Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-16-20 Council MinutesRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6101 Held CALL TO ORDER November 16, 2020 Mayor Amorose Groomes called the Monday, November 16, 2020 Regular Meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were Mayor Amorose Groomes, Vice Mayor De Rosa, Ms. Alutto, Ms. Fox, Mr. Keeler, Mr. Peterson and Mr. Reiner. Staff members present were Mr. McDaniel, Mr. Rogers, Ms. Readler, Ms. Burgett, Ms. O'Callaghan, Mr. Stiffler, Chief Paez, Mr. Somerville, Ms. Rauch, Ms. Burness, Mr. Hammersmith, Ms. Gee, Mr. Bishop, Ms. O'Malley, Mr. Stanford, Ms. Martin, and Mr. Plouck. ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Amorose Groomes moved to adjourn to executive session for the discussion of the employment of a public employee. Ms. Alutto seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Alutto, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes, Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Mayor Amorose Groomes reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. She reiterated that, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the State's emergency declaration, the meeting is being conducted via an online platform and live -streamed at the City's website and via the City's YouTube. This is allowed as a result of the passage of Am. Sub. H.B. 197, which includes temporary changes to the Ohio Open Meetings Law. She reiterated her previous statement regarding the submission of any comments by the public prior to the meeting by e-mail to the Clerk or during the meeting via the form on the website. She emphasized that Council desires to accommodate public participation and comment to the greatest extent possible throughout this Pandemic. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Rogers led the Pledge of Allegiance. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS • Small Business Saturday — November 28, 2020 Mayor Amorose Groomes introduced Jenny Amorose, Chief Operating Officer and Jamie Menges, Board Member, Dublin Chamber of Commerce and read the proclamation. She invited comment from them. Mr. Menges, Board Member thanked the City for their ongoing support of the Dublin Chamber, which proudly celebrates 45 years of serving the Dublin business community this year. As the COVID-19 pandemic continued to assault our normal way of life, the Chamber has focused on survival of Dublin businesses as well as having an opportunity to thrive during this time. They have developed a special web page: dublinchamber.org/support and they hope that residents will see the value of shopping local. He encouraged everyone to purchase gifts and necessities locally, keeping the business in Dublin. He offered examples of all of the local retailers, restaurants and businesses that could be patronized in Dublin during this challenging time. The pandemic may steal some of our traditions this year, but we have an unwavering faith in our community knowing we will do everything possible to support our local businesses with the help of this website. Mayor Amorose Groomes noted that the Dublin Chamber has an outstanding ad running in Business First featuring a pumpkin pie with a shamrock! She thanked them for all they do to support every business in the City of Dublin. • Presentation to the City from The Arthritis Foundation — Kevin Gadd, Chair of the 2021 Classic Auto Show and Susan Davis, Executive Director of the Arthritis Foundation presented a plaque to Council, recognizing the City's longstanding support of the auto show. They have been in Dublin for 38 years and their event brings many to the City. Their event was postponed this year, due to the pandemic. He assured Council they will be back in 2021! RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON. OHIO Form 6101 Held November 16, 2020 Page 2 of 22 Ms. Davis echoed his comments, noting the City has been an amazing partner of the Arthritis Foundation. There are 2.8 million Ohioans with arthritis, including children, and on behalf of all of them, she thanked the City for their support. They plan to return in 2021 ! Mayor Amorose Groomes stated this is a wonderful event for the residents. She added that her first car is now considered a classic car! Council is pleased that the proceeds of this event support the wonderful work of the Arthritis Foundation. CITIZEN COMMENTS Ms. Burness and Ms. Clarke reported that no Citizen Comments for items not on tonight's agenda have been submitted. CONSENT AGENDA There was no request from Council to remove an item from the Consent Agenda. The Clerk and Ms. Burness noted that no comments have been received regarding the Consent Agenda. Ms. Alutto moved approval of the one item on the Consent Agenda. Mr. Keeler seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes. • Approval of Minutes of the November 9, 2020 Regular Council Meeting SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING — ORDINANCES Ordinance 45-20 Amending Chapter 35 of the Codified Ordinances to Revise the Schedule of Fees and Service Charges for City of Dublin Services. Mr. Bishop reported that the requested benchmarking information has been provided by the City Manager's office and the Finance Department. In terms of questions specific to the proposed fees, no changes have been made to what was proposed at the first reading. The Clerk and Ms. Burness noted that no comments have been received regarding this matter. Mr. Keeler stated it was helpful to review the benchmarking information, and it appears Dublin's fees are not the highest or the lowest. His question relates to a Planning and Zoning fee for a PUD in the amount of $10,625, which seems to be an outlier. The next closest fee for this is $2,525 in the City of Marysville. Are the total Planning & Zoning fees included in the total fees referenced in Figure 1 ? Mr. Dearth responded they are included in Figure 1. Planning offers 3 tracks for development approvals. The mock development used for this exercise was a PUD. The hybrid track and the straight zoning track would be much less expensive. Ms. Fox stated that PUDs are often utilized in Dublin to secure a better product. In reviewing the fees for other municipalities, they do not charge differently for PUD, hybrid or straight development tracks. Her question is if a PUD is what we desire to use in Dublin, Dublin's fees are five times that of any other municipality. From an economic development standpoint or quality of construction, is Dublin too far afield to persuade applicants to use the PUD process? Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that one of the reasons for the high fees for a PUD is because the developer cannot meet the exact requirements of the zoning code for a parcel and opts to use the PUD process, which allows some flexibility. In the end, it may save money for them to use a PUD process, and the fee at $10,625 is not a high threshold for these tradeoffs. Mr. Dearth added that the fee is reflective of the amount of administrative work needed by staff to secure approvals from Planning, Engineering and Building for a PUD. Ms. Fox stated that there is actually a savings for an applicant using a PUD because they cannot meet the requirements of the zoning code for the parcel. Ms. Rauch added that is one perspective, but the PUD process in Dublin is a multi -step one with three separate applications involved. Other municipalities may not have such a system for comparison. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6101 Held November 16, 2020 Page 3 of 22 Ms. Fox stated it is helpful to know what other cities charge as we compete for commercial developments. We also need to benchmark this for the residential side. Has this been done? Mr. Bishop responded that Dublin has comparable fees on the residential side, but specific benchmarking for those fees has not been done. Vice Mayor De Rosa echoed her appreciation for the work in providing this detailed information. Much of the cost of development is in the length of the process versus the fee, and organizations appreciate cities looking at their processes to make them more efficient. A good example is no longer asking for deposits in booking facilities due to the time involved in processing the deposits. Vice Mayor De Rosa stated she has a request for consideration -- changes to the proposed senior category fees for the DCRC and the Aquatics memberships. The percentage increase for the senior category should be in line with that for the other categories. In the proposed fees, the senior DCRC membership fee increase is proposed as 8 percent versus the family category fees in the 4.1 to 4.5 percent range. The same holds true for the swim passes where the senior category was double the increase for other categories. These increases should be the same across the board, and she suggests 4 percent increases across the board. Now is not the time in this environment to discourage these memberships. She noted that 38 percent of the passes are for seniors and what is proposed would represent a 30 percent increase for the seniors over two years. Therefore, she suggests that the percent increase for seniors be in line with that of the other categories, which appear to be 4 percent across the board. Mr. Bishop stated he can make that adjustment and deferred to Ms. Gee to comment. Ms. Gee stated that she has nothing to add, but noted that senior memberships are highly subsidized, more so than regular memberships. That is one of the reasons for the differential in percentage. Vice Mayor De Rosa commented that she believes these memberships are a good value in our Forever Dublin initiative. This is one area where we can make sure we have healthy exercise and options for the seniors. Her request is simply to keep the senior fees in line with those for the others. Ms. Gee pointed out that the City is also tracking the impact of the baby boomer group on memberships. Because that is a fairly large demographic and those folks are shifting from a regular membership to the highly subsidized senior membership, it will impact the City's cost recovery numbers. Ms. Fox stated she is aware much of this based on cost recovery. However, as we increase these fees and if not done on an incremental basis, it can be a big increase. In the cost recovery aspect, there is a matter of being efficient that should be a consideration. The incremental increases drive the process to be more efficient. She is concerned that if the fees increase by 10 or 20 percent each year, it gets out of hand. She likes the concept of a percentage increase incrementally versus a total cost recovery. It is important to maintain a reasonable fee structure and not simply focus on cost recovery going forward. Mr. McDaniel re-emphasized that the purpose of the fee-based system is for Council from a policy perspective to determine what costs are to be recovered 100 percent and which ones will not be recovered or recovered by a lesser percentage. The City has made significant effort in streamlining processes such as building permits. If Council has particular services with significant changes proposed, those fees can be put on hold and studied further, perhaps at the Committee level. He added that the process improvement the City does is up to date and leverages new technology. Mr. Stiffler added that in terms of the mechanics behind the cost increases, the salary and benefit costs increase at a stable rate over time and those are considered in the cost study updates. Some services may become more complicated to deliver in terms of staff time and result in more than an inflationary increase in cost. We tend to take action to smooth out cost recovery over time, as we want to recover 100 percent of costs but do not want a very unpredictable fee schedule. There was no further discussion. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held November 16, 2020 Page 4 of 22 Vice Mayor De Rosa moved to amend the Ordinance to adjust the Recreation fee schedule for seniors per the discussion to be in line with the percentage increase for the other categories. Ms. Fox seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes. Vote on the Ordinance as amended: Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes. INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING — ORDINANCES Ordinance 46-20 Amending the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2020. Ms. Alutto introduced the Ordinance. Mr. Stiffler stated this is the final supplemental appropriation for fiscal year 2020. The memo provides details on the appropriation, and staff recommends approval at the second reading/public hearing on December 7. He added that we are six weeks out from year-end and staff is monitoring a number of funds and accounts. At this point, no additional appropriations beyond these are requested; however, staff will continue to evaluate that and perhaps may have amendments to the ordinance presented on December 7. Some accounts are unpredictable and out of the City's control, such as tax refunds, health care expenses, etc. He offered to respond to questions. The Clerk and Ms. Burness reported that no comments have been received regarding this matter. Mayor Amorose Groomes asked about Section 2, which is an appropriation for monies in the PACE fund. She understands this is a pass through process and wonders why there would be a deficit in such an account. Mr. Stiffler responded that we created three PACE accounts in one calendar year and then skipped a year and created this one. Staff established appropriate processes for all parts of it, except for picking up new PACE accounts at the beginning of a budget cycle. This one was the first new one from the original three that were created together, and this one was not budgeted for last year. Staff then recognized that we need to look at the previous PACE funds as part of the budgeting process and make sure to include those. There is a new one coming online next year that is already part of the budget. Staff will continually monitor these PACE accounts as they come on line. This has been corrected and will be corrected moving forward. Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that the City does therefore have an expense when the PACE pass through is established. She recalls discussion about fees for PACE projects, but Council felt it was important to encourage participation in PACE projects for economic development reasons. Mr. Stiffler noted there is offsetting revenue for all of this that comes from the county auditor. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the December 7 Council meeting. Ordinance 47-20 Establishing Appropriations Based on the 2021 Operating Budget of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, for the Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2021. Ms. Alutto introduced the Ordinance. Mr. Stiffler stated this appropriates monies for the 2021 operating budget and the first year of the 2021-2025 CIP. Staff recommends approval at the second reading/public hearing on December 7. The Clerk and Ms. Burness reported that no comments have been received regarding this matter. There was no further discussion. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the December 7 Council meeting. Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Feld Ordinance 48-20 November 16, 2020 Page 5 of 22 Determining to Proceed with the Acquisition, Construction, and Improvement of Certain Public Improvements in the City of Dublin, Ohio in Cooperation with The Columbus Regional Energy Special Improvement District (600 Metro Place North, Dublin, Ohio Project) Ms. Alutto introduced the Ordinance. Mayor Amorose Groomes noted that Ms. O'Malley will address all of the legislation related to this PACE project in her presentation tonight. However, the vote on December 7 for the ordinances will be done separately on each individual ordinance. Ms. O'Malley stated that Council continues to support Dublin's Economic Development Plan that helps ensure Dublin's office market remains competitive. One tool available to existing building owners is the use of the Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program. This enables major energy efficiency improvements to commercial buildings. PACE provides a method to finance these improvements. The PACE process allowed qualified energy improvements to be financed through special assessments on a property owner's real estate bill. A summary of the PACE process was provided in the materials for this meeting. Council is required to pass three ordinances and two resolutions related to this project. The resolution to be approved tonight approves the property owner's petition to the City to levy the special assessment. The second resolution and two of the ordinances provide for the steps outlined in the ORC for levying those special assessments. The last ordinance approves the actual transaction documents. This PACE project is for the building at 600 Metro Place North and includes $8.5 million for the retrofit and conversion of the Crowne Plaza to a Doubletree by Hilton. Unlike previous PACE projects, which utilized an Ohio Air Quality Development Authority financing model, this particular project is a capital provider and there are no impacts to existing or future property tax collections due to any of the related parties in the City, including the school districts or the township. They will remain whole. The scope of work to this property includes equipping the building with an energy efficient building envelope, LED lighting, high efficiency HVAC, and some new plumbing fixtures. Staff recommends Council approval of the three ordinances on December 7. She offered to respond to any questions. Ms. Burness and the Clerk reported that no comments have been received regarding the three ordinances related to this matter. Mayor Amorose Groomes again emphasized the need for streamlining of this process, which is very cumbersome. Any modification would need to be made by the state legislature. Ms. O'Malley noted that if there any opportunities for streamlining, she will pursue them. Mr. McDaniel added that he has personally engaged Columbus -Franklin County Finance Authority on this matter and Ms. Gilger will continue to raise this at the regional level. There has been no action to date on the requests for simplification. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the December 7 Council meeting. Ordinance 49-20 Levying Special Assessments for the Purpose of Acquiring, Constructing, and Improving Certain Public Improvements in the City of Dublin, Ohio in Cooperation with The Columbus Regional Energy Special Improvement District (600 Metro Place North, Dublin, Ohio Project) Ms. Alutto introduced the Ordinance. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the December 7 Council meeting. Ordinance 50-20 Authorizing and Approving an Energy Project Cooperative Agreement by and between the City of Dublin, Ohio, The Columbus Regional Energy Special Improvement District Inc., Dublin Witness, LLC and Twain Community Partners III LLC, A Special Assessment Agreement by and between The City of Dublin, Meeting Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO November 16, 2020 Page 6 of 22 Held Ohio, The County Treasurer of Franklin County, Ohio, The Columbus Regional Energy Special Improvement District, Inc., Dublin Witness, LLC, and Twain Community Partners III LLC, and Related Agreements, All of Which Provide for the Financing of Special Energy Improvements Projects (600 Metro Place North, Dublin, Ohio Project) Ms. Alutto introduced the Ordinance. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the December 7 Council meeting. Ordinance 51-20 Rezoning 45.4 Acres, More or Less, from R, Rural District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District to Facilitate the Future Development of 90 Single-family Homes and up to 150 Living Units at a Maximum Density of 14,500 Square -Feet - per -Acre for Seniors with Varying Levels of Care in One or More Buildings with 12.5 Acres, More or Less, of Open Space. (Dublin Gateway) (CASE #17 - 061 Z/PDP) Ms. Alutto introduced the Ordinance. Ms. Martin stated the following: • The site is 45.5 acres in size and is northeast of the intersection of Hyland -Croy Road and Post Road. The site is comprised of two parcels and has approximately 3,300 feet of frontage along Hyland -Croy Road and 500 feet of frontage along Post Road. Each parcel currently contains a residence with access to Hyland -Croy Road. The site is surrounded by established single- family neighborhoods with Park Place to the north and Post Preserve to the east. Additionally, the Jerome Grand, located within Jerome Township, Union County is to the west. • Hyland -Croy Road is not located within the City of Dublin jurisdiction; it is located within Union County and under the purview of the Union County Engineer. • As shown on the regional context map, the property is adjacent to the US 33/State Route 161 /Post Road interchange. There are future planned improvements for this interchange in conjunction with MORPC, the Ohio Department of Transportation and the City of Dublin that will realign the interchange. This is a separate matter from tonight's rezoning consideration. • This rezoning request is for 45.5 +/- acres from Rural District to a Planned Unit Development District. The proposal includes 90 single-family lots and up to 150 Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF) units. Also provided are 12.4 acres of open space and six public streets, including the extension of three existing streets. • She provided the case history from the time of the concept plan in May of 2015. The concept plan was reviewed by PZC and the applicant was encouraged to meet with surrounding residents to address their concerns with a three-story independent living facility as well as proposed road connections to the site. • In January of 2018, Council approved the annexation of the subject property from Jerome Township, Union County to the City of Dublin. • In December of 2019, PZC tabled the Preliminary Development Plan and the Zoning and Preliminary Plan per the applicant's request based on the need for additional time to coordinate with surrounding residents. • In January of 2020, PZC reviewed a PDP/Z/PP for the rezoning and platting of 45.4 acres for future development of 90 single-family homes and up to 200 living units for ACLF. Both cases were tabled at the applicant's request. • On March 5, 2020, PZC again tabled both cases at the applicant's request without discussion. • On April 30, 2020, PZC reviewed a revised Preliminary