0-CIP and 17-026.0-CIP) POSTPONED ITEMS Ordinance 52-17 RezorA ng Approximately 2.9 acres from PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Oak Park, Subarea D) to PUD, Panned Unit Development District (Oak Park, Subarea D) for Amendments to the Approved Development Text to Permit the Conversion of 36 Townhome Units in Sic Buildings to 20 Single - fa m fly �_ots within an Existing Residential Development. (Case 1Y- 028Z/PDP/PP/FDP/FP) Mr. Stang presented an overview. The ordinance was introduced at the August 14 Council meeting. At that time, Council requested supplemental information regarding the following: (1) the expiration of the zoning approval; (2) verification of the private alley construction standards; (3) estimated HOA maintenance costs; (4) details regarding the future commercial development. In response, a staff report was provided in Council's packet with: (1) Zoning expiration - a detailed overview of the Code procedures for the zoning expiration for a planned development district, along with analysis as to how this development addresses the outcomes that are outlined for a City -initiated rezoning. Based on the zoning provision, it is staff's interpretation that this development would not qualify for any of the three outcomes that are outlined in Dublin's Zoning Code. (2) Private alley construction - Exhibit A provides the approved construction details for all public and private streets and alleys within Oak Park. The document confirms that the construction build-up of the private alleys is identical to that of the public streets. There are two alley types within oak Park that have a 24 - foot and a 20 -foot width, respectively. (3) Estimated HOA maintenance costs (a) An estimate was provided based on the open space and the private alley maintenance for which the HOA is responsible. inuring the original rezoning, the developer used the conservation design principles to provide over 50% of open space within the development. The City owns and maintains the majority of that open space, which amounts to approximately 28 acres. The remaining four +/- acres are maintained by the master HOA and include the community center, some interior open spaces and the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Dublin City Council Meeting Held September 11, 2017 Page 5 of 30 — Form 6101 landscape features that are a part of Subarea D and part of this rezoning application. The estimated annual costs for open space maintenance are based on the City's contracted standards. This cost would be distributed across the 92 residential units at full build -out with this new rezoning. (b) Exhibits B and C provide both the monthly report for Oak Park with itemized expenses and an evaluation completed by staff on the condition, timing and estimated costs for repairs for the private alleys. (4) Exhibit D consists of six documents that depict the layout and architectural style of the commercial subarea. [PowerPoint slides of conceptual layouts of the commercial subarea were shown.] At their July 13 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) voted to recommend approval of the rezoning and preliminary development plan, as well as the preliminary and final plat. Council discussion: Mr. Lecklider: • Stated that, with Council's concurrence, he would like to request that staff review Code Section 153.053(D)(4) and provide a draft amendment that would eliminate potential repetition of this situation. As the history reflects, and as the Council members serving at the time would attest to, the proposal for this commercial parcel does not meet the intent of what Council was trying to accomplish at that time. The City has experienced previous conflicts between commercial development and adjacent residential, and this proposal is not what was intended. He would like staff and Legal to draft a Code amendment that would avoid a future occurrence where the construction activity within the residential development saves the commercial developer from having to begin construction activity for the commercial portion. Ms. Amorose Groomes inquired if the request for amendment would delay this project, or if it would be applicable only to future projects. Ms. Readier responded that such a Code amendment would apply only to future applications. Mr. Lecklider continued: • Requested clarification of the estimated alley maintenance costs, which appear daunting. Under the Oak Park Alleys Condition Evaluation, the costs estimated are crack sealing and patching - $10,000; and pavement mill and fill to occur within 8-10 years - $120,000. What is the start date and who is responsible for paying the $120,000? Mr. Stang responded that the evaluation is made on current conditions, and therefore the crack sealing and patching would take place one to two years from today, and pavement mill and fill would occur 8 to 10 years from today. That is based upon the fact that those alleys have experienced minimal use because the adjacent development has not yet occurred. The alleys are owned and maintained by the master homeowners association, so the HOA would be responsible for the cost at that time. Mr. Lecklider stated that at the last meeting, discussion occurred regarding whether those expenses potentially could be shared with the owner of the commercial parcel. Was there a response to that question? Mr. Stang responded that per the plats, the reserves for the private alleys are owned by the master HOA. There is no indication detailed in the plat documents that the commercial parcel owner should provide some funding for the maintenance of those. There are portions of other alleys that are solely the responsibility of the commercial property owner. At this time, they do not have a definitive answer regarding whether the commercial subarea would share responsibility for these alleys, as well. That will need to be worked out between the commercial property owner and the HOA. Mr. Lecklider inquired if the commercial property owner would need to utilize these alleys for access. Mr. Mogan responded affirmatively. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO "affrN Dublin Citv Council September 11, 2017 Page 6 of 30 Meeting Form 6101 Mr. Lecklider stated that, typically, during a rezoning process the City would evaluate the burden on the HOA in proportion to the number of homes. Is there another neighborhood of this size that bears a similar potential financial burden for roadway maintenance? Mr. Stang responded that he is not aware of such an example, but he can research that question. Ms. Salay stated that the City has tried to prevent rezoning or development like this because it would create an undue burden for the residents. This has occurred a number of times, and the neighborhoods then come to Council to request relief. For that reason, the City now avoids having private streets in developments. Ms. Alutto stated that she reviewed the total maintenance costs for open space, streets, fencing, etc. for this neighborhood and attempted to calculate the annual cost for each of the 92 homes. It is approximately $1,000. Those costs will increase over time. Will the HOA routinely increase the HOA fee to meet the rising costs? At some point, the maintenance costs will likely exceed what the homeowners are able to pay, and some of the maintenance may not be done. Has there been any planning for future maintenance costs? Mr. Stang responded that the applicant could best respond to that. Over the last ten years, the developer has been placing funds into a reserve for later transfer to the HOA. Ms. Alutto inquired what amount is currently in the reserve fund. Mr. Stang responded that it is approximately $150,000, based on the expense report that was provided. Vice Mayor Reiner inquired if there is any community involvement with the developer at the present time. Often, there is a transitory board, which monitors the expenses and planning. When it is later turned over to the HOA, the HOA is able to work efficiently due to the experience the board has already had. Mr. Stang responded that he does not know if a board has been formed at this time. Currently, the developer maintains the sole ownership. He does not believe the residents are actively involved with the HOA. Mayor Peterson invited the applicant's representative, Chris Cline to comment on this issue as well as those Ms. Houseman raised earlier. Chris Cline, attorney, Blaugrund Kessler Myers & Postalakis, noted that Linda Menery, EMH&T and Brent Cantrell, Oak Park construction superintendent, are also present to respond to questions. • In terms of HOA finances, sometimes developers will take the HOA fees and use them to maintain the subdivision while they still have ownership of the reserve areas. His clients have not done so. All of the monies that the residents have been paying in since the first homes were built in 2008 has been deposited in an HOA account, which has not been used. In the meantime, the developer has continued to pay all of what Otherwise would have been the HOA's costs. If the subdivision were turned over to the HOA today, they would begin with a reserve fund of $152,000. • Regarding maintenance costs, a cost breakdown has been prepared and shared with staff, which is based on the actual costs that the developer is incurring. The developer is presently paying for the mowing of the commercial area. Their breakdown indicates annual costs of approximately $650-$-/F)O per home to maintain all of the items — fences and snow plowing of the private streets. Their forecast cost of maintaining the private streets is $32,000 every ten years. For houses costing in the range of $500,000, the monthly $96 HOA fee is small. The HOA can also raise that fee in the future, if needed. At this time, the HOA consists of solely his client. Typically, the developer does not relinquish control of the subdivision until the last home is sold. Mr. Lecklider inquired if the HOA fee is adequate to cover the maintenance of the private alleys. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held_ Dublin City Council September 11, 2017 Page V of 30 Meeting Form 6101 Mr. Cline responded affirmatively. At this time, there has been no maintenance of either the private or the public streets. The private streets are already the responsibility of the HOA. Nothing new is proposed. If the rezoning is not approved, the remaining 72 existing lots will have the maintenance responsibility for those private streets, per the existing zoning. Such is also the case with the commercial area. The only way in which that would change is if the additional 20 proposed lots are approved. If there are 92 homes instead of 72 homes, more would share that financial responsibility. The proposed project would not change any of the zoning that is in place; all of the streets are already installed. Mr. Keenan inquired if the commercial development would participate in the HOA. Mr. Cline responded that because the commercial area is located adjacent to the residential development, it should participate; unfortunately, no agreement was worked out in advance. The developer could refuse to allow the commercial development to use the private alleys unless there is some maintenance cost-sharing agreement. That would be an incentive for them to agree to do so. The alleys will be used primarily by the commercial development, not the residential. Mr. Lecklider inquired if the HOA is solely responsible for maintaining the alleys, could the HOA restrict access to them? Ms. Readier responded that they could not do so. However, the commercial development will need a final development plan review and approval at a future date. That will provide an opportunity to consider how it is laid out and the anticipated traffic that will be generated. Mr. Cline stated that they considered the possibility of the private alleys in the proposed residential development, but determined it would not succeed. The approved plan and existing rezoning is what they must deal with. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that Ms. Houseman asked Council to consider three issues. It appears there would be a greater density with this portion than for the remainder of the subdivision. Mr. Cline responded that the standards remain consistent throughout — a minimum standard of 55 feet wide lots. However, most lots are wider than that. All of the lots in the surrounding village homes are 55 feet wide. It was suggested that the applicant eliminate two lots. His client has responded that he has already reduced the plan from 36 to 20 lots, which was very significant; there is no ability to give up any additional. The Planning Commission noted that there were two reserves on either side that could provide some opportunity. The application was tabled, re -worked and it resulted in a very nice plan that reduced the originally wider lots to 55 feet, created a new reserve and used setbacks creatively, and eliminated four parking spaces that the commercial development did not need to provide, resulting in another nine feet. The changes provided the opportunity for a landscape entry feature. The Planning Commission believed the goal was met and recommended approval of the project. Ms. Salay stated that these are 55 -foot wide single-family lots. In the past, townhomes were considered in that area, correct? Mr. Cline responded affirmatively. Ms. Salay stated that, in her view, the neighbors are now receiving a significant upgrade with the new single-family lots, which will essentially mimic what already exists versus the townhomes that would have surrounded non-existent commercial development. Mr. Cline expressed concurrence. The current application better serves the residents' interests. The townhomes would have been on 22 -foot wide lots, had no setback and were three stories in height. They were intended to serve as a buffer/screen for the commercial development. Because that concept did not materialize and there were no more residential lots, the limited depth (x.04 feet) townhome lots were re -worked. The villas, or patio homes will have a small space for outdoor living and will be similar in price to the existing homes. PZC required the same quality and value of homes. Because the architectural standards are included in the existing zoning, no changes were possible — RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held. Dublin City Council September 11, 2017 Page 8 of 30 Heeting Form 6101 they were required to meet those standards. PZC approved six architectural models, although the text allows them to create more, if there should be a diversity issue. [vis. Salay stated that is the reason she prefers pattern books for a neighborhood. The detailed architectural standards resulted in excellent architecture, building materials and quality that are not found elsewhere. Mr. Cline stated that he does not understand the earlier comment about the look and feel of the subdivision. The residents have referred to the neighboring Dominion development, which has large lots. This subdivision was designed under the conservation design standards, which resulted in 50% open space and smaller lots with larger houses. They must remain consistent to that design. Originally, the townhome design had no setback. The applicant's plan for single-family homes had a six-foot setback. The residents wanted a 20 -foot setback, but 20 feet was not available as the lot depth was only 104 feet. The same quality and price home is required for these lots, consistent with the existing neighborhood. They did increase the setback to nine feet, but at a cost to the homes' design. Mayor Peterson inquired whose responsibility is the pile of dirt referenced by Ms. Houseman. Mr. Cline responded that is the construction dirt that is on the City -owned reserve. One issue that has not yet come before Council is the intent for an active outdoor space for children in this neighborhood, per earlier planning work with Parks Director Mr. Hahn. That City -owned lot is the most likely place for it to be located. The dirt will be moved. Ms. Salay inquired the location of this lot in the subdivision. Mr. Cline responded that it is at the rear corner. Mayor Peterson noted that the applicant has indicated this situation would eventually be rectified. Mr. Cline concurred. As a side note, the homeowners adjacent to that lot do not want that space to be an active play area. However, that it is the only space sufficiently sized for an active play area. The City has programmed it in a future Parks budget. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that the lot is the City's, but who owns the dirt dumped on the lot? Mr. Cline responded that it is the responsibility of the developer. Vice Mayor Reiner stated that Metro Parks needs dirt for a mountain bicycle track, which will be constructed in the next phase of the Metro Park renovation. Perhaps that is a possible solution for moving this dirt. Mr. Cline requested that the contact information be forwarded to him, and he would make that contact with Metro Parks. /ice Mayor Reiner inquired if this project is nearing its end. Mr. Cline responded that they are nearly out of single-family lots. Of the 72 lots, eight remain uncommitted. The completion of this development is nearing, and his client needs to do something with the commercial area. Vice Mayor Reiner stated that this commercial space is attractive and would be a lovely amenity for the neighborhood, but it is also architecturally extravagant. If the applicant finishes the resident portion, what guarantee is there that the commercial portion will ever be developed for the residents? Mr. Cline responded that the applicant has no ownership in the commercial portion. Part of the original land purchase agreement was that the partnership would retain three acres for commercial development. His client, Oak Park Dublin, has a mortgage for $1.8 million on that land. Because of some of the issues, the City suggested that they attempt to acquire that commercial land. They were interested in doing so, as it would have helped them produce a better project. However, they were unsuccessful in obtaining control of that land. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held_ September 11, 2017 Page 9 of 30 Form 6101 Vice Mayor Reiner stated that, even though concepts of a commercial development were provided in the packet, there is no assurance that any of it will be built in the future. That is a concern. Mr. Cline stated that if the final development plan did not comply with the images, the Planning Commission would not approve it. Final development plan approval is essential. Vice Mayor Reiner stated that in view of the complexity of the architecture and materials, he finds it hard to believe that it would be possible to build these shops and generate sufficient cash flow. Mr. Cline responded that they have heard from developers that the cost of doing that plan makes it cost prohibitive. When this was envisioned in 2005, the environment in the northwest area of Dublin was very different. Currently, a lot of retail is being developed. The cost will be prohibitive for a commercial area set back 200 feet from the road with limited signage. Even with the 40,000 square feet of allowable uses, from a business standpoint, they do not believe it will ever be a reality. Viae Mayor Reiner inquired about the potential for this site. Mr. Cline responded that they presented three plans to the Planning Commission: the first was the best -case scenario with the 55'x 130' lots; the second plan is the one presented tonight; and the third was a plan for how the commercial subarea could develop with the same type of product as shown tonight on these 12 lots. Mr. Cline noted that a number of small park areas in the subdivision are aggregated to meet the open space requirements. They will be placing two mirror images of the Ashborn home model on either side of the landscaped park area in the middle. This provision will now be included in the text. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if a condition could, be added to require the relocation of the soil that is on the City -owned parcel. Discussion followed regarding an appropriate timeframe for the condition to be satisfied. Mr. Cline noted that he would like to explore the Metro Parks suggestion. Ms. Salay noted that whatever is objectionable about the dirt pile would be less so during the winter. She is intrigued by the idea of moving the dirt to the Metro Parks area. Vice Mayor Reiner stated that Metro Parks has not completed their plans, so they will need time to put the plan together. Mr. Peterson suggested April 1 as the timeframe for the dirt removal. Ms. Amorose Groomes inquired whose responsibility it is to grade and seed the area. Mr. Cline indicated that it is the developer's responsibility. Ms. Amorose Groomes noted that seeding season would end approximately May 1. Mayor Peterson moved to approve the rezoning with the additional condition that by May 11 2018, the applicant have the dirt pile located on Reserve F hauled away and Reserve F graded and seeded. Ms. Alutto seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes; Vice Mayor Reiner, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes. Mayor Peterson moved to approve the preliminary and final plats. Ms. Alutto seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Reiner, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING — ORDINANCES Ordinance 50-17 Adopting the Five -Year Capital Improvements Plan (2018-2022). Mr. McDaniel stated that a follow-up to the CIP meeting was provided at the August 28, 2017 Council meeting. There have been no subsequent changes. Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Ar-norose Groomes, yes; Vice Mayor Reiner, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held Dublin City Council September 11, 2017 Page 10 of 30 Meeting Form 6101 Ordinance 60-17 Determining to Proceed with the Acquisition, Construction, and Improvement of Certain Public Improvements in the City of Dublin, Ohio in Cooperation with the Columbus Regional Energy Special Improvement District, and Declaring an Emergency. Ordinance 61-17 Levying Special Assessments for the Purpose of Acquiring, Constructing, and Improving Certain Public Improvements in the City of Dublin, Ohio in Cooperation with the Columbus Regional Energy Special Improvement District, and Declaring an Emergency. Ordinance 62-17 Authorizing and Approving an Energy Project Cooperative Agreement by and between the City of Dublin, Ohio, the Columbus Regional Energy Special Improvement District, Frantz Investments, LLC, and the Columbus -Franklin County Finance; a Special Assessment Agreement by and between the City of Dublin, Ohio, the County Treasurer of Franklin County, Ohio, the Columbus Regional Energy Special Improvement District, and Frantz Investments, LLC and Related Agreements, All of Which Provide for the Financing of Special Energy Improvements Projects, and Declaring an Emergency. (5500 Frantz Road Project) Mayor Peterson moved to waive the Council Rules of Order to address Ordinances 60-17, 61-17 and 62-17 together. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. Mr. McDaniel stated that there has been no change since the first reading of the legislation on August 28, 2017. Ms. Amorose Groomes reiterated that, in regard to the emergency language, there is no financial commitment on the part of the City with this legislation. At the last meeting, there was reference to a $1,000 energy audit, but it was her understanding that was part of the Legacy Office Competitiveness Study. Therefore, there is no financial commitment on the part of the City, but an endorsement that this district should exist so that the business owner can secure financing. Mayor Peterson moved to treat Ordinances 60-17, 61-17 and 62-17 as an emergency. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor Peterson, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes. Mayor Peterson moved to approve Ordinances 60-17, 61-17 and 62-17. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Mayor Peterson asked Mr. McDaniel to provide details about the appointments needed to the ESID Board. Mr. McDaniel stated that he is required to make one appointment of a person with an economic development background. He has appointed Jeremiah Gracia. The other appointment is to be made by City Council; it is not necessary that it be an individual with an economic development background. If no Council member prefers to serve or if Council has no other individual they would prefer to appoint, he recommends the appointment of Colleen Gilger, Economic Development Director. The Board will be meeting quarterly. Ms. Amorose Groomes inquired the basis for the decisions they would be required to make. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held Dublin City Council September 11, 2017 Page 11 of 30 Meeting Form 6101 Mr. McDaniel responded that the Board will be reviewing these types of submissions on a regional basis and they will manage the designated PACE area going forward. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated the PACE area is just one parcel. Could it expand? Mr. McDaniel responded affirmatively. Economic development provides ongoing assessments such as this for other building owners in an attempt to create a pipeline of these types of investments while the money is available through the Columbus -Franklin County Finance Authority. Mayor Peterson moved to appoint Colleen Gilger as the Council -appointed representative to the ESID Board. Ms. Alutto seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes. INTRODUCTION /FIRST READING — ORDINANCES Ovdinance 59-17 Rezoning Approximately 2.4 Acres from BSD -P, Bridge Street District Public to BSD -HT, Bridge Street District Hstoric Transition for Two Lots at the Northwest Corner of the Intersection of North High Street and North Street for the Downtown bublin Parking Garage and the Dublin Branch of the Columbus Metropolitan Library. (Case 17-069Z) Mr. Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Ms. Rauch stated that this is a proposed rezoning for the parcels associated with or created for the Columbus Metropolitan Library and the Downtown Dublin Parking Garage. The site is located on the west side of N. High Street north of North Street. The proposal shows the existing zoning recommended for change to Bridge Street Historic Transition. The two parcels proposed for rezoning will contain the new library and the garage. Those were created as part of the plat Council approved on August 28. This is one of the provisions in the development agreement between the City and the Library — to rezone these parcels to Historic Transition to allow for some flexibility in uses, should there be future redevelopment of the library parcel. There is no difference in terms of the library and the garage being permitted in the current district and in the future district — they would be permitted under both zonings. The Historic Transition opens up the uses for some additional commercial uses, should that be desired in the future. Based on Planning staff review and the review of various City boards, the rezoning is consistent with the Community Plan. With the criteria used to evaluate these projects, all three were met related to the future land use designation, the Area Plan for the Historic District and Bridge Street, and the Thoroughfare Plan. This application was reviewed by the ART, by the ARB and by PZC, as required by Code. All are recommending approval to Council with no conditions at the second reading/public hearing on September 25. There were no questions or comments. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the September 25 Council meeting. Ordinance 63-17 Accepting the Annexation Petition for 2.9, More or Less, Acres from Washington Township to the Cot/ of Dublin. (Expedited Type 2 petition) (Aaron Underhill, Agent for Petitioners Walter L. Shier, Mary Ann Sorden, Robert E. Shier and Mark A. Shier, 7026 Shier -Rings Road) Mr. Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Ms. Readier stated that on April 26, Mr. Underhill filed the annexation petition with the Franklin County Commissioners. The petition was filed as an Expedited Type 2 annexation. Under this process, the City must pass a resolution relating to municipal services and also a resolution related to incompatible land uses and zoning buffers. City Council passed those resolutions on May 8, 2017. The Commissioners granted the annexation on May 30, finding that all the ORC requirements were met. This property is within the proposed annexation areas in the Community Plan and is in the exclusive Dublin water and sewer service area. Upon annexation, it is typical that properties are automatically rezoned to the R -Rural district; however, this site is located in the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held_ September 11, 2017 Page 12 of 30 Meeting Form 6101 Innovation District and will be automatically rezoned to the ID -4 District. This would allow multi -family uses up to 10 units per acre, as well as office and research and development uses. The property is an island of township, surrounded on three sides by property within the Dublin corporate limits. In accordance with the City's policy to annex islands of township for service efficiencies, staff recommends approval of Ordinance 63- 17 at the second reading/public hearing on September 25. She offered to respond to questions. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if staff has any information about the uses they will be requesting for this parcel. Ms. Readler responded that this was part of a proposed development by Kaufman that is in the concept stage. It is for multi -family, with 130 single-family units and 202 multi- family units. This concept plan had at least two informal reviews at the PZC, but she is not aware of any progress on this plan to date. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the September 25 Council meeting. INTRODUCTION/ PUBLIC HEARING /VOTE — RESOLUTIONS Resolution 66-17 Intent to Appropriate a 0.2336 -Acre Fee Simple Right -Of -Way and a 0.0141 - Acre Temporary Construction Easement from Brian Cunningham and Corin Cunningham, Located at 7515 Plain City Road, for the Public Purpose of Constructing Roadway Improvements. Mr. Lecklider introduced the resolution. Ms. Readler stated that the City of Dublin, Franklin County and Union County are working together on improvements for the intersection of SR 161/Post Road/Cosgray. Dublin is the main point of contact regarding acquisition, and Union County is responsible for the costs of acquisition. As Council is aware, acquisition from multiple property owners is necessary for this project. The present resolution for the acquisition was not included in the original group of resolutions for the project that Council recently considered, because the City had come to preliminary agreement with the Cunninghams to acquire the property for the appraised value. Recently, however, the mortgage holder objected to the City's acquisition and would not execute a mortgage release. As a result, the City must proceed with the appropriation process. Staff remains hopeful that an amicable resolution may be reached, however this legislation begins the eminent domain process if those negotiations are unsuccessful. Staff recommends approval of this resolution. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked for clarification. The mortgage holder does not want to release a portion of this property, as they believe it devalues the balance? Ms. Readler responded that the mortgage holder is Duroc Trust, which is the property owner of several other parcels to be acquired. Duroc Trust is also contesting those other acquisitions. Vote on the Resolution: Mayor Peterson, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes. OTHER • Development and Site Plan Review — Columbus Metropofluta n Library — Dublin Branch (Case 17-088DP/SP) Ms. Rauch stated that this site being reviewed is one of the parcels discussed as part of the rezoning earlier tonight — specifically, the library that is located at the intersection of North Street and N. High Street. Background The Basic Plan was approved by Council in April, and Council designated themselves as the required reviewing body for all subsequent applications. As part of that approval, there was a condition for the creation of a committee to work on the development of a signature transition element. The design for that and options were presented to Council in June and July of this year, culminating in the submission of this development plan and site plan in August. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held— September 11, 2017 Page 13 of 30 Form 6101 ART has reviewed that thoroughly and made recommendations. There are two motions required for the approval: one for waivers and one for the development plan and site plan with conditions. [She shared an overview of the site on a slide, including the location of the signature transition element and plaza.] There is a garden space between the library and the garage, as well as access around the site and the roadway improvements occurring as part of these projects as well. The memo includes a detailed analysis of the site plan review and ART`s recommendation. The waivers and conditions relate to mechanicals located along the rights-of-way and are related to accessing them and screening. In addition, there is a condition to ensure those are screened as appropriately as possible. Waivers are also required for gateway features that would be required at the intersection of N. High Street and Rock Cress, as well as potential for a terminal vista at the end of North Street as it terminates. Given the design of the site, ART felt it was not appropriate to require those elements. In addition, there is a condition and a waiver related to foundation plantings to allow some flexibility to be provided in terms of the plant material required. In terms of other conditions, site photometrics, things required as part of the building permit, there was some discussion as well related to the loading zone and stacking to ensure trucks are not stacking into Rock Cress as they are needed to access that loading zone. The tree diversity requirements must be met as part of their building permit review, as well. [She shared a rendering for the building. The materials are also displayed on a table in front of the dais, including the stone discussed at the Basic Plan Review – it has been incorporated as part of this submission.] Ms. Salay noted that on the rendering shown, it appears that the east facing glass and wall has an angle to it. In the model, it is straight up and down. Which is an accurate depiction? Ms. Rauch responded that the model is accurate. It is a 90 -degree angle, not slanted. Ms. Rauch shared renderings as one moves further south on High Street and how the signature transition element that Council has reviewed as an option has been incorporated to include portions or remnants of the previous school building that had been on the site many years ago. The window details match the previous school design. Regarding waivers to the elevations related to story articulation and what the Code requires, as well as the vertical increments – based on the design of the building, some of those requirements would not be met in terms of the way the materials are applied. ART felt that was appropriate in addition to primary materials and how those are applied to the building. They are close on the primary materials, but not quite as required, and therefore a waiver is necessary. Similarly, on the north and south elevations, with some additions to the wall heights that the Code requires for the signature transition element and some of the retaining walls required to make the grade work on the site, additional waivers are needed for that. With that, ART has reviewed this project and is recommended approval of 13 waivers as outlined in the materials; and a recommendation of approval for the development plan and site plan with the five conditions listed in the memo. The applicant has a presentation to share, and they are available to respond to questions, as is staff. Mr. Lecklider asked for more information about Waiver No. 9 -- ground mounted mechanical equipment and the requirement to screen it completely. It is proposed to be partially screened. Ms. Rauch responded that there is a bank of utilities on North Street – some that exist today – that have screening, but need to be provided with access, as well as utilities located adjacent to the loading zones. ART had much discussion about how to screen those appropriately. The condition is related to the one on Rock Cress, making sure that the previous plan staff reviewed showed no screening along Rock Cress Parkway. The condition is that the screening will be on Rock Cress with limited screening along the side elevation. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held Dublin City Council September 11, 2017 Page 14 of 30 Meeting Form 6101 Mr. Lecklider stated that Waiver No. 9 therefore speaks to the north side? Ms. Rauch responded affirmatively, noting that it speaks to this as well, as AEP requires access to those mechanicals. Some were existing, and must be accessed from the right- of-way. Mr. Lecklider asked if the one to the north has an access issue as well. Ms. Rauch responded affirmatively. They will have to be provided with access. ART's preference is that Rock Cress be screened. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that throughout the District, there are many utility boxes that are necessary. Most urban areas vault these mechanicals. Why are these not vaulted? Ms. Rauch stated that the reason is likely the depth of bedrock in this location and making the mechanicals fit there. She is not certain about constraints for the existing utility boxes. These are owned by AEP. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that there will certainly be bedrock issues throughout the District, so she is not certain that is a compelling reason for all of these to be surface mounted and unable to be screened in an urban setting. [Mayor Peterson called for a short recess to allow the students present to depart from Council Chambers.] The meeting resumed at 8:42 p.m. Patrick Losinski, Chief Executive Officer, Columbus Metropolitan Library stated they are pleased the plan for the garage was approved at the last meeting. They just completed the design development phase of the library project. • In terms of funding, the library funds devoted for this project are at $18.6 million and the fundraising underway is targeted at $2.3 million. They currently have about a $1.1 million gap that they are working to reduce through value management and value engineering. They are hopeful they will be able to do so. • They are working with The Dublin Foundation in identifying community leaders to help with the fundraising effort, and are encouraged to date about those who have offered to help. • Should they have additional difficulty and budget pressures, they will return to Council with options to reduce cost. They will do everything possible to avoid that scenario. • They are all pleased with the reaction to the signature transition element. He thanked the Committee who spent time at meetings deliberating and proposing what they believe is a great solution. He reminded Council that the estimate to date for the signature transition element is $210,000 and that remains unfunded and above and beyond the fundraising goals of the library. • They are facing additional market pressures, and so they are eager to move ahead. It is an aggressive building market currently, with the airport, the jail, Nationwide Children's Hospital, OSU and many other projects underway. They recently received notice from their suppliers and contractor that, due to the hurricanes, they should expect additional price increases. • Finally, they are in the final stages of identifying the temporary site for the Dublin branch library so that they can remain operational through most of the construction project. They hope to be out of the current building by December. Coordinating with Turner Construction on their work with the garage, they anticipate some of the library construction beginning in February or March of 2018. Presenting tonight will be Mike Suriano and Tony Murry of NBBJ. They look forward to Council's comments and, hopefully, their approval of the final development and site plans. Michael Suriano, NBBJ, Design/Architect for this branch, stated that staff has already touched on many of the architectural areas. They are at 100 percent design development stage, which has been submitted. Cost estimating is in progress and they are looking for demolition in December of 2017 and potential branch opening in the summer of 2019. At the Basic Site Plan review, some Council comments focused on the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO September 11, 2017 Page 15 of 30 Held Form 6101 integration of stone as a material for the project; working with the Council -appointed committee for the historic transitional element; and to develop more of the site materials and details in and around the project. He pointed out that upon approval tonight, they will move into Construction Documents and will work through any modifications needed. He shared the current iteration of the project, pointing out some of the differences from what was presented at the Basic Site Plan: 1. In terms of overall strategy, given the bedrock on the site, they have a light footprint at High Street and Rock Cress. The model on the table and the image on the screen are identical. The strategy has been to keep the heavier, rusticated materials at the base and draw from the surrounding context. This will keep it open and transparent on the first level, off the garage and the street to allow people to see in and see out, so that the library becomes an active participant in the urban streetscape; and create a lighter volume at the top that floats above the project and creates a dynamic environment on the site. 2. The project is shown with and without trees. Of note, they have worked on refining the stone base and adding material indicated by the grey color in the model. They also have material samples available. 3. They have worked at how the apertures start to address the street and where they are punched into the project. 4. They have looked at various materials for the canopy and have used bright, brushed metal. 5. They have also looked at enclosing the kid space on level one with a glass corner. 6. He shared the vantage from High and North Street, with the grand civic stair that brings one into the project. 7. From across the street, the intent is to have an engaging presence that invites people into the project. 8. There were questions about the transparency of the upper volume. He shared an evening rendering from the south side of the plaza, which shows the inside glowing and the visibility through the glass at ground story as well as how that affects the visibility in the upper story. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked for confirmation about the opaque and translucent portions of glass. Mr. Suriano responded that vision glass wraps the entire project over the entire upper volume. Sometimes, it is more solid and sometimes more glass. The Rock Cress and High Street corners have the most glass; it gradually goes to a more solid material. Anything in the model that is clear is vision glass; anything white on the upper volume is going to be a metal panel. 9. They have been working to find an appropriate stone to reflect the texture and the variation of some of the surrounding sites in context. They have been looking at a longer caste stone that has corbeling to create texture and life to that ground level. 10. There is glass throughout the project in combination on the upper with the metal panel. Glass has a different effect in night or in day. It is extremely clear and has a coating to be energy conscious. 11. They have also looked at a composite metal panel with a brushed finish. It creates a bright and crisp surface. 12. The white mica is also a composite metal panel that will be used in combination with the glass on the upper volume, so it has a bright and light effect also. Mr. Murry will focus on the urban environmental landscape design. Tony Murry, NBBJ noted: 1. The library is about building community, and as such, they want to make sure that the urban environment and landscape architecture around the building reflect that. Their goal from the outset has been to elevate the sense of the outdoor environment around the library. As such, there is an extremely nice, sustainable rain garden that happens at the front of the site. Rock Cress Parkway is meant to mirror the intent of what is happening on the north side of Rock Cress RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Dublin City Council Held September 11, 2017 Page 16 of 30 Meeting Form 6101 Parkway. The plaza is a large gesture that helps to welcome folks from the community into the library. 2. The garden that lives between the garage and the library is more of a quiet, respite zone for patrons. 3. He reviewed the site, beginning at the corner of Rock Cress and North High. This view shows a welcoming corner for those coming from Bridge Park and coming off the pedestrian bridge -- bike racks, lots of native perennial plantings, and a rain garden. One feature in this area is the short-cut path from the lower elevation up to the plaza. 4. Heading south on N. High, one views the image of the project from the prominent corner, coming from Historic Dublin. The transition element helps to frame the view of the plaza and the library in the background. The ramp in the foreground is the accessible route from the accessible parking that occurs on High Street. 5. Comments from the community about their desire for landscaping that is nice, native and lush prompted this. 6. wit1h a "hover" view, one can see into the garden where a nice amenity space is created with lots of seating and lighting for evening use. Paths are included and an event space. They are looking at the concept of food trucks, and how tents could be used for an event in this space. This will be a nice space for both the community and the library. 7. The plantings in the garden space are lush, all Zone 4, native perennials, and shrubs and trees. Much of the seating is flexible to allow more use of the space. 8. Rock Cress Parkway with a view of the book drop located in the garage. Another view is toward the waste area, and service and evening book drop off. 9. For the signature transition element, they presented options to Council previously. The Committee felt that the option that hearkens back to the school on the site represented the most authentic signature transition element. They like how it points to the lineage of learning on the site and feel it plays very well with Dublin's history as well as Dublin's future. 10. Based on historical maps, this is the location where the old school wall existed. This works well with the ramp and the stair, providing a journey through this threshold from old to new. .14. Once at the top of the stair and circulating back around, there is an idea of curiosity and pulling folks back up closer to the wall, and then to explore the windows and the wall texture. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked Mr. Losinski for clarification regarding the budget. Based on his comments, the budget for the entirety of the project is $18.6 million. Is that inclusive of the community space, the transitional element, and all items? Mr. Losinski clarified that the library funds designed for the project are $18.6 million; the fundraising needed over and above that $18.6 million has a target of $2.3 million; and currently, at the design development stage, they have a $1.1 million gap to fill. Through value engineering and value management, they will try to reduce that gap. Ms. Amorose Groomes summarized that the overall budget is therefore $22 million of which the library has $18.6 million allocated; $2.3 million is to come from fundraising; leaving a $1.1 million gap. Is that correct? Mr. Losinski responded that with rounding the numbers, the $18.6 plus $2.3 million takes it to $21 million. Then there is $1.1 million on top of that they are working to reduce to meet the $21 million. In addition, there is the signature transition element that is not included, and is estimated at $210,000 additional. Ms. Amorose Groomes summarized that this is a $22 million project, and the library has $20.9 million to build it. Mr. Losinski stated that is correct. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there is anything ,else outstanding to be funded. Mr. Losinski stated not at this time, but emphasized they are in design development. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that if only $20.9 million is available to spend on this building, what will be the first items to be eliminated. Mr. Losinski responded that the plaza itself is viewed as aspirational and can be simply seeded with stairs, with completion at a later date. Some of the other items were just RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Dublin City Council Meeting September 11, 2017 Page 17 of 30 Held introduced to them on Friday, and Turner Construction and NBBJ are looking at those possibilities now. He does not have a list available yet. Form 6101 Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if the $210,000 for the historic transitional element is part of the $2.3 million to be raised. Mr. Losinski responded that is not part of the fundraising efforts at this time. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that including the transitional element would bring the fundraising needs to about $2.5 million. Mr. Keenan asked staff about any previous discussion about the source of funding for the transitional element. Mr. McDaniel responded one idea was the possibility of that being treated as an Art in Public Places project, and Council could leverage a couple of cycles of public art towards that. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated she has heard talk of this being a community plaza as well as a library plaza. Who would be allowed to program that space? Mr. Losinski responded that the best example is the downtown main library and plaza that lies adjacent to a Columbus park -- Topiary Park. It is a combination of both community use and library use. It begins as library property and yet is acknowledged as civic space, and is programmed accordingly. They operate the plaza downtown through library scheduling, but are open to developing a model that will work collectively for the Dublin community. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if someone wants to schedule an event in this plaza space, what is the process at the downtown plaza to do so? Mr. Losinski responded that, currently, the downtown plaza space is riot available for private parties or fundraising events for other entities. They do not host weddings, etc. on that plaza. The adjacent Topiary Park has a different set of rules governing it that are developed by the City of Columbus. For the library, there are a host of activities that have occurred on their plaza — multiple author visits, naturalization and immigration ceremonies, high school concerts, etc. That has been their focus for this public space. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there is a fee for use of the space by a school. Mr. Losinski responded it depends on how extensive the request is their goal is basic c®,)t recovery on their part. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that the reason she asks is because the community lacks this type of space in this area of the City. If the Historic District wanted to do an arts festival, she wonders if that is something for which part of this space could be utilized. Mr. Losinski responded that it would be appropriate; in fact, it is the model they have developed with the City of Columbus at the main library. The City of Columbus was a partial funder for those projects for both the front and back plaza space. The library granted an easement for those type of purposes. Therefore, that is a possibility. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that the easement was therefore somewhat given in exchange for their financial participation in the construction. Mr. Losinski stated that is correct. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked about the vaults for the utility boxes. What is the library's line of thinking? Mr. Losinski stated that from the library's standpoint, they wish the boxes were not in place, but most of them are already existing. Ms. Rauch noted that staff had more discussion about this matter during the brief recess. A significant portion of the mechanicals on North Street are related to the streetscape improvements and the burying of the utilities along High Street, which are City improvements. Also, based on information from Engineering, the AEP requirements to vault the boxes are very cumbersome in terms of financials and logistics. It was discussed as part of this, but given the constraints, it is not feasible financially or logistically. Mr. Foegler added that these questions were addressed with the design team, as the City is responsible for the public infrastructure improvements as well as the garage design. At those meetings, they have been vetting this and asking about the possibilities. Thus RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON. OHIO Held_ Dublin City September 11, 2017 Page 18 of 30 Meeting Form 6101 far, AEP has not approved the burials in the Bridge Street District projects. The rationale, as staff understands, is that when those are buried, they become submersible by design and the costs associated with that is a very big increment. In addition, AEP does not stock those, so in case of burnout at a point in time, the risk of having a replacement available much later is high. Staff has asked the design engineers to explore all of those options, looking at lowering the boxes so that if they are landscaped they are minimal. They have looked at other locations on the site, looked at splitting up some of the equipment, etc. Because this was the only place available when all the overheads were buried as part of the High Street project, this is where the switch material conduit is all running to. There was no Rock Cress or other options in place at that point in time. The infrastructure is somewhat there to accommodate this. Even given that, the City has asked the engineering and civil teams to push to see what is possible. They have indicated that they are not aware anywhere of AEP approving burial of the switches. That is the portion that would normally be on the poles that are brought down by virtue of the burials. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if they are not aware of AEP approving burial of the switches anywhere in Dublin or just anywhere in general. Mr. Foegler responded for any of the projects they have designed, staff has asked the team to push harder to see what response comes back. They were not aware of examples of this being done by AEP. Where there were opportunities to put in on ground or any ground situations, if there was 100 percent lot coverage and streets and there was no place — on those occasions they have seen it. Again, staff has asked them to explore that, but has been told it will be very expensive to do it, if it were allowable. For the switches, they are likely not allowable to be vaulted. Nis. Amorose Groomes asked if this is something that could be relocated, perhaps by the parking garage. Mr. Foegler responded that the Engineers last time brought up some scenarios where the facilities were moved along the eastern edge of the garage, but that means a solid wall would need to be built along that edge of the garage, which then has the first floor of the garage exceeding its level of enclosure, as it is right at the 20 percent allowed per the Building Code. A certain amount of air is required to move through the garage. In addition, other options would result in impacts on the green garden. Staff will continue to look at the options, including landscape options. This is a City issue and not a Library issue. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked about the mechanicals on the north side of the building. Mr. Foegler responded that because of their transformer, they could move there. The library can address that. Mr. Murry responded that they were able to move that along Rock Cress Parkway, trying to minimize as much as possible the impact on the plaza and North Street. That will be screened on three sides. The one side not screened will not be visible to traffic, as shown on the slide. There will be understory plantings and tree plantings to the east of that, providing some screening. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that the drawings show four-sided screening. Mr. Murry responded that is correct, as that needs to be updated. The side not screened is for access purposes. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if this equipment can be vaulted. Mr. Murry responded that this falls under the same category as the rest of the equipment — AEP is not interested in vaulting in this area. Ms. Amorose Groomes noted that there are only man doors at the loading dock — there are no overhead doors at the loading dock area. Mr. Murry responded that is correct. Ms. Amorose Groomes noted that for the gateway provision of open space, there are two gateways not provided. One is the location between the library and parking garage; where is the other gateway, D6d2G? Ms. Rauch responded that is related to the High Street and Rock Cress intersection. A gateway feature is required in this location. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked why a recommendation has been made to waive this. Ms. Rauch indicated that the ART felt that the building, the design and element of the building at this corner met that requirement, providing some type of gateway in terms of intent, into the District. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held Dublin City Council September 11, 2017 Page 19 of 30 Meeting Form 6101 Vice Mayor Reiner asked about the reconstructed school corner. In the original school building, there was very interesting detail on the arched windows. Will that be repeated? He hopes this is considered and perhaps the wall can include some history features versus a simple limestone wall with a window and door aperture. Ms. Amorose Groomes directed a question to Legal staff. This applicant is indicating they will build this, if they are able to secure the financing to do so. What happens if all of the funds are not secured for the project in its entirety? Ms. Readler responded that the City's recourse is that the applicant cannot build what was not approved by the City. At times, developments are phased or delayed; but the City cannot compel someone to build what was approved. The City can impose a limitation, as discussed earlier tonight, that if a project does not progress within a certain period of time there would be zoning ramifications. However, compelling an applicant to fund what has been approved is virtually impossible. If the elements are approved tonight, and the applicant then wants to change them at a later date, they will need City approval to do so. She summarized that the applicant always must meet what is approved. The applicant could later ask to modify what was approved, and it would be Council's discretion whether to allow that. Mr. Keenan stated that Mr. Losinski has clarified that he is seeking other financial resources in the community for this project. The transitional element will also require separate funding, as discussed earlier. The presentation he has given tonight will help the community to be aware of this funding need. Ms. Salay asked Mr. Losinski if the value engineering to be done will focus on the inside features of the building or the exterior portion being discussed tonight. Mr. Losinski responded that it is likely a combination of both. It will begin with the plaza, as it could easily be phased. They have charged the construction company and the architects to determine what is possible to modify. Ms. Alutto asked what the estimated cost is for the plaza, if built as proposed tonight. Mr. Losinski responded he does not have that information with him, but the value engineering will need to go beyond the plaza portion. Ms. Alutto stated that the concern is well warranted in view of the $1.1 million gap that exists, and given that the costs may increase due to the hurricane situation. Mr. Losinski stated that they have had a broader based fundraising effort for some projects done in Columbus a decade ago. They had a similar project in New Albany and they were successful in raising the funds for that. He is confident in the support of library advocates, yet he acknowledges that the gap is a large number. Their hope is that the community will step forward to help, especially in view of the naming opportunities and others. Those are appealing to large corporations, small businesses and individuals. Work is already underway on fundraising. Ms. Alutto asked if naming would be for the exterior or interior portions of the building. Mr. Losinski responded that something like the plaza could be named, but for the building, their current policy requires a contribution of 25 percent of the costs to secure naming rights. Mayor Peterson asked for confirmation from staff that Council needs to make two separate votes — one on all the waivers, and one on the development plan and site plan with the five conditions. Is there a way to divide this into sub votes of portions of these? Ms. Readler responded that Council can certainly break out different waivers for a separate vote on each. Brief discussion followed on the voting procedures. Mr. Keenan moved to approve the 13 waivers for this project as recommended. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Alutto, no; Mayor Peterson, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, no. RECORD OF'PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held_ September 11, 2017 Page 20 of 30 Meeting Mr. Keenan moved approval of the development plan and site plan with a parking plan with the five conditions as recommended. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Form 6101 Mayor Peterson stated that Condition #1 indicates that all ground -mounted mechanicals located along Rock Cress Parkway will be screened along the north side. Does that mean the north side of the building or the unit? Mr. Lecklider stated that his understanding is that the mechanicals were to be screened on three sides. Ms. Rauch responded that is correct. However, the plans before Council tonight do not reflect this, and therefore a condition was added to make sure it was clear. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she understood that all sides of it would be screened except for the east side. Ms. Rauch responded that was the intent, but the plans as shown at ART did not meet that. The condition is intended to make sure they fulfill this requirement. It is essentially a housekeeping provision. Mr. Keenan accepted the amended condition #1, adding the language "of the unit." Ms. Salay seconded the amended motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor Peterson, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; /ice Mayor Reiner, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes. • Basic Plan Rev'Hew - Bridge Park D Block (Case 17-022BPR) Ms. Husak stated that City Council is the reviewing body for this plan, due to the applicant having a development agreement in place with the City. This comes to Council with a recommendation of approval from the Administrative Review Team on August 31. Informal review comments by the Planning and Zoning Commission are also included in the packet. The site is located on the east side of Riverside Drive, south of John Shields Parkway and north of Tuller Ridge Drive. The proposed development plan for D Block is outlined in blue on the slide. The first portions of Bridge Park that came before Council were Block B and Block C. Block C is, for the most part, completed; Block A is under construction, and the PZC recently had an informal review of the last building within that block, which is the office building — A-1. Block H to the east of Block D is also under construction, and it is immediately adjacent to Block D. Block D is bounded by John Shields Parkway and Riverside Drive. As part of this development, the applicant is creating three blocks as well as the extension of two public streets. Larimer Street is being extended from Block H toward Longshore Drive. These are both public streets that provided a north/south connection from John Shields Parkway to Tuller Ridge Drive. There is one waiver associated with the development plan that relates to the length of this block, due to Larimer Street not extending to Riverside Drive. This was driven by the desire not to have interruptions along that roadway. The length of the block exceeds what the Code would permit. Building D-1 is a mixed-use building type of six stories, including retail and restaurant on the first floor; office on the second floor; and 44 units for sale within the building. There is also a proposed pedestrian bridge that would extend to the east to provide access to Building D-4 and D-5. This will also provide parking for this building. The ART approved an administrative departure to allow the story of the main floor to be taller than what Code would allow. The waiver requested is for the pedestrian bridge to encroach over the right-of-way for Longshore, as well as for the building to be six stories in height. The applicant has provided inspirational images for that particular building, which is intended to be more of a warehouse, modern style architecture. Building D-2 is the building that anchors the block on the north side, immediately adjacent to John Shields Parkway. It is a corridor building type with six stories in height. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held DublinCi Council Meeting September 11, 2017 Page 21 of 30 It includes retail on the first floor, and office on floors 2 to 6. There is also an outdoor terrace proposed on the sixth floor. Staff has been working with the applicant throughout the review of this portion of the application to ensure there is ample room where it is adjacent to the greenway at John Shields Parkway as well as the bridge access to go below Riverside Drive for pedestrians. A waiver is requested as part of this building, which relates to the front property line coverage that is required to be 95 percent. Due to the shape of the building, the pedestrian tunnel and the infrastructure in place today, the applicant can provide 83 percent of that requirement. Form 6101 The architecture for each of the buildings will become more formal as the final site plan moves forward. The idea is to provide some type of juxtaposition to the AC Hotel on the opposite side of Bridge Park. Moving to the east, D-3 is a corridor type building of five stories in height with a parking structure in the center. The applicant is showing a small tenant space of about 1,000 square feet with a drive through — essentially, planning ahead if development in a retail business were to occur in the D-2 building, it could be serviced through an additional tenant area within this building. There are 76 dwelling units lining the space on floors 2 through 5; there is a terrace in the building for open space amenities for residents; and there is a pedestrian bridge connecting the adjacent building. There are two administrative departures approved by ART and they relate to lot coverage and ground story height. There are waivers requested for this building, which address incompatible building types, as H Block to the east is a residential building and there are Code requirements that indicate that a corridor building should not be adjacent to a residential building. The applicant will provide architectural detailing that will make that not incompatible, as they work through the requirements. The other waiver is for parking within the building, which is proposed to be in the ground story. This will require additional excavating. Due to the grade, a waiver is required and is supported by ART and staff. There is a lot of movement up going to the east within this particular block. She shared images for this building, which include a modern design with glass and masonry. Building D-4 and D-5 is one building, with two building types. It is a corridor building and a parking structure, five stories in height, with the potential for retail on the first floor; 85 parking spaces on that floor; and 552 parking spaces throughout the rest of the building, with residential liners. The applicant is providing parking for the office building within this building as well as for Building D-1 for the residences there. A ground story height administrative departure was approved by ART for this building. This building also includes pool and outdoor space on the top floor for residents within all of Bridge Park. The waivers requested for this building are the incompatible building type due to the residences in H Block to the east; the encroachment for the pedestrian bridges over the rights-of-way, as have occurred in previously approved developments within Bridge Park; and lot coverage, to make the most out of the building and parking. There is a request for lot coverage to be at 90 percent. Overall, there is approximately an acre of open space required per the Code for this particular building. The applicant is providing three publicly accessible open spaces — the John Shields Parkway greenway, as well as the open space between the two buildings that front Riverside Drive. There are privately accessible open spaces in Buildings D-3 and the pool and amenity deck in Buildings D-4, D5. The applicant will be required to pay a fee in lieu of the open space that is not included within this development, should the development be approved by the reviewing body. The deficit is minimal — 1/2 acre or less. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held_ Dublin City Council Meeting Form 6101 September 11, 2017 Page 22 of 30 Three motions are required on this application: a motion to approve the nine waivers; a motion to approve the basic plan itself, with four conditions as recommended by ART; and a motion to designate the future required reviewing body for this application. This would include any future kind of application the applicant is subjected to — whether it is a conditional use, a parking plan, fee in lieu of open space, and the final site/final development plans. She offered to respond to questions, noting the applicant and their team are present as well. Mayor Peterson asked if Buildings D-1, D-2 and D-3 were always contemplated as six stories in height. Nis. Husak responded they were not. In the staff review of the application, they encouraged the applicant to look at the height specifically in this particular area where D- 2 is located. There is an eight -story building on the south end and a taller building on that end as well. What changed is that there was more office space requested in the area, and that drove the desire for an additional story for this building, as well. Mayor Peterson noted that he recalls there was an expectation of a grocery store coming in one of these buildings. He does not see that a grocery store is included. Nelson Yoder.. Crawford Hoying Development Partners stated that they have been working on a grocery for this block since the outset. The grocery market, in general, is in turmoil with the Amazon entry into that market. Amazon groceries are 3,000 square feet, while traditional grocery stores are 120,000 square feet. They had considered a large-scale, more traditional grocer from the outset, and this building was to extend all the way across Longshore, creating a wall along the greenway. There was also a loading dock, backing onto Mooney Street across from the condos. They felt it was necessary to provide a grocer in this development under the previous thinking. With a large-scale grocery not likely, it provided an opportunity to review the plan. Longshore now continues all the way through to the greenway, although it was initially to turn down to interrupt the block length. There were engineering issues, and concern with people weaving in to cross the John Shields Parkway bridge. The result is opening up a nice view corridor through there. Moving to a smaller format grocery store is now the plan. They have now identified this retail space, and it will work for multiple grocery tenants. The garage in D-3 has an area completely screened from the outside for a potential pharmacy drive-through. Some tenants require a pharmacy as a critical part of their profit margin, and they will not sign a lease without a pharmacy drive-through. There is a lot of grade change along John Shields Parkway of 15 feet. That parking garage quickly is buried as one goes up the hill. At the top of the hill, facing the condominium building is a four-story stick apartment building facing a three or four-story stick condominium building directly across the street. While this is a waiver being requested tonight, it is really residential across from residential. It is a good cohabitation of two different building types located directly across from each other. The changes in the market have brought some positive changes to their plan, breaking the scale of the buildings down in D Block. It enables pulling building D-2 out as a pure office building, adding some height to it, making it more exciting, bookending what is happening with the AC Marriott. Then focus the residential and parking in Building D-3 right behind it, plus the grocery. Mayor Peterson noted that the extra floor planned is therefore to accommodate more office space versus more apartment space. His point is that the buildings are getting larger, and wider and taller — the concern would be with packing more apartments into the plans. Mr. Yoder responded it is the exact opposite. They are looking at 112,000 square feet of office running on Riverside Drive. They originally had 43 condos over ground floor retail. Due to the amount of office, they added office and stretched the building height. To do that, they are going to a more extensive wood construction type, just shy of 85 feet tall versus 75 feet as on the other blocks. They now have office use on the river. The owner -occupied will face Riverside Drive and the river. Building D-2 is an office building similar to the Crawford Hoying office building, with ground floor retail and five stories of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held_ Dublin Ci Council September 11, 2017 Page 23 of 30 Meeting Form 6101 office above. There will be a nice bookend feeling with the office building on one end and the AC Marriott on the other end. Mayor Peterson stated that the units are referred to as living units. Are all condos owner occupied or are there apartments included? Mr. Yoder responded that there are apartments sprinkled in as well. The units facing and on the river in Building D-1 are all owner -occupied units. The entire building is owner - occupied. There are eight units in that building that face Longshore and are all owner - occupied as well. The larger condominium of 2,200-2,500 square feet all have river views; and there are 1,400 square feet flats in the back that face Longshore. There are V6 apartments sprinkled in Building D-2. There are about the same number of units over by the parking garage. They are looking at the units lining the garage as going to condominium, but a decision has not been made. The H Block buildings directly behind are townhome condos, and the foundations will be started on Wednesday. Vice Mayor Reiner stated that it is interesting that more office space is being included. Mr. Yoder responded that now that the critical mass and restaurants are at the gate, the living spaces created for the employees and the environment that exists at Bridge Park, office users want to be on the site. They will be in front of PZC on November 2 for an 80,000 square foot office building located at the corner of Riverside Drive and SR161; that is an A Block office building. There will be another 112,000 square feet of office in E Block. Mr. Keenan inquired if some of that office will be condominiums. Mr. Yoder responded that at this point, the office space is not condomiums. The condos are all residential. Ms. Amorose Groomes: 1. The 43 units in D1 are all condominiums. There are 175 units overall, so the balance are all apartments. Mr. Yoder indicated that was correct. 