Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/3/2007RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City council Meeting _ _ 1 1 1 Held December 3, 2007 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the Monday, December 3, 2007 Special Meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 6:00 p.m. at the Dublin Municipal Building. She noted that the purpose of the Special Meeting is for the continued second reading/public hearing of Ordinance 58-07, Adopting the 2007 Community Plan. Present were: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, Vice Mayor Lecklider, Mrs. Boring, Mr. Keenan, Mr. McCash, Mr. Reiner, and Ms. Salay. Staff members present were: Ms. Brautigam, Mr. Smith, Ms. Grigsby, Ms. Readier, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Hammersmith, Ms. Cox, Ms. Willis, Mr. Richardson, and Mr. Goodwin. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Langworthy led the Pledge of Allegiance. LEGISLATION SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCES (continued) Ordinance 58-07 Adopting the 2007 Community Plan. (2007 Dublin Community Plan -Case No. 07- 056ADM) Mr. Langworthy thanked the City Council for their commitment to the Plan process. He has done a large number of master plans during his 30-year career, and the commitment, involvement and interest of Dublin's elected officials has been remarkable. Staff is appreciative of all of Council's efforts to review and complete the Plan. He noted that there are four remaining area plans to review and some guidance is needed from Council tonight. In addition, discussion will take place tonight regarding the Memorial Drive bridge and the water tower location. There are also some individual requests regarding certain areas of the Plan, and staff is seeking specific guidance on these. Mr. Langworthy introduced Justin Goodwin, Planner who will present tonight in the absence of Mr. Combs who had a death in the family. Also present tonight is the Engineering management staff to address those issues at the appropriate time. Mr. Goodwin noted that the four remaining area plans include Avery Road, Coffman Park, Historic Dublin, and the Northwest Glacier Ridge Area. Avery Road He noted this plan is divided into two sub area plans -one focused at Shier Rings/Avery (page 95) and the other at Woerner-Temple/Avery. For Shier Rings/Avery, the Plan shows various intensities of office development, ranging from neighborhood office south of Shier Rings Road and standard office to the northeast of Shier Rings/Avery and a pod of high density office/R&D at the northwest corner of Shier-Rings/Avery. The Thoroughfare Plan for Shier Rings/Avery shows future roundabouts. This Plan also accommodates future improvements to the interchange. At Woerner-Temple/Avery Road, the area plan shows a mixed use neighborhood center at the southwest corner, with a substantial setback from Ballantrae Park. The plan also shows neighborhood office development south of the neighborhood center along Avery Road, and a potential for mixed density residential development, with office integrated between proposed neighborhood office uses and existing residential uses. Mrs. Boring asked him to review the recommended setbacks. Mr. Goodwin responded that generally along Avery Road, a 65-foot setback is shown for office uses. That reflects existing setbacks of most buildings along Avery Road. At Avery/Woerner-Temple, particularly along Woerner-Temple, a 100-foot setback is shown to provide the green space desired near Ballantrae Park on the north side of Woerner- Temple. Mr. Reiner asked if the 65 feet is measured from the edge of the road. Mr. Goodwin responded that the 65 feet would be measured from the edge of the future right of way on either side. Ms. Salay stated that when Council and P&Z talked of this concept of mixed use neighborhood center on this corner, a 100-foot setback on all sides was discussed. She would like this to remain at 100 feet, as the established character of the pool and RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS December 3, 2007 LJ Page 2 community park would be diminished absent this size of setback on the west side of Avery. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher agreed, noting that it would mirror the visual across the street. Ms. Salay stated that the concept of the neighborhood center and mixed use was acceptable to the neighborhood with the 100-foot setback on all sides on Avery Road. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked about the Cramer's Crossing area - is an existing tree line shown? What is the setback from that to the mixed residential, medium density? Mr. Goodwin responded that the existing tree line is shown. He will have to check on the exact number. It would likely be determined through the zoning process. Mrs. Boring asked if there is a notation in the Plan about where the setback is measured from? Mr. Goodwin responded that language to this effect could be added. Mr. McCash noted that, typically, the setback is from the right of way. Mr. Goodwin stated that is generally the staff assumption, but he will clarify this. Mr. Reiner noted that there is an extensive setback at Cramer's Crossing, including a lake. Does the Planning Department not feel this cadence is desired? Mr. Goodwin responded that staff reviewed