Development Plan/Zoning and Preliminary Plat for future development of 90 single-family homes and up to 150 living units for ACLF. PZC recommended disapproval to City Council with the finding that the review criteria were not met. • In regard to neighborhood engagement, the applicant has hosted several neighborhood meetings — two in 2015 and one at the end of 2019. Additionally, there was substantive neighborhood engagement at the January 2020 PZC meeting where public comments were provided. At the time, the comments reflected concerns with the height of the ACLF facility and requested it be Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held November 16, 2020 Page 7 of 22 reduced; concerns with the quality and character of the ACLF facility; a desire to ensure consistency with the existing neighborhoods; a concern with the proposed size of the new residential lots; and concerns with the traffic. • She commented regarding the Community Plan — Future Land Use guidance. The site highlighted in black on the slide has two separate land use designations. The Suburban Residential Low Density is recommended for the northern third of the site. Mixed Residential Low Density is recommended for the southern two-thirds of the site. These density recommendations vary from 1-3 dwelling units per acre with the development character including detached single-family as well as attached single-family, low density and multi -family. These combined recommendations equate to a maximum of 121 single-family or two-family residential units as calculated across the 45.5 acres. • The applicant is proposing an Adult Congregate Living Facility, which the Community Plan Future Lane Use would designate as a General Institutional Use, which is not recommended for the site. The General Institutional Use in the Community Plan references surrounding context and that the intensity of that use be compatible. • In areas of the City where special attention is to be paid to characteristics that are unique, there are Special Area Plans. The Northwest/Glacier Ridge Area Plan recommends single-family detached homes adjacent to the existing single- family neighborhoods and emphasizes the rural roadway character and the protection of the South Fork of the Indian Run that connects to the Red Trabue. • The Thoroughfare Plan is the final prong of the Community Plan. As mentioned, Hyland -Croy Road is under the jurisdiction of Union County and is designated a Minor Arterial. The planned right-of-way width for Hyland -Croy to allow for future roadway expansion is 100 feet. The rural character is achieved by a generous setback, ranging from 100 to 200 feet. The applicant is providing an additional 50 feet of right-of-way width to allow for future improvements and is also providing 100 -foot setbacks along both Post Road and Hyland -Croy Road to maintain the significant setbacks along all neighborhood frontages along Hyland -Croy. • The proposed development plan has two subareas. Subarea A is located at the intersection of Hyland -Croy and Post Road and is the location of the ACLF facility, which may be developed in a single building or multiple buildings and is allowed to be developed at a density up to 14,500 square feet per acre. • Subarea B of 35.6 acres is proposed to be developed in two phases with a total of 90 single-family lots for a density of 2.53 dwelling units per acre. The surrounding residential density varies from 1.5 units per acre to just under 2. • The applicant has included proposed uses and development standards as part of the preliminary development plan request. Subarea A permits the ACLF, parks and open space, and parking and meets the minimum standards for setback; has a lot cover of 70 percent consistent with Code; and has parking of 75 to 225 spaces or .5 — 1.5 spaces per unit. • Subarea B permitted uses are single-family detached homes, parks and open space, model homes and home occupation. It also aligns with surrounding residential development and prohibits fences, sheds and pools. It provides a minimum of four parking spaces per home — two garage and two driveway. The minimum lot requirements are 5,830 sq. ft. lots. The perimeter lots will border existing neighborhoods and will be 65 feet in width and 100 feet in depth. The interior lots are smaller with additional lot coverage and reduced setbacks. • Proposed architecture and building materials have been identified in the development text, although conceptual architecture character and elevations have not been provided for the ACLF or for the single-family homes. The ACLF and single-family homes are proposed to be a maximum of 35 feet in height, consistent with one another and with surrounding development. A variety of permitted primary and secondary materials are identified for the ACLF; the applicant would be required to have the building elevations approved by PZC with the final development plan. The applicant is proposing those building elevations would need to be selected from the palette identified in the development text. • Accessory structures including garages in Subarea A are required to be architecturally integrated and would also be required to be approved by PZC. Meeting Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held November 16, 2020 Page 8 of 22 • Single-family elevations are not required to be approved by PZC at the final development plan, although many developers elect to provide conceptual architectural character. • The homes in Subarea B are proposed to be one to two stories in height, include the same cladding and trim materials as Subarea A. The maximum permitted garage fagade is proposed to be 50 percent of the home. • Open space and connectivity have been considered as part of this development. The applicant is extending three existing street stubs from adjacent neighborhoods as well as developing three new streets for a total of six public rights-of-way. Sidewalks will be provided along all public streets as well as a shared -use path along the Hyland -Croy Road frontage. A total of 12.4 acres of open space across eight reserves are provided, which equates to 28 percent of the land area. The purple colored open space in Subarea A will be owned and maintained by the ACLF. All other open spaces will be owned by the City of Dublin. The green colored areas will be maintained by the homeowners association, while the City of Dublin will maintain all shared -use paths identified in red as well as all stormwater management basins and associated apertures. • A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) is required to be established as part of a rezoning. A TIS is currently under review and being finalized by the City of Dublin Engineer and the Union County Engineer's office. Continued coordination is required on this, although eight intersections were studied as part of the TIS. The study recommends certain improvements and offsite contributions, which will be covered in the proposed infrastructure agreement. • PZC reviewed the proposal at their April 30, 2020 meeting. At that time, staff recommended conditional approval with four conditions. The applicant has met condition 4 related to an infrastructure agreement and they are working toward completion of condition 3 regarding the TIS. The applicant has not completed condition 1 for street names and the applicant is working with staff to revise minor details in the development text. • In consideration of staff's recommendation and the review criteria as well as the proposal before PZC, the PZC recommended disapproval to City Council. A vote of disapproval by PZC requires a decision made by a supermajority of Council (5 members) to approve the rezoning. • The Commission cited a number of criteria they found not to be met. Specifically, they cited concerns with density, intensity, deviation from the Community Plan, and lack of detail provided in regard to traffic and architecture. • Should Council desire to approve this rezoning, staff recommends three conditions be carried forward at the second reading on December 7. These are outlined in the materials provided. She offered to respond to any questions. Mr. Stanford is also available for questions. Mayor Amorose Groomes invited the applicant's representative, Ms. Comek to make her presentation. Laura M. Comek, 17 S. High Street - Suite 700, Columbus, Ohio 43215 noted she has a few items to add to the staff presentation. 1. Ms. Martin reviewed the future land use plan from the Community Plan. Their proposal complies with the future land use plan. The characterizations tonight were accurate, but not complete. The district where the Gorden farm properties lies is described as, "plan to include an integration of a broad range of housing within neighborhoods and will allow for greater housing choices, particularly for younger and older age groups and provide market flexibility." In the staff report from March 5, 2020 relevant to this proposal, the future land use classification is further defined by the following statement: "Mixed, residential low density category. Areas are intended to provide a mix of housing options and transition from existing single-family neighborhoods." In fact, the characterization in the City's future land use plan, as approved by City Council, even allows multi- family housing. That is not what is proposed here, but the proposal does fit in — both with the descriptions of the type of housing and with the broad range of age groups that they meet. Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Meld November 16, 2020 Page 9 of 22 2. With regard to the zoning code standards, the only positive related to this project going on for eight years is that they have answered nearly every staff question about details. This project meets the City's written zoning code standards. This project also meets various unwritten standards that exist in Dublin and customary expectations about quality of housing, etc. They meet both of those. Their text states specifically that the Subarea B single-family homes will be presented in final elevation format at the time of Final Development Plan review. Some applications do not meet this. 3. Through review with the staff, they required that the proposal meet the Dublin appearance code. That is expressly set forth in the text. Therefore, they meet the written code in Dublin and the unwritten code and expectations of Dublin. 4. In the April 30, 2020 staff report, City staff recommended approval because the application complies with the Community Plan, the Codes and various standards. Now, the City Manager's staff is recommending approval of this application by City Council. 5. With regard to Ordinance 51-20, the case is broken down that simply. They have concluded the TIS and it is in for final review. She will reserve comments on that until the staff presentation is made for Ordinance 52-20. 6. In terms of conditions, they have proposed street names and are waiting to hear back from the City. 7. In terms of text modifications, when she received the staff report on Friday, she contacted Ms. Martin and Ms. Rauch as the applicant was not aware of any. The ones she received this morning are very minor and do not represent any substantive issue — they are wordsmithing, essentially. 