Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-22-2018 Council MinutesRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Herd CALL TO ORDER October 22, 2018 Mayor Peterson called the Monday, October 22, 2018 Regular Meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 6:30 p.m. in Council Chambers at Dublin City Hall. ROLL CALL Meeting Present were Mayor Peterson, Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes, Ms. Alutto, Ms. De Rosa, Ms. Fox, Mr. Keenan and Mr. Reiner. Form 6101 Staff members present were Mr. McDaniel, Ms. Crandall, Mr. Boggs, Ms. Mumma, Ms. O'Callaghan, Ms. Goss, Mr. Earman, Mr. Foegler, Chief von Eckartsberg, Ms. Richison, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Hammersmith, Ms. Burness, Mr. Stiffler, Ms. Kennedy, Ms. Husak, Mr. Ashford, Mr. Rayburn, Mr. Syler and Mr. Plouck. ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Peterson moved to adjourn to executive session for discussion of personnel matters regarding the appointment of a public official. Ms. Alutto seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Alutto, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes; Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner; Ms. Fox. The meeting was reconvened at 7:05 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes led the Pledge of Allegiance. SPECIAL RECOGNITION/ PRESENTATIONS • 2018 Miss Ohio Jr. Teen Mayor Peterson introduced Anisha Boone, Miss Ohio Junior Teen. Anisha Boone stated that in June of this year, she won the title of Miss Ohio Jr. Teen for the NAM organization, which is a national pageant that focuses on competence and speaking skills. Mayor Peterson stated that Anisha's younger sister, Janae, also will be competing in the national competition. Janae is eight years old and attends Eli Pinney Elementary School. She placed 6th out of 110 girls and will be wearing the Dublin City Queen title at the competition. He extends City Council's congratulations to Janae. Mayor Peterson presented a proclamation to Ms. Anisha Boone in honor of her recent achievement. A Dublin Jerome High School student, Ms. Boone was crowned 2018 Miss Ohio Jr. Teen in the National American Miss competition, and will be competing against the other state queens at a competition in November in Anaheim, California. He extends City Council's congratulations to Ms. Boone on her achievement and wishes her the best as she represents Ohio in the National American Miss competition. • Syntero 40th Anniversary Ms. Julie Erwin Rinaldi, Syntero Exec. Director, stated that their organization has been located in the Dublin community for 40 years. Syntero is a non-profit organization that provides a wide range of behavioral health care services, including mental health, substance abuse treatment, anti -bullying, crisis and prevention services and grief and loss support services in the central Ohio community. She introduced Syntero employees: Sarah Barr, Development Director; Stephanie Jursek, Older Adult Services Coordinator; Lucy Smith, Special Projects Consultant — Lead on Alexa Pilot program for older residents; Soley Hernandez, Chief Operating Officer; and Melissa Rotblatt, Dublin City Schools Program Coordinator. [Syntero video shown.] Mayor Peterson presented a proclamation to Ms. Rinaldi and the staff and board members of Syntero in recognition of Syntero's 40 years of outstanding service to the Dublin community. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council _ Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO e Form 6101 Held October 22, 2018 Page 2 of 30 • Police 2018 Award of Achievement — Christopher Cox and Andrew Dollmatsch II Chief von Eckartsberg introduced citizens Christopher Cox and Andrew "Drew" Dollmatsch. He stated that it is a rare occasion that the City has the opportunity to recognize members of our community for stepping up and taking actions that avert potential tragedies. On August 8, 2018, Mr. Cox and Mr. Dollmatsch intervened in a potential suicide situation and succeeded in averting the tragedy. The Dublin Police Department provides an award of achievement to members of the community for actions like this. Chief von Eckartsberg presented awards to Mr. Cox and Mr. Dollmatsch. CITIZEN COMMENTS There were no citizen comments. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Peterson asked if there were any requests for removal of an item from the Consent Agenda. Hearing none, he moved approval of the two items on the Consent Agenda: • Approval of Minutes of October 8, 2018 • Notice to Legislative Authority of a New D6 and D8 Liquor Permits for Krishna Siddhi, LLC., dba Chateau Wine & Spirits, 6665 Sawmill Road, Dublin, OH 43017 and Liquor Agency Contract Ms. Alutto seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes; Ms. AI utto, yes; Ms. Fox, yes. POSTPONED ITEM SCHEDULED FOR HEARING Ordinance 47-18 Adopting the 2019-2023 Five -Year Capital Improvement Program. Mr. McDaniel stated that in response to Council direction given at the October 8 Finance Committee of the Whole meeting, staff has provided a memo detailing Council's requested changes to the proposed 2019-2023 Capital Improvements Program. The remainder of the budget is as presented at the October 8t" meeting. Staff recommends Council approval of Ordinance 47-18, Adopting the Five -Year Capital Improvements Budget (2019-2023) with the incorporation of said changes. Council Discussion: Ms. De Rosa inquired about the change in the amount for the Riverside Crossing Park construction. At the October 8 Council meeting, the amount identified was $10.6 million; it is now listed at $10.9 million. Ms. Mumma forwarded an explanation to her earlier today regarding the $300,000 difference and the timing thereof. She was concerned about the timing, as she was uncertain that would fit in the Fiscal 2019 timeframe. Ms. De Rosa requested clarification of the additional amount. Mr. Earman responded that the additional costs are associated with the Lower Plaza construction. With the combined construction of both plazas, it would be for the later stage of that construction. Ms. De Rosa inquired if that portion of the construction would not occur until 2020. Mr. Earman responded that it would be the end of 2022. Ms. De Rosa inquired why the amount was then reflected in 2019. Mr. Earman responded that it is because the design and bidding portion of the process begins in 2019 in order to meet that timeframe. Mr. McDaniel stated that, although the funding for the joint bid of the Upper and Lower Plazas and for Area 3 of the park is being programmed at this time, the final development plan for the park has not yet been considered and approved by Council. The details of the amenities can be determined at a later time, but it is essential to move forward with the design. Ms. De Rosa stated that one of the other changes was that the total $17 million that originally was to be debt financed would now be cash financed by $2.8 million. Ms. Mumma responded that is correct. Minutes of Dublin City Council BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held October 22, 2018 Page 3 of 30 Meeting Form 6101 Ms. De Rosa stated that a timing change was made in the Council Chambers construction that was originally scheduled in 2020. That has now been rescheduled to 2019 -- why was that change made? Ms. Mumma responded that the change is related to the timing of the movement of the current City Hall functions to the new 5555 Perimeter Road property. In the original proposal, the move of staff occurred first, followed by the construction of the new Council Chambers. The plan now is to construct Council Chambers first, which would be followed with the move of identified staff to the new City Hall. Mr. McDaniel explained that the space in the 5555 Perimeter Drive building is leased through 2019. This budget now reflects the intent to have the construction of the adjacent Council Chambers facility to the 5555 building occur sooner. Ms. De Rosa asked if that schedule is predicated on the sale of the 5800 Shier Rings building. Mr. McDaniel responded that it is. The timing of that sale will have to be coordinated with the approval of this budget and approval to move forward on the building sale. The intent is to sell the 5800 Building and move the Development Department operations into the 5200 Emerald Parkway building. The current operations in the City Hall building will then move to the 5555 Perimeter Drive building. Ms. De Rosa inquired if the funding for that new construction would come from the sale of the 5800 Shier Rings building. Mr. McDaniel responded that it would not cover the entire cost, but would be a significant contribution toward that cost. Ms. De Rosa stated in regard to the debt issuance discussion that occurred at the previous meeting -- primarily related to the park construction schedule -- that it was not anticipated there would be any debt issuance in 2019. Ms. Mumma responded that is the current anticipation. However, as stated previously, when a construction contract is executed, she must certify that the funds are encumbered for that project. If the City is not in a position to issue that debt at that point in time, an advance will be made from the General Fund; that same process has occurred for many projects. Once the bonds are issued, the advance from the General Fund will be repaid. Ms. De Rosa requested confirmation that, at this point, there is no plan to issue debt in 2019. Ms. Mumma responded that legislation authorizing bond issuance this year follows this item on this agenda. The plan is to keep track of the bond market movement. If there is a reason that debt issuance should be brought forward in 2019 because of the market conditions, that would occur. In the end, the General Fund does have capacity to advance the money for a year or several months — as long as necessary. However, staff understands that Council does not want to issue debt in 2019. If there were to be market conditions that indicated it would be more advantageous to offer that option to Council, staff would do so. At this point in time, that is not the intent. Mr. Keenan stated that attempting to have a certain amount of money in compartments every year that are equal is very difficult. The flexibility is needed to respond to what is occurring in the market. There could be an issue of interest rates increasing multiple times in 2019 or 2020. Future Councils will need that flexibility in terms of the amount of bonds to issue each year and the timing. Ms. De Rosa stated that to her, the point of the debt discussion was to have flexibility and create capacity in future years. As a result of these discussions, that has been accomplished. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that Council has previously discussed the Parkland Acquisition Fund. Within this CIP, no changes are being made in the Parkland Acquisition Fund allocation? Ms. Mumma confirmed that is correct. It will remain as previously allocated. Vote on the Ordinance: Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held October 22, 2018 Page 4 of 30 Meeting Form 6101 Mayor Peterson moved to waive the Council Rules of Order to consider Ordinances 66-18 through 68-18 together. Ms. Alutto seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. De Rosa, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes; Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING — ORDINANCES Ordinance 66-18 Providing for the Issuance and Sale of Bonds in the Maximum Aggregate Principal Amount of $19,,600,,000 for the Purpose of Paying the Costs of Constructing a Parking Structure within Historic Dublin and the Bridge Street District Along with a Series of Related and Abutting Roadway Improvements, All of Which Relate to the Construction of the Dublin Branch of the Columbus Metropolitan Library, and Otherwise Improving the Site, Together with all Incidental Work and Related Appurtenances Thereto, Ordinance 67-18 Providing for the Issuance and Sale of Bonds in the Maximum Principal Amount of $1,,350,,000 for the Purpose of Paying the Costs of Improving the Municipal Sanitary Sewer System by Lining Existing Sewer Lines, Installing New Sewer Lines and Rehabilitating Manholes, Together with all Incidental Work and Related Appurtenances Thereto, Ordinance 68-18 Providing for the Issuance and Sale of Bonds in the Maximum Principal Amount of $1,750,000 for the Purpose of Paying the Costs of Constructing Riverside Crossing Park, Including Pedestrian Plazas on Both the East and West Sides of the Park, Together with all Incidental Work and Related Appurtenances Thereto, Ms. Mumma stated that there are no changes since the first reading, but as clarification for the record, the amount of $1,350,000 reflected in Ordinance 67-18 was correct for the first reading; it was incorrect only in the first reading memo. Mr. Reiner asked if it would be possible for the City to consider legislation permitting the addition of a stormwater cistern with the construction of new homes. The cisterns could act as a water backflow preventer, thereby allowing a deduction on water charges. Mr. McDaniel stated that the suggestion could be discussed in the future within the City's sustainability framework consideration. Vote on Ordinances 66-18 through 68-18: Mayor Peterson, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Al utto, yes. Ordinance 69-18 Authorizing the Provision of a Certain Incentive to Johnson Controls to Induce it to Lease a Facility to Retain and Expand an Office and its Associated Operations and Workforce, all within the City, and Authorizing the Execution of an Economic Development Agreement, Ms. Gilger stated that there have been no changes since the first reading of this ordinance. The City is proposing a one-time retention incentive of $35,500 to Johnson Controls. The company plans to consolidate under one roof 140 existing employees in Dublin and bring in another 75 employees. This consolidation will make the company become one of the City's Top 30 largest employers. She invited Mr. Marksberry, Operations Manager, to come to the podium to provide additional information to Council. Jamie Marksberry, Johnson Controls Operations Manager stated that they are a multinational company headquartered in Cork, Ireland, that produces automotive parts such as batteries, and electronics and HVAC equipment for buildings. Previously, their company was called SimplexGrinnell, a subsidiary of Tyco International until Tyco and Johnson Controls merged. Prior to the merger, this site was not involved with HVAC systems. As a result of the merger, Johnson Controls now has two locations in Columbus, totaling 215 employees; 140 employees already located in Dublin and another 75 to be RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6101 Held October 22, 2018 Page 5 of 30 relocated from Westerville. The company is in the final stages of negotiations for the Stanley Steemer building. This economic development incentive will help offset the capital expenses. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Ms. Fox, yes. Ordinance 70-18 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into Amendment No. 1 to the Development Agreement by and between the City of Dublin and Crawford Hoying Development Partners, LLC relating to the Bridge Park Development. Ms. Mumma stated that the first reading of this ordinance occurred on October 8. The modifications include: o Update the roadway network. o Increase the cap of debt that can be issued by the Columbus Franklin County Finance Authority for the community facilities of Bridge Park within the New Community Authority and the roadways. o Increase the costs of issuance on public improvement debt o Allow for the optional redemption of bonds from 10 years to 15 years. o Release the developer from a "make whole" premium o Amend the bed tax provision o Amend the waterfall for revenue related to Block D, which would provide funding for the public market She noted that Council had a number of questions at the first reading and forwarded some questions via email. Staff has provided a memo with responses in tonight's meeting materials and by email today. Council Discussion: Ms. De Rosa stated that the memo didn't have information regarding any interactions conducted with the Historic District businesses. Would it be possible to share that information now? Mr. McDaniel indicated he would report on that review, as he engaged personally with business owners in the area. • There are approximately 20 food and beverage establishments in the Historic District of Dublin, and he spoke with nine business owners and four store managers. He spoke to seven of the eight HDBA Board members in addition to attending the HDBA Board meeting on October 18 with Council Member Alutto, Ms. Goss and Mr. Kridler. • In his conversations with the store owners, he gained the impression that most of them believe they have a loyal base of customers at this point; some have had to change their hours or their offerings to meet the changing demands; and most have a view of guarded optimism about the development on the east side of the river. The excitement and vitality is bringing in more people to this area. • Approximately half of the individuals he spoke with were concerned about the "saturation rate." Two long-term restaurant owners in the area said that they are proud of what they provide and believe more restaurants in the area increased their opportunity. Their loyal customer base will not visit their restaurant every night; they will visit other restaurants as .well. Their hope is that they will also be able to benefit from patrons of the restaurants on the east side of the river looking for a different place to eat on another evening. • In regard to the proposed North Market site, specifically, there was a more guarded optimism. A couple of small businesses on South High Street were enthusiastic about the market and the future. One owner, in particular, indicated that his client base comes primarily from Waterford Village and the immediate area south of High Street. • Several coffee and bagel shops and bakeries have come into the immediate area, but no one has expressed concerns. In regards to the HDBA group, only two food establishments are HDBA members. • Several of the businesses in the Historic District expressed concerns about the parking, which has been an ongoing issue. Parking turnover in the Town Center I and II lots warrants re-evaluation. There has been a long-term issue with RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6101 October 22, 2018 Page 6 of 30 Held employees of businesses in the area not abiding by the three-hour parking limitation, even though all -day parking is available at the nearby Dublin Community Church parking lot • Another concern raised was the lack of maintenance of some of the buildings by the landlords. • There was a mixed review of lease rates. • There is construction and renovation fatigue. He wants to publicly acknowledge the difficulties that Oscars and Brazenhead have had to endure. In summary, all of the businesses appreciated the personal contact. The intent is not to leave the Historic District behind. He is not convinced from his conversations that considering the proposed market as a community facility would tip the scales against the west side of the river. It is his assumption that "all boats will rise," and for that reason, staff recommends the approval of this ordinance. In addition, there has been conversation about the retail businesses in the Historic District. Some of the previous businesses are gone, but some have been replaced with new stores. He cautioned about accepting second and third -hand comments as valid, as he is finding that is not always the case. As a result of his discussions with business owners, he is optimistic about moving forward. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that it was her request to reach out to existing business owners in the Historic District, and she appreciates that has occurred. It is important to obtain that information first-hand, and proceed from there. Ms. Fox stated that she lives in that District and has done the same thing — walk and talk to everyone. What Council should recognize is that each neighborhood is unique and individual, just as German Village, which is adjacent to the City center. She believes that as the City brings in energy, at the same time it is important to pay attention to the unique qualities of each neighborhood and provide support for each neighborhood to be the best it can. Bridge Park is a fledgling neighborhood, and the City is giving it the necessary support to become an authentic neighborhood, which will remain for a long time, with a variety of demographics, services and retail. The Historic District is a neighborhood that is undergoing a cyclical change. It was suffering for a period, then experienced some resurgence, and is currently negatively impacted by the construction in the area. It is essential to support them to continue be an authentic and strong neighborhood; the same as would be done for any other neighborhood in the City. Mayor Peterson suggested that the discussion return to the specific questions about the development agreement on the table. Ms. De Rosa continued: • Stated that she believes the public market is a good idea. Her questions relate to the economic implications to the taxpayers of making a change to the development agreement. There was a significant amount of work and financial analysis involved with the original agreement; however, times change, things happen and opportunities are created. • She now has clarity on raising the debt cap and change in maturity timeframes. • Another question relates to the positive or negative financial ramifications of changing the City's position in the waterfall of the revenue stream. In the original agreement, the potential revenues were not incorporated in the funding of the infrastructure, so that is not a risk. That said, there remains a potential financial ramification to the City of making this change, which she would like to understand better, as well as the turbo bond. • Today's emails indicated that the turbo bond was the selected option for financing and the City of Dublin would have to remove itself from the intermediary steps of the waterfall to enable that financing. Why is that the only financing option? Ms. Mumma requested that Mr. Huber respond. Josiah Huber, DiPerna Advisors and Crawford Hoyinq financial advisor, stated that it was not the only option. He would classify it as the win-win solution. They looked deeply into the model and the need of meeting the City's new revenue and debt service coverage RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held Dublin City Council Meeting Form 6101 October 22, 2018 Page 7 of 30 constraint, which was increased from 115% to 120%. They looked also at being able to fund a garage that needed to be larger to provide parking for office space versus the original intent of parking spaces for multifamily. As the garage size increased, the concept of a market for the lower space was created, resulting in an overall cost increase. The investment and square footage increase drove up the value and need for TIF revenue for the project. The calculations came up short of meeting the 120% debt coverage, especially in years 16-30, where they actually do have to make a payment to the City prior to the debt service. The solution proposed to the City and its financial advisor team was the idea of a turbo bond structure, in which the excess, if and when it becomes available, would be applied directly to the principal. That allowed a reduction in the overall financial costs by approximately $8 — 9 million on a projection basis. It would reach the required 120% debt coverage level and on a net present value basis, drive up the projected return to the City at the bottom of the waterfall. In exploring other options, they quickly realized that all other options would force them to scale back the bond issue and potentially not be able to fund the large garage or the entire amount necessary for the public market component. Ms. De Rosa inquired if the City were not willing to take itself out of the waterfall, would there be no way to structure a turbo bond to make the finances work? Mr. Huber responded that with a turbo bond, if the City was ahead of that special redemption feature, then a bondholder would have to underwrite the City obligation. That would be quite complicated. Essentially, the revenue that would flow to redeem the bonds quicker could be siphoned off for City obligations, if C and B Block were delinquent, or if there wasn't enough revenue from those blocks to cover the debt service on the original roadway issue. That annual obligation is in excess of $2 million, and that amount alone -- in a credit analysis report that a bond purchaser would look at -- would discount the ability to turbo the bonds. That brings them back to the position that they likely do not have adequate revenue to cover the debt at the 120% level. Ms. De Rosa stated that she is trying to understand what the City and taxpayers gain or potentially lose by taking the City out of the waterfall. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that part of the confusion is that five weeks ago, the information Council was provided indicated that the City did not anticipate ever receiving any revenue from this waterfall. Therefore, remaining in or being out of the waterfall was irrelevant. Simultaneously, Council heard that it wasn't necessary for the City to be out of the waterfall for these other activities to occur. They were more interested in having the market identified as a community amenity. The waterfall issue was a secondary issue. The points of the discussion are now changing to the position that if the City does not remove itself from the waterfall, the market will not occur. In fact, up to $5 million will be generated over a short period of time that would be collected in the City's place in the waterfall, which would be used to fund the buildout, in addition to the .50/0 sales tax. The part that she finds difficult to understand is how the position changed so significantly within the last five weeks. Mr. Huber responded that he cannot comment on what was stated five weeks ago, but the costs haven't increased over the past five weeks. However, if the public market is included in this project, when Crawford Hoying must begin to make a payment to the City in the first part of the waterfall, that payment, unfortunately, causes their debt coverage ratio to reduce to 110%. Looking at the turbo bond solution, the City would not be removed from the waterfall, but repositioned lower in the waterfall. Although it was indicated earlier that the City was not anticipating excess revenue, the developer has always shown potential excess revenue for the City, even back in 2015 as they were negotiating the agreement. They are now showing an amount that is much higher in projected excess revenue on a total basis, and also higher in a net present value basis. This is a solution that was identified to fund a larger garage and a public market, and a way to potentially provide the City more money than originally projected in 2015. Ms. Mumma stated that in terms of conveying the message of the City not anticipating any revenue, when this was discussed in 2015, the plans did show that -- but the City did not count on any of it. As we have had significant conversation concerning the debt, and RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held October 22, 2018 Page 8 of 30 Form 6101 specifically the debt supporting the two parking garages and roadway infrastructure that the City committed to, the intent was to make it very clear, and it still holds true, that the City was not relying on any revenue outside of Blocks B and C backed by that minimum service payment guarantee to meet that. That is why the consistent message has been that we were not expecting any revenue. We have consistently considered that, if the revenue is realized, it is "icing on the cake" that can be used for other infrastructure within the area -- whether the roundabout, pedestrian bridge, or the many other items that are eligible when TIFs are established. Ms. De Rosa stated that, as she understands it, the economics of the situation are positive from the perspective of the change in the interest rate. From a timing perspective, does the City have to take itself entirely out of the waterfall? Or is there the option, as long as a certain amount of that debt threshold can be covered by the revenues, that the City can receive some of that and not have to wait until a later point to do so? If the economic value is such that it is positive for both parties to pay interest, that makes sense, but is it necessary for the City to fully step by, or could it be necessary to step back only in a certain instance? With that type of change, both parties would benefit. Is that a feasible solution? Mr. Huber responded that it is something they could review. Ms. De Rosa stated that it would seem to be more of a partnership opportunity. In a potentially positive situation, it could be positive for both parties. Ms. Fox stated that, per Section 5.8 and in Section 6, it did not appear that the City would be totally out of the waterfall, but at the end of it. Her understanding is the proposal involved changing the City's position in the waterfall. With the turbo bond, the developer would have the opportunity to pay off more