existing structures along Avery Road, including residential structures converted to office. There are a variety of existing setbacks in the area. 1 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that Ms. Salay was suggesting a 100-foot setback all the way down Avery Road. Ms. Salay agreed that would be her preference, certainly for areas where retail uses are being proposed. Mrs. Boring noted that other area plans have overlays on existing development. Why is this being treated differently? Ms. Salay responded that having 100-foot setbacks for future development is her preference. Mrs. Boring and Mr. Reiner agreed with this suggestion. Discussion followed about existing setbacks and future development in the area. Ms. Salay moved that the area plan for Avery/Woerner-Temple provide setbacks from both sides of Avery Road of 100 feet for all new development. Vice Mayor Lecklider seconded the motion. Mr. McCash noted that there is existing development on the east side. If they desire additions or modifications to existing facilities, will the Planning Department disapprove it due to less than 100-foot setbacks? Ms. Salay responded that if the addition moves them closer to the roadway, that would be viewed as a negative. If adding on to an existing facility, it would be cumbersome to request that they move buildings back. Her intent relates to future new buildings. Mr. McCash stated that this clarification is important, as it has come up in the past. L~' Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher commented that the Tuswell roundabout has turned out very well. But further down on Emerald Parkway, heading into the neighboring community, there are roundabouts closely spaced. They seem too close together. She cautioned that while roundabouts reduce accidents, distance between them is an important consideration. Mr. Hammersmith responded that in a neighboring community, the radii on the entry to the roundabouts are not as prominent as what they had planned, which does not cause the driver to slow down. Dublin has done more to accentuate the curvature upon entry. This point is well taken. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS December 3, 2007 '~ D 1 Held 20 Meeting Page 3 Mr. Keenan noted that the Post/Avery roundabout is programmed. Once this is built, what will happen with the other two traffic signals heading south along Avery? Mr. Hammersmith responded that what has been discussed is some type of detection to activate the signals to the south so that the cars are not stacked in the roundabout. He is confident that the traffic can be moved through the corridor. Mr. McCash noted that a roundabout is shown at Woerner-Temple/Avery. Currently, there is an existing bikepath tunnel in this location and the roundabout may negatively impact the tunnel. This would result in a waste of the taxpayer dollars used to build the tunnel. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the intent of design is to incorporate that existing tunnel. Mrs. Boring asked to what extent that roundabout will impact the property owner's yard. Mr. Hammersmith responded it is difficult to determine at this point. Ms. Salay noted that there is vacant land on the other three corners. Can this roundabout be somewhat shifted? Mr. Hammersmith responded that this is a goal of the design process. There were no requests from the audience for public testimony on this area plan. Coffman Park Plan Mr. Goodwin stated this deals primarily with the portion of Coffman Park that could expand, south of existing Post Road along Emerald Parkway (page 115). This portion of the area plan is generally aligned with the Coffman Park expansion plans, showing an expansion south of existing Post Road and a realignment of existing Post Road down to Perimeter Drive. There would be a substantial water feature in this portion of the park and perhaps a civic use near existing Post Road and Emerald Parkway, an integration of the existing park facilities with the new park facilities, and potential new park facilities near the Justice Center. This plan also shows south of Emerald Parkway between Emerald Parkway and the 33/270 interchange standard office uses that would be of a scale of what is seen generally along other portions of Emerald Parkway. Ms. Salay asked about the number of stories in such future buildings. Mr. Goodwin responded that the range is two to three stories; no final decision was made. Mrs. Boring noted that the redirection of Post then comes into Commerce Parkway. Mr. Goodwin confirmed that is correct. Historic Dublin Area Mr. Goodwin noted this focuses on portions of HD, north of Bridge Street (page 121). It includes some portions south of Bridge, but primarily looks to preserve existing residential uses and existing historic structures along High Street and Bridge Street. The plan shows additional mixed use development north of Bridge, along both sides of High. Particularly of interest is the potential redevelopment of the Bridge and High corner, and a proposal is currently under review at the Planning & Zoning Commission. This area plan would also include a potential civic structure in the northwest quadrant of the historic area, which could be surrounded by a mixture of residential and retail uses. The general concept in Historic Dublin is to maintain and enhance the