8. In regard to Conditions 3 and 4 related to the TIS and the infrastructure agreement, she will defer comment until Ordinance 52-20 is presented. Mayor Amorose Groomes noted that some members of the public have indicated they want to speak in the meeting. Ms. Burness reported that a comment was received via the website. From Zobeida Cruz-Monserrate, 6834 Stillhouse Lane, Dublin, OH 43016 Subject: Ordinance 51-20 As a resident of a street impacted by the development for which Ordinance 51-20 affects, I will like further clarification of how this ordinance will impact the opening/expansion of Stillhouse Lane and the traffic through it. I will also like to know how this will affect the city plans that impact Post Preserve Boulevard. Thanks for your attention to this matter. In response to Mayor Amorose Groomes, Mr. Stanford indicated he will follow up with this resident regarding these questions. (Due to technical issues, Mr. Keith Hammond could not join the meeting and submitted written testimony. Mr. Alkire did not join the meeting) Ms. Burness reported another comment was just received through the website. From: Charles Sanders, 6842 Stillhouse Lane, Dublin, OH 43016 Re: Extension of existing hub streets to Hyland -Croy How can we do a valid traffic impact study during the present pandemic when a lot of residents are working reportedly from home? Thank you. Mayor Amorose Groomes asked Mr. Stanford to respond to this resident. She emphasized this is a first reading and there will be another opportunity for public testimony at the second reading/public hearing on December 7. Council Questions/Discussion Ms. Alutto asked what is the assumed pricepoint of the homes. Ms. Comek responded the homes will be in the approximately $500,000 range. Ms. Alutto stated she has concerns with the sideyard of five feet. It does not seem adequate unless all utilities can be placed at the rear of the home. She recalls the small sideyard for Oak Park bringing issues with AC units. Ms. Comek stated these units will be located in the rear of the yard. Ms. Alutto stated she has concerns with the density/intensity in the text. She needs to have more understanding of this. She does not have an issue with the ACLF and is pleased it was reduced from three to two stories. She understands the concerns with the lack of details on the finishings and understands the concerns about the traffic impact study. She is not certain if she agrees that the plan does not fit the overall Form 6101 RE(10*0*01313 OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held November 16, 2020 Page 10 of 22 Community Plan. While it is not a perfect fit, this is an interesting and odd area and deserves more discussion among Council. She is interested in hearing input from Ms. Fox, PZC member about this. She appreciates that the applicant has addressed concerns of PZC with previous iterations of this project. Ms. Comek asked for clarification. What is meant by the difference between intensity versus density? Ms. Alutto responded that the idea of 70 percent coverage is one aspect. The density is the number of units per acre, but the intensity of that density — the larger the structure, the more intense that density feels. This was a large part of the PZC discussion. This has been seen before in some other developments and she is curious to hear from Ms. Fox about the PZC discussion. She asked about the additional resident engagement since the beginning of 2020. Ms. Comek responded that in order to address the plan's intended breadth and scope, these products are primarily low maintenance and empty -nester draws. By their very nature, the lot coverage is more about keeping the broader open space and the low maintenance. It is very similar to the Hamlet development with 70 percent lot coverage and very similar to Riviera Subarea C, with lot coverage at 70 percent. In addition, along the perimeter of the site, adjacent to the single-family lot, those are nearly identical lot sizes. That is how they are achieving that transition. Ms. Alutto understands that the interior lots are a bit smaller as is the case for some other developments. Ms. Comek responded regarding engagement. In late December of 2019, they hosted an event and invited the entire neighborhood. Dublin City staff was also in attendance that evening. A number of questions were answered over the two-hour meeting. Over several years, there have been a number of engagements directly with the surrounding residents. During the PZC meeting in January, some additional questions were generated. Between Dublin Planning staff and the applicant, they were able to respond to questions, eliminate some concerns, and provide clarification. Ms. Alutto asked staff if there is a summary of the residents' comments. How much has the plan changed since the last time the residents were engaged? Ms. Martin responded that the plan has not changed substantively since December of 2019. Staff does not have a summary of the comments made by residents at the meeting hosted by the applicant. They do have a summary of the PZC meeting in January of 2020, which included a number of public comments. Ms. Comek clarified that most of the substantive changes, including the reduction in stories for the ACLF occurred predominantly in January 2020. Mayor Amorose Groomes suggested that Ms. Comek make notes of any questions she wants to address with Council. Council will continue with their questions and she will have another opportunity to speak. Ms. Fox stated that PZC reviewed this proposal many times and it was tabled a few times. PZC consistently felt the proposal was too dense. In following the Community Plan, the highest density to be approved would be 3 units per acre. This development requests 240 units. A density of 3 units per acre would result in 135 units. PZC felt it did not meet the intent of the Community Plan. They were not necessarily opposed to having senior living on the 10 -acre portion, but density and height were concerns raised. Staff provided some reference material to Council about other senior living facilities in Dublin. One of the larger ones was Dublin Senior Star at 134 units on eight acres in a three-story building. Therefore, PZC was concerned about 150 units on 10 acres in a two-story building without any definition of its appearance or how much coverage it would entail and the impact on the adjacent neighborhood. The Community Plan also talks about the layout of the development and the setbacks were very narrow. Comparing it to Hamlet at Jerome, that is the tightest development approved by PZC but it was not in an area that caused a lot of traffic congestion. In retrospect, PZC felt they had allowed a very tight development and likely would not do that again. The average lot coverage in Dublin is 45 percent and this approaches 70 percent. The PZC minutes reflects concerns about the Community Plan recommendations; the general welfare of the residents in the vicinity because of the density; and the relationship of the building structures to each other, which were very tight. At one point, PZC asked that it be a 55 plus restricted community, but the applicant said they would not do so. There are no limits on the size of the structure, the units are very close Meeting Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held November 16, 2020 Page 11 of 22 together, the density is not in keeping with the Community Plan, and the lot coverage proposed is to the maximum. PZC felt that one of the benefits of a PUD is that there is always a tradeoff — if you have clustering and higher density, there should be a benefit to the community for allowing that. The plan has not changed much over time, except for around the perimeter. The neighbors were concerned with density, traffic and the vagueness of the ACLF. Vice Mayor De Rosa stated she served on PZC when this proposal was brought forward in 2015. The layout has remained consistent over time. She has a definitional question — what is Adult Congregate Living versus independent living or senior living. Ms. Martin responded that the first page of the text includes a broad definition of the ACLF. The intent is to provide as much flexibility as possible in the style and manner of care provided — everything from independent living to skilled nursing. The unifying factor is that adults are living together in a facility. It includes examples of care at varying levels. Vice Mayor De Rosa stated it is an intensity question. The size of the proposed facility would make it one of the largest in the City at 150 units. Therefore how integrated that is, what kind of space there is would be very important. There are lots of details on Subareas A and B, but for the ACLF there is a stub road and nothing else. She is struggling with the intensity question and no detail provided. At that level of units, it will have a significant lot coverage and parking required. She requests we see something that the neighborhood can see for options of 150 units — one or two buildings — how that might look. There is just one roadway in, but from the traffic study presented, we know there will be significant traffic. The bulk of the traffic would come into that particular area. She does not understand why more information has not been shared, as that speaks to the character of the area. She is aware the challenges for traffic on Hyland -Croy are significant and must be seriously considered for each development. The intensity of this development is greater than those that have recently been built in this area. Her request is to help Council understand more about that intensity by sharing more information. Mr. Keeler stated that he was in the audience at the January PZC meeting and is hearing the same concerns tonight — density, lot sizes, and vagueness regarding the ACLF. He does support senior housing. He believes the ACLF at that meeting was presented as a three-story and it is now two stories. He is unclear whether any changes have been made or not. Ms. Comek indicated there were changes made to the number of lots and the lot sizes, but Ms. Martin indicated there really have not been any changes. It seems the same concerns discussed in January have been brought forward tonight. His understanding is that the lots are still small and the density is too high. For the parking area around the ACLF, if it is a continuing care community with different levels of needs accommodated, there would be staff, nurses, nurse aides coming through, day and night. How would those vehicles and headlights affect the neighbors in the surrounding area? We need more clarity on that. Mr. Peterson stated he never served on PZC, so generally defers to those who have served on PZC. Tonight feels like a PZC meeting and he is wondering why some of these questions would not have been addressed at PZC. Perhaps they were, but were not resolved. He relies heavily on and defers to the PZC recommendations, which have resulted in the high quality developments throughout the city. His question to the applicant is how does he as a Council member resolve those issues? How can he consider overruling the PZC recommendations when the concerns have not been addressed and are not resolved? He would like feedback on that. Mr. Reiner stated he wants more clarification regarding the stormwater and its retention. He would like more feedback from staff about open spaces F and