2. The block immediately to the north of D block -- D2, is referred to as a bookend, but there really is another block to go in the District before reaching Tuller Road. Is there an indication of what is planned there? Mr. Yoder responded that Al Vrable owns that land, and currently, he is not willing to develop it. They have spoken to him about expanding the project to the north, and discussions are ongoing. Whether or not that develops, the bridge across John Shields Parkway will provide a frame between that roadway and SR 161. Creating this visual composition between the two bridges makes sense. If something eventually occurs on the other side, it can also be made to fit. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that the developer of that next parcel might feel differently about where the bookend belongs. 3. There are problems with making Buildings D1 and D2 six stories. The staff report states that because it sits low, it will not appear bigger than the building immediately to the east. She does not know if the view will be palatable from Riverside Drive, which is where the public will experience that height. Just because there is an office user for a building does not mean that the building should necessarily get taller. Perhaps there could be three stories of residential, retail on the bottom and office on the second floor rather than just making the building larger in general. Mr. Yoder stated that they are already on the small side of a condo development. In this case, they would simply remove the office use. If height is a major concern, that would be their response. Removing a floor of the office building would actually make the office building less expensive. They could do that. They had assumed the City would appreciate addition of office space to the project, but if that is not the case, it can be eliminated. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that the Code and the vision for this space are the controlling factors. She understands why they proposed the additional office space, but she does not see a compelling reason to abandon the Code. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held_ Dubliner Council September 11, 2017 Page 24 of 30 Meeting Form 6101 Ms. Husak clarified that D2 is permitted to be six stories. The requested waiver for the additional story is for Building D1. Mr. Yoder stated that a six -story height was approved for the entire Riverside neighborhood. He does not know if the building type is a factor. Ms. Husak stated that the D2 building is the corridor building type, which is permitted to be a maximum of six stories. The mixed-use, D1 building has a five -story maximum height. Mr. Yoder inquired if it would be possible to make the D1 a corridor building. Ms. Husak responded that it is a possibility, but would have to be evaluated to ensure that would not create other issues. Mr. Yoder noted that Buildings B1 and B2 are mixed-use with ground -floor retail, second floor office and four floors of residential above. Ms. Husak stated that discussions with the applicant have focused on the desire to create something that was not generic in this location. There was an effort to set this block apart from what is present in Buildings C and B, a similar building type and height in a very arranged pattern. This Block was intended to create a break from that pattern and add more interest. On that basis, staff and ART looked at this as an approvable waiver. Mr. Yoder stated that they started with the design used for the five -story building — ground story retail and four stories of condominiums above. When the design was changed to add the additional office height, the building proportions and appearance significantly improved. The aesthetics of the building improved and it adds office space for the City. Perhaps there is an alternate way to handle the building type and avoid the need for a waiver. They would prefer not to defer this, however. The building stands on its own merits to justify a waiver tonight, and they can look for a way to eliminate the need for a waiver before Final Development review. Ms. Amorose Groomes inquired as to the ART granting an administrative departure for lot coverage on Buildings D4-5. Ms. Husak clarified that it was Building D-3. Ms. Amorose Groomes clarified that it was Building 3 that had ART approval for 900/0 lot coverage. Ms. Husak stated it was actually 88% from 80%. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that the applicant is requesting a waiver for D4-5, which is the parking garage, from 80% to 90%. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that these two adjacent buildings will have lot coverage in excess of what code permits. Ms. Husak stated that was correct. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she has a few concerns regarding the D3, D4-5 buildings. The first concern is there are no compatible uses across the street from these buildings. She stated that she understands that this is one of the waivers being requested, but she wanted to know what is being done to mitigate that impact. She is concerned they will have a negative impact on the townhomes being built. Mr. Yoder stated that it is across the street from a four-story residential. They are similar architecture and the current design has done everything to transition from owner - occupied to residential. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked for clarification on the waiver for incompatible uses. Ms. Husak stated that the applicant has to pick a building type and the building type picked is considered incompatible in the Code. Ms. Amorose Groomes clarified that a portion of D3 along Mooney Street on the ground floor is residential. Ms. Husak stated that was true. In response to Ms. Amorose Groomes' question regarding access, Ms. Husak stated the access is from the interior. Mr. Yoder stated there are porches so there can be interaction with Mooney Street, but no access. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Meeting Form 6101 Held September 11, 2017 Page 25 of 30 Mr. Lecklider inquired as to whether or not the building heights presented at this meeting were the same building heights presented to Planning and Zoning Commission at the informal review. Mr. Yoder stated they were exactly the same and the reception was very positive. Mayor Reiner complimented Mr. Yoder on the change in architecture. He believes it will be an improvement to the overall fagade of the street. He stated that he understands the waivers that are being requested. Ms. Amorose Groomes inquired as to what the ceiling heights will be if the waiver is for a ten -foot height floor to floor. Mr. Yoder stated that the ceilings would be nine -foot ceilings. The waiver being discussed is actually for the garage where there were some smaller spaces with lower ceilings created. Ms. Amorose Groomes inquired about the overall 749 parking spaces being created and how many of those would be dedicated to the apartments and condominiums. Mr. Yoder stated that the condos will have two spaces per unit bringing the total to 86. The apartments will be allowed one space per unit and the balance will be shared by office, retail, etc. He is confident that there are the right number of spaces. The condos will have a gated access to their part of the garage, but the apartment users will share with the office and retail. In response to Ms. Amorose Groomes' question regarding the apartment spaces, Mr. Yoder stated that the upper floors would be dedicated to the apartment users. The space will be marked by a sign stating that it is reserved. Ms. Amorose Groomes inquired as to how many spaces are assigned 24 hours per day. Mr. Yoder stated that one space per apartment and two spaces per condo unit; 216 of the 749 spaces are dedicated. Ms!). Amorose Groomes stated there are 533 spaces left for office users and retail. Mr,, Yoder stated that those numbers do not include the on -street parking. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated there has been a lot of pressure regarding traffic in the area and in the roundabout, and they have been trying to address those problems with signage and markings. The development that requires this level of parking poses a problem because the traffic study assumed a 40% capture rate. When this level of parking demand comes in, it is concerning that there will be more people traveling by automobile than the traffic study initially contemplated. It is Council's responsibility to make sure that the development is sustainable from a traffic impact standpoint. Mr. Yoder stated that construction on the Bridge Park extension to Sawmill Road will begin September 18, and it will be open by the end of the year. This will be a completely new road running parallel to SR 161. Ms. Salay stated that Council has always expressed their support of higher density in this area, so it is up to the City to complete the traffic network in partnership with the developers. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that the PZC minutes reference the use of the swimming pool on the fifth floor. Therefore, someone who lives elsewhere in the community is able to drive up to the fifth floor, park on the fifth level and walk through a gate to the pool. She believes this is the antithesis of what the City is trying to develop as urban and walkable. The traffic study certainly did not contemplate those uses. She is concerned about whether the kind of development the City is doing meets the capture rate of the traffic study. Mr. Yoder stated that he works in Bridge Park during business hours all week, eats at Bridge Park, works out at Mesh and does not have to leave during the day. He believes that lifestyle will continue to build. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held September 11, 2017 Page 26 of 30 Meeting Form 6101 Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that her final issue relates to lot coverage and bumping the allowable 80% up to 88% and 90%. She spoke of her experience having dinner and what made this a welcoming pedestrian area is what Cap City has done on the exterior of the building. Her concern is that the City is losing the ability to have those kinds of spaces by having the building occupy all the buildable area. There are no spaces remaining for relief along the streetscape. The feel of the buildings from the street level is very massive, and the best way to break that up is for those kinds of uses on the exterior. She asked Ms. Husak what the options would be for relief at the ground level. Ms. Husak stated that the City has requirements for buildings being close to the street, with front property line coverage. If you maximize those areas, the lot coverage increases. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated she believes these were more like cafeteria items and the answer to this question was basically, "yes, we like all of them." Mr. Yoder stated regarding the area that Cap City has created that there are spaces designed for both tenants on each side of the open space. He stated that indoor/outdoor space can be created in other unique ways. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that the 90% coverage means the City loses a significant amount of open space. Mr. Yoder stated that grass can be planted in that open space. M,(:. Amorose Groomes noted on a drawing provided the areas marked for park space and inquired as to whether that counted toward the 10% or was it part of their open space requirements. Ms. Husak responded that the space where the waiver was requested is in a different block. The Code does not state that the remaining percent could not double as park and open space to fill that requirement also. The 10% remaining that Ms. Amorose Groomes is inquiring about does not have a green space associated with it that would be dedicated. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated she noticed some of the dedications are on Riverside Drive on City -owned land, so she assumes that would be fee in lieu of parkland donation, and that would be the portion their fee would be attributed to. Ms. Husak stated it is almost both. If there is open space existing within a certain distance of a development, the developer may be able to use that open space to fulfill their requirement. However, a fee in lieu of dedication is still required for what is not being provided. Ms. Amorose Groomes requested clarification for a drawing of the building where the waiver was requested. Ms. Husak illustrated on the drawing the building that had a waiver request for 900/0 lot coverage. In response to Ms. Amorose Groomes' question regarding the available options, Mr. Yoder stated there is a .3 -acre space that they would like to make into a dog park that would be all green space. They are working with MKSK to improve the area and make an off -leash dog park area. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that these buildings are massive and she would like to know what options are available to provide some relief at the ground floor level with a 90% lot coverage. Ms. Alutto stated that there is no green space at C4-5 and D4-5. Visually, there are two massive buildings and nothing else. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that there may not be anything that can be done, given the 90% lot coverage. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Dublin.Cites Council Meeting Held_ September 11, 2017 Page 27 of 30 Ms. Husak stated that the 10% open space would not be impactful. The applicant has provided meaningful exterior open space accessible to the public and interior to the building for the residents. Form 6101 Ms. Amorose Groomes stated she is concerned about the pedestrian experience. Mr. Yoder stated that if one looks at the whole area in context, there is a beautiful open space in the park area. Ms. Salay stated that in looking at only this site, the 90% could be objectionable; however, looking at it in context as a whole, it does make sense. Mr. Lecklider agreed. Vice Mayor Reiner asked if there will be bicycle parking. Mr. Yoder responded there is secured bicycle parking within the garages for residents and for the public. Mayor Peterson asked whether there will be more establishments with outside areas such as those at Cap City and Ram. Mr. Yoder stated they are encouraging establishments to include these features because it adds to -the experience. In response to Mayor Peterson's question, Mr. Yoder stated they estimate between 12-15 restaurants will be developed in total. Mayor Peterson reiterated Ms. Amorose Groomes' point about the outdoor spaces and that this is what the City is looking for. Mr. Yoder stated he understood. Mayor Peterson clarified that the 90% in this one block area does not necessarily prevent having more outdoor space attractions. Mr. Yoder stated that is correct. Mr. Yoder also stated that he agrees with Ms. Salay and that the high quality, well - executed open spaces that are within this development are something not usually seen in cities. Ms). Amorose Groomes requested a particular drawing be displayed so she could clarify her point. The Ram outdoor dining is in this portion of the buildable area that was not built on. with 90 percent lot coverage, these are not possible for other establishments. Ids. Husak stated that it is more about the usage of the building than the lot coverage. Mr. Yoder pointed out the residential condos and the storefronts on the drawing. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that there was not anything to break up the massing of the buildings. Mr. Yoder stated there will be storefronts, with awnings and such. Ms. Salay moved to approve the nine waivers. Vice Mayor Reiner seconded the motion. A procedural question arose about the vote on the waivers. Ms. Readler responded that Council can separate the waivers if Council desires to vote on them individually. However, the motion currently on the floor is for approval of all nine waivers as requested. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; fps. Alutto, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, no; Mayor Peterson, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Mayor Peterson moved to approve the basic plan with the four conditions as listed. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held_ Dublin City Council Meeting Form 6101 September 11, 2017 Page 28 of 30 Mayor Peterson moved to designate Planning and Zoning Commission as the reviewing body for future development applications for Block D. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Vice Mayor Reiner, yes. • Aging in Place — Strategic Plan Ms. Crandall stated that presented for Council consideration tonight is an Aging in Place Strategic Plan. Council had the opportunity to preview this plan last year during a Council workshop, and at that time, referred the plan to the Community Services Advisory Commission (CSAC) for further review. Over the course of several months, the Commission heard from a variety of guest speakers with expertise related to this topic. Presenters included representatives of Ohio University's College of Health Science and Professions, Syntero and the Central Ohio Agency on Aging. In Council's packet is a redlined version of the plan that shows the Commission's recommended changes. Present tonight are Mindy Carr, CSAC Chair and Ann Bohman, CSAC member. Ms. Carr thanked Council for giving CSAC the opportunity to review the plan. These are the types of projects they enjoy reviewing. They found the plan to be well thought out and comprehensive. After review, CSAC has recommended a few changes. In the plan, several themes are covered that they would like to highlight to raise their level of priority in addressing current and future service gaps related to aging in place. These are as follows: • Establishment of an Information and Assistance "One -Stop -Shop" — Both older adults and their caregivers can find it difficult to be aware of, locate and understand services and programs that may be available. having one place or point of contact to navigate services and programs should be explored and options determined to address this issue. Several agencies provide services directly to the caregivers, even though they may not live in the same area as the older adult. • Co -location of Services — Closely related to the idea of a one -stop -shop is the co - location of certain services, if possible, such as Central Ohio Area Agency on Aging and Syntero (Dublin Counseling Center) to have conveniently located "case managers" from each agency. Both agencies currently provide older adult services and could cross-refer individuals when appropriate. Ohio University has expressed interest in working with the City to explore this idea as their campus and adult focused health/wellness programming continues to expand. The City could facilitate this process and provide links at the City website. Solving the Transportation Gap - Older adults who are no longer able to drive face great challenges to access basic needed services as well as social and civic opportunities. Isolation can be devastating to physical, behavioral and emotional health. Identifying those in need and ensuring accessible and affordable options are available for all types of transportation needs throughout the City, including to socially/civically engage and volunteer, is critical. CSAC is aware that there is a Mobility Study in progress, and they look forward to reviewing those recommendations, as well, to determine if they might help with this need. • Establishing a Village -to -Village Program - These programs connect residents in need with those willing to assist. This could entail a significant expansion of the City's trial "Yard Squad" program to facilitate a variety of needed connections. There could possibly be a need for a non-profit to be formed to manage that program. • Partnerships are Imperative — The City is not the expert when it comes to many of the service and educational gaps. Multiple agencies exist in Dublin and central Ohio that are the experts and are already providing the needed services. The City RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held__ Dublin City Council September 11, 2017 Page 29 of 30 Meeting should serve in a role as a connector, convener and partner, before considering providing or duplicating needed services. Foran 6101 This program would provide a needed service to concerned caregivers as well as those in need. CSAC recommends adoption of the Aging in Place Plan. Mayor Peterson inquired if the plan is adopted, what are the next steps. (vis. Crandall responded that staff would develop a work plan for each of the objectives, including timeline and responsibility. The City has already engaged some potential partners and would need to continue to pursue those. For some objectives, there may be a need to conduct additional surveys and focus groups to have a better understanding of the needs. MS. Alutto that there is a need for this type of service, as she recently experienced. She would have found this type of assistance in identifying needed caregivers for her mother during a medical recovery very helpful. Ms. Carr noted that this service is not beneficial only to those who are homebound with age-related issues. There can be younger adults with short-term medical needs for assistance. Ms. Alutto noted that the suggestion for a survey of our residents who have experienced such needs would be very helpful. Mr. Lecklider acknowledged CSAC member, Ann Bohman who has led with this review, as well. Ms. Salay thanked CSAC for their work on this topic. She believes one of the most important elements in this Strategic Plan is the transportation assistance piece. This was a significant need that her father experienced when he grew older. During that experience, they discovered Austin, Texas has a senior transportation program. For a nominal amount, a van would be sent to take them to medical or social appointments. Being homebound can be one of the greatest difficulties for an aging person. This type of service could definitely improve the quality of life for the community's older citizens. Mayor Peterson moved to accept the Aging in Place Strategic Plan as recommended by the Community Services Advisory Commission. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor Peterson, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Vice Mayor Reiner, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. • Adoption of 2018 Regular Councfl (Meeting Schedule Mr. Keenan stated that Council was provided a proposed 2018 meeting schedule for consideration. [Discussion followed regarding the alternate dates for January and July.] Mr. Keenan moved to adopt the proposed 2018 Council meeting schedule, including the options of Tuesday, January 9 and Monday, July 2 for meeting dates. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes. STAFF COMMENTS Mr. McDaniel noted that a memo was provided to Council tonight regarding the upcoming Monday, September 18 workshop. The intent is to provide Council an update on Smart City initiatives and opportunities, which will set the stage for upcoming budget considerations. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Mr. Reiner, Community Development Committee indicated that due to the unavailability of key staff on the proposed date, another meeting date must be selected. He requested RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held September 11, 2017 Page 30 of 30 Form 6101 the Clerk to identify dates on which the staff members are available and provide those to the Committee members sQ that another date can be scheduled. ADJOURNMENT e meeting was,adj urned at 10:23 p.m. Mayor — P idint!rOfficer Clerk of Council