existing pedestrian and village character seen along High Street and to extend that character onto Bridge Street as well, creating a truly pedestrian environment to enhance the vitality of the district. Ms. Salay asked if medians are what is shown on Bridge Street. Mr. Goodwin responded that is correct. Ms. Salay noted she is supportive of medians if they can be accommodated. Ms. Salay commented that east/west access between Monterey and Corbins Mill is shown on the plan. This is vehemently opposed by the Waterford neighborhood as voiced at meetings. She had understood this concept had been rejected and that it RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS n~ December 3, 2007 Page 4 20 would not be shown in the plan. As development comes forward in the future, she does not want staff to feel pressured to include such an east/west connector. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the topic of the discussion with the neighborhood related to the redirection of Monterey. This plan shows an alternative connection over to Corbins Mill - a secondary access. Ms. Salay stated she does not believe the neighborhood is aware this second access is included in the plan. How important is this connection if the existing duplexes come in for redevelopment? Mr. Hammersmith responded that it will have to be evaluated with a site plan and access to the uses in that area. As far as a transportation connection, it is not critical to the City, if Monterey remains connected to 161. Mr. Keenan added that he has heard from Waterford residents that they do not want this connector included. Ms. Salay noted that they were concerned that traffic from the Kroger Center and retail areas would disperse into Monterey and at Waterford to Dublin Road. Ms. Salay moved that the east-west access between Corbins Mill and Monterey not be shown in future land use maps for the Historic Dublin area. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. There was no public testimony. Mrs. Boring asked if there are any other considerations for Council that were identified by the Architectural Review Board? Mr. Goodwin responded that a specific recommendation from P&Z was appropriate character and massing of buildings in deference to historic vernacular. That is the only recommendation received, and has been incorporated as a design note in the plan. Mrs. Boring asked if ARB has given their approval of the Historic Dublin area plan as well. Mr. Goodwin responded that he cannot recall the last occasion that the Plan was reviewed by ARB. Mr. McCash commented that in regard to infill development, there is a need for sensitivity to this historic area -not arbitrarily tearing down buildings that are on historic registers. The focus should be on adaptive reuse. There are some locations on the sketches that indicate tearing down structures that are on the National Historic Register. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher agreed, suggesting this be added in the general notes. Mr. Goodwin responded that this concept is included in the design strategies, specifically the strategies in the historic preservation chapter. Ms. Salay pointed out there is no actual protection for historic structures. She had believed that a structure on the National Historic Register could not be torn down, but that does not provide such protection. It must be protected locally. Mr. McCash suggested that a note be included regarding adaptive reuse of structures wherever possible. He acknowledged that there are some structures in the district that are not historic and not deserving of protection. Mr. McCash moved to include a note for the Historic District that the overriding concept is to do adaptive reuse on historic structures and not have them demolished. This should be added to the general notes section of the plan. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked if there is an objective way to measure what is worthy of adaptive reuse, and who will make that decision. Mr. McCash responded that the structure itself must be reviewed. The Secretary of the Interior has specific provisions on adaptive reuse for historic structures. Planning professionals have that information. If something is listed or adds to the overall historic character of the district, the preference is to reuse that structure to the extent possible. Either ARB or P&Z would make the final decision on this. RECORD OF PROCEEDfNGS Held December 3, 2007 Page 5 Mr. Goodwin added that, currently, there are criteria by which ARB reviews any proposed demolition in the district. Vote on the motion: Mr. McCash, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. Clay Bryan, 84 S. Riverview Street stated that the Architectural Review Board has not reviewed the area plan. In regard to a civic use, he would like clarification of what the civic use would be in the historic district. Mr. Goodwin responded that the location is near the current library site. Ms. Salay noted that including this in the plan was designed to preserve the option of a city hall, library or other civic use in the district. Mr. Bryan responded that there are existing traffic congestion issues in the district in the morning and evening. When civic uses are being considered, it would be preferable to have a use with staggered arrival times versus a city hall