G. What will these be? Plantings or park space? Mayor Amorose Groomes stated she is in agreement about the sideyard setback of 5 feet and that the AC units would need to be at the rear of the house. She has a tremendous concern about the primary and secondary materials and the percentages of those. She is not terribly concerned with the density. There are nice areas in Dublin with this level of density like Weatherstone in Muirfield. What makes them palatable is Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held Dublin City Council November 16, 2020 Page 12 of 22 the quality of materials and architecture. She did not see any percentages for the primary and secondary matE;rials. She does have concerns with some of the secondary materials listed like metal and EIFS. These would not be appropriate when this level of density is being allowed. Perhaps seeing some aspirational architecture on the very small lots, including fenestration, etc. would be helpful. There is a reference to acces;3ory structures in the text — sheds were explicitly eliminated, so she is not sure what accessory structures would be on such small lots. She sees that vinyl is listed as a window material, and at this level of density, she would not allow vinyl windows. She is curious why the City would want to own the ponds. There is not enough understanding of what will happen here, and she has tremendous concerns about the ACLF layout. This is the opportunity for residents to express their concerns, yet we do not have information about parking, whether there is mounding, and what are the dumpster locations. Given the discussion relative to the infrastructure agreements and the limitations we would have, it is important to have these details. Again, she is not concerned about the lot coverage if the materials are right and are applied in the right fashion. Absent the percentages of primary and secondary materials, and to say that the garage can be 50 percent of the frontage, there is more information needed about fenestration and making the buildings interesting. Ms. Rurness reported that more public comments have come in: From: Keith Hammond, 5965 Post Preserve Boulevard, Dublin, OH 43016 Subject: Gorden Farms I apologize I had some technical difficulties with my internet. My concerns are: with the design and facility use of the senior living facility as it backs up to existing homeowners; traffic, ambulance entry, trash facilities, deliveries and lighting as it impacts the neighborhood. From: Jeffrey Smith, 7226 Springview Lane, Dublin, OH 43016 Subject: Gorden development In every meeting Schottenstein has held with the residents, they have pitched this project as a 55 and over community. However, they are unwilling to commit to the requirements of the Housing for Old Persons Act which maintains that at least 80 porcent of the units are occupied by at least one person 55 years or older. In fact, the planning & Zoning Commission resoundingly rejected their proposed plans largely because Schottenstein's unwillingness to make this commitment. Schottenstein owes an explanation to the resident. From: Charles Sanders, 6842 Stillhouse Lane, Dublin, OH 43016 Subject: Engagement, Density & Traffic There has been no continuous engagement of r(sidents since January to my knowledge. Lately there has been communication with individuals about our concerns particularly about traffic patterns based upon the proposed density and intensity of the proposed communities and the hub extensions. The current plans may have a negative impact on safety and resident welfare as a result of each. There are no specific or details to the proposed communities to make us feel comfortable. Mayor Amorose Groomes offered Ms. Comek the opportunity to respond to the questions raised. Ms. Comek stated the following: In terms of percentages and types of materials, she is not certain what the appropriate standard is to meet compliance and obtain approval. They have been guessing at this for several years and worked with staff to understand that appropriate mix. At a certain point, they reached an impasse about guessing and staff could no longer guess what either Council or PZC might require from the applicant, and so they looked around for context in other neighborhoods. They reviewed the Autumn Rose recently approved development and adapted their materials verbatim. They did the same for the ACLF — going to the ACLF located in Bridge Park and pulled the same materials and certain details, as those had been approved in that location. Within those two outlincs, they have provided for the opportunity to be very creative and interesting when they come Meeting Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held November 16, 2020 Page 13 of 22 back for final development approval. That is how they addressed the vagueness and lack of substantive or definitive criteria — finding previously approved projects and using those as examples. • She takes issue with the note about density. She has observed over 18 months of meetings in Dublin that Dublin is accustomed to the single-family standard referenced tonight. Dublin's own Community Plan does not state a desire to look like what is adjacent to this area. It indicates it is a transition property. The work coming on Post Road and the closure of Post Preserve Boulevard, which have nothing to do with this development creates a freeway off -ramp. Hyland - Croy Road is now the off -ramp to a US interstate. Therefore, this property is a transition and it can be properly done as a buffer to the existing neighborhoods. This is not an allowance for density; Dublin's Community Plan recognizes this is a transitional piece of land, the last in this corridor at Hyland -Croy Road. It is not fair or accurate to say anything about this project is a tipping point to the tremendous traffic and development along Hyland -Croy Road, and it comes all the way from Jerome Village down. To say that 91 units tips the scales over 3,000 acres of Jerome Village for traffic on Hyland -Croy is not accurate. The Community Plan recommends 3 dwelling units per acre, and the only way to achieve that is with smaller lots. They follow the Community Plan and follow the Code. In this case, looking at Dublin's documents, it indicates that higher density means smaller lots. It is a math problem. If you want more units, something has to give. • Regarding accessory structures, these would include patios and decks, etc. • In regard to why the City wants to own the ponds, she does not know. Their text has changed three or four times as City staff reconciles the contradictory direction it has been given over the past few years. They will accommodate whatever the City wants in this regard. Often, they would get direction from staff and then get different direction from PZC. That confusion and vagueness is what creates these questions. • In terms of the ACLF layout, the text makes commitments. Several layouts were shared with staff and they looked at the priorities — parking location, emergency vehicle access, etc. All of their plans are designed to specifications and are reviewed by the Fire Department. In the text, the applicant provides commitments that parking must go behind the buildings. Dumpsters must be screened and go in an area that is not immediately adjacent to residential. • In regard to the density, it is a math problem — a number of acres, a density, and variables that occur in between. The Code is a written set of standards and she is not aware of any they are not meeting. There is a variety of other approved developments that have different land use recommendations from the City's Community Plan. That is how they reconciled this. • In regard to the small lots issue, that is how to get to the density. In terms of changes over 8 years, they have offered not less than four other design layouts — all of which are mentioned as desired standards for residential — twins; multi- family four, which would have paid for the TIF and regional improvements; one that was all single-family; and then the hybrid of ACLF and single family. • In regard to parking, the text addresses this concern, requiring the parking to be behind the buildings. • In terms of headlight mounds, the developer committed in writing to mound significantly higher to eliminate headlight glare into the neighborhood. It is interesting to note that there was an acknowledgement in the meetings that the off -ramp that is Hyland -Croy will now make this a commercial corner. The goal was to buffer the single-family with the ACLF — that is how it will lay out in the exhibits. That is why increased mounding and landscaping in that area made sense, in addition to having the ACLF next door. • In regard to the comments about the 55 plus restriction, the HOPA act is an exception to the Fair Housing Laws. It is intended to create senior living spaces. The ACLF was modified to two stories and 150 beds in response to the requests at the January 2020 meeting. • PZC clearly does not know how to reconcile single-family with the ACLF. The commitment was to put the ACLF under the HOPA Act, which is an exception to the Fair Housing Act. The zoning cannot legally restrict to 55 and older. She clarified that these single-family homes are low maintenance, empty nester Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON. OHIO _ Form 6101 November 16, 2020 Held Page 14 of 22 products. There is common maintenance for the facilities. The price point of $500,000 is based on the interior finishes as well as the exterior materials. The downsizing Dublin residents or empty nesters desire the amenities offered. • It was mentioned that the traffic study that was submitted indicates significant traffic generated from the ACLF. That is not accurate. The ACLF was studied at 200 beds and has now been reduced to 150 beds. It is not accurate on a traffic comparison approach. From a land planning approach, there is no direct correlate. A significant discussion took place at PZC about how those were reconciled and if staff will inquire further about those. ACLF at 150 beds does not equal 150 senior family — it is actually more akin to 25-30 percent and fits squarely within the density that is prescribed by the land use plan. They work in concert with staff on the density and intensity of what they are proposing. • The statement that bulk traffic comes through this site is a misconception and is not correct. The access point northbound on Hyland -Croy and a right turn in is actually a small traffic relief. The applicant's proposal is not closing Post Preserve Road. The ACLF is a more than 70 percent reduction in traffic from single-family homes. • In terms of higher and larger developments that have come through the City for ACLF, the information provided is not accurate. There is a spread of the size of the ACLFs from 11,000 gross square feet up to 17,000 gross square feet. Their proposal is at 14,000, which is in the middle of what already exists for these facilities in Dublin. • The lot coverage is 70 percent and it is expressed in the commitments in the text. • She encouraged Council members to consult Planning staff about how the density calculations are done. They are around the 121-123 number for density as calculated by Dublin staff. • Regarding the transition from Hyland -Croy, they are the