principal, and the City would realize a larger amount in years 16 through 30, is that correct? Mr. Huber responded that is correct. The City would not be removed from the waterfall, but the City would be taking a couple of steps down. The City would ultimately be the beneficiary if, in fact, they are able to prepay the debt quicker. That is the intent of the proposed structure. Ms. Mumma stated that the change between the original development agreement and the proposed amended agreement is instead of any excess being split 50-50 with 50% going to accelerate pay down of the debt and the other 50% coming to the City, just for Block D, the whole amount in excess goes to accelerate the debt service payment, and only after that would the City benefit. It does not totally remove the City from the waterfall; it is shifting it for Block D only from 50% of the excess revenue to 100% to accelerate the debt service pay down. Ms. Alutto stated that it would extend the length of time before the City would see any excess revenue. Ms. Mumma responded affirmatively. Ms. Alutto noted that at the point the City would begin to see excess revenue, it would be for a greater amount than would have been seen if the agreement was unchanged. Ms. De Rosa stated that her point is that if the revenue is greater and there is adequate coverage, should the City not have the opportunity to have some of that excess revenue as well? If it is not all needed to meet the debt coverage, is it necessary for the City to wait until the very end to participate in the excess revenue? Ms. Alutto stated that the City would have to wait until the debt service was paid off, and this would pay it off faster. Ms. De Rosa stated that her point is if there is excess over the debt service payment, would that not be available to the City. Mr. Daniels stated that one of the items they have discussed with the developer team and their financial analyst is, based on the model, there have to be targets for this turbo. As Ms. Mumma pointed out, there is already a 50% turbo in place; this would be moving it to a 100% turbo. We can have modifications in that, but if the turbo targets are attained, then any excess can flow on down the waterfall at that point. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held Dublin City Council October 22, 2018 Page 9 of 30 Meeting Ms. De Rosa stated that makes sense, because the economics would be positive to both parties. The taxpayers should be able to participate in that revenue, if that is in fact the case. Form 6101 Mr. McDaniel stated that the City has always been positioned in a way in which, if this exceeds expectation, the City would not be left behind. Ms. De Rosa stated that it would be necessary to make a change in the language for the City to be able to participate before the end. If the revenue projections are as positive as they appear to be, the City should participate along the way and not have to wait. That is a better position for the taxpayer. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that she understands the revenue projections, but the documents that Council has received indicate that the cost projections have been 40% off to this point. Her first question is: • Do we have information available about what a real cost projection might be or some assurances that if the costs exceed 'projections by a certain percentage, then maybe the City would not lose its position in the waterfall? • Second question: The discussion is about waterfall positions number 6 and 9. Is there ability to share with the 7th and 8th positions? Mr. Daniels stated that there is some ability to do this. However, this a specific change in the waterfall for the financing for Block D only. That can be adjusted as necessary for the mutual benefit of both the Project and the City. There is flexibility to do that, provided that the debt is paid down fast enough. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes suggested that perhaps there could be a 7A, B and C split, rather than one party being made whole and the others waiting. She would like to have that explored. She also would like some assurances on the cost side, because the costs have been so far over budget. If the costs continue to be over budget, she suspects there won't be anything left for anyone. Mr. Daniels stated that, he would like Mr. Foegler or the developer to provide updates on how close we are in terms of final costs on Block D. When construction is near, the costs tend to be more locked in. Secondly, there have -been cost limitations before and when costs have exceeded those limitations, it is the developer's responsibility to take care of that gap. In fact, they have on both Blocks B and C. All those protections remain in the agreements. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that she understands it is a busy construction season, and the costs of materials have increased five to ten percent. The alarming part of being repositioned in the waterfall is the 40% cost increase. She would like to see some insulation, if the City places itself at a different place in the waterfall and the costs increase to the point that there is nothing remaining for the City at the bottom of the wa to rfa I I . Mr. Foegler stated that he believes the question is how much volatility is there in the numbers today as compared to the original estimate. The original estimate and agreement were predesigned, based on those estimates. Block D has been fully designed, fully approved and fully bid, so there is very little volatility in the numbers at this point. Jeremiah Thomas, Crawford Hoying CEo, stated that the City does not have any exposure in or out of the waterfall if there are cost overages. The developer is guaranteeing that the public improvements will be done outside of their dollars. Their only ability to capture those at the front end of the project is out of the bond proceeds that would be issued, based on the waterfall that is placed into the agreement. Whatever the overages are, they are the developer's costs, and those will never flow back to the waterfall. With respect to some of the increase in costs, they have changed some of the uses in Block D from the original plan. One of those changes is that there now is 90,000 square feet of additional office space that will generate some additional income tax revenue and other positive benefits for the City. That office space replaces approximately 72 apartments and results in the need for an additional 200 parking spaces. The current costs probably reflect $4 million in additional costs. However, the additional TIF revenue RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held October 22, 2018 Page 10 of 30 Form 6101 generated by the Office use versus the Residential is only about $1 million in additional TIF revenue. Therefore, some of the increased costs are due to the escalation of material costs, some of them are from the competition of all the things being built around them, and others are more mixed. The need for a larger garage, in particular, resulted in an escalation in costs. Crawford Hoying has no desire to be greedy about this matter. They want only what is needed to build public improvements. However, the waterfall is structured in a way they are comfortable with. Their financial advisors have indicated that this turbo bond feature is important to the marketability of the bonds. Related to that, to the extent that there are excess proceeds over whatever that threshold is, the theory behind putting 100% of the proceeds towards paying down debt actually holds — irrelevant to how big those proceeds become. For instance, putting a certain amount from the waterfall that will reduce the principal will increase the back -end proceeds. The effect of that would be multiplied by double if the amount went to an advance pay down of the principal, which would benefit the City. Their desire is not to be greedy but to move quickly with a plan that will work. This plan is based on the advice they have received from their financial advisors, namely that the more money that goes into the turbo feature, the better it is both for the marketability of the bonds and for the taxpayers of Dublin. Ms. De Rosa stated that the financial analysis and data that Council received recently suggests that there will be more than enough excess revenue to make that interest payment and still have some remaining. Her concern was the timing of that. This does seem to be the right instrument, but according to the numbers, the City should participate sooner. Ms. Mumma stated that when discussing increasing the debt limit -- whether it is specifically on Block D or in general -- we are making sure that is on par with an increase in valuations. If we were just to remove the cap to account for cost escalations but ignore the other side of the equation — by our having that 115% coverage for everything else and 120% for Block D — that is how the City is making sure that this will not get out of line. The value of those private improvements .is generating the revenue in order to pay that debt service. We are not giving a blank check to increase the debt service regardless of the reason why; we are also ensuring that there is a backstop in terms of the private value that is being generated. Ms. De Rosa inquired if that ratio is calculated only at the time the bonds are issued. If there is fluctuation in real estate values and assessment values over a course of time, how is that ratio impacted? Ms. Mumma responded that is the reason there is a minimum service payment guarantee that is tied to the special use of the property, whether it is commercial or residential. Ms. De Rosa stated that no change is being made in that. Mr. Daniels confirmed that is correct. Ms. De Rosa stated that if language can be crafted to reflect what has been said — that if the debt has been covered and excess remains, that the City would mutually benefit, that would be acceptable to her. Mayor Peterson asked if it is necessary to amend, the documents before Council tonight, or can Council give direction that it be amended accordingly and approve it. Mr. McDaniel stated that if his team understands the direction, that is satisfactory. Mr. Daniels stated that Council's direction, as he understands, is that once the debt is provided for, prior to other points in the waterfall, if projections are being exceeded, then the City will begin to receive some of the excess revenue sooner. It is a timing matter. Ms. De Rosa stated that the change would reflect more of a partnership position. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that if the projections hold true, and the City in position 9 will benefit, then the parties holding positions 7 and 8 should participate in the benefit, as well. Mr. Daniels stated that language reflecting that direction can be drafted into the waterfall. Mr. McDaniel stated that it has always been the City's expectation to benefit in the long term. However, the language will be amended to reinforce that position. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6101 Held October 22, 2018 Page 11 of 30 Mayor Peterson asked if the waterfall issue can be reflected in what is voted on tonight, or is it necessary to wait and vote at the next meeting? Mr. McDaniel stated that everyone present is clear on Council's direction. The document will be amended to incorporate Council's direction. Unless Council wants to read the revised document to ensure that it has been incorporated, Council can vote on it tonight. Mr. Keenan noted that the developer is indicating they are in agreement, as well, which is important. Mr. Thomas stated that he wants to confirm his understanding that the discussion relates to the extent that proceeds exceed the projections that have been included in Crawford Hoying's financial analyst's model for purposes of retiring the turbo bond on the basis on which he is marketing the bonds. He added that, there is some possibility that it may be better for the City to remain with the original proposal due to the advance pay down of principal being accelerated. However, they are neutral on the point so long as they can meet the projections in the waterfall. Mayor Peterson stated that the key is the way they can present it in the issuance of the bonds. Mr. Keenan asked for clarification of where the excess revenue goes — does it have to go into that Block? Are there stipulations on that? Mr. Daniels stated that excess revenue has to benefit Bridge Park. It can be used in the general area, not just within the boundaries; there must be a clear tie between what the money is spent on and Bridge Park. Mr. Keenan stated that it is similar to a TIF. Mayor Peterson inquired if any Council member has further questions regarding the waterfall provision. Mr. McDaniel stated that he wants to make sure that the question about the construction costs was satisfied. [Vice Mayor Groomes indicated she was reading her notes related to that.] Ms. Fox requested that Mr. Thomas explain why he believes the original proposal would have been better for the City. Mr. Thomas responded that if 100% of the excess proceeds go to pay the turbo portion of the payment, then there will be an additional principal reduction that is excess of what has been modeled. That means that the proceeds that come to the City at the end will come back even faster and the amount of interest that is earned on the principal will be even smaller, resulting in more proceeds to the City due to that. The faster the bonds are repaid, the better it is for the City. There is likely some modeling point in between on a cash basis where there may be reasons the City sees it otherwise at certain points. Ms. De Rosa stated that it depends on the cost of capital, too, at that point, and we are in a rising interest rate situation. Mr. Thomas agreed that is the case. Mr. Reiner requested clarification about the earlier reference that the increase in amount of office space resulted in a need for more parking spaces, and therefore a larger garage. Is the cost of a parking space approximately $25,000? Mr. Thomas responded that it is approximately that amount; it depends on the garage construction type. He does not know what it would be for this particular garage building, but that amount is not really high for structured parking, such as is being built in Dublin. Mr. Reiner stated that the change to Office use is positive, as it means income tax revenue. Could he explain the additional expense? Mr. Thomas responded that it is related to the zoning code requirements and the spaces needed for office versus apartments. Approximately 200 additional spaces will be built in the garage due to bringing in the additional office space. The additional TIF proceeds that are generated from the office use do not compensate for the cost difference. Generally, there would be $4 million in additional parking, and about $1 million of additional TIF proceeds. There are other advantages of office space. The increased tax revenue is good for the City. The additional daytime presence in Bridge Park benefits RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held October 22, 2018 Page 12 of 30 that community. The additional office space benefits everyone, but compared to the original agreement, the change has resulted in additional costs on the public side. Mr. Reiner summarized that the increased cost is,for 200 additional parking spaces at approximately $25,000 each. Mr. Thomas responded affirmatively. Form 6101 Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that she has some additional questions. When the make whole premium is changed, the result is that if the City were to retire any of the bonds early, it would have the financial obligation to make the bondholder whole, versus Crawford Hoying having the obligation to make the bondholder whole. Mr. Daniels responded that to the extent there is any obligation, which depends upon a fairly complex mathematical formula that will change, based on interest rates 15 years out. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that someone must think it's likely, because we are changing the agreement to add that. Mr. Daniels stated that the original agreement did not provide for a make whole premium. In the course of doing the financing for Block A, the developer made a persuasive case that having a make whole premium for that financing made good economic sense for everyone -- the Project and the City. However, because it was not provided for in the original agreement, they believed it was appropriate to bring it back to Council at the next opportunity, and this is the First Amendment to that agreement. Vice Mayor Amorose Gr000mes inquired how the decision was made that the City would be responsible for the make whole premium. Mr. Daniels responded that it is the project that is responsible. If there is a refinancing, it would be picked up in the refinancing bonds. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes inquired if it would be refinancing of the City's debt. Mr. Daniels stated that it would the refinancing of the A Block debt, which is Columbus Franklin County Finance Authority debt. In essence, it would be added to the amount of the bonds that are issued to refinance the existing A Block. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes inquired if it would be an additional rollover cost into the refinance. Mr. Daniels responded affirmatively. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that regarding the 250/o -350/o designations related to the hotel -motel tax grant, the City's increased contribution to 35% to the Dublin Convention and Visitors Bureau (DCVB) is 10% greater than what is collected on the two existing hotels. The City is essentially contributing an additional 10% to DCVB on behalf of Crawford Hoying for those two hotels. The language reads, "the Administration has requested and the Developer has agreed to the deduction of 35% for any hotels other than the H2 and AC hotels. Later tonight, some hotels in additional blocks will be discussed. The City will not need to subsidize these hotels at that 10%, as it does the two existing hotels. Mr. Daniels confirmed that is correct. In the original agreement, the grant is 25% of the bed taxes after the 25% for the DCVB. Subsequent to that agreement, the contribution to DCVB by the City has been increased to 35%; the intent is to match that in the amended agreement to keep it neutral for the City. Ms. Mumma stated that there is nothing included that changes the amount of money that DCVB receives. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that she understands that, as the City is paying that additional portion out of the funds received. Mr. Daniels stated that the 35% deduction would apply to Block F and Block G hotels and any hotels other than those in the original agreement. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes inquired if there is any opportunity to revisit the 25% as provided in the original agreement, so that the subsidy isn't necessary. Mr. Daniels stated that if there is refinancing of the Block A bonds, the amount of that percent could be adjusted accordingly. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes inquired if that would then be for any hotels. Mr. Daniels responded that it would be for any hotels in the Bridge Park New Community Authority. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held October 22, 2018 Page 13 of 30 Form 6101 Mayor Peterson moved to approve the Ordinance 70-18, authorizing an amendment to the Crawford Hoying development agreement with the incorporation of the revision to the waterfall provision as stated by Mr. Daniels. He inquired if that motion reflected the intent. Mr. Boggs suggested that the motion be to amend Section I of the Ordinance by inserting language after the words "In the form presently on file with the Clerk of Council" to add, "and as modified consistent with discussion of Council regarding the revenue waterfall provisions." Mayor Peterson amended his motion to read as Mr. Boggs indicated. Ms. Alutto seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor Peterson, yes; Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Alutto Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes. Ordinance 71-18 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Assignment of a Real Estate Purchase Contract and Other Necessary Documents to Acquire a 28.84 Acre, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest for Three Parcels Located on Eiterman Road from The Robert Weiler Company. Ms. Goss stated that there have been no changes since the first reading, and staff recommends Council adoption of the ordinance authorizing the City Manager to proceed with acquisition of the properties. Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. De Rosa, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes. INTRODUCTION /FIRST READING — ORDINANCES Ordinance 72-18 Accepting the Annexation of 12.0 Acres, More or Less, from Washington Township, Franklin County to the City of Dublin. (Petitioners: Chemcote, Inc., The DuRoc Trust, Strait Real Estate LLC 1, LTD and the City of Dublin). Ms. Alutto introduced the Ordinance. Mr. Boggs stated that Council has approved the Statement of Services resolution for this annexation petition. The Franklin County Commissioners approved the annexation in July. City Council must accept or reject the annexation by ordinance. If it is approved at the second reading and public hearing on November 5, this annexation will be effective 30 days after passage of the Ordinance, and the property will become part of the City of Dublin. Unlike most annexations, this property is in the Innovation District Zone, so it will be zoned to Research/Flex District when it comes into the City, which allows office uses, data centers, educational uses and industrial uses. Any other use would require the property owner to obtain a rezoning. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance at the second reading/public hearing on November 5, 2018. Mr. Keenan inquired if this is within the Fishel Industrial Park. Mr. Boggs responded affirmatively. Mr. Keenan inquired if there had been any consideration of bringing in the entire area; why is it fragmented? Mr. Boggs responded that he is unaware of any other consideration. This is the application for annexation as received from the property owner. Mr. Keenan inquired if there would be any type of environmental issue associated with this type of facility and their operations. Mr. McDaniel responded there are none. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes inquired if the facility currently has water and sewer services. Mr. McDaniel stated that water and sewer are available immediately. The City has run a water/sewer line along Fishel Drive to serve an adjacent property. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes inquired if they were able to tap into the line prior to annexation. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held October 221 2018 Page 14 of 30 Mr. McDaniel responded that they could not. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that she believes that need is driving this annexation. There are probably EPA issues involved with handling wastewater on site. Mr. Keenan stated that his concern was with the materials associated with this type of facility. Mr. McDaniel stated that if the City were going to take possession of the property, we would order an environmental study. He does not foresee any issues with this facility, however. The City did extend water/sewer lines in that area with the assumption that the properties along Fishel Drive would annex to the City at some point. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the November 5 Council meeting. Form 6101 Ordinance 73-18 Authorizing the Provision of Certain Incentives to OhioHealth Corporation to Induce it to Lease or Purchase a Facility to Retain and Expand its Non -Clinical Office and its Associated Non -Clinical Operations and Workforce, all within the City; and Authorizing the Execution of an Economic Development Agreement, Ms. Alutto introduced the Ordinance. Ms. Gilger stated that staff has been in discussions with OhioHealth regarding the future of its non -clinical office staff in the City of Dublin. These offices are currently in multiple lease locations throughout the City, with most of those leases ending in the next one to two years. The company desires to consolidate those leases into one facility of roughly 100,000 square feet or more, which OhioHealth would prefer to own. Staff has been working to identify a building for them. The Economic Development Agreement proposed by the City includes an 11 -year performance incentive on a sliding scale from 20% to 17% over time, capped annually at $400,000. The company would be required to reach non -clinical job payroll growth targets annually to receive these payments. Additionally, the City proposes a one-time $600,000 retention grant tied to the acquisition of a minimum 100,000 -square -foot facility in Dublin and receiving occupancy in 2019. To assist the company in connecting a new location to Dublink, the City proposes a $50,000 Technology Grant to assist in their IT renovations and buildout. The total package offered represents $5.05 million. The City expects to net approximately $17.8 million over the term. This proposal would retain 1,300 non -clinical jobs in the City of Dublin, representing an $80 million payrol I. Company representatives will be present at the second reading. Ms. De Rosa inquired about the purpose of the $50,000 technology grant. Ms. Gilger responded that the grant is to connect the new facility to Dublink. The City will work with Fishel, the City's contractor on all Dublink connectivity. Ms. De Rosa inquired the reason there is a stipulation between clinical and non -clinical. Ms. Gilger responded that the clinical jobs are located at the hospital. This space will be for the non -clinical positions that are currently in leased office spaces throughout the City. Although generally unrecognized, their non -clinical office presence within the City is large. Those leases will soon face expiration, and the City wants to ensure that they remain in Dublin long-term. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the November 5 Council meeting. INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTIONS Resolution 63-18 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Ohio Department of Transportation/DriveOhio Regarding Autonomous Vehicle Testing within the Boundaries of the City of Dublin. Ms. Alutto introduced the Resolution. Mr. McDaniel stated that as City Council is aware, a Council of Governments (COG) was formed between the Cities of Dublin and Marysville, Union County, and the Union County Port Authority to work together to promote cooperation and joint efforts to promote economic development in the US 33 Corridor. An early initiative of the COG has been to deploy fiber optic backbone along US 33 and Industrial Parkway. This effort has resulted in two key early successes: 1. The deployment of this fiber Optic backbone funded by ODOT allocating 236 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6101 Held October 22, 2018 Page 15 of 30 optical fibers to the COG for its use and administration. That is an over $12 million investment by the State to place the fiber optics within the US 33 right- of-way from Dublin to West Liberty, and bringing that fiber optic loop back down Industrial Parkway, as a redundant local loop. 2. A USDOT grant of $5.9M for the deployment of above ground technology to enable testing and data collection for Connected Vehicle (CV)/Autonomous Vehicle (AV) research. This agreement acknowledges that the fiber optic loop and the testing for that will actually come into the City via the US 33 corridor and Industrial Parkway, and will connect with the Dublink system and local data centers here. The City intends to participate in the technologies funded by the grants, but through its capital budget, the City will also leverage above and beyond the connected autonomous vehicle efforts to do smart parking, testing and data collection related to connected vehicles in roundabouts. Dublin will be the only city undertaking that study. Staff recommends Council passage of Resolution 63-18, enabling the City of Dublin to participate in the ODOT/DriveOhio CV/AV testing program in the US33 corridor. This is one of the many pieces that puts that partnership in place. Ms. De Rosa stated that there was discussion about having the City's communication team work with the varied projects to begin promotion. What is the status of that? Mr. McDaniel stated the COG did hire a firm to help work on a branding solution. Collectively, we engaged an organization called Adept Marketing. They will show the initial results of their study at the COG meeting on November 14. The Board will determine the subsequent direction. Council will be made aware of any progress that is made. Ms. Fox stated that there have been previous discussions about data ownership and opportunities to take advantage of marketing or selling data. This agreement reflects the agreement to share data. What is the City's position on managing the data received from these opportunities with Smart Corridors, etc.? Mr. McDaniel stated that not only the testing of these types of technologies, but the data collected has great value. These policy discussions are occurring at all levels of government. There have been many