operation. Mrs. Boring asked for the location of the proposed bypass. Mr. Goodwin stated that the proposed Frantz Road bypass would parallel Indian Run to some extent on the north side. Mrs. Boring stated that not only a civic use is being considered in the historic district, but other retail/office uses are being encouraged. Mr. Goodwin stated that the Thoroughfare Plan includes a new connection between Dublin Road and Frantz Road to bypass the historic district and relieve traffic congestion along Bridge Street and High Street. Mrs. Boring asked if the ARB was included in the review bodies for the Plan. She recalls that the timeline provided for such review. Mr. Langworthy responded that members of the ARB attended many of the area plan meetings and many discussions took place with the ARB Chair in particular. He is not aware that a specific meeting was scheduled with the ARB for the plan presentation. The revitalization plan is mirrored in the area plan, and there was some involvement with ~ the ARB members in that process. Mr. Keenan pointed out that with respect to a future city hall, this Council is very divided about the proper placement. It will likely be some time in the future when that is determined. Personally, he does not believe the district is the appropriate location for a city hall. Northwest Glacier Ridge Mr. Goodwin stated that this plan is located generally between Hyland-Croy Road, Brock Road and US 33 (page 129). For the majority of this area, the plan shows a conservation residential type of land use and/or preservation of existing rural oriented residential land uses. A substantial portion of this area is currently composed of the Glacier Ridge Metro Park. Additional development would be sensitive in its placement relative to the Metro Park. This area plan also includes a smaller inset at the interchange of Post Road and US 33, which is scheduled for improvement within the next couple of years. What is shown on the plan is a mixture of office, and particularly office, research and development at a lower density, ranging from a higher density of premium office directly at the interchange and transitioning down to a low density office, R&D use alongside the Metro Park, all of that being on the west side of Hyland Croy. On the east side of Hyland Croy, the plan shows a mixture of residential uses in remaining open areas that may develop in the future. At P&Z, some of the issues raised with regard to this area dealt with the need for bikepath connectivity to the existing Jerome High School, the Metro Park and other parks. The area plans do include a substantial number of bikepath connections. In addition, a revised bikeway plan has been provided and there are numerous connections shown that would serve both existing and future neighborhoods in this area. Another issue raised at P&Z related to fairly recent proposals for large-scale retail at this interchange, particularly at Hyland- Croy/Post Road/33 interchange. This plan provides a viable alternative to that in premium office uses instead of big box retail at this site. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS December 3, 2007 Page 6 1 1 Ms. Salay stated that with the amount of open space and with office use, there is a possibility of preserving some of the rural character in that location. Mr. Goodwin agreed, noting that the plan shows 200-foot setbacks maintained along Hyland-Croy and the possibility of using a variable width median along portions of Hyland Croy to enhance rural character. Mr. Keenan asked about the size of the office buildings shown. Mr. Goodwin stated that at the interchange, he would anticipate three-story buildings. These would transition down to one or two story buildings near the Metro Park. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked about the potential lot sizes for the land where an existing horse farm is located. Mr. Goodwin responded it is likely 2-3 units per acre of mixed residential, low density use. It would provide for a range of lot sizes to allow for the different types of units. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that there is existing residential to the south, and a larger lot to the north. She believes it is not an appropriate place for mixed use residential. She would prefer larger lots and more green space. Mrs. Boring agreed. Lower density, larger lots would provide a better transition between the neighborhoods. Mr. Reiner concurred. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked staff to comment. Mr. Langworthy stated that some meetings took place with Bishop's Run and Bishop's Crossing residents who are concerned about the future of this area. It is important to be sensitive to the existing development in the area and provide something equivalent. This is also an area of particular interest to him. A road character study for Hyland-Croy is planned, as it is the only north/south road in the area. Nearly everything that develops in the area must use Hyland-Croy. The neighborhoods will be involved in the planning processes over the next year for this roadway. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved that the existing horse farm be designated as large lots and not as mixed use residential in the plan. Mrs. Boring seconded the motion. Mr. Langworthy clarified this would be residential medium density at 1-2 units per acre. He noted that mixed density does not mean different kinds of houses, necessarily. The plan is to have all single family residential. There would be variable lot widths that would average out to the density proposed. Vice Mayor Lecklider noted that it would still be possible to have alternate housing on the site, albeit with a lower density. Mr. Langworthy stated that single family, detached housing is the focus. Ms. Salay stated that there was a neighborhood in Franklin of 50-foot lots which were well received on the tour. What is in the plan now may result in more green space. Mrs. Boring stated she is concerned with the overall consistency of the appearance. Ms. Salay stated that in looking at Hyland-Croy, north to south, there is a cookie cutter look with the same types of housing. She had thought the desire was to do something different. She would prefer keeping the density low, but not to indicate specifically "large lot." It seems that the houses in Dublin are expanded to fill the lot, whatever the lot size may be. The result is less open space. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that her suggestion for larger lots incorporates some conservation design concepts for this land. Secondly, she would like to reduce the traffic coming from this area. The existing development already generates much traffic. The design at 1-2 units per acre does not sound right to her, but she is willing to modify her motion to include that elements of conservation design be considered, with the intent to allow for a sufficient amount of green space that can be seen and that the density would take into consideration the traffic patterns. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS December 3, 2007 Held Page 7 1 ~, Ms. Salay added that another consideration is to preserve the wood lot and not to grant tree preservation waivers. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked if what the Mayor is envisioning would allow for a street such as the one observed in Franklin, with narrow lots on one side and open space to the front of lots. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that, visually, this it not what she is picturing. But she is open to suggestions. Mrs. Boring noted that on page 181, the conservation design is listed as 1.5 units per acre. Perhaps that can be utilized. Mr. Goodwin pointed out there is a land use classification of mixed residential, rural density which is what has been applied to areas appropriate for conservation subdivision design. It is a density of 1.5 units per acre. That may be appropriate to this site. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher withdrew her motion, and Mrs. Boring withdrew her second. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved that conservation design principles be incorporated for the horse farm site, leaving the wooded area intact, with 150-200 foot setback from the road, and classifying this as a conservation subdivision area of 1.5 units per acre. Mrs. Boring seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited public testimony. Kevin Barney, 8180 McKitrick Road referred to No. 4 area on page 129. He met with Mr. Combs and spoke with Mr. Hammersmith. He is supportive of conservation design. The area he speaks of is the proposed intersection off ramp of Mitchell-Dewitt, heading into a roundabout, and how the traffic is being dispersed. While this is a general concept, the concern is with the McKitrick extension which meets up with his property. He wonders how the new McKitrick extension would go through Glacier Ridge, and also affect 5 property owners, and how realistic it is. Perhaps other options should be considered. He is not in favor of having all that traffic go down existing McKitrick either, as he owns a horse farm as do other property owners in the area. Can a road be routed through the Metro Park or could Brock Road overpass be considered, or another artery going up to Brock Road? Mr. Hammersmith responded that this portion of the plan depicts what is in the Union County Thoroughfare Plan. Staff tried to mirror that in the road network. The Union County plan is in draft format. This information can be shared with Union County. It is currently in Union County, but if they annex to Dublin, it would be in Dublin's jurisdiction. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if a general note should be included. Mr. Hammersmith suggested that a reference could indicate it was in correlation with the draft Union County Thoroughfare Plan. Council concurred. Mr. Barney noticed on the web site today a letter from the Central Ohio Bicycle Advocacy group. He is aware that there are many bikepaths planned for the area. He advocates for the future that a bike lane be added on the roads. The Metro Park attracts large groups of bicyclists which pose a hazard on the roadways, as they do not use the bikepaths. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that the bike lane issue has been brought forward by the COBAC, and will be addressed later tonight. Mrs. Boring noted that a letter has been distributed on the dais from a Post Preserve resident. Mr. Goodwin stated that the individual was present earlier, but has left the meeting. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS December 3, 2007 Page 8 Held 20 Mr. Hammersmith noted that the concern is with the connection of Holbein to Hyland Croy and traffic accessing the neighborhood. Aright in, right out is intended for Holbein, which will lessen its intended use compared to a full access. While staff understands the change in character when that connection is made, it was inevitable and always a planned connection. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that he believes what the resident was proposing would benefit only 10-12 homes at best. It would also encroach upon the setback being maintained and would create a potential conflict at the connection. Future Memorial Drive bridge Mr. Goodwin noted that this bridge option was brought up many times throughout the review process. There was a vote of Council in April to remove the bridge from the Plan, but because it was a tie vote, the bridge remains in the plan. In August, P&Z recommended adoption of the plan, but recommended that the bridge be removed from the plan - at least for the present time. This plan is on page 191. Ms. Salay noted that since the last time this issue was discussed and the present time, a memo has been provided about Glick Road and the O'Shaughnessy bridge. Previously, a solution to not having the Memorial Bridge in the plan was to repurpose the O'Shaughnessy bridge and widen it or add lanes so that capacity would be increased. She asked staff for an update on this. Mr. Hammersmith responded that he spoke with a representative of the Columbus Division of Power and Water. Their view is that the bridge is a "guest" on the dam structure itself. Although Columbus is not opposed to a widened Glick Road, it would have to be within the existing structure. The memo described how four lanes would fit within the replicated historic railings in place on the bridge, and it is a tight configuration that eliminates any pedestrian access on the bridge and places vehicles 18 inches from the railing. The Columbus concern is that as they went through the analysis when the bridge was improved in the late 1980's/early 1990's, the structure itself will not support that additional load. The structure cannot be widened to the north because of the existing pump houses. Any widening would have to be to the south and would have to be cantilevered on the structure itself. It would further require a structural analysis of the dam itself. The Columbus staff member's other comment was that a widening of the Glick Road would have to be on a separate substructure supporting it, not the dam itself, due to stability concerns. Ms. Salay asked what that would consist of. Mr. Hammersmith responded it would consist of a significant superstructure down into the bedrock and the river to support a deck. It would have to be an independent structure away from the dam. Mr. Keenan asked if an adjacent structure could be run to the north. Mr. Hammersmith responded that it is possible, but the issue is how that could be done going down into the reservoir itself, which is equally deep. Mr. Keenan asked if the pump houses could be relocated. Mr. Hammersmith responded that is not possible due to the mechanical equipment inside that operates the gates and dam. Mr. Keenan noted that in looking at the roadway to the east by the zoo, this appears to be a natural extension where the traffic should flow. There must be a way to accomplish this other than building an entirely new bridge. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher agreed that it seems inconsistent to have this new roadway by the zoo without a plan to take the traffic to the west. Mr. Hammersmith responded that he believes that ODOT's intent was to redirect Powell Road and bring that traffic from the east over to Riverside Drive. He does not believe ODOT envisioned this as a through route from east to west per se. The volume of traffic heading west on Powell to access Riverside Drive was the factor driving this decision for the new roadway construction, along with the zoo and water park uses. Ms. Salay added that the existing intersection of Powell Road and Riverside Drive did not feel safe. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council December 3, 2007 Hel 20 Meeting Page 9 1 ~i L__J Mr. Keenan added there was a need for a connector to Sawmill Parkway as well, as it carries a tremendous traffic volume north and south. Ms. Salay noted that one area of concern regarding the Glick Road bridge is that if the bridge is widened, there will be a desire to widen the road on the western side as well, with impacts on the Shawnee Hills properties and beyond. The other concern is that when the need for and timing of the Memorial Drive bridge was discussed, it was based on the O'Shaughnessy bridge being four lanes, as that was what was in the Delaware County Thoroughfare Plan. If the Glick Road bridge expansion is cost prohibitive, what will that do to the need for the Memorial Drive bridge? Ms. Willis responded that the original modeling did reflect Glick Road bridge as four lanes. The 2023 timeframe for the Memorial Drive bridge was based on having afour- lane Glick Road bridge. If the Glick Road bridge cannot be widened to four lanes, it makes the need for the Memorial Drive bridge occur somewhat sooner. Staff is projecting 2015 at the earliest to 2020 at the latest for the need for the Memorial