transition. Elderly people are good neighbors in terms of traffic and noise. The ACLF will also be a buffer and Dublin's elderly residents will populate this facility. • In terms of vinyl material, that is only for trim. Again, they will return with elevations for the final development plan and will meet Dublin's written Code for residential design standards. She noted she has responded to the questions raised tonight, and offered to provide any additional information. She has deferred any comments about the infrastructure agreement to the next ordinance. Mr. Reiner asked Wesley Smith about storm detention on the site. Mr. Smith responded that there are three ponds associated with the development that would service the stormwater management and they will be wet ponds. On Subarea A, there will be a pond in the northeast corner of the property; for Subarea B, Phase 1 and 2, along the stream that splits the property will be a stormwater arrangement on either side of that stream to service the single-family lots. Mr. Reiner asked about the greenspaces F and G. What are the plans for those? Mr. Smith responded those will be greenspace maintained by the HOA. There will be reserve buffers for the existing trees to be saved. Along the corridors, there will be plantings, including along Hyland -Croy Road. Mr. Reiner asked if the wet ponds are considered part of the open space donation that is required. Mr. Smith responded affirmatively. Mr. Reiner noted there is a 100 -foot setback. The feeling he has is that they are trying to meet the Community Plan. But he recalls the Glacier Ridge plan. In this case, the sites are being packed in and the density is being maximized. He understands what they are trying to do with the senior housing. The five-foot setbacks between single- family lots are tight and make property maintenance difficult. While the requirements may be met from a legal standpoint, the result of good urban planning is not about maxing out the land use, but having an effective, attractive project. Philosophically, what is the benefit this brings to Dublin? Dublin has a great reputation for good urban planning. Don Hunter, Senior VP, Schottenstein Real Estate Group, 2 Easton Oval Columbus, OH 43219 stated the following: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held November 16, 2020 Page 15 of 22 • There is a huge point being missed by Council. This is a 45 -acre property being severely burdened by the City of Dublin requirements being imposed on it due to the interchange reconstruction. Looking at US 33, SR161 and Post Road intersection improvements, that interchange — the direct result of that interchange improvement design which the City of Dublin is moving forward with will create two significant burdens on the property. At the front door of this property at Post and Hyland -Croy Road, there is a roundabout. The roundabout receives all of the traffic exiting north off US 33 right to the property front door. The front door of this property is the exit ramp for the equivalent of an interstate highway. • Secondly, because of ODOT requirements for limited access within certain distances of this highway off -ramp, the Post Preserve Boulevard intersection needs to be closed. That directly causes their development to have to provide replacement roadway access. • Dublin has high standards. He has lived in and done business in this community for 31 years. Dublin has created a problem with this property that is essentially a Rubik's cube to solve and to do it in a high quality manner. They have spent 8 years addressing every concern that they can address. This property has so many challenges. Every concern has been addressed in good faith. • Again, the City of Dublin has burdened the property — it almost virtually is being taken by the City in terms of its requirements. • Their solution is very simple. Given a lemon, they turn it into lemonade. They provide the City with 90 high quality, single-family lots with houses at a $500,000 plus pricepoint. Secondly, they take the location of an off -ramp for an interstate highway and propose an incredibly low impact, low burden residential solution that meets with the City's land use plan. The ACLF is in the middle of all of the densities for these facilities built in Dublin. The market for the ACLF is now limited by reducing it to two stories in height. Also limited is the ability to provide a site plan — for a knotty, rectangular site. All of these burdens have been created for a user to come in and design a facility. The restrictions on design have continued with the parking location, the height, etc. After securing staff recommendation for approval on April 30, 2020, after addressing over 200 staff comments over two years, and after meeting all of the staff concerns, PZC recommended disapproval to Council. Four years ago, they donated over $350,000 of right-of-way for this property when they were zoning Jacquemin Farms. In addition, they have committed in the draft infrastructure agreement to raise that cumulative donation to $1 million. • They meet the Community Plan Land Use Plan. They have done all that has been asked of them. It does not appear, based upon tonight's comments, that they can obtain five votes of approval from Council. They are dealing with the combination of zoning and an infrastructure plan. • They have been handed challenges over 8 years and have solved all of them in writing, making written commitments that run with the land. On October 19, 2020, they receive an e-mail from Mr. McDaniel with a draft infrastructure agreement. They then agreed to all the terms and conditions of that draft infrastructure agreement of October 19. In the past week and a half, the Union County Engineer and City of Dublin Engineer together have essentially "moved the goalpost" and now they are being burdened with an additional $1 million in cost. Those additional costs are changes to the Traffic Impact Study and reinterpretations of the traffic study conclusions by the applicant's traffic engineer. If the TIS goes a different way than they were told previously, it is $1 million in additional off-site costs on top of the costs they agreed to pay on October 19. We have to all understand tonight if we are headed down a path with no hope of obtaining five votes of approval. It does not appear this Council wants to approve this, after 8 years of their responding to every concern and committing to solve every problem that has occurred. Their frustration level is high and the question to be asked is are they being retaliated for in terms of the Jacquemin Farms zoning across the street. Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON. OHIO Held November 16, 2020 Page 16 of 22 Mayor Amorose Groomes responded that there is no retaliation involved. It is Council's job to ask questions and seek clarifications. Some of the questions relate to the traffic study components that are still being analyzed, and there should be more answers available by second reading. In terms of comparisons to other projects, she is very sympathetic about the difficulty in developing this parcel. While the applicant believes the City made it difficult to develop, the City does not bear the sole responsibility for that. This is an irregularly shaped parcel located along two major thoroughfares and there are restrictions due to the proximity to a roadway that functions as an interstate. She thanked the Schottenstein group for bringing this application forward. Mr. Hunter has done business in Dublin for a long time and knows that the questions and examination will be thorough and complete. She cannot speak for Council about whether or not there are five votes in favor of this proposal. To her, there were some things that could be addressed to make everyone more comfortable. She understands that the density is a math problem for a long linear piece of ground, with setbacks. Therefore, a solution needs to be worked out. Mr. Hunter noted in regard to the math problem that from a traffic impact standpoint, there are 90 single-family homes. They are treated as single-family homes for traffic impacts. They are asking to be zoned for 150 units of a senior retirement ACLF use. Those are very low impact, and in terms of the totality of all uses that might occur in this location, those 150 units equate to 33 single-family homes from a traffic standpoint. Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that once the engineers have finalized the review of the Traffic Impact Study, all of that will come to light. Mr. Hunter stated he simply wants to clarify the numbers for density. This issue was paramount for the PZC. When you take the sum of all the ACLF units and the sum of all the single-family units, on an apples -to -apples traffic impact basis, they equal 123 single-family homes. Mayor Amorose Groomes stated the numbers will be validated when the final TIS analysis is completed. This is simply a timing issue, not a math problem. The math problem is the density. She is sympathetic to the density issues and is not afraid of higher density. It can be done exceptionally well with high quality materials and high quality design done in an artful way. She appreciates the comparisons with previously approved developments, but they are all different. The intensity on this is higher, but is not necessarily bad in this transition area. It is important to be more creative and artful in terms of architecture. There is a second reading on December 7. She believes that providing some inspirational things relative to the congregate care — how that will look on that piece of property -- would be helpful. She understands it must go through the planning process, but some high level graphics would be helpful to ensure it all fits. Mr. Hunter stated they presented a highly refined architectural plan when Monsignor Hendricks and the Columbus Diocese were trying to locate on this site. They had a particular end user at hand. When they could not get the site zoned, they went to the Jacquemin Farms site. There are two key principles that will not allow the request to be fulfilled in any manner of good faith. When you have a particular user, that can be done. Or if you are the owner of your own site, like Vrabel, and that entire site will be dedicated to the specific, identified use, then you can present detailed architectural plans at the preliminary plan zoning stage. They don't fit into either of those categories. The issue in this case is a 45 -acre site and a landowner who wants to sell the site in its entirety. They do not have a user in hand for the ACLF. That will come at final development plan. Any architecture shown would be a guess and misleading. The protections for architectural use are within the restrictions of the text itself and the ability at final development plan to review and comment. Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that is clearly the applicant's prerogative. Five of the Council members were not serving at the time the previous applicant tried to get the property zoned. Although the applicant is not required to provide those graphics, she was simply suggesting it may be helpful. Mayor Amorose Groomes stated there will be a second reading/public hearing on December 7. Meeting Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6101 Held November 16, 2020 Page 17 of 22 Ms. Burness and the Clerk reported there have been no additional comments submitted tonight on this matter. Ordinance 52-20 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Infrastructure Agreement with Schottenstein Real Estate Group, LLC and Union County, for the Dublin Gateway (Gorden Development). Ms. Alutto introduced the Ordinance. Mr. McDaniel stated this is companion legislation to the rezoning ordinance 51-20. As Council is aware and per tonight's discussion, the upcoming reconstruction of US 33/SR161 /Post Road interchange has long influenced the future of the Post Preserve Boulevard entrance and the need to provide ingress and egress to Post Preserve from Hyland -Croy. Regardless of the proposed rezoning before Council or one in the future, the City will still need to facilitate connectivity to Hyland -Croy. This is contemplated as part of the interchange design process. The rezoning before Council, if approved, provides an opportunity to address this. Staff is therefore proposing this infrastructure agreement. In the slide deck provided, there was a reference to what was originally looked at in terms of connectivity from Hyland -Croy over to Post Preserve. It is not too far removed from what is proposed here in this development. Unlike other situations where a developer would be responsible for funding all roads, utilities, appurtenances and such associated with their own development, staff proposes that the City have some responsibility for cost sharing due to the influence of the upcoming interchange project. He highlighted some portions of the agreement: 1. The developer has agreed to contribute to off-site improvements. The dollar amount in the proposed agreement is based upon a similar formula and contribution made by the Autumn Rose Woods development to the north of this one. That was per the request of the developer. 2. As staff reviewed the shift in existing and projected traffic as a result of the eventual closing of Post Preserve Boulevard entrance, we determined that the associated traffic counts on certain new roads connecting to Hyland -Croy would be two-thirds traffic from the existing development and one-third from the new development as contemplated in the rezoning being considered. Therefore, the proposed agreement apportions the cost of certain roads or sections of roads, intersections and new gateways accordingly. This is reflected in the staff report, the agreement and the slide shared. He noted that the details contained in the agreement reference all the associated improvements with the new roads, intersections, and gateway entrances. 3. There is also donation of right-of-way and easements in the agreement; management of the contract process and the project construction itself; reimbursements by the City; and prevailing wage requirements, etc. 4. There is also reference to a boundary adjustment from Jerome Township to Washington Township. It is the City's policy to align the service boundaries for fire and EMS for annexations from Jerome Township. There would be associated reparations to Jerome Township and staff is proposing that be done by the developer. 5. The agreement also references the concept of a non -school TIF on the proposed project for the purpose of securing some level of future revenues that could be used toward infrastructure improvements in the immediate area. Staff raises this for Council's consideration and direction. Council would have several options: applying no TIF; applying a commercial TIF to the ACLF only, assuming it would be a for profit facility; if a not-for-profit facility, no TIF dollars would be generated. The developer approval is not needed to apply the commercial TIF, however if Council wanted TIF dollars to be paid by a not-for- profit equal to what would have been paid by a for profit facility, the developer's approval would be needed. The developer has indicated to staff they would not be agreeable to that arrangement. 6. A TIF could be applied to the new residential to be built or some combination of the items listed could be done. 7. As shown in the redlined version provided, there are several items where agreement has not been obtained with the developer. Primarily, this relates to the developer's desire to cap certain costs for intersection improvements on RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of BARRETT BROTHERS . DAYTON, OHIO Held Dublin City, Council November 16, 2020 Page 18 of 22 Hyland -Croy. The developer desires to assign the project, and staff has some concerns with that. Reflected throughout the agreement is the need for the City and the developer to agree on what is an appropriate triggering event that starts the clock for completion of infrastructure. The agreement provides that the City will not contribute to water and sanitary sewer utilities. Staff is of the mind that the water and sanitary sewer utilities associated with this project only benefit the project and not the greater water and sanitary sewer systems of the City. 8. Another outstanding item is the Traffic Impact Study and whether it is complete or not and whether all are in agreement with the analysis. There was a productive discussion today. Staff remains in discussion with the developer regarding the TIS. He pointed out that the TIS process and offsite impacts of the proposed development, such as the turn lane requirements, does involved the Union County Engineer. Hyland -Croy lies completely in Union County and is under the jurisdiction of the Union County Engineer. No portion of that is in the City of Dublin. It is paramount that the Union County Engineer be in agreement with those improvements impacting Hyland -Croy Road. Jeff Stauch and his staff have been included throughout this process. 9. Staff remains hopeful that the issues can be worked out and will continue to work on these between now and second reading on December 7. The Clerk and Ms. Burness reported that no comments have been received regarding this matter. Vice Mayor De Rosa referenced the maps. The roundabout at Hyland -Croy and Post Road will no longer be a roundabout, but will remain a fixed signal, correct? Ms. O'Callaghan responded that is correct. It will remain a signalized intersection. There was consideration of a roundabout at one time, but once the design was developed, it was decided it would be more appropriate as a signalized intersection. Vice Mayor De Rosa wanted this clarification for residents who are watching. Her second question is as traffic studies are done and it is not clear what type of congregate living will be built, how does one decide how to do a TIS? Do they assume a certain mix of independent living, assisted living, etc.? She is looking for the strategy more than the answers. Mr. Stanford stated that when there are a mix of land uses, there is a nationally accredited manual for trip generation. It uses many studies to model traffic generation from different land types. For this one, there is a use in that manual for senior adult housing. One of the methods available for criteria is number of beds. Mr. Hunter was correct in saying that the study currently being completed models 200 beds of senior adult housing. When we look at those land uses, we model what is proposed and if there is opportunity, we look for the most intense possible use under their zoning. Vice Mayor De Rosa asked what would be the most intense possible use in this scenario. Mr. Stanford responded that the manual gives descriptions for the land use. We find the use that is the best fit with what is being proposed. This one was the best fit in terms of trip generation. Ms. Fox asked about the road configuration. When the first road configuration was proposed, did it change because of the development's design or because of the new US33/SR161 ? Now we have three roads and the development has ponds on the north end. What caused the roadway change — the development design or the 161/33? Mr. Stanford responded it was a mix of the City staff desire and some of the design requirements for their land use. The most southern access point shared with the ACLF was not included back in 2006. From a city standpoint, we had the ability to separate that ACLF traffic from being routed through the neighborhood. The alignment is fairly close to the original layout. Ms. Fox stated there are three ingress and egress points for this acreage. It seems two would have been more reasonable for that frontage and less costly. Do we really need three? Mr. Stanford responded there are benefits to having three. Her points are valid. One of the desires is the ability to separate the uses of traffic. The other benefit of the southern access point relates to a trip generation standpoint — senior housing does generate significantly less traffic than a typical single-family home. There is also a Meeting Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City_Council BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held November 16, 2020 Page 19 of 22 balance between the number of access points and traffic distribution and spacing. Pushing too much traffic to limited access points on Hyland -Croy could have an adverse impact of requiring much larger intersection footprints. Mr. Keeler asked about Item 19 in the infrastructure agreement. In regard to the comment about moving the goalposts and increasing the costs to $1 million, could he have some clarification from staff? Mr. McDaniel deferred to Mr. Hunter. Mr. Hunter stated they have not had concurrence from the Union County Engineer and the City of Dublin Engineer that their turn lane responsibilities for the northern full service access point will be equal to the traffic study recommendations. Traffic study recommendations on the northern turn lane is for a 225 -foot southbound left turn lane and a 225 -foot northbound left turn lane. That is at the intersection of Holbein and Hyland -Croy. The discussion with the City, and consistent with the October 19 e-mail from Mr. McDaniel, was that the City would assume the cost responsibilities for the actual intersection at the center access point. There is agreement on that. What has occurred is that there have been a series of different questions and their traffic engineer has a clear answer for traffic movements that has yet to be accepted. They have asked the question directly of what is the turn length at that intersection. It should be 225 feet in both directions as with the northern access point. They have not yet obtained concurrence. They have had prior discussions where they believe the traffic engineers want the developer to be responsible for those turn lanes up to a length of 1,000 feet. That is not what is warranted in the traffic study and would be a back door way of having them pay $1 million or the equivalent of taking responsibility for an additional roadway widening. They cannot do that and it is not recommended in the traffic study. That is an open business item that is yet to be agreed to or resolved. Mr. McDaniel commented that the City has asked repeatedly for the final Traffic Impact Study. There has been disagreement of whether it is final or not between the developer's team and the City and the County Engineers. Over the next two weeks, discussion will continue. Mr. Hunter stated that the agreement between the