Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/19/2007RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council November 19, 2007 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the Monday, November 19, 2007 Regular Meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Dublin Municipal Building. Present were: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, Vice Mayor Lecklider, Mrs. Boring, Mr. Keenan and Mr. Reiner. Mr. McCash arrived at 7:45 p.m. Ms. Salay was absent (excused). Staff members present were: Ms. Brautigam, Mr. Smith, Ms. Grigsby, Mr. McDaniel, Chief Epperson, Ms. Readier, Ms. Puskarcik, Mr. Harding, Mr. Langworthy, Ms. Crandall, Mr. Earman, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Combs, Ms. Huzak, Mr. Gunderman, Ms. Willis, and Ms. Wawskiewicz. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Reiner led the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • Regular Meeting of October 15, 2007 Vice Mayor Lecklider moved approval of the minutes of October 15, 2007. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. • Regular Meeting of November 5, 2007 Approval of the November 5th Council minutes was deferred to the December 10, 2007 Council meeting. CORRESPONDENCE There was no correspondence requiring action from Council. SPECIAL PRESENTATION Energy Use and Conservation -Energy Engineers FIRST (For Innovations Recognizing Science and Technology) LEGO League team -Grizzell Middle School Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher introduced the LEGO League team from Grizzell Middle School and their team leader, Michele Fortson. Ms. Fortson stated the Energy Engineers FIRST is sponsored by the Dublin Robotics Boosters. The competition this year was based on energy use. For their project, with the help of City employees Larry George and Jamie Adkins, the team conducted an energy audit of Dublin City Hall. The team was aware of future plans for construction of a new City Hall and will present a list of recommendations for the new building. The team members presented a list of energy-efficient recommendations for the future City Hall facility. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher thanked the team for their presentation and wished them well in their competition. As a token of appreciation for the hard work of the team, she presented the members with energy-efficient light bulbs, use of which is one of the team's recommendations. She noted that the City engineers and planners will be pursuing energy-efficient ideas in all the City development projects. • Selection of Loaned Art -David Guion, Dublin Arts Council David Guion, Executive Director, Dublin Arts Council, stated that the DAC has completed the community vote by ballot process for the selection of one sculpture from the on-loan outdoor sculpture exhibition, "Titration," to be purchased as a public art piece. Over 500 votes were cast, and the winner was "Narrow #5," by Shawn Phillip Morin, a professor at Bowling Green State University. The sculpture is located in Coffman Park near the pavilion, where it serves as a gateway to the total exhibit. "Narrow #5" is 11 feet tall and weighs 2,000 pounds. Because the vote was so close, DAC decided to also purchase "Ascension," by Brian Russell, Memphis, Tennessee, as an additional public art piece for the community. "Ascension" is located near the entrance drive to the Community Recreation Center. The five-piece "Titration" exhibit will remain on view through August 2008. The budget to curate, RECORD OF PROCEED[NGS Dublin City Council November 19, 2007 Page 2 1 Held 20 install and present the exhibit is $48,000. The total acquisition cost for both sculptures is $41,000. The remainder of DAC's $100,000 budget for this project will be utilized to create "Titration 2." The three remaining pieces in the "Titration" exhibit are available for either individual or corporate purchase. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher thanked Mr. Guion for his presentation. The "Titration" and "Riverbox" projects have successfully demonstrated that public art can be pedestrian-friendly and that it does not need to be a very large art piece. She is hopeful that individuals or corporations will purchase the remaining three pieces. The City is looking forward to "Titration 2." Mr. Guion expressed appreciation to Council for their support and City staff for installation of the sculptures. n fl • Update regarding Bridge & High Project Ms. Brautigam stated that she will update Council on this project, as Ms. Ott who coordinates the project is on vacation. Mr. Dion, The Stonehenge Company, will provide an update to Council. One component of the project, the municipal parking lot on Darby and Wing Hill, is now under construction. The parking lot is scheduled to open November 30. The asphalt is completed and the striping is in process. The landscaping and lighting remain to be completed. In regard to the project itself, this past summer The Stonehenge Company presented a concept plan to the Planning and Zoning Commission and to the Architectural Review Board. Both of those bodies and the City's historical consultant had concerns about the proposed architecture. One concern was with the mass and scale of the proposed buildings and the proposed material, use and types for windows and other openings. The Planning Commission and ARB requested that the developer revise the plan to make the architecture consistent with what currently exists in the district before formal submission of their plan. Changes that have been made based upon the Commission and ARB's recommendations include: (1) Accessibility -steps from plaza level 1 to plaza level 2 have been removed and replaced with a change in grading to improve accessibility. (2) Architecture -the architecture has been revised to create the appearance that the individual buildings were built at different times by the introduction of facade changes; by the use of a variation of natural materials, including limestone, brick and wood; and by incorporating changes in windows and rooflines. The final development plan for this project is scheduled for hearing by the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 6, 2007. Between now and December 6, a Stonehenge representative and City staff will be meeting with the adjoining property and business owners to discuss the proposed plan and the development process. If Planning and Zoning approval is given, the plan will be scheduled for an ARB hearing and finally for City Council review and approval. The anticipation is that groundbreaking on the project will occur late in Spring 2008. Mo Dioun, The Stonehenge Company, stated that he wished to clarify a couple of points. The parking lot asphalt was completed today, the striping should be completed tomorrow, and installation of the landscaping is scheduled for this Friday. They are trying to expedite receipt of the light fixtures so that the installation can occur before December, but if not, it should meet the parking lot completion schedule for mid December. Regarding the Bridge & High development plan, he appreciates the efforts of the Planning and Engineering staffs to assist in finalizing an enhanced architectural plan. The process has been tedious and challenging, but he believes the results will show the effort expended. Tentatively, the first reading of an ordinance to approve this project will be scheduled for the second Council meeting in February. If Council approval is given, construction will begin on the project on April 1st. Hopefully, the project will be completed be Christmas 2008. He would like to invite Council to attend the official tour or take a personal tour of his Gahanna project, which is nearing completion. As that project progressed, the amount of natural materials in the building increased. Visiting the Gahanna project would be a RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council November 19, 2007 Page 3 benefit to Council; it would increase their confidence in the outcome of the Dublin project. He invited Council's questions. Mr. Keenan asked if it would be premature to identify any tenants at this point. Mr. Dioun responded that it is premature. The focus has been on the development plan, not the marketing. There have been inquiries, but they have not engaged in dialogues with prospective tenants. The site is tight with some limitations for tenants, so it would be inefficient to pursue tenants until City approval of the plan is assured. He anticipates the future tenants will create additional vibrancy for that corner of the City. Mr. Reiner asked for an estimate of the time anticipated to complete the project, beginning to end. Mr. Dioun responded that, weather permitting, the site work and building framework should be completed within nine months. If the weather in 2008 presents a problem, the landscaping of the site may not occur until Spring 2009. CITIZEN COMMENTS Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that Council took Mr. Maurer's comments at their last meeting to heart, and Council is no longer using bottled water for its meetings. Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road stated that is encouraging to him, particularly as he is ill tonight and nearly had to forgo attending this meeting. He would like to address an issue typically handled by legislation, specifically, the purchase of property for use as an easement. He is not sure if Council is aware of the fact, but he and City staff have been negotiating an agreement since February. He had intended to outline his issue on that process tonight, but if Council is rigid in enforcing the five-minute time limit, he does not have the time to do so. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if he could provide his concerns in writing before the next meeting. If some of those issues remain unresolved at the next Council meeting, Mr. Maurer could address them at that time. However, Council does not negotiate the agreement terms. That is handled by the City attorney and staff. Mr. Maurer responded that Mr. Hammersmith had indicated to him that his final answer must be turned in before Thanksgiving. Unfortunately, his illness has prevented his ability to be prepared for tonight's meeting. Would the Mayor be willing to give direction that time be permitted for Mr. Maurer to submit his concerns at the December Council meeting? Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that, unfortunately, Mr. Maurer's response might be needed before then if it would impact other City projects. She encouraged Mr. Maurer to make his decision as quickly as possible. LEGISLATION SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 88-07 Amending Sections 2 (Wage & Salary Structure/Administration), 12 (Vacation Leave), 14 (Longevity Pay), 16 (Tuition Reimbursement), 17 (Temporary Work Assignment), and 18 (Overtime/Compensatory Time) of Ordinance No. 73-06 ("Compensation Plan for Non-Union Personnel"). Ms. Brautigam stated that the compensation ordinance is updated annually to incorporate any recommended compensation plan changes into the Personnel Code. This year there are some changes due to the new Steelworkers collective bargaining agreement. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired what the estimated cost of these changes will be for the next couple of years. Ms. Grigsby responded that she would develop an estimate of the costs and forward it to Council. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher referred to paragraph 1 on page 3 of the memo, which describes a new Deputy Director of Finance position. The job description states RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council November 19, 2007 Page 4 "administration of tax increment financing and economic development agreements." What does "administration" in this context mean? Ms. Grigsby responded that it is necessary to annually monitor the activity within those districts. For example, with tax increment financing there are certain reporting requirements that the City must follow. It is also necessary to report to the County Auditor's Office the value of new construction to establish the revenue projections for the districts. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she wanted to confirm that Ms. Grigsby's position will continue to be responsible for the development and negotiation of the actual economic development and TIF agreements, along with the Economic Development Director. That is not intended to be part of the responsibilities of the new position; the new position will handle the administration of the completed agreements. Ms. Grigsby responded that is correct. However, the intent is that the Deputy Director would become familiar with some of the policies and practices involved with negotiation of those agreements. Mr. Harding stated that he discussed projected costs of the benefit changes with Ms. Hoyle this afternoon. The estimated cost of those changes for 2008 is $23,000. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if that number includes the assumption that all positions are filled for the entire year. Mr. Harding responded that the amount is the projected cost of the benefit changes made consistent with the new collective bargaining contract. It does not include any costs related to the new positions. Ms. Grigsby would be able to pull the projected costs from the 2008 budget. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that she would like to see both estimates: the benefit changes, a total cost that includes both the benefit changes, and also the cost of the new positions and any upgrades or changes in other positions. Mrs. Boring inquired if the 2008 budget should be approved before this ordinance is voted upon. The second reading of the budget ordinance is scheduled for the next Council meeting. Mr. Keenan responded that the order is not significant. Neither ordinance will be effective until 2008. Ms. Brautigam stated that this ordinance could be approved tonight. When the budget is reviewed, if there are some positions or provisions that the City does not want to fill at this time, they could be temporarily removed. Then the ordinance could be brought back for an amendment. Or, Council could postpone action on the ordinance until December 10 and consider both ordinances at that time. Mrs. Boring stated that she preferred to defer action on this ordinance until the time the budget is considered. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that it would also provide Council the ability to have the estimated costs of these recommendations before approval is given. Mrs. Boring moved to postpone Ordinance 88-07 to the December 10 Council meeting. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Ordinance 89-07 An Ordinance Amending Chapter 100 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances Regarding Cable Service and Competitive Video Service to Comply with the Enacted Ohio Senate Bill 7. Ms. Brautigam stated that this year a state law was passed that required astate- widefranchise for all cable operators, not only for the phone company. Mr. Keenan stated that Council previously discussed the ability to cap or increase the cap on the revenues from the franchise fees. Was there any direction from that discussion? Greg Dunn, Schottenstein, Zox and Dunn, responded that Council did not recommend a change be made. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS November 19, 2007 Page 5 Mr. Keenan stated that the City really hasn't much choice in this matter. Mr. Dunn responded that the City has to make an election and this legislation does that. There were no other questions. Vote on the Ordinance: Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. Ordinance 91-07 Rezoning Four Parcels Totaling Approximately 7.52 Acres, Located on the North Side of Post Road, From: R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District, To: PUD, Planned Unit Development District (5800-5904 Post Road -Case No. 07-094Z). Ms. Brautigam stated that this is the property that is owned by the City and is part of Coffman Park. This rezoning will bring the land into compliance with the Coffman Park Master Plan. There were no questions. Vote on the Ordinance: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, no; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. r- i; ul I INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING -RESOLUTIONS Resolution 69-07 Approving the Amended Declaration of Mutual Support and Agreement between the City of Dublin, the Dublin Middle Tier Soccer Organization, and the Dublin Soccer League, and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement. Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the resolution. Mr. Earman stated that at the May 215 Council meeting, Dublin Middle Tier Soccer Organization (DMTSO) requested that Council amend the DMTSO agreement to make it possible for the teams to play in leagues, primarily the Mid-Ohio Select Soccer League. They are interested in expanding the original 2006 agreement, which limited them to play within the GOYSL program. That agreement restricts DMTSO from participating in many soccer opportunities that are believed to be needed by the players. In response to Council's direction, he and the DMTSO chair have studied the issue to identify along-term solution. Tonight, they are submitting a list of proposed amendments to the existing agreement, which will allow the teams to participate in any league they wish, provided all of the other requirements are met. The challenge was in keeping the amendments within the parameters of the agreement and the objectives of the program. The proposed amendments expand DMTSO's permitted game play from aseven-county area to a 60-mile radius and tournament play to the State of Ohio. Mr. Earman reviewed other changes in the contract. It is suggested that the new term of the agreement be one year. Mr. Earman noted that there are issues that remain with the soccer program. There is no one solution to all the issues, therefore, they recommend that Council direct the Parks and Advisory Commission (PRAC) to develop asystem/process for Council to approve whereby the ongoing issues can be heard and addressed on a regular basis. Another suggestion is that PRAC recommend to Council that the term of the club organizations' agreement also be revised to one year so that all the soccer organizations are on the same schedule. Any issues can be reviewed and addressed on an annual basis. The Dublin Soccer League (DSL) Board should also be involved in that process, either for input/development or as part of the formal renewal/approval process. The reason for the latter recommendation is that recreational soccer is the City's #1 soccer priority and involving them will keep the City aware of the overall soccer needs/interests of the community. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher raised two questions: • The staff report indicates that PRAC would be able to have a document ready for March. Because an educational process for PRAC would need to precede their undertaking development of a review process, how realistic is that timeframe? RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS November 19, 2007 Page 6 1 1 1 She would like to better understand the reasons for the recommendation for an annual review. From the standpoint of running a program, she would prefer to have a term longer than one year. If new elements are being implemented, it takes more than one year to achieve a smoothly running program. In one year, there would likely be issues that need resolution. Those issues would be brought to the City for resolution, while they could have been worked out by the organization itself, if time were permitted. Mr. Earman responded that he anticipates that PRAC will suggest the terms of the agreements for the club programs should be adjusted. The club program term ends in 2008, so it might be good to recommend whatever changes are needed at that point. Another recommendation they could make would be in regard to the involvement of DSL in the review process. That would be accomplished as a result of how successful he and the club organizations are in educating PRAC. He will make a dedicated effort to do so. In regard to her concern about annual term limits. In Recreation Services, the programs are evaluated annually. Because this would be the initial stage of a review process, he believed the opportunity to hear and address any problems that might arise due to actions taken in the initial phases was important. However, during the following years when the process would evolve to "tweaking" the program, the term could revert to three years. If her concern is whether the organizations themselves would object to a one-year agreement, then perhaps the agreement could have athree-year term with an annual review. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that suggestion would be more reasonable. Mrs. Boring inquired about the 15% proposed player expenditures. What if actual expenses exceed that? Would this primarily be a gentleman's agreement? Mr. Earman stated that is what is currently happening. He is making an effort to explain to the community the implications of expanding or not expanding those parameters. Some of the issues are due to the fact that the soccer program in Dublin is unique. Four organizations provide opportunities for soccer programs, each of which is trying to act independently of the other. Traditionally, the city runs all the programs or the city selects an organization to run the type of program it prefers, such as a rec program. The alternative programs are run on their own as far as field access, utilizing fee waivers or fee assessments. Mr. Keenan asked how many children were involved with the middle tier soccer program. Mr. Earman responded that there are approximately 3,700 children. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited citizen comment. Ken McMahonn, 5898 Rings Road thanked Mr. McCash for all he has done during the years as he served on Council. Mr. McCash was the Council member who was very instrumental in getting the soccer program started. He completely supports Mr. Earman's recommendations regarding modifications to the agreement. He also supports his recommendation to make the terms coterminous, as it would be impossible to go forward with the club's agreement without knowing what was happening with the middle tier agreement. Putting them on the same basic schedule makes sense. The only concern they have is with the proposed PRAC review. As the Mayor asked, how long will it take them to educate the Commission? What is the make-up of the Commission? Do they have children who play club soccer? If so, there could be an issue. From his standpoint, he prefers athree-year agreement with annual review. He commended Mr. Earman for achieving the organizations' agreement in principle, at least, with what has been presented tonight. Vote on the Ordinance: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS November 19, 2007 Page 7 LJ Held Resolution 70-07 Adopting a Statement of Services for a Proposed Annexation of 8.5 Acres, More or Less, from Jerome Township, Union County, to the City of Dublin. (Petitioner: Daniel E. Lorenz and Melissa A. Lorenz, 9341 Jerome Road; Agent, Michael L. Close) • Request for Fee Waiver Mr. Gunderman stated that this is a proposed annexation of 8.5 acres located at 9341 Jerome Road. The statement of services is typical except for two characteristics: (1) request for a waiver of the annexation petition fee. In the past, the City has granted fee waivers for annexation petitions for pockets of land contiguous to the City within the City's utility service area; and (2) this area is within Jerome Township. Because this is a regular annexation, there would typically be long-term reparations. If this legislation is approved, it is assumed the City will enter into an agreement with the applicants to reimburse the City for those reparations. Vote on the fee waiver: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. Vote on the Resolution: Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. 1 OTHER • Veterans Project Update Mr. Hahn stated that a status report was provided in Council packets, which includes the revised budget estimate that was requested by Council. The current total construction estimate for this project is $760,000. This is after attempts to value engineer some of the project, but without impacting the design integrity. Of the $760,000 total, approximately $180,000 is budgeted for the bronze work, primarily the handrail for the project and the bronze wall. The project has not gone out to bid. The project estimate is based on the final design drawings. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired how this estimate relates to the fundraising feasibility study that is being done. Ms. Puskarcik responded that the two efforts are occurring simultaneously. Sandy Morckel, the City's consultant, will be meeting with the fundraising committee next week to assess the community's capacity for raising funds for a veterans project. If Council approves this item tonight, Ms. Morckel will be informed of the approved amount. Mr. Keenan stated that going to bid does not mean that Council must do anything with this. However it does provide more accurate information about construction costs. The number could be significantly less. He supports going forward. 1 Mrs. Boring stated that she was under the impression that with the initial meeting with the consultant, Council would be given a "read" on the project. Mrs. Puskarcik stated that to date, the City has approximately $158,000 in pledges or funds raised. Mrs. Boring stated that some Committee members have issues with how this process was handled by the City and with what has resulted. She would prefer to have the process re-done. Mr. Keenan responded that would not reflect the Committee's discussion during the last two or three meetings. There may be some members who have issues with the outcome, but that was anticipated. They did not expect 100% consensus on the project. He would prefer to see the project bid out and see the results. Mr. Reiner inquired what costs are incurred by the City in putting this out to bid. Mr. Hahn responded that there is the direct cost of the newspaper ad and the duplicate sets of plans. The costs are minimal. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS D November 19, 2007 Page 8 1 ii 1 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked for clarification of the statement on page 3 that they "recommend the City purchase outright these three elements." Mr. Hahn responded that the statement was not a recommendation. It reflects prior Council meeting discussion that there be owner-provided material for the project. The plans are based on that assumption. Mr. Keenan stated that doing so avoids the overhead charges. What is the typical percentage for overhead charges? Mr. Hahn responded that it would be 8-12 percent. Mr. Keenan noted that 8-1/2 percent of $187,000 would be a savings of nearly $20,000. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if that amount would be part of the $250,000 total, or is this an addition that is being suggested? Mr. Hahn responded that $187,000 is a fixed fee contained within the $760,000. The estimated construction costs are $500,000, plus $187,000, plus two potential alternates. Mr. Reiner asked when bid documents are prepared, if authorization is given, could the memory wall and entry wall be separated as alternates? Mr. Hahn responded that with Council's direction, that could occur. Without the components, the remainder suffices as a complete project. If those two components are desired, they could be added at a later date. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked how long the bids are valid. Mr. Hahn responded that it is his understanding that any time period Council desires can be specified in the bid documents, as long as it is not illegal. Mrs. Boring asked how that would be beneficial. The artist obviously did not adhere to the project guideline of $500,000. Mr. Hahn responded that Council can always withdraw. It is not a valid contract until it is signed. Mrs. Boring stated that a similar situation occurred with a previous public art project. The artist sued the City and the project was not constructed. Mr. Keenan stated that issue was due to the fact that the foundation for the art was never contemplated. With a bid bond, the bidder is indicating that they will honor the bid amount and will fulfill construction of the art piece for that price. Vice Mayor Lecklider noted that it is unlikely any contractor will offer a bid that would be valid for atwo-year period of time. Mr. Hahn responded that it is assumed a reasonable time frame would be used. They would want to hear from Council the reason for desiring an extended bid evaluation period and what that time period should be. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked if it is correct that they identified approximately $100,000 in savings. Mr. Hahn responded that is a generous estimate. Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired if the Committee made any particular recommendations about phasing or eliminating certain components. Mr. Hahn responded that this was not addressed at the committee level. These are design details discussed by staff. The elimination of limestone bands was discussed, but they are needed for two reasons: (1) aesthetically, to break up the monotony of the aggregate path; and (2) to provide ready-made leveling benchmarks to facilitate maintenance of the aggregate path. Mr. Reiner noted that revised drawings were submitted. Is Mr. Hahn completely satisfied with the revisions? Did the artist purse every cost-saving device? Mr. Hahn responded that as far as pursuing all identified cost-saving options, he is satisfied. It is important not to pursue options that would cheapen the project and have marginal returns. From a constructability point of view, the drawings are RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS November 19, 2007 Page 9 sound. There is the concern, however, that later there could be legitimate rationale for change orders. That could drive up the project costs. 1 Mrs. Boring stated that she has a concern with the fundraising. Certainly, there are individuals who want to be part of the project. However, it appears that the corporations in Dublin are being solicited frequently. Dublin Methodist Hospital is seeking sponsors for one of the hospital gardens. The City seeks sponsors for the Dublin Irish Festival, and the list continues. She believes that eventually the corporations will begin to make choices related to City contributions. She believes that the fundraising for this project is overly ambitious, as it seeks an additional $500,000 funding from individuals. She is not comfortable with that and believes it should be carefully considered. Ms. Puskarcik responded that she understands that concern. That is the reason they requested the consultant to do her work in two phases. The first part of her charge is to assess the community. She will be submitting a recommendation at the end of phase one, which is next month. Vice Mayor Lecklider moved that Council give direction for the project to go out to bid, allowing for alternate phasing of the memory and entry walls, and to allow the evaluation period to extend until the consultant's recommendation is received. Council would be better informed to make a decision at that time. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. 1 1 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that of the $760,000, $73,000 would be phased; so just under $700,000 is needed. She suggested that Council wait until the consultant's report is received regarding the feasibility of raising the money before the project goes out to bid. Typically, bids are not valid longer than 90 days; it is not fair to ask for more time as the bidder is often confronted with price changes. The consultant's report is due in two weeks. Why not wait to see that report? If it is found that the community would support the raising of $500,000, the bid could go out then. Ms. Puskarcik stated that based on discussions over the last couple of months, they wanted to pursue the fundraising and the bid. Their charge was to proceed with both. She is waiting to know the project cost before assessing the community potential for raising that amount. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that is the reason Council asked for the consultant -- to assess whether the community at this point in time has the capacity. It is not just the Dublin community, but a broader community that Ms. Morckel will assess. Mr. McCash inquired how the project would be bid - to various general contractors, or would Nadalin serve as the general contractor? Mr. Hahn responded that it would be a sealed bid process to general contractors. Nadalin is also welcome to bid. Mr. McCash inquired what comprised the $11,500 design expense. Mr. Hahn responded that it is for professional services rendered. The consultant identified some of the cost issues in developing this project. Mr. McCash inquired if there was a contract for the services. Mr. Hahn responded that there was not. Mayor Chinnici-Zeurcher inquired if at this time, $127,200 is owed for the project. Mr. Hahn responded that it is close. The full contract amount with Plant is $113,000, but not all services have been rendered within that contract. Mr. McCash stated that they have not performed the contract as agreed. They agreed to design a project fora $400,000 budget. Mr. Hahn concurred. Work remains to be done for Plant. He is not aware of the contract language that would address the ramifications of designing a project that does not meet the budget. However, $113,500 is the total contract amount entered into with Plant for design, construction and administration, and that amount is the total original contract amount. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Page 10 November 19, 2007 1 1 1 Mr. Reiner inquired if Plant charged for additional design work, although they did not meet the requirements of the contract? Mr. McCash stated that with a typical AIA agreement, if the party does not meet the budget amount, any work that they do to bring it within budget is their own cost. Personally, he believes $113,500 would be a nice donation to the project. Plant did not come even close to the agreed budget amount for the project. Vice Mayor stated his motion was based upon the assumption that staff believed there was an advantage in the project going to bid sooner versus later. Perhaps there is no advantage. Mr. Hahn responded that it is possible to do the two simultaneously. The City is anticipating a fundraising feasibility report in the latter part of December. If Council would authorize the project to go to bid today, the bid results would not be available until a January Council meeting. However, other than knowing the anticipated project cost, there is no tangible benefit in the project going to bid today versus 60 days from now. Mrs. Boring stated that Council received a letter expressing the writer's dissatisfaction. She is similarly dissatisfied with the process. The City has already spent thousands of dollars, and now a consultant has been engaged. The prudent thing to do would be to stop, regroup and begin again. Dublin needs to have a veterans monument; that is not in question. However, there is a concern that this may not be what the community expects to be provided in this venue. She would recommend re-evaluating the direction before committing more money. Mr. Keenan stated that the committee has several community representatives, so the community was involved in the process. This has not been solely a Council project, and it is important not to lose sight of the goal. Mrs. Boring responded that there is a much larger community that supports veterans but would not support spending funds without achieving anything. She is very disappointed in the project to this point. Mr. Keenan responded that is one reason why he feels the project should continue. It is the one the committee has identified. There is money invested in it, and it needs to be completed. Mrs. Boring inquired if he has ever asked the committee as a whole if they would prefer to start over. Mr. Keenan responded that the committee already voted. Why would he do that when the voting process is completed? Mrs. Boring responded that the reason is that the cost has come in at twice the amount the committee expected. Mr. Keenan responded that the committee has been informed. However, the project needs to move forward. It isn't beneficial to discuss what is past. Mrs. Boring stated that moving forward does not necessarily exclude starting over, and that is what she believes should happen. Mr. Keenan stated that if the process starts over, the monies already invested in this project are lost. Mr. McCash inquired what occurs if a bid does come in at the price indicated of $760,000? The bidder's price is only good for 30-60 days. Would construction begin immediately? Mr. Keenan responded that they are hopeful that the consultant's assessment indicates there is community support for a fundraising effort for that amount. If so, the project would move forward to take advantage of the construction season. Mr. McCash inquired who would pay for the project. Mr. Keenan responded that the City would advance the funds and recover the costs as the fundraising moved forward. RECORD OF PROCEED[NGS November 19, 2007 Held 20 ___ D lin 'ty Co~rL~__ ---_ _ _ _ Meeting Page 11 1 Mr. McCash inquired what occurs if there is not community support for $760,000. Mr. Keenan responded that the bid documents would be in place, but the project would not then move forward. Mr. McCash responded that the City would have wasted multiple contractors' time in bidding the project and paid Nadalin $11,000 for their time. Mr. Keenan pointed out that it is common practice to bid on projects and not obtain the bid. Mr. McCash stated that his recommendation is not to proceed with the bids at this point, but wait until the consultant's report on the community fundraising potential is received. If the consultant confirms community support for raising $800,000, then send the project out to bid. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher indicated that would also be her position. Discussion followed. Mr. Keenan stated that if Council would prefer to wait to receive the consultant's assessment on the community fundraising potential and then put the project out to bid, he will concur. He is very frustrated, however, because there have already been two years invested in the process. 1 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that there is a motion on the floor to authorize the project to be bid, and it is necessary to vote on that. If that is not approved, another motion can be made. Vice Mayor Lecklider withdraw his previous motion, based upon the subsequent discussion and Mr. Hahn's negative response to his inquiry if there were an advantage to bidding the project now. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to not put the project out to bid until the consultant's report on the feasibility of the fundraising has been received. Council can then take that into consideration when they make a decision. The numbers are now available to provide to the consultant, so she should be able to move forward in an expeditious manner. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Mr. Reiner stated that he believes the problem with this part of the project was caused by the artist's inability to evaluate her own project. He hopes that when this moves to the next phase and the bids have been received, that the artist is held responsible for the financial issues she has caused this community. Perhaps it could be subtracted from her design fee. The resulting issues have caused a great deal of consternation. A significant amount of time and money has been expended as a result. He also would hope that in the additional time allocated to wait on the consultant's fundraising expectations report that the designer would reevaluate her design to see if it could be done more economically without jeopardizing the integrity of the design. 1 Mr. Keenan stated that he does not see the advantage in waiting to go to bid on the project; it could be a negative for the City. If the bid goes out now, there would be firms interested in lining up work for the spring. January and February is when the spring rush begins. He would anticipate better bid results if it were to go to bid sooner. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, no. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher clarified that Council is supportive of the Grounds of Remembrance project. The issue is that it was Council had indicated the project should not exceed $500,000 and that was to be the guideline provided to the artists. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS November 19, 2007 Page 12 H The City ultimately entered into a contract with an artist with that understanding, and she designed a project that would cost a substantially greater amount of money. 1 1 1 Mr. Keenan responded that perhaps the City should have required more specific numbers from the artists. However, the designs were initially conceptual. • Recommendations for Hotel/Motel Tax Grants Mr. Keenan, Finance Committee chair, stated that the Finance Committee met on November 13 to hear the hotel/motel grant proposals. The Committee's recommendations were the following: • Arthritis Foundation -Classic Automobile Show. Recommendation to provide the cost of City services not to exceed $7,500. (The labor for cost of City services for the Showmobile is not included.) Dublin Jerome High School Big Band Classic. Recommendation to grant $3,650 for construction of a platform. Ms. Puskarcik stated that the group was seeking one-time funding to construct a platform. The committee was concerned about safety issues, and did not want to finance a project that may not meet Code. Consequently, the director discussed the issue with the City's Building Standards Division and confirmed that there would be no issue with Code requirements. The director was advised that if Council were to approve the grant tonight, it would be with the condition that the platform meet Code. Mr. Keenan stated that the Committee thought the concept was interesting and that the City could benefit from the opportunity for future use of the platform. Ms. Puskarcik noted there is also the potential for one of the high school bands to use this platform and perform during the Grounds of Remembrance ceremony. Mr. Keenan stated that due to the safety concern, the Committee did not make a recommendation at that time. Tonight, however, the Committee members may do so. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that he was impressed with the concept. In addition, although this is a one-time request, the platform could be used for many years and by other groups. Mr. Keenan stated that with Vice Mayor Lecklider's concurrence, the Committee recommends the request of $3,650 be granted. Dublin Soccer League -Purchase Soccer Goals. Recommendation to grant $21,000. Mr. Keenan stated that the goals will meet new standards for tournaments. The soccer goals will belong to the City. • Dublin Kiwanis -Frog Jump. Recommendation to grant the cost of City services not to exceed $4,000. Mustang Club of America -Buckeye National 2008. Recommendation to provide the cost of City services not to exceed $2,200. Mr. Keenan noted that there was also the option of granting $4,400, should overtime pay for the police officers be necessary. Ms. Puskarcik stated that staff discussed the proposed event with the hotel and businesses at that location as there would be a temporary road closure. They had no objection to the event. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the applicant would have to pay the additional money, if over-time for the officers was necessary. Typically, the City does not penalize the applicant with a potential liability based upon the decisions of the Police division. The City requires the police officers for the event. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that this event is not unique; there are similar events that bring some hotel nights to the City. In addition, the event will not use Dublin hotels only. He would be in favor of the lesser amount. Mrs. Boring stated that this is one-time event in Dublin for this group. Mr. Reiner indicated that he favored the lesser amount, due to the fact that Dublin hotels were not being used exclusively. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS November 19, 2007 Page 13 1 Hel Meeting Arthrogyposis Multiplex Congenita Support -wheelchair shuttles. Recommendation to provide the cost of City services not to exceed $3,150. Mr. McCash inquired how the City would handle the precedent that would be set. There could be other organizations seeking the same charity -transportation to the Miracle Field. Would the City say yes to one group and no to another? Mr. Keenan responded that the key factor to him is the Miracle Field tie-in. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that from her perspective it is the initial promotion of the new Miracle Field as a factor in this grant. Discussion continued. Council consensus was to vote on the recommendations to this point. Mr. Keenan moved to approve the preceding recommendations, which total $41,500 to this point. Vice Mayor Lecklider seconded the motion Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. Dublin Youth Athletics -Avery Fields lighting. The DYA indicated that they may be submitting a later request for this. No action is requested at this time. Historic Dublin Business Association - Slainte Thursday. Recommendation to grant the full $20,000 amount set aside annually for the Historic Business District to the HDBA for this event, with the stipulation that the event become self sufficient in the future. 1 Mr. Keenan moved to approve $20,000 for HDBA. Vice Mayor Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. Indian Run Falls Sculpture Project. No recommendation at this time, pending further information. Mr. Keenan stated that the request was submitted by the City. It is a request for funding for a proposed sculpture in the pedestrian walkway. Ms. Brautigam stated that this project was discussed in one of the budget workshops. At that time, Council asked that additional information be provided with the Parks and Recreation Master Plan update. At this time, there is no additional information. Mr. Keenan stated that the budget set aside for the hotel/motel bed tax grants is $75,000, not including the $20,000 Historic Dublin grant. Of that amount, $41,500 has now been allocated. The amount to be granted for the sculpture is not part of the preceding amounts; it would be a separate allocation. No recommendation is made at this time, pending further information. 1 SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING -CONTINUED Ordinance 58-07 Adopting the 2007 Community Plan. (2007 Dublin Community Plan -Case No. 07- 056ADM) Mr. Combs stated that this is a continuation of the public hearing from the November 5 Council meeting. U.S. 33 Corridor Area Plan. The 1997 plan for this area is being updated due to general growth issues in the area. MORPC has identified Dublin as an area for major future growth, particularly in the US 33 corridor. MORPC's projections to Year 2030 project this as the area for highest growth in the central Ohio region. Future land uses for the US 33 Corridor Area Plan have been proposed, based on a variety of key factors that stress the need for long-range, comprehensive thinking: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS November 19, 2007 Page 14 1. Interchange improvements at the US 33/Post Road interchange will significantly reduce area congestion and travel time and encourage future development. 2. Local road projects and access management will improve the marketability and development potential for sites along and adjacent to the SR 161 corridor. This includes realignment of Industrial Parkway and future widening of SR 161 and Cosgray Road. 3. Completion of Dublin Methodist Hospital is spurring additional medical office and service growth in the area. The City is already experiencing rapid growth and office development associated with the hospital, as well as technology companies desiring to locate within the area of the interchange. 4. Initial development in the Central Ohio Innovation Center will encourage further office and research development in the SR 161 area as a significant east-west transportation corridor with quick interchange access. 5. The presence of significant industrial, flex and research space along Industrial Parkway has established area character and will continue to expand in the future. 6. The existing CSX railroad constitutes a major freight line that will increase capacity over time. The railroad is further being considered both regionally (MORPC) and at the state level (Ohio Rail Development Commission) for future light rail and passenger rail service options, providing a potential transit link to Toledo and Chicago. 7. Future interchange construction at US 33 and McKitrick Road as identified by the 1997 Dublin Community Plan and the I-270 Major Investment Study will further focus growth within the planning area. 8. The area's location within two overlapping water and sewer service areas will provide future pressure for municipal services. There are a number of area plans regarding the US 33 Corridor area. The Jerome Township Southeast Area Plan, similar to Dublin's 1997 plan, anticipated limited expansion of industrial and office uses along Industrial Parkway. There are additional areas to the west between the rail lines and SR 161. Similar to Dublin's 1997 plan, the Union County Comprehensive Plan, completed during the late 1990s, did not foresee the significant changes that are occurring. The plan projected industrial development along Industrial Parkway and much lower residential densities to the west in the ranges of .4 - .8 units per acre. Dublin's 1997 Future Land Use Plan did not anticipate growth to occur in the US 33 Corridor at the pace at it has. At that time, the City's major policy objectives were to establish the Metro Park as a green buffer corridor to the northwest. The City's plan as part of its modeling looked at transitioning future residential to the west at low densities. Current development patterns have exceeded those expectations. The Future Land Use Plan looks at particularly higher density industrial development along Industrial Parkway and US 33 Corridor and the SR 161 corridor. Beyond that, it looks at regional greenway connections as well as areas within the areas to provide service at SR 161 in the center of the corridor area and at the future interchange at McKitrick and US 33. The area plan process was established in 2005 at the commencement of the Community Plan update. As part of Dublin's Community Plan update, the US 33 Corridor was identified for further study in 2005. Over the past three years, a variety of area plan meetings, policy workshops, open houses and formal public adoption meetings were held and widely publicized. As part of the public process, township officials have been informed of developing plans throughout the Community Plan process. Dublin and Jerome officials and staff met jointly at the commencement of the process to discuss opportunities and planning goals for each jurisdiction. Establishment of the US 33 Corridor Group was also specifically targeted to facilitate joint planning efforts, and Dublin has used the process to share information with participating jurisdictions. Given the projections for growth in the area and the knowledge that significant changes ~ are expected in the corridor, Dublin has the responsibility to plan for its service areas. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting ____ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC. FORM NO. 10148 - -- - - November 19, 2007 Page 15 Held ~~ The purpose of the US 33 area plan is to establish a general vision upon which future policy decisions can be based as conditions warrant. An issue was raised at the last meeting due to a letter that was received from the Central Ohio Bicycle Advocacy Coalition (COBAC). Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher requested that Council discuss the US 33/Jerome Township area before moving on. Mrs. Boring inquired if Council would continue discussion of the Northeast Quad area plans that were not discussed previously. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the only one addressed in the meeting materials is the Bright Road area. Mr. Combs responded that the memo contains additional information that Council requested on that area. Mrs. Boring inquired the plan for continuing discussion. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked for her preference. Both US 33 corridor and Northeast Quad residents are present. Citizens have signed up to speak on the following areas: Tuller Road/Riverside Drive, Rings Road, Northeast Quad, Memorial Drive extension and bridge, US 33 corridor, and the Community Plan in general. Mrs. Boring stated that for the public's benefit, there should be a schedule for the discussion. Ms. Brautigam responded that staff's plan was as to discuss the outstanding issues, including any outstanding items in the Northeast Quad; complete staff's report; and conclude with Council discussion. Mrs. Boring stated that proceeding in a methodical manner, Council could begin with the Northeast Quad, then proceed to the US 33 corridor, then address other areas. Mr. McCash stated that Council also provided a memo with an alternative timeline for adoption of the Community Plan. Is the intent to adopt the plan at the December 10tH meeting, or has that been modified to January 7tH? Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that it was Council's goal that it would be the present City Council that would approve the 2007 Community Plan, and the last meeting this year is December 10tH Mr. McCash inquired Council's response to staff's suggested alternative timeline. If the adoption is not intended to occur until January 7tH, there is no need for him to be present for this discussion. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it was well over a year ago that Council requested that the Plan be completed with this Council, which is the body most knowledgeable of this work. Therefore, she would prefer to maintain the December 10tH adoption schedule. Discussion followed. Council consensus was to schedule a special meeting on December 3 at 6:00 p.m. for completing discussion of the Community Plan. The goal tonight will be to end discussion at 11 pm. • Northeast Quad -Bright Road Area Plan Mr. Combs stated that at the last meeting an overview of the plan was given, covering the area east to west along Emerald Parkway. There is Office use along the ravine area; maintenance of park to the north of the ravine to preserve existing cemeteries and the Indian archaeological site, the Holder Wright works. To the west, there is additional Single Family use, and as Emerald Parkway turns to the north, along the final segment to be constructed, there would be a variety of Office use around the interchange at Sawmill Road/1270. Moving further to the north along Bright Road, there would be Medium, Mixed Residential on the north and south sides with additional Office integrated into existing Office along Sawmill. At the last discussion, Mrs. Boring raised a question about the proposed density. Comparative densities are noted within the staff memo. Mrs. Boring stated that at one time, Area 3 was proposed as Office. Converting it to Office rather than Residential has been proposed. There is currently a mix there. This RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS November 19, 2007 Page 16 20 1 _i _i 1 is a critical issue to the area residents. Perhaps those residents should have an opportunity to speak. Jim Hendrix, Continental Real Estate, indicated he is representing Alan Vrabel who owns the 33 acres at the corner of Tuller and Riverside Drive. Previously, Paul Ghidotti presented a bubble plan of what they hope to develop on that site -- a mixed use of senior housing, nursing home, medical and ancillary retail. Mr. Vrabel purchased the property approximately 13 years ago and cleaned up the driving range with the intent to develop a mixed use office campus on the site. That plan has evolved over the years. He is also in the nursing home business. It is their belief that the mixed use of senior housing, medical and retail would be a better use of the property. They request that the City consider those plans in connection with this property. Mack Parkhill, 7879 Riverside Drive, stated that he is a trustee with the East Dublin Civic Association. As well as speaking for himself, he indicated to Randy Roth earlier today, whose father is ill, that he would present his concerns. The residents believe that the proposed Summitview/Sawmill area plan is good. They do not object to alternative land use plans as long as retail is not included, and it has not been. There are concerns about the SR 161/Sawmill Road/Riverside Drive area. Many suggestions have been made for the Digger & Finch, formerly Bash, property. However, the scenic corridor designation for Riverside Drive does not begin at Tuller Road; it has always started at SR 161 and proceeded to the county line. In the past, the residents have opposed most of the proposals, which have included a large, 3-4 story apartment building and a large, Florida-style high-density residential project. The City Planning Commission agreed that those proposals were not appropriate for a scenic route. They ask that Council keep that in mind as they review this area. At this time, another high density housing development is proposed for the area. The residents ask that Council protect this scenic route. The residents love the existing greenspace. However, if plans for the area do not remain exactly the same, they ask that whatever the plan is that it be more in line with the existing use than what is proposed, which is to fill in the site and completely change the entire character of this entry point to Dublin. Speaking for Mr. Roth regarding the Bright Road area, there is concern regarding staff's plan for land along Bright Road east of the power lines. The 1997 Plan suggested that the land north of Bright Road be re-developed as Office, similar to the existing professional offices on Bright Road, and that the 10-acre site immediately south of Bright Road be redeveloped as multi-family condominiums to protect the Village of Inverness. Recently, staff has proposed inverting the plan so that the Office use would be contiguous with the existing Office use on the south side of Bright Road. The residents agreed, so the Plan proposed multi-family condominiums in the area north of Bright Road and professional Office to the south. Last month, the residents were startled to see a new draft of the plan, which shows both areas developing as multi-family. The residents were not consulted about the last-minute change, and they are concerned about it. Previously, any proposals were discussed with the civic association. It is their belief that the recent change is a mistake for the following reasons: (1) The professional offices on the east side of Bright Road and to the east of Sawmill along Billingsley and Sawbury are fully occupied. There is a market for professional office space in the Sawmill corridor because Columbus did not zone enough space on the east side of Sawmill Road. Additional professional offices would serve residents in the Sawmill corridor and would not compete with Dublin's new Innovation Center. A large, multi-family zoning on the east side of Bright Road would make it difficult to attract upscale office projects to the neighborhood. A large multi-family area would damage the Office use potential of the surrounding land just as the apartments on Sycamore Ridge damaged the Office potential along Tuller Road. Not one new office building has been built in that area since the apartments were added. (2) It sets a double standard for the appearance of Emerald Parkway east of the Scioto River. The City has not allowed amulti-family rezoning anywhere along Emerald Parkway since it was planned in 1990. All the zonings have been for Office, Institutions, or Single Family Housing. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS November 19, 2007 Page 17 iJ D D (3) Less than half of the dwelling units in east Dublin will be owner occupied if the suggested plan is followed. The Civic Association is adamantly opposed to lowering the proportion further. It is very easy to attract residents to apartments in Dublin because of the schools, but the high proportion of transient students who come from areas with very poor schools has had an extremely negative impact on the schools that East Dublin children are attending. It is incumbent upon Dublin not to exacerbate this problem. (4) The plan shows a parking lot in the area north of Billingsley Creek where the Indian burial mounds exist, an area designated for archaelogical preservation. The parking lot should be moved to the south of the creek or the western end of Bright Road where it will not compromise the historic district. (5) They oppose several components of the Sawmill-SR 161 area plan. They believe the Sawmill Road frontage should remain commercial. They support the City's long- standing goal to generate revenue from this corner, and they would prefer to see it developed imaginatively as a retail center rather than abandoned to multi-family or a village concept zoning. They would like to see Snouffer Road continued west across Sawmill Road to improve access to the interior of that site, and they would like to encourage the development industry to acquire the small frontage properties along Sawmill Road and include them in a larger, retail PUD. The new retail developments along SR 161 send a message that the land is suitable for retail where the road access is adequate and the sites are visible. The problem is addressed by improving the flow of traffic and visibility and redeveloping the frontage. It is doubtful an eastern-style, urban village development would succeed in the Sawmill corridor because the area is dominated by mid-scale, bargain retailers, not upscale retailers. They do not believe the character of the area can be changed east of the power lines. Mr. Reiner inquired if his statement is that there is 50 percent existing rental there now. Mr. Parkhill responded that would be the proportion with the additional proposed multi- family. That is of great concern to the existing residents. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher requested that Mr. Combs explain the reason the area plan was changed. Mr. Combs responded that it has not changed from the June 2007 draft. Although there were concerns voiced atone of the public meetings and the option of placing Office on one of the two sites suggested, there was no direction given at any of the joint work sessions. Multi-family condominiums north of Bright Road, east of Emerald Parkway Mrs. Boring stated that the residents desire that the Village of Inverness be surrounded by multi-family condos. The area they are concerned about is the area north of Bright Road and east of Emerald Parkway. The adjacent area is designated as Office, and those offices are always full. She would suggest that this area also be changed to Office use. Mrs. Boring moved to revise the area plan to designate this particular area as Neighborhood Office. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Mr. Keenan requested clarification of the site. Mr. Combs responded that it is Bright Road between Sawmill and Emerald Parkway. Mr. Keenan inquired if the Office use would have appropriate access. Mr. Combs indicated it would. Mr. Keenan inquired if any issues were envisioned with the proposed change. Mr. Combs responded that an Office use rather than Residential would generate a difference in traffic, but he could not say specifically how it would impact the intersection. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that these would be neighborhood office size buildings. Mr. Combs responded that by definition, it would be within a range of 9,000 sq. ft. /acre. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. Proposed Parking Lot on Indian Mounds Site RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS November 19, 2007 Page 18 1 1 Mr. Combs noted that given the decision that was made to cul de sac Bright Road along Riverside Drive, the expectation is that this would become acommunity-scale park due to its importance. That generates the need for some level of parking provision. The intent was to represent a very small parking lot that would be integrated into the design. The idea was to keep all of the park traffic off of Bright Road as a residential road, and focus it off of Emerald Parkway. Mrs. Boring stated that it is a good idea to provide sufficient parking for these parks. Dic Mr. Parkhill understand the reason for the parking space? What was the specific concern? Mr. Parkhill responded that the concern is that the parking is located much too close to the archaelogical site itself, which was intended to be preserved as it is. The civic association suggested that the parking lot be moved south of the creek and west of Bright Road, where it would impact the archaelogical site must less. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that this is conceptual only. He is confident that the City would not create a parking lot that would damage the integrity of the archaelogical site. He is not certain the City would want to incur the expense of a roadway in that location. Mr. McCash noted that there is the issue of the Billingsley Ravine. It is better to show it this way with the understanding that a later Council could decide to build it across the ravine. The important thing is to remember the impact on the ravine itself. Mrs. Boring inquired if Council would consider a curbcut on Riverside Drive. Council indicated they would not. Mrs. Boring stated that she is concerned about the neighborhood response if the road is shown with an access off Bright Road. Mr. Keenan made a motion that the Bright Road area plan indicate only that there would be parking provided, but not a specific location. Mayor Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes, Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. Sawmill Road and SR 161 Mrs. Boring stated that the proposed plan was probably well received due to the greenway along Riverside Drive and the pedestrian pathway that runs east and west. The alternate proposal that was forwarded to the City was included in the meeting materials. She requested staff's comments. Mr. Combs stated that this is the plan Mr. Hendrix referred to earlier. They propose a second-story office building on Tuller Drive, one to three stories in height. The plan continues the concept of a pedestrian greenway. Their proposed changes would include retail along Riverside Drive and a higher density mixed residential. In general, staff has no significant objections. Placing a lot of retail along Riverside Drive is not the best alternative for the area. The Community Plan provides for a road with river heritage character, with minimum setbacks of 60-100 feet. He is not certain Office at that scale would work. Mr. McCash moved to leave the area plan is it is shown in the Community Plan, where it has been tested and modeled. This would not preclude the submission of future rezoning requests, and traffic studies could be conducted at that point. Mrs. Boring requested input regarding plans for the Sawmill Road area. Mr. Parkhill has expressed concerns with staff's plan. Mr. McCash stated that he disagreed somewhat with Mr. Parkhill's comments that it is not possible to change the mix in that area. With the right development plan, it would be possible to change and improve the mix. A good example is the southwest area of Dublin. The development, which includes the Golf Club of Dublin, has distinctly changed the area for the better. On the west side of Sawmill Road, Dublin has the opportunity to demonstrate to Columbus how to do development exactly how to do it right. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS November 19, 2007 Page 19 20 i] iJ u Mrs. Boring stated that she does believe Dublin should consider the suggestion to extend Snouffer Road. Mr. Combs responded that this has been suggested previously. The City of Columbus does have jurisdiction over Sawmill Road. The plan does include the comment that Dublin would be willing to work with Columbus to address traffic issues at the various intersections, however, no specific provision was made regarding Snouffer Road. Mrs. Boring inquired if a notation could be made in the Community Plan that it is Dublin's desire that Snouffer Road be extended across Sawmill Road. Mr. Combs responded that a comment to that effect would be added. Mrs. Boring referred to the provision for amixed-use town center with a greenspace setback. Could this site be marketed for something educational, such as an institute - something other than mixed use? Mr. Combs responded that the definition of mixed use is quite broad. It actually provides for a mix of government offices and institutions such as an educational use. That use could be incorporated into the plan. A walkable environment where an educational use could be integrated with the surrounding uses could attract interest. Mrs. Boring inquired if that use should be specifically suggested, or should the plan remain as it is. Mr. Combs responded that it is already covered in the list of mixed uses, but a note could be added to indicate an interest in having an educational use integrated into that area. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that it be added to the Planning Issues and Challenges on page 138. An educational use would not typically be thought of as a town center use, so it should be specifically noted. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired about the absence of Lowe's on the map. Combs responded that the policy direction seemed to discourage big box retail development. Those types of uses typically do not have longevity, and eventually this site will need to be redeveloped. Mrs. Boring suggested that this specific planning area be extended further south to SR 161, retaining the existing bank building. Mr. Combs stated that the general concept is to push the buildings to the street, in some areas providing greenway connections in some areas, but taking more of an urban feel. That pattern can be duplicated. The larger issue would be the type of uses. Would there be a different policy direction for that area, or would it be part of the town center development area. Mr. Reiner stated that he would think it could certainly be part of the town center developments. For the present, Dublin is happy to have Lowes and the other businesses that are active there. This is a long-range plan to year 2050. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to extend the town center concept to the SR 161- Sawmill intersection. Mrs. Boring seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Summitview and Sawmill Mrs. Boring stated that the recommendations for this area and the areas to be protected are satisfactory. The association is hoping for flexibility in the plan. They are interested in maintaining a more "country" use, such as an equestrian park. US 33 Corridor-Jerome Township Area Plan Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited citizen comments. Jesse Dickinson,10144 Brock Road, Plain City, stated that he believes his comments reflect the opinions of others in Jerome Township. He would like to comment on three issues: remarks at a previous meeting, the views of the citizens of Jerome Township, and remedies for the US 33 corridor. At a previous meeting, Mr. Guerin summed up the views of 100 residents. In the Industrial Parkway corridor, approximately one half of the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS November 19, 2007 Page 20 residential homes are within %2 mile of the US 33 corridor. The proposal is to have businesses develop along that corridor. He considers that to be a transfer of value from the individual homeowners to corporations. The homeowners' homes become valueless. The property becomes more valuable, but the businesses that move in will destroy the lifestyle of the existing residents and the potential for anyone else to use the land. Look at the Industrial Parkway area today for example. [The meeting was briefly recessed for technical/recording difficulty.] Mr. Dickson stated that another comment was made by a Council member that a township trustee's remarks were disingenuous. He concurs with that comment. Many of the citizens want low density, residential development that can support the three school districts. The citizens group, originally designed for the citizens, has been infiltrated by architects and developers. The township trustees do not listen to the people, the residents. There have been 10 referendums. He has attended the MORPC and LUC meetings and spoken on behalf of the residents. He is providing a CD to Council tonight with a survey conducted of their area. It is well done, and he hopes Council reviews it. He sees three possible remedies to change Dublin's plan: (1) The US 33 corridor plan be revised to resemble Dublin's earlier plans for development of a lighter density. (2) Referendum of the proposed plans. He believes that in Dublin he has found people who believe they should be representatives of the people, not dictators to the people. (3) Merge. Annex the area and provide the proper zoning. Kathleen Crowley. Planning and Zoning Coordinator for Jerome Township, stated that she realizes Dublin sees this area as its growth corridor. She would like to ask a couple of questions on behalf of Jerome Township residents that are in attendance tonight. She inquired if the US 33 corridor planning area that is being discussed, a couple thousand acres, is currently in Jerome Township. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher affirmed that it is. Ms. Crawley stated that in order for the City of Dublin to implement this type of planning, the property owners would have to annex to the City of Dublin. The area plan being discussed by Dublin City Council is solely Dublin's plan, not Jerome Township's or the City of Marysville's. As it is now, those 2,000 acres are within Jerome Township. The citizens of Jerome Township could only be subject to Dublin's taxes if they were to annex to the City. Mr. McCash responded that the residents are already paying school district taxes, which is the greater tax. Ms. Crowley that the financial situation in a township is different than in the City. Mr. Keenan stated that the millage is the same in the township as it is in the City. The only difference is the 1/2 mill the City collects. This issue is not about taxation, however; it is about planning. Ms. Crowley responded that it is about land use, and Dublin can determine the land use only if the area is annexed into the City. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated the City's plan is conceptual only. When Jerome Township does their area plan, they do not look only at the township area. A plan looks at contiguous area factors that would have an impact on the municipality or township. Mr. Reiner stated that there is often a misunderstanding that if an area annexes into the City, their taxes will greatly increase. The largest portion of the taxes paid are to the school district. The City portion is minimal. Additionally, the property owners are often concerned that the City will annex their property. Only the property owner can initiate an annexation. Mr. Keenan stated that for the small amount of millage the City collects, a great number of services are provided. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that he would like to emphasis what Mr. Reiner alluded to and that annexation is not an action the City pursues. To be annexed, the property owner must initiate the process. Ms. Crowley stated that she is aware of that. She also wanted to confirm that this is not a zoning; it is a community concept plan. She is simply confirming the facts for the township citizens. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS November 19, 2007 Page 21 '.J J Mr. Reiner stated that as Mr. Keenan indicated, with an annexation the property owner receives a large number of City services in return for a nominal tax increase. Dublin has the one of the highest levels of public services provided for its residents. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if Council members would like to request any changes to the US 33 Corridor plan, which is a conceptual design for areas outside the City's current jurisdiction. Mrs. Boring stated that she believes some property owners in this area are aware of the high level of planning, including buffering, that Dublin provides and would be interested in annexing to Dublin. However, is it possible to plan around those neighborhoods, not over them? Mr. McCash stated that this is essentially a future redevelopment concept. If this land were to become more valuable as Office use, the property owners would be inclined to sell their property to benefit from the higher value and move from the US 33 corridor. Mrs. Boring stated that the "cashing in" concept is often misunderstood. $300,000 acre for raw land may be seem to be a good price, but selling the property for $300,000 when a house is included does not seem to be a "windfall." Mr. McCash responded that the land involved in the Tuttle Crossing extension and rezoning increased much more in value than the houses sitting on the land. If the land is sold, the property owner will realize a much greater profit that they would have before it was rezoned. If the land in the US 33 corridor were to annexed into Dublin sometime in the future and zoned as Commercial but the land around it remained residential, Dublin would be sensitive to the adjoining neighbors. Dublin's zoning code requires a buffering element between commercial and residential properties. Mrs. Boring noted that is how the "islands" are formed. She inquired what low density is contemplated here. Mr. Combs responded that it would be single family. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that development happens incrementally and unavoidably creates islands. It is unlikely development would occur 300-400 acres at a time. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired Mrs. Boring's recommendation. Mrs. Boring responded that stated she would like the plan to indicate the existing residential. If she lived in this area, this plan would be very unsettling to her. Mr. Keenan stated that US 33 is similar to Bethel Road, which eventually became retail. Mrs. Boring stated that Bethel Road, however, is a major collector. Mr. Keenan responded that US 33 is as well. This plan is a concept for 30 years in the future. If proper planning does not occur now, problems will result from uncontrolled development. The planning has no real effect, unless the land is annexed. Mr. Keenan noted that, in his opinion, there is a significant problem with the plan. Prime real estate on a limited access highway is designated as Low Density Office use. What is the reason for that provision? This are is within the City's planning area. Mr. Mc Cash responded that he believes that provision has been carried over from the once contemplated Erickson plan. Mr. Keenan stated that he recalls the City decided to save this site for a use better suited for this prime real estate. Ms. Brautigam stated that when this area was last discussed, staff recommended that the land be zoned as High Density Office use. The issue was raised whether transportation planning for high density has been conducted. As that had not occurred, staff agreed to remove the high density indication for this area. However, staff does agree that the proper plan for that area would be high density, and if Council would like to re-insert that into the plan, they would be happy to do so. Mr. Keenan moved to revise the use from Low Density Office to High Density Office use for this site. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher clarified that the motion is to change the Cosgray/Shier Rings/ SR 161 Low Density Office to High Density Office. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS November 19, 2007 Page 22 20 Vote on the motion: Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. 1 ii 1 Mr. McCash inquired if there is an aerial of the area. Vice Mayor Lecklider responded that it is on page 167 and 171 of the draft plan. Mr. McCash referred to the Industrial Parkway area. Except for a small area, the majority of the area up to the Post Road interchange is designated General Industrial. Mr. Combs indicated the areas that included Residential -- Industrial Parkway in the center of the planning area, Mitchell-DeWitt Road, Warner Road and area to the north. Mr. McCash inquired if the homes preceded the industrial, or the reverse. He is curious about the Jerome Township planning. Mr. Combs indicated he is not aware of the answer. Mr. McCash stated that issues have been raised about the proposed Office and Industrial designations, yet, in Jerome Township, General Industrial exists next to Residential. That does not occur in Dublin. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher indicated that Mrs. Boring's question is currently on the table, which is, can the Community Plan indicate the existing Residential in the area. Mrs. Boring asked if staff had discussed the concept plan with any of the residents of this area. Mr. Combs responded that staff had spoken with a couple of the residents. Copies of their correspondence were included in the last Council packet. Throughout the process, various residents of Jerome Township have attended Community Plan workshops to learn the intent of the plan and offer comments. Mr. McCash moved to add an asterisk which states that it is not the City's intent to displace residential properties within the area. However, if the properties are re- developed, the designation indicated would be the preferred scenario. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. McCash, yes;. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that there would be two additional citizen comments before the Community Plan discussion is concluded. John Pelton. Dublin resident, stated that he is a realtor and he owns property on Rings Road. The Southwest Plan will significantly impact seven contiguous properties on Rings Road. He referred to the map of the Rings and Avery roads area on page 157. Several properties on Rings Road are being acquired by Dublin Engineering. City staff indicates that those houses will be removed and the road will be widened in that area. He inquired if it would be widened to four lanes. Ms. Brautigam stated that she does not believe the City transportation plan provides for Rings Road to become four lanes. She asked Mr. Hammersmith for clarification. Mr. Hammersmith stated that there are plans for Avery Road to become four lanes, but not Rings Road. Mr. Pelton responded that he had meant to say Avery Road would be widened to four lanes. West of that intersection are the seven contiguous properties on Rings Road to which he refers. According to the Southwest Plan, the area across the street from those properties will become Standard Office. Behind those properties is a reserve area with dense woods and undergrowth, which provides a buffer to an adjacent upscale condominium neighborhood. These seven beautiful properties have now become unsaleable as homes. There are no sidewalks and no curb and gutter. The properties have been so devalued that the property owners will not be able to afford connection to City water and sewer when it becomes available. As mentioned earlier in tonight's discussion, these properties have become an island area. He rents his property to a family with a child who attends a Hilliard elementary school. This year, Hilliard Schools terminated bus service to these homes as they are within a mile of the newly opened Washington Elementary. Mr. Keenan stated that he does not concur with his argument about the negative impact of Standard Office across the street. The Killilea subdivision does not appear to have RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin Citv Council November 19, 2007 Page 23 suffered negatively by the Cardinal Health development across the street. Is Mr. Pelton suggesting the properties should be rezoned? Mr. Pelton responded that he is not. He does not know the answer for these properties, but they can no longer be sold as residential homes. Perhaps senior housing would be an alternative. However, he does want Council to be aware of the negative impact on these once valuable homes, now an island area. Mr. Keenan inquired the amount of acreage involved. Mr. Pelton responded that they are one to two-acre sites, a total of 10 to 11 acres. Bob Warne, 5808 Tartan Circle, stated that he attended an earlier meeting where the proposed Memorial Drive extension and bridge across the river were discussed. The significant problem with that proposal is increased traffic volume. Between Dublin and Muirfield, there are 22 entrances. Between Avery Road and Muirfield, there are 11 entrances; three of those are offices and one is the golf course entrance, which generates a high volume of traffic. How many homes would be impacted by the extension of Muirfield Drive? In that area there are a minimum of 450 two-car garage homes accessing Memorial Drive an average of 3 times daily. In addition to the number of Memorial Drive accesses generated by those homes would be the traffic that would come from southern Delaware. The increased traffic volume will result in a larger number of accidents. He would like to remind Council of the old adage, "If it isn't broke, don't fix it." Memorial Drive isn't "broke," and extending it will only create greater traffic issues for the residents in this area. He requested that Council reconsider their vote on this proposal and completely remove it from the City's agenda. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated the discussion of the Community Plan is completed for this evening and will be continued at a December 3 Special Meeting. She requested that the public notices list the areas that will be discussed at that meeting. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Mr. McCash noted that he would be out of town on November 26-28. Mrs. Boring stated that: 1. She would ask Ms. Clarke to include in Council's next packet a list of high school stadium rentals for various activities. 2. She recently attended the National Leagues of Cities conference in New Orleans. She found a great spirit in the residents with whom she spoke. It is a unique, yet diverse City. Mr. Keenan, Finance Committee chair, stated that: 1. There have been four Finance Committee meetings in the past week and a half. The last of those occurred this evening at 6 pm, during which the City's cost of services legislation was reviewed. A public hearing on that ordinance will occur at the December 10 meeting. 2. On November 15, Ms. Brautigam, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Combs and he attended the annual LUC Regional Planning Commission meeting in Urbana. The speaker, Dr. Robert Head, was very dynamic. Vice Mayor Lecklider thanked staff for their willingness to commit the extra time needed to complete the Community Plan this year. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. ~..~ . Mayor -Presiding Officer Clerk of Council