discussions at MORPC's Smart Region and Data Taskforce, as well as COG regarding how that data will be managed and owned. In partnerships, the data would be shared. In areas owned and managed solely by City technology, the gathered data would belong to the City. There is the opportunity for local government to monetize that data over time; those types of policies are being discussed at this time. Vote on the Resolution: Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes. Resolution 64-18 A Resolution in Support of Dublin City Schools. Mayor Peterson introduced the resolution. The resolution summarizes the importance of having a healthy school system. Dublin Board of Education president Scott Melody and Dublin City Schools Superintendent Dr. Hoadley are present. [He read the resolution into the record.] The City and the Schools work together tirelessly for the benefit of this community. Those results of those efforts are evident throughout the City. Ms. De Rosa stated that Council Member Reiner stated it best at the last Council meeting -- that it isn't possible to be a great city without great schools; and Dublin has great schools! Mayor Peterson invited Dr. Hoadley and Mr. Melody, Dublin Board of Education president to comment. Dr. Todd Hoadley, Dublin City Schools Superintendent thanked Council for the opportunity and kind words. They appreciate the great relationship with Dublin City Council. He expressed thanks for all their support and for being great leaders for this community. Council is dealing with important issues that will matter not just today but 20 years from now. There are two weeks until Election Day. Their strategy has been RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council _ Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6101 Held October 22, 2018 Page 16 of 30 visiting and having discussions with the City residents. They want people to be able to vote informed, and understand the benefits that Issue 5 will bring not only to the School system but to the greater community. He appreciates the comments made at City Council's October 8 meeting. He has received positive feedback from many people who watched the meeting. He congratulated Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes on her son's Dublin Jerome Men's Golf team state championship! Scott Melody, Dublin Board of Education President, on behalf of the Board of Education expressed appreciation to City Council for their comments in support of the Schools at the last Council meeting and for the Resolution of Support tonight. The Board appreciates their leadership in the City and their support of Schools. They look forward to continued partnership between the two entities. Vote on the Resolution: Mayor Peterson, yes; Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Ms. Fox, yes. OTHER • Basic Plan — Bridge Park Block F — (Case# 18-060BPR) • Basic Plan — Bridge Park Block G — (Case# 18-061BPR) Ms. Husak stated that she would present the information on adjacent Bridge Park Block F and Block G together. Council's actions related to the respective Blocks will be handled separately. City Council members are asked to review and make determinations on the Basic Plan applications in accordance with the Bridge Street District (BSD) zoning regulations. Under these provisions, all projects involving development agreements require Basic Plan Review by City Council, who will then direct the review of the final Development Plan and Site Plan applications to City Council, the Planning and Zoning Commission, or the Administrative Review Team.. o The two blocks are north and south of Bridge Park Avenue, east of Mooney, and Dale Drive is adjacent on the east side. Five blocks have either been constructed or are under construction. o The actions requested of Council are: - Six waivers for F Block and 4 waivers for G Block Approval of the Basic Plans for each Block. Both have seven conditions recommended. Both were recommended for approval by the Administrative Review Team (ART) and both have had informal review by the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC). Determination of the required reviewing body for any future applications for these two blocks. Basic Plan — Bridge Park Block F — (Case# 18-060BPRI Block F Application The application is for a ±2.31 -acre development containing three new buildings with office space, restaurant space, a hotel, parking garage and open space located on the south side of Bridge Park Avenue, between Dale Drive to the east and Mooney Street to west and north of Banker Drive. o The northernmost building would be a hotel with an access drive for drop off, similar to what exists at the AC Hotel, which would be a private drive within this block. o A parking garage would be located in the center of the block, with a residential liner that is also intended to be hotel use on the east and north side. o An office building would be located on the southern portion of the block, similar to that on Block A, and would likely be addressed later in the Final Site Plan. o The applicant has provided some massing diagrams, but this is the Basic Plan Review stage, and detail is not required at this step. o Some architectural character images have been provided. They have been working with a different architectural team for Blocks F and G. They are providing complementary but different characteristics for these two blocks. o Open space — The applicant has provided what is typically seen at this stage. More detail will be shown with the Final Site Plan. Some detail of the landscaping of the spaces is shown. PZC has encouraged the applicant to consider provision of more green in the open spaces. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6101 Held October 22, 2018 Page 17 of 30 The waivers and conditions that Council is asked to approve include: Approve the 6 Waivers: 1) Building Types —Incompatible Building Types (Building F2) 2) Building Types —Front Property Line Coverage (Building 171) 3) Building Types —Front Property Line Coverage (Building F3) 4) Building Types —Maximum Ground Story Height (hotel) (Building 171) 5) Building Types —Entry Location for Parking within Building (Building F2) 6) Site Development Standards —Parking Structure Design: Entrance and Exit Lanes (Building F2) Approve the Basic Plan with 7 Conditions: 1) That Building F3 be located within the required building zone and comply with the front property line coverage requirement to the maximum extent possible, for verification with the Site Plan Review; 2) That Building F2/F3 be relocated within the required building zone of 5 feet to 25 feet for Parking Structures, for verification with the Site Plan Review; 3) That the proposed patio space and seating areas located between the existing tree grates in the Bridge Park Avenue right-of-way and the fagade of Building F1 be revised to provide the minimum 12 feet of clear sidewalk width; 4) That the applicant provide a Parking Plan with the Site Plan Review to the satisfaction of the Planning Division; 5) That the applicant continues working with staff to ensure the private access drive located between Building's F1 & F2/F3 can accommodate appropriate pedestrian circulation to the satisfaction of the Engineering & Planning Divisions; 6) That the applicant provide all final details regarding open space and site development standards with the Site Plan Review; 7) That the applicant continues to refine architectural details and Building Type requirements, as part of the Site Plan Review. ART has reviewed and recommends Council approval. Determine the required reviewing body determination for future Development Plan Review and Site Plan Review applications (CC, PZC, or ART). Council Discussion: Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that she has a number of concerns: • In regard to the height of hotel - is the height waiver requested in order to have six stories? Ms. Husak stated that the building is actually permitted to be that height. The additional height is requested for the ground story. The Code permits a maximum of 16 feet. Their plan is up to 20 feet in a certain area that has a restaurant space. Mr. Reiner inquired if the extra height is requested in the lobby area. Russ Hunter, Crawford Hoying Development 6640 Riverside Drive, stated that the 20 - foot ground story height is actually very similar to what exists in the B and C Blocks. In those blocks, there is about an eight foot difference from the east to the west side of the building, in terms of topography. They don't want the building to be too tall, but want to make sure that the first floor is usable throughout its entirety. Mr. Reiner stated that Council had a previous extensive discussion on that matter with the AC Hotel, and Council granted a waiver to create a dramatic effect and more interesting hotel, and it worked — it is a good-looking lobby. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes continued: • She has some concerns about the F4 office building, primarily because most of the greenspace is clustered around the edges of a building that is not yet designed. The greenspace is being calculated for a building that when completed may need a significant change in the greenspace. • She received no images or design details for this building. It really isn't possible to lay out a portion of a block that doesn't have a building on it — how can we do a basic plan review for a block that doesn't have all of its building? What happens RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON. OHIO Held October 22, 2018 Page 18 of 30 Meeting Form 6101 in that space will profoundly impact the balance of the block in terms of adjacent, compatible uses, etc. • It was also indicated that the Parking Garage would not need any additional exits because it was unlikely all would exit at a single point in time. With all of the events that are anticipated to be scheduled in Bridge Park over time, those garages are going to empty at the same time with relative frequency. There may be hazards related to having only one exit from a parking structure of that type. She does not view that waiver favorably. There is an entire block that can be designed to permit another exit from this building. If it is designed creatively, there would be the opportunity to provide an exit for it. • What is the name of the street that is adjacent to the hotel opposite Bridge Park Avenue, to the south? Ms. Husak responded that an unnamed private drive is proposed there. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes inquired if a private drive is being provided here. Ms. Husak responded that is the proposal, which is the same condition as at the AC Hotel. The portion of Mooney near the Al Office Building is private, as well. • Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that we are artificially pinching that site down over there. It is difficult to lay out anything for the F4 building. Is it possible to approve a partial block versus approving a whole block at one time? Ms. Husak responded that Council could opt to conduct Basic Site Plan approvals for each of the buildings for which we have details. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated it would likely need some private roadway access between F2 and F4 buildings, or some type of connector. She assumes the parking garage is designed to facilitate parking for this potential office building. Ms. Husak asked Mr. Hunter to provide details about the proposed parking. In terms of a connector, she does not believe that the Engineering division would be in favor of breaking that block up more for vehicular use. Mr. Hunter stated that for these two blocks in particular, we have more information about parking ratios and parking provided, based on the existing B and C Blocks. We are seeing evidence of being over parked in those two blocks and by a fairly significant amount. He and Mr. Starr have been on site, and have taken 25 different samples at different times, including during the Farmers Market, and at times when the restaurants were full, to gain a good understanding of how the parking is being utilized. Block C is 100% occupied -- the offices are now built out with the exception of about 6,000 square feet in Building C3; the residential units are largely occupied; and all the restaurants are completed. With a fully occupied Block, the greatest number of occupied parking spaces they counted at one time was 373. That left 506 unoccupied spaces, which was a wakeup call. A significant investment was made to build these garages to support the development. They have approached Blocks F and G with the intent of taking advantage of the existing parking, knowing that as the plan proceeds to Final Site Plan, a careful analysis will be necessary to make certain, from both the City's and the developer's standpoint, that there is sufficient parking. They do not want to build office or retail space that isn't supported with parking, as the spaces would not be leased. In the past, at the Basic Plan stage, the plan was more developed than was necessary because there weren't as many of these bigger questions. In this case, with the Basic Plan they wanted to focus on the layouts, building uses and sizes, specifically of the garages. If they were to build garages to support these large office buildings or the hotel to zoning standards, they would end up with a much larger garage on both the F Block and the G Block and much less investment in the Office space or the Hotel space. They do not believe that would benefit anyone. That is what is driving many of the decisions on these blocks. Ms. De Rosa inquired what has changed from the original estimates to make the costs off by 50% or more. Mr. Hunter responded that parking is an art and a science, and it is difficult, especially today. It is hard to understand the "Ober factor." Additionally, this site is well-connected with bikepaths and sidewalks. Zoning Codes were written for very specific uses. With Office space, typically the formula is four cars per 1,000 square feet, which equates to 250 square feet per person. The formulas worked for more suburban locations where there was not significant sharing of parking occurring. The Bridge Street District Code already took shared parking into consideration and lowered some of the numbers. When RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council BARRET"T BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held October 22, 2018 Page 19 of 30 Meeting Form 6101 the B and C blocks were developed, they believed the amount of parking made sense; Office, for example was not four cars per 1,000, but three cars per 1,000. Similarly, parking for the other uses was a little lower than would have been included with a development ten years