parties is that they would pay just under $180,000 for their traffic impacts. That represents on a cost per movement a 22 percent premium over what Autumn Rose paid and an 82 percent premium over what Riviera paid. In looking at that on the basis of cost for a single-family lot, they are in excess of both by significant numbers. The point is that, based upon their discussions, they have an agreement on what the off sites are and feel they are being treated okay there. The question is whether it is a premium over what others in the area have paid. He added that they certainly agree to cooperate on a TIF, but if Council chooses to stipulate on the ACLF that the quid pro quo for the TIF is a covenant that runs with the land that would require a non-profit operator to pay property taxes, that would create an economic condition with a non-profit where they could not give the land away to them. They would not be able to sell or develop the land. They would be happy if a for profit entity comes in, as that is not tax exempt and would pay property taxes, benefitting everyone. But for the record and to recap the conversations, that is a business term they cannot agree to for those reasons. Mayor Amorose Groomes commented that she is not concerned with having a TIF on the senior housing portion of this land, but not for the residential portion. She is not particularly interested in having such a covenant about a non-profit paying property taxes running with the land, as Mr. Hunter has referenced. Mr. Reiner asked about the entryways from Hyland -Croy. He presumes the normal practice of requiring turn lanes will be followed and the applicant will pay for them, correct? Mayor Amorose Groomes responded that is part of the discussion about the infrastructure agreement. The applicant does not concur with the contribution required and the length of the turn lane. Mr. Reiner added that the City has always required a developer to pay for turn lanes to facilitate traffic. This is a longstanding City policy. Meeting Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON. OHIO Held November 16, 2020 Page 20 of 22 Ms. Fox noted that the Mayor has indicated she does not favor residential TIFs. She would request that staff provide information on the residential TIFs the City has done previously. If a developer is given an allowance for increased density, it would be helpful to know if TIF dollars from the residential would be an advantage and a reason to allow higher density. Mayor Amorose Groomes asked staff to prepare this information prior to the next reading. She recalls a very small number of residential TIFs have been established in the City over the years. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the December 7 Council meeting. Ordinance 53-20 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Real Estate Purchase Agreement to Convey 0.002 Acres of Land Located Between North High Street and Darby Street and Authorizing the Execution of Various Related Documents. Ms. Alutto introduced the Ordinance. Ms. Readler stated that the owner of Tucci's at 35 N. High Street approached the City about the purchase of a portion of City -owned land located on the north side of the existing restaurant. This is a 12 -foot wide strip of land running east to west and includes an existing sidewalk and landscaping. The proposed Real Estate Purchase Agreement memorializes the terms of sale, with a purchase price of $7,840.80, consistent with the appraisal obtained by the City valuing the property at $90 per square foot. On October 28, the ARB informally reviewed the proposed expansion of the restaurant, which is driving this request, and expressed support for the expansion. Ms. Rauch noted that the expansion of the wine storage area on the north side of the building is approximately 200 square feet. It will extend out and provide expansion space to the building. She shared the elevation that was presented to ARB, including materials and color palette. ARB was supportive of their request, of the material, and the location and size of this. Craig Barnum, owner of Tucci's stated he has nothing to add to these comments. He thanked the City team for what they have done to help the restaurants and businesses during the shutdown. Tucci's has been successful during the pandemic, mainly due to the large patio space. The expansion of the wine storage will enhance their wine centric restaurant business and will allow them to purchase some older vintages. It will add to the overall reputation of the restaurant. He appreciates the City's support of this expansion. The Clerk and Ms. Burness reported that no comments have been received regarding this matter. Vice Mayor De Rosa appreciates the ingenuity and hopes this is a great success. She thanked him for being creative during this unprecedented time. Ms. Alutto noted she has patronized Tucci's during the shutdown and anticipates this very cool enhancement. She loves the creativity, especially in such a tight area. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the December 7 Council meeting. INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARINGIVOTE - RESOLUTIONS Resolution 66-20 Requesting the Delaware, Franklin and Union County Auditors to Draw Money that May be in the County Treasuries and to Issue a Draft to the Director of Finance of the City of Dublin for Any Money That May be in the Accounts for the City of Dublin. Ms. Alutto introduced the Resolution. Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held Dublin City Council November 16, 2020 Page 21 of 22 Mr. Stiffler stated this is routine legislation that allows the City to request an advance from the Auditor to access our funds earlier and earn additional interest. Staff recommends approval. The Clerk and Ms. Burness reported that no comments have been received regarding this matter. There were no other questions or comments. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Keeler, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes. Mayor Amorose Groomes moved to waive the Council Rules of Order in order to address Resolutions 67-20 and 68-20 together. Ms. Alutto seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes. Resolution 67-20 Approving the Petition for Special Assessments for Special Energy Improvement Projects under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 1710. (600 Metro Place North, Dublin, Ohio Project) Resolution 68-20 Approving the Necessity of Acquiring, Constructing, and Improving Certain Public Improvements in the City of Dublin, Ohio in Cooperation with The Columbus Regional Energy Special Improvement District. (600 Metro Place North, Dublin, Ohio Project) Ms. Alutto introduced Resolutions 67-20 and 68-20. Ms. O'Malley stated there are no additional details to add. This is for the 600 Metro Place North retrofit into a Doubletree Hotel by Hilton. The first resolution is the property owner's petition to levy the special assessments. The second is in keeping with the steps set forth in the ORC for levying the special assessments. Staff recommends approval of these Resolutions. The Clerk and Ms. Burness reported that no comments have been received regarding this matter. Vote on Resolutions 67-20 and 68-20: Mr. Peterson, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes. Resolution 69-20 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with Washington Township to Provide Communication Services for the Washington Township Fire Department. Ms. Alutto introduced the Resolution. Mr. Somerville stated that this legislation authorizes the City Manager to enter into a new agreement with Washington Township to allow us to continue to provide communications and dispatching services for the Washington Township Fire Department. Washington Township is the City's original partner in public safety dispatching, and we recently celebrated 30 years of providing service to the Township 1 Fire g ear Department. This new agreement is a five- agreement that coincides with their p g Y recently approved township fire levy. After significant discussion, he and Mr. Stiffler talked extensively about whether or not to transition Washington Township to the distribution budget method that is currently used with the other partners in NRECC. However, after discussion and acknowledging the long-term partnership with Washington Township and the fact that we jointly serve the residents of Dublin, we are proposing a five-year agreement with a 3.5 percent increase each of the five years. This does two things: keeps them in line with the average percentage increase that all of the partners have and brings certainty to Washington Township with their ability to budget their levy funds over the five-year levy cycle. He thanked Chief O'Connell and Meeting Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council _Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6101 November 16, 2020 Page 22 of 22 Held Township Administrator Richter. All of the other terms of the agreement remain the same. Staff recommends approval and can respond to any questions. Chief Paez thanked the City's partners at Washington Township Fire Department and the Township Trustees, together with Director Somerville for their work on this agreement. The Clerk and Ms. Burness reported that no comments have been received regarding this matter. Vote on the Resolution: Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes. STAFF COMMENTS Mr. McDaniel reminded Council and the public about the Coffman Park Night of Lights event scheduled on Thursday, December 3 from 5 to 9 p.m. This will be a safe way to enjoy the lighting of the park and is in lieu of the annual tree lighting ceremony. Information was provided in the Council packet about participation. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Administrative Committee: Vice Mayor De Rosa reported that the Committee will meet at 10 a.m. on Thursday, December 3. Finance Committee: Ms. Alutto reported that the Committee will meet at 6 p.m. on Wednesday, December 2. Dublin Board of Education: Mr. Peterson reported that on Election Day, all of their staff participated in diversity and equity training. The modules were prepared by OSU. He also spoke with Dr. Hoadley on the COVI D situation and noted the parents were surveyed for second semester preferences for remote versus in person learning and over 5,000 students will be exclusively remote learning for the balance of the school year. Dublin Bridges: Ms. Fox stated that they are working hard to help those struggling due to COVI D. They are working hand-in-hand with the Dublin Food Pantry who is requesting the community to donate 10-15 pound turkeys to the pantry. Their warehouse is fairly empty right now and long lines of people have come to get food. She encouraged everyone to go online and give what they can. Veterans Committee: Mr. Reiner stated that the Committee will recommend to Council that Dublin be proclaimed a "Purple Heart Community" and more information will come on December 7. Mayor Amorose Groomes added that information about the Wreaths Across America program will also be presented on December 7. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE There were no further comments. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:19 p.m. Mayor — Presiding Officer Clerk of Council