ago. However, we were unable to fully grasp what the situation would be when it was fully built. Now it is built, and now there is a block that is nearly 100% complete. Day after day, they are seeing entire floors of parking spaces that are largely unused. It makes no sense to continue to build parking garages, as the anticipation is that the use will decrease as we continue to see ride sharing and smart cars. A transition is occurring in transportation that will result in less parking spaces, not more. Mr. Keenan stated that he and his wife visit the area frequently, and they park at the garage across from Cap City even when their destination is the AC Hotel. They want to enjoy the walk and the environment. He believes others are following the same strategy, selecting parking that isn't necessarily across from their destination. Mr. Hunter responded that F Block could be a similar example. B Block isn't as occupied as C Block, so it will take more time to understand how many extra parking spaces will be there. However, B Block will likely have the same level of parking space usage as C Block. It is positioned well to support F Block, and C Block is set up well to support G Block. Ms. Fox stated that at the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) meeting: • Concern was expressed about the drive. There will be more Uber rides and autonomous vehicles, and there was a sense that this component was underdeveloped. The area does not provide adequate stacking for cars dropping off at the hotel. If the Dublin connector vehicle becomes a reality and runs are made through this area, there are spaces to stack six cars only. PZC expressed concern as to whether there is sufficient transit mobility provided through this narrow area. Mr. Hunter stated that there are six stackable spaces in front of the hotel entry. The road that runs through the District is the typical two-way width, but without the parallel parking spaces on either side. Ms. Fox stated that six cars stacked in this location would block traffic; cars will be waiting to pull up. Other than the six stacking spaces, there is no other place to park in front of the hotel. Mr. Hunter stated that the six vehicles would fit without extending into the drive aisle. There is an entrance to the B Block garage directly across from that curbcut to that access drive. The AC Hotel has approximately six spaces, as well, but he has never seen six cars lined up. Ms. Fox inquired if the hotel has a valet or concierge service out front. Mr. Hunter responded that it does not. • The Commission discussed the northwest corner, where the restaurant is, as being a significant intersection corner. In spite of its strong position in the area, it only has a patio on one side, and really doesn't do much for the west side of the street. She asked Mr. Hunter to respond. She is referring to Building F1. Mr. Hunter stated that the F1 hotel building was pulled a little further away from the right-of-way than some of the other buildings, such as the B3 building that is directly to the west of this building. That building is much closer to the right-of-way than this one. There are many more steps as one moves up Bridge Park Avenue, but it is a subtle transition. With the F1 building site, they have reduced the number of steps in order to make the transitions less subtle, which will create opportunity for interest. Between the restaurant and the hotel, they can introduce more landscaping than they have had, but they can also introduce larger, more impactful public and private spaces that are on our side of the right-of-way. Ms. Fox inquired how much space was increased in the right-of-way. Are these spaces private or public? Mr. Hunter responded that they considered integrating the public and private spaces, because there is sufficient space to do so. Neither the hotel nor the restaurant need all of it. If the integration is successful, it shouldn't be possible to tell the difference. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held October 22, 2018 Page 20 of 30 Form 6101 Ms. Fox inquired the width of the seating area how far off Bridge Park Avenue? Mr. Hunter responded that it would be 12-14 feet from the ROW, but it changes somewhat along the street. On the B and C Blocks, the greatest width is six to eight feet. Ms. Fox stated that PZC made some suggestions about looking at this private area as a window view of the area. Would it be possible to enhance that so it does not consist only of a tree -lined green but is similar to a little oasis? On Corner D, there is a little cafe patio area. Have they given any more thought as to how they might utilize that space and improve the way it functions for those who are staying or walking through? It is a very narrow space, and there was concern about the parking and drop-off area. Mr. Hunter responded that it does feel a little narrow. However, we don't want it to be too wide, as we want it to feel a little different from all of the other streetscape. Sometimes the best spaces can be narrow or tall, if they are done right. That effort will need attention to detail and materials. That is one of the reasons there is more greenspace here. The space between C3 and C4, behind Ram is very lush. It should not feel like a throughway; it needs to feel like its own experience -- special to the uses that line it and not just a way to get to the B Block garage faster. Ms. Fox stated that what seems to be missing in these green spaces is unique pockets that provide an opportunity for a guitar or jazz player; they are not just a walkable view, but spaces with a more unique identity in the greenspace, which would attract a different kind of activity. There is that opportunity here, even though it is a drop-off point, for a more unique type of space and activity Mr. Hunter stated that on the other side of the corner is a much larger space that is intended for such purposes, and that kind of space also exists between Cap City and Fado. One more such space could be added, but no more than that should be created. Discussion about how to program these spaces will occur in the Final Development Stage. He noted that in D Block, there is a bocce ball court between the D1 and D2 buildings. That area will be unique and will draw usage. Ms. Fox inquired if the size of the F1 building was established, or is there possibility of movement for it, if a deeper space or carve out on a corner was desired. Mr. Hunter responded that the F1 building, the hotel, is set. It is necessary to determine that building early, due to the approval process with Marriott. The building size is driven largely by the room sizes on the floors above. The first floor does extend a little, particularly at the back of the building. That building is the least flexible in the plan. The F4 building could be many different shapes. At this point, it is a basic shape, which will evolve later, determined primarily by the market. Ms. Fox asked Ms. Husak to remind Council of staff's concerns that were shared with PZC, such as how the streets tie into the building fronts. Ms. Husak responded that one of their main concerns, which is reflected in one of the conditions, was that while the through movement from a vehicular and drop-off standpoint is important, they also recognize that there will be significant crossing of that drive by people coming from/returning to their vehicles or people renting the rooms on that side. They are working with the applicant to get it closer to what exists with the AC hotel, which appears to work well. She cannot recall any other issues that staff mentioned at PZC. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes inquired: o What is envisioned for this private drive on the drop-off side of the hotel, opposite this intersection on Dale Drive. This intersection appears to be very close to Bridge Park Avenue what is that distance? Ms. Husak responded that is approximately 120 feet. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes continued: o Where will deliveries be made for this hotel? Mr. Hunter responded that there are a couple spaces. There is drop-off space at the entry, which is very close to the delivery location at the back of Healthspot. There are spaces on Mooney Street that could be assigned, just west of there on the other side of the restaurant space. This is similar to Longshore Street, where there are parking spaces RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO T Held October 22, 2018 Page 21 of 30 Form 6101 that can be marked. This is preferable to creating large loading zones that remain empty other than certain times of the day. o Where is the trash pickup? Mr. Hunter responded that the trash pickup is tucked in the corner of F2. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes inquired if the intent is that all of the trash from this hotel be taken across the street to the parking garage. Mr. Hunter responded affirmatively. It is similar to what is presently occurring at Cap City. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that is not working very well. She is there often, and every time someone has been parked in the street and someone is trying to take trash across the street, all while people are trying to move through the area. She would prefer a different solution. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that she would caution against presenting Blocks F and G together. Reading from the PZC meeting minutes, which is how she arrived at her first question: "'Mr. Hunter stated the F4 office building will not be considered until the future. He explained the reason the applicant is requesting a waiver for a 7 -story building is due to market forces. He reported there are 150,000 — 2000,000 square foot office users out there that want to be in Bridge Park and currently cannot be accommodated. " Is that testimony related to building F4? Ms. Husak responded that it is not. It could be a typo in the minutes, but that is not what the plans or the analysis have shown. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that is why doing these two blocks together make it very difficult to separate the items. It is very difficult when applications are co -mingled. o Again, she is concerned about the delivery area. She understands that it isn't desirable to put large delivery zones in front of every building, but it is essential to put a delivery zone on every block. She does not see a delivery zone on this block, but she is viewing a small image. Perhaps there is such a zone on an adjacent block? It isn't referenced in any of the discussion. We need to make sure every block has a delivery option that is reasonable for everything in proximity to eliminate the need for UPS, FedEx and Uber drivers to stop in the middle of the street and disrupt traffic. She wants to ensure that on this block that is achieved. o This is a fairly large garage. She believes two exits are appropriate, or perhaps an entry could be modified into an exit for event times. There are a number of garages downtown Columbus where that occurs at certain times of the day — entry is blocked off during that period of time. She is not suggesting that occur here, but it is an option. o For the F4 building, it is difficult for her to approve a Basic Site Plan when the uses are unknown. The way all these services are handled is important. o She is concerned with the finishes. She travels for work, and these images look like every Residence Inn she has visited across the country. She was hoping for something more special, because this is located on Bridge Park Avenue — the best street in the District, other than Riverside Drive itself. In most of what is proposed, white panels and off-color brick are applied in a variety of ways. Bridge Park Avenue deserves better than that. Ms. Fox stated that she believes PZC was shown different images at their meeting that were more unique. Mr. Hunter stated that the two blocks were combined into one discussion at the PZC meeting. There was discussion about how the G Block images were more appealing than the F Block images. Ms. De Rosa inquired if the footprint is complete for this building, what does the design look like? Mr. Hunter indicated that their design architect will respond. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held October 22, 2018 Page 22 of 30 Form 6101 Chris Myers, Myers and Associates, stated the Marriott process is very lengthy, so the plan that is seen is fairly well developed, although there is room for adjustment based on the comments. The images show combinations of some of the exterior finishes, but the G Block images also apply. Materiality and uniqueness is the design direction. Their development of the hotel in their presentation of the building design will reflect that. Ms. De Rosa inquired if the footprint is completed, why can't that be shown. Mr. Hunter responded that although the footprint is done, that doesn't mean the building is designed yet. Ms. De Rosa stated that the footprint has much to do with what the exterior shaping will be. Mr. Hunter indicated that is true, but these are all representative images. The footprint, which indicates how the rooms are laid out, must be completed early in the process, but there is still opportunity for changes in massing and they can still change materials. For example, in early discussion with Marriott, one of their notes on the drawings was "no brick". Everything is to be smooth -faced finishes. His response was that in Dublin that wouldn't be permitted; there would need to be more flexibility. Although they are in the process, there is no building design that can be shown yet. That is part of the goal of this discussion — to obtain Council's feedback on what they like and don't like. They want to make sure everything is understood before proceeding further. Vice Mayor Groomes inquired if there is a building yet for F4. Mr. Hunter responded that there is no building design yet. Vice Mayor Groomes stated that there is much left to do, and the time is late. At this point, she is not comfortable approving this Basic Site Plan given some of these unanswered questions about loading zones. That is part of the Basic Site Plan review, and once the plan is passed on by Council, the opportunity is gone. Assuming this plan will be passed on to the Planning and Zoning Commission, she is unwilling to approve the Plan as it is and limit PZC's ability to alter it. That may be the case for the developer, as well. Are there things that Mr. Hunter would like to share with Council that are not included in these documents that might answer the questions that Council has asked? Mr. Hunter responded that they approached this at a basic level, setting lots and blocks. The F4 building is Office use, but although the use is known, there is no building design yet. If that use were to change, it would be necessary to bring the plan back for City review. The plan they have presented to Council reflects their best understanding of where the market is leading them, and how that can be supported with the parking and the street networks. It is not dissimilar with what occurred with the A Block office building. They are fully aware that if anything should change, it would be necessary to bring the plan back to Council. If the plan remains the same, they could move forward. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that the difficulty with setting the lots and blocks is the access points. If we set these lots and blocks and we want other entrances to the parking garage, that ability is limited because the access road will be on the side that is servicing the hotel rather than having a service loop there that isn't interconnected. They won't be able to have roadway access on the other side of this parking garage between it and the office building, because it isn't desirable to break up the blocks to that degree. The lots and blocks are fundamental because it determines access and layout, more than it is uses. Lots and blocks focus on far more than uses. Mr. Hunter stated that in terms of the street network and specifically the road between the garage and the office building, if they were to put a road between them, one building would be surrounded by four streets. This is not in keeping with the way they have developed Bridge Park and would begin to break up both Mooney and Dale streets. Between Banker and Bridge Park Avenue, there would be two more curb -cuts and potentially three, counting the entrances to the parking garage, as well — it would really break things up. That is the reason they arrived at this plan, which is what they consider to be the best solution. If Council is not comfortable, for example, with a single exit out of the parking garage, there are ways to accommodate that. It is acceptable not to have that waiver approved. However, the reason for the way it is currently is due to grade changes and the difficulty in making ramps align. There is likely a way to accomplish this differently. If there are waivers Council does not support, they will continue to work through the design. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held October 22, 2018 Page 23 of 30 Mr. Reiner suggested reviewing the list of waivers, which is what has been requested. [Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes reviewed the list of Waivers and Conditions, noting any concerns.] Mayor Peterson stated that the issues have been identified and will need to be resolved. These relate to entrance and exit in Waivers #5 and #6. Mayor Peterson moved to approve Waivers #1 through #4: 1. Building Types —Incompatible Building Types (Building F2) 2. Building Types —Front Properly Line Coverage (Building F1) 3. Building Types —Front Property Line Coverage (Building F3) 4. Building Types —Maximum Ground Story Height (Building F1) Ms. Fox seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes. Form 6101 Mayor Peterson moved to disapprove Waivers #5 and #6: 5. Building Types — Entry Location for Parking within Building (Building F2) 6. Site Development Standards — Parking Structure Design: Entrance and Exit Lanes (Building F2) Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes. Mayor Peterson moved to approve the Basic Plan with a modified Condition 5 and an additional Condition 8: I. That Building F3 be located within the required building zone and comply with the front property line coverage requirement to the maximum extent possible, for verification with the Site Plan Review; 2. That Building F2/F3 be relocated within the required building zone of 5 feet to 25 feet for Parking Structures, for verification with the Site Plan Review; 3. That the proposed patio space and seating areas located between the existing tree grates in the Bridge Park Avenue right-of-way and the fagade of Building F1 be revised to provide the minimum 12 feet of clear sidewalk width; . That the applicant provide a Parking Plan with the Site Plan Review to the satisfaction of the Planning Division; 5. That the applicant continues working with staff to ensure the private access drive located between Building's F1 and F2/F3 can accommodate appropriate pedestrian circulation and other types of mobility and transportation options to the satisfaction of the Engineering and Planning Divisions; That the applicant provide all final details regarding open space and site development standards with the Site Plan Review; 7. That the applicant continues to refine architectural details and Building Type requirements, as part of the Site Plan Review; and, Q That the applicant address deliveries and trash removal to address the concerns raised at City Council's review of the Basic Plan. Ms. Fox seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. Mayor Peterson moved to designate the Planning and Zoning Commission as the required reviewing body for future Development Plan Review and Site Plan Review applications for Bridge Park Block F. Ms. Alutto seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held October 22, 2018 Page 24 of 30 Form 6101 Basic Plan — Bridge Park Block G — (Case# 18-061BPRI Ms. Husak stated that G Block is just north of F Block. Council reviewed this block previously, but significant changes have made to the point where it is appropriate to have a second Basic Plan review. The applicant is requesting review and approval of a Basic Plan Review for a ±2.38 -acre development between Dale Drive to the east and Mooney Street to the west and north of Tuller Ridge Drive containing three new buildings and open space: 1. Office space building on south side with restaurant space at the ground story. A waiver is requested to permit a seventh story; 2. Parking garage (291 spaces) 3. Multi -family residential space (109 units) 4. Open space (private and public) in the interior of the Block. [Showed character images] The Administrative Review Team has reviewed the Basic Plan and recommends City Council take the following actions: Approve the 4 Waivers: 1. Building Types —Front Property Line Coverage (Building G2) 2. Building Types —Front Property Line Coverage (Building G4) 3. Building Types —Ground Story Use (Building G2) 4. Building Types —Maximum Permitted Building Height (Building G1) Approve the Basic Plan with 7 Conditions: 1. That the applicant be request approval of a curb cut along a principal frontage street (Building G2 along Dale Drive) by the City Engineer at Final Site Plan Review; 2. That the applicant work with staff to ensure that the internal circulation of the parking structure meets building applicable code requirements at the Final Site Plan Review; 3. That the proposed design of the plaza and streetscape extension adjacent to Building G1 be revised to meet Code to provide adequate pedestrian space; 4. That the applicant provide additional information to evaluate the actual relationship between the existing and proposed building G1 to the building in Block H prior to submitting for Final Site Plan Review; 5. That the applicant will have to address inconsistencies between the plans prior to applying for a Final Site Plan Review; 6. That the setback along the shopping corridor along Bridge Park Avenue meet Code requirements; and, 7. That the applicant revises the plans to eliminate door swings into the ROW. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that she is not opposed to a taller building, but questions why a waiver is requested at this point when Council has no idea of the theme of the building, other than it is Office. What will it look like? A waiver is requested prior to having the ability to be aware of the architectural style. Mr. Hunter stated that they have leased 100% of the existing office space. There are larger tenants looking at Bridge Park in particular. They tend to require 150,000 - 180,000 square feet. Those require big buildings that can't be accomplished without height. However, they wouldn't build a 180,000 square foot office building on spec. That tenant would need to be identified. They could ask for the waiver later; the only reason they have requested it now is that it helps in the discussions they are having with potential tenants. There is one, in particular, who would be a new office tenant for the Dublin community that has requested 150,000 — 200,000 square feet. Their schedules align, but they would need certainty and can't wait six months. Crawford Hoying has engaged Myers & Associates to help with the planning on this Block. They are doing the residential building, the hotel and the Garages. This Office building (G1) will be handled by a different architect, in order to have some architectural variety. If another firm is designing it, it will look different, which they believe is important. Mayor Peterson stated that if one tenant would occupy the building and even needed eight floors, Council's approval might depend on the intent for the building. Could Council waive the six -story limitation and the developer clarify the height needed later? RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6101 Feld October 22, 2018 Page 25 of 30 Mr. Hunter responded that if Council is comfortable with that amount of height and density, provided that it is supported with the infrastructure and the identified reviewing body to approve that building at Final Site Plan, that is fine. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes inquired if it would be possible to make it a Condition versus a Waiver — a Condition that additional stories would be permissible if they meet the architectural standards. Ms. Husak responded that it would require a Waiver since it is a Code requirement. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that when Council votes to determine the Lots and Blocks, we are tied to this footprint of all these buildings, including those on which they are prepared to move forward. In order to have that amount of square footage, a bigger footprint might be needed even if there are seven or eight stories. Approval tonight will set that footprint. Mr. Hunter responded that is correct; however, this plan is based on what they are experiencing with the current market. If the plan has to change significantly in a way that cannot be approved with the Final Site Plan, they would bring another Basic Plan to Council for consideration. It is a calculated risk, but they need to make certain judgments so that they can move forward, knowing that the market changes. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes inquired at what point does the City accept their greenspace as the actual greenspace? If this greenspace were to be eliminated, then where does it come back, as we haven't conditioned "fee in lieu" on any of this. How is that recaptured if some of this greenspace were to be eliminated? Ms. Husak responded that the required reviewing body, as determined by Council, would make all those decisions. There is no requirement in the Code that certain waivers have to be approved at certain stages of development or by certain reviewing bodies. Council could deny the waiver for the height, for example; the Planning Commission would review Council minutes and understand Council's concerns about architectural quality, and when they are faced with that waiver, the Commission would take Council's concerns into consideration. That is the same for the Open Space. Some of the open spaces are dependent on the number of units and number of bedrooms within units, and at this point, those numbers aren't available. It would be determined later. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that those greenspace calculations are provided in the staff report. Ms. Husak stated that those calculations are based on the information available at this time. Mr. Reiner stated that the developer is clearly shopping for clients. Office use is good for the City because of the tax base. He understands the desire to condition it upon architecture that meets Council's expectations. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that is what the City has always done, if more density is requested. Mr. Reiner stated that Council is interested in working with them, because they have been a good partner. Mr. Hunter stated that they attempted to determine what was necessary to obtain Council's feedback on at this point in time. Making the building wider if needed seemed possible, but if it needed to be higher, that seemed to be difficult. That is the reason they requested it at this time to make sure that Council understood, as they dealt with the market, what the parameters were. Mr. Reiner stated that Council is trying to be supportive, but is concerned about the architecture. Vice Mayor Groomes stated that Council is far more concerned about the architecture than the height. Mayor Peterson stated that the height isn't necessarily a concern, if it's the right building and the right tenant. Vice Mayor Groomes stated that, in addition, this building will be located on Bridge Park Avenue. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON. OHIO Held October 22, 2018 Page 26 of 30 Form 6101 Ms. De Rosa stated that the greenspace here is very important, as well. Once the building is built and we see it all in context, it is viewed differently. However, but she believes more greenspace is needed in and around the site. The congregating space will become increasingly important. She would be more concerned about removing greenspace than about the height. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that if this Block consisted of great greenspace, a parking garage, and an eight -story office building surrounded with nice plazas, and the residential building was eliminated, that would be a possibility. Mr. McDaniel inquired about the potential of having a park on top of the parking garage. Ms. Fox stated that was discussed by PZC. Mr. Reiner stated that the developer is seeking clients, and Council does not want to tie their hands in those efforts. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that this plan would actually tie their hands more than Council desires to do. Mr. Reiner stated that the applicant will return to Council if they identify a different client. Mayor Peterson stated that perhaps Council could approve this waiver, and based on Council's input, the applicant could return and request approval for eight stories. Mr. Hunter stated that if a client were to come to them and request 250,000 square feet that doesn't fit within these parameters, it would certainly warrant returning to Council for consideration. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that having parking lot exits onto Dale Drive will be problematic, according to the Engineering Division. Ms. Husak stated what was indicated is that it would require Engineering approval, but in Planning's reviews, it seemed likely to be approved. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that would not be desirable. Next to Riverside Drive, Dale Drive will be the City's next major north -south connector. She would be surprised if that is approved. It makes much more sense to enter and exit on Mooney Street versus Dale Drive. Mooney Drive is built for that type of purpose; Dale Drive is not. She would not support the first condition of a curbcut on Dale Drive. Mr. McDaniel stated that it was his understanding that the character of Dale Drive will begin to change at some point. Dale Drive, as it 'is currently constructed, is as a temporary treatment. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes inquired what it would look like going forward. It has been her understanding that it would look more like Bridge Park Avenue than Mooney Street. Mr. McDaniel stated that would be why Engineering might approve it — if the character of that road will change as intended. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that the attempt has been to keep curbcuts off Bridge Park Avenue and put them on the arterial streets instead. Therefore, she is not supportive of the first condition. Ms. Alutto asked if it would create another difficulty if there were to be two exits. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that it would require a different layout. Ms. Fox stated that there is an entrance for the parking on the west side of G2 and also one on Dale Drive. Mr. Hunter responded that is correct. He believes that is what Council was discussing regarding the F Block, as well. Ms. Fox stated that there is no other option for location of the exit, and it is necessary to be able to exit the garage in two ways. PZC did consider the exit for Mooney Street, but in order that it did not look like a parking entrance, some interesting architectural features would be needed, providing a glimpse into the private greenspace for the residential building. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that once the building is designed, the applicant can request a waiver from the reviewing body. If the design has been completed and no other way to accomplish this has been identified, the reviewing body has the ability to grant that waiver. If Council grants that waiver at this point, that is how it will be designed from the outset. She would prefer that Council's message be to design it RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON. OHIO Form 6101 Held October 22, 2018 Page 27 of 30 differently so that it is effective without needing that. At this point, the plan is so conceptual that it doesn't seem appropriate to grant a waiver. Ms. Husak clarified that it is a Condition, not a Waiver. Mayor Peterson asked if the remaining Conditions were acceptable to Council. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that she has no objection to the others. Mayor Peterson moved to approve the four waivers: • Building Types —Front Property Line Coverage (Building G2) • Building Types —Front Property Line Coverage (Building G4) • Building Types —Ground Story Use (Building G2) • Building Types —Maximum Permitted Building Height (Building G1) Ms. Alutto seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor Peterson, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Autto, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. Mayor Peterson moved to delete Condition 1 and to approve the remaining six conditions: ..._ ... 2. That the applicant work with staff to ensure that the internal circulation of the parking structure meets building applicable code requirements at the Final Site Plan Review; 3 That the proposed design of the plaza and streetscape extension adjacent to Building G1 be revised to meet Code to provide adequate pedestrian space; 4. That the applicant provide additional information to evaluate the actual relationship between the existing and proposed building G1 to the building in Block H prior to submitting for Final Site Plan Review; That the applicant will have to address inconsistencies between the plans prior to applying for a Final Site Plan Review; , That the setback along the shopping corridor along Bridge Park Avenue meet Code requirements; and, 7. That the applicant revise the plans to eliminate door swings into the ROW. Ms. Alutto seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes. Mayor Peterson moved to designate the Planning and Zoning Commission as the required reviewing body for future Development Plan Review and Site Plan Review applications for Bridge Park Block G. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes; Ms. Fox, yes. STAFF COMMENTS Mr. McDaniel introduced the new Director of Building Standards, Brad Fagrell. Mr. Fagrell has previously worked with the Ohio Department of Transportation, the City of Lancaster, and has had Chief Building Official experience. The City of Dublin welcomes his expertise and experience. Council welcomed Mr. Fagrell to the City. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Public Services Committee Report re. Recommendations on Aging in Place Ms. Alutto, Public Services Committee Chair, requested that, due to the lateness of the hour, this item be deferred to the next Council meeting. Council consensus was to defer this item to the November 5 Council meeting. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held October 22, 2018 Page 28 of 30 Meeting Form 6101 Administrative Committee: Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes, Chair stated that as the discussion tonight reveals, work needs to begin on a Code amendment regarding the reviewing body for development. This was an item that was identified at Council's Retreat as one of Council's objectives. Council is not the venue for Planning and Zoning ,work. It was frustrating for Council tonight to do that. However, Council previously took on the responsibility of doing that work. Council needs to either embrace this, or identify a way to return it to the Planning and Zoning Commission's responsibilities. Seven to eight months after Council's Retreat, we are no closer to addressing this problem. Community Development Committee: Mr. Reiner, Chair requested that for the sake of efficiency, the new flag design item will be brought forward to Council at the November 19 Council meeting versus having yet another committee review. He suggested that preceding Council's consideration, Council members study the information about flags -- the ten elements that comprise a good flag design. It is important to first understand the specific criteria for a good flag for a municipality, so that Council can make a decision for the good of the community. Mayor Peterson requested that Mr. Reiner e-mail Council members information on recommended sources for their review. Mr. Reiner stated that a web search for quality flag design will bring up an abundance of information. There is also a book titled, "Good Flag, Bad Flag," that provides the principles on which a flag should be based to satisfactorily represent a community. Finance Committee Mr. Keenan, Chair stated that, as he understands it, the two scheduled Committee of the Whole reviews of the 2019 Operating Budget have been changed, based on the scheduled standing committee reviews for the proposed budget. He requested that staff forward the revised schedule for reviews of the Operating Budget to Council. Staff will forward the schedule tomorrow. Dublin Friendship Committee Ms. Alutto indicated that she has no report. Mr. Reiner noted that he recently attended a Friendship Cities luncheon, which was held at the Statehouse, and spoke with three previous Columbus mayors. It was an interesting lunch. He compliments Ms. Alutto for her efforts with Dublin's Committee. MORK Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes invited Mr. Rayburn and Mr. Plouck to come forward to share information about the City's award from MORK for its Sustainable Cities Work. Mr. Rayburn stated that Sustainable 2050 is a new MORK program, which invites cities to compete based on their sustainability record. The City of Dublin submitted an application and met the criteria for the platinum level, which is the highest achievable level. The City is now a member of the Novo Class of Sustainable 2050 communities, together with four other communities in the region. They were proud to represent the City. US33 Innovation Corridor Ms. Fox reported that the Corridor Overlay was discussed at the last meeting. The overlay for the 33 Corridor will create some boundaries where architectural guidelines, the way the buildings face the street and the aesthetics are being considered. This includes Industrial Parkway. There was overall agreement to move forward with the plans. Ms. De Rosa noted that one of the conversations was to share this information a bit more with the individual communities. Jerome Township will be sharing this with their community on November 11. At some point, this will be shared with the Dublin community as well. She commented that there was shared enthusiasm for the plan as it was presented. Now the plan will be taken out to the different communities to gain their feedback and support. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON. OHIO Held October 22, 2018 Page 29 of 30 Form 6101 Dublin Arts Council Mr. Reiner thanked everyone for their attendance in support of the B.R.E.A.D. Festival. Unfortunately, it was a cold, rainy day and evening. Much effort was put into the event; the exhibition of the Mandala Sand Painting by the Monks of Drepung Loseling Monastery was very impressive! COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Ms. Fox: 1. Enjoyed the Spooktacular event; however, she was disappointed that no other Council Member was costumed appropriately for the occasion! She complimented the City Events staff on their work. There was an amazing community turnout for the event. The diversity of the people who attend City events is impressive. City staff works on building community and making social connections, enabling shared memories to be created in a manner unparalleled by any other suburban community. 2. Attended the Neighborhood Leadership Association meeting — it was an excellent and informative meeting. 3. Met with the Historic Dublin Guidelines group, out of which came some great suggestions. 4. Noted that as she attends these different events, she is discovering that community engagement is improving. The collaboration between businesses, the City, the Schools, the charities and social organizations is strengthening the fiber of this community. We need to continue to support that. Ms. De Rosa: 1. Stated that she will circulate a photo of Ms. Fox in her Cat in the Hat costume at the Spooktacular event! And she agrees -- it was a spectacular Spooktacular! The School Resource Officers were clearly the rock stars, and the children were so excited to see them. Congratulations to staff for the wonderful event! 2. Commented that there were several meetings and a lot of work done for the recent CIP Budget analysis. She wants to thank all of the staff involved with working on that. Her request moving forward is that the quarterly financial update could encompass the CIP projects. This would be in addition to the monthly CIP Design, Construction and Study Outlook updates. Her request is for a budget update on the individual line items in the CIP -- not just the Major Projects. Providing those updates on a regular basis will enable that data to be available for the annual CIP budget workshops. Mr. McDaniel stated that staff would formulate that type of report. Mr. Reiner: 1. Reported that he recently attended a recognition dinner in Washington, D.C., at which three residents were recognized: Charles Misfud, Geraldine Dixon and Dr. Miely. These individuals were honored at a white tie dinner held in the Congressional Library for their extensive charity work on behalf of the "poorest of the poor and the sickest of the sick." He expressed congratulations to these individuals! 2. Noted that he read the memo regarding custom homes and community residential standards. The City may want to reconsider using vinyl as a building material for homebuilders and move to stucco, brick and similar materials. Dublin now has many tract home developers, while other communities are increasing their higher - end home product. Those types of homes are no longer being built in this community. However, buyers of these type of homes are typically company CEOs, and it is an advantage for Dublin to be able to continue to attract some of those home buyers. When they purchase a home in a community, they often locate their corporations there, as well. He is concerned that the individuals with economic power are moving to other cities. It is this type of home buyer who also has the ability to build equity and tax base in our community. Dublin has not taken advantage of the opportunity to create those types of subdivisions, but it may be too late to do so if there is no longer sufficient land. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6101 Held October 22, 2018 Page 30 of 30 Ms. Alutto: 1. Stated that the Dublin Arts Council has retained a consultant, Helen Lessick, to help develop a Public Art Plan, which Ms. Lessick would like to present to the Public Services Committee. Her report would be a culmination of an overview of public art and some of her initial observations and findings regarding public art in Dublin. Would Council be agreeable to that presentation being scheduled for a Public Services Committee meeting in December? Council members had no objections. 2. Reported that the Summit on Aging was held this weekend. She thanked Syntero representatives, Ms. Nardecchia and the panel members for their efforts. It was a fantastic event, attended by approximately 125 individuals. Significant progress was made. 3. Shared that the HDBA Annual Chili Cook -off will be held his weekend. Tickets are still available for this fun event. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes thanked staff for the excellent Neighborhood Leadership meeting held on October 17. She has received much positive feedback regarding the meeting structure used this year. Mayor Peterson stated that he recently read an article on the 50 Best Communities in the United States. The City of Dublin was listed as number six in the nation as one of the best suburbs in which to live. Watever we are doing seems to be working! ADJOURNMENT The /meting was adjosrfned at 10:53 p.m. Mayor — PresjdAg %ffcer Clerk of Council