Drive bridge. Mr. Keenan asked if the widening is restricted to three lanes or four lanes due to the pedestrian traffic? Could four lanes be accommodated without pedestrian traffic? Ms. Willis responded that it would be difficult on the existing Glick Road bridge structure. Mr. Hammersmith added that it could be done only if one of the pedestrian pathways is eliminated. With the current configuration today between the parapet walls, there are two 12-foot lanes and 3.5 feet between the edge line and those walls. Mr. Keenan suggested that it may be less expensive to remove the pedestrian lanes on the bridge deck, do the expansion for the traffic, and add an overhead pedestrian walkway. Mr. Hammersmith clarified that for the four lanes, they would be 11-foot lanes, with 9 inches between the edge line and the wall. Mr. Keenan asked about the potential of having three lanes, with one lane reversed morning and evening. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the issue would be with managing the intersections. It works well with one-way configurations, shifting the road to one way each direction at certain peak times of the day. He does not have enough information to discuss this alternative. He is not certain there is enough disparity in the traffic from each direction during peak hours to manage the demand in this manner. Mr. Reiner stated that an inexpensive way many municipalities have handled this is a cantilevered metal deck on the bridge for the pedestrians, which would leave room for the traffic lanes needed. Ms. Salay stated that staff has indicated that the four lanes would be 11 feet in width with nine inches to spare. This is a very tight configuration. Mr. Hammersmith stated this leaves no room for error, nor for snow removal. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that an elevated pedestrian path would have to be very high to accommodate truck traffic underneath. Is there a ballpark figure for the cost of cantilevering, whether on the reservoir or the downstream side of the bridge? Mr. Hammersmith stated he does not have this information, but it would definitely range in the six to eight figures. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that if the Glick Road bridge is widened to four lanes, it does not make sense not to provide four lanes to the west. There are many issues in terms of the land acquisition needed in the Shawnee Hills area to accommodate a widening. Beyond that, heading west of Dublin Road on Glick, he is not sure there is community support for widening Glick to four lanes. Having invested $15-20 million or more for the bridge widening and Glick Road widening to Dublin Road, it seems that leaving the western portion as two lanes would not make sense. Mr. Reiner responded that if it is necessary to widen Glick Road in the future, there are huge backyard setbacks. The Memorial bridge option does not have such setbacks in the residential areas. He does not recall Council ever making a decision which would result in such future problems for the community. He asked Mr. Hammersmith about the Powell Road extension near the zoo. Is that roadway in the City of Columbus? RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC. FORM NO. 10148 December 3, 2007 Page 10 Held 20 ' Mr. Hammersmith responded that Powell Road is owned by the State of Ohio. Mrs. Boring noted that she met with Mr. Hammersmith and Ms. Willis about the traffic figures related to the Memorial bridge. At this point, it appears that the bridge will bring traffic into Dublin more so than moving it out of Dublin. In view of moving traffic for employment reasons, the often suggested outerbelt east/west across Delaware County may be prudent to pursue. Mr. Hammersmith responded that it could be part of a regional dialogue. He does not believe the Delaware County Thoroughfare Plan reflects such an outerbelt. There are issues of connectivity and who would provide such connectivity. Mrs. Boring stated that Dublin constructed Emerald Parkway to reduce congestion on 1- 270 for employment traffic. As long as Dublin continues to be willing to fund solutions to the problems, it may seem more prudent to create partnerships to devise a regional solution. The growth in Delaware County demands a regional long-range plan versus a "band aid" approach. Mr. Reiner asked about the existing Glick Road bridge. Who paid for the first improvements made to that bridge? Did Dublin participate? Mr. Hammersmith responded that Dublin did not participate in that project. Mr. Reiner noted that the City of Columbus paid for those improvements. If improvements are needed to the O'Shaughnessy dam bridge in 15-20 years, who would pay for those improvements? Mr. Hammersmith responded that it is hard to determine. Mr. Reiner commented that it is not in Dublin's jurisdiction, so Dublin taxpayers should not fund this improvement. Mr. McCash noted that Dublin shared in the cost of the Sawmill Road SPUI at the I-270 interchange. Mr. Reiner asked what the cost would be for Dublin to construct its own bridge at Memorial Drive. Ms. Willis responded that the estimate is $6.8-7 million in today's dollars. Mr. Reiner asked if that includes land costs. Mr. Hammersmith stated that this is for construction costs only. The City already owns the land needed. Vice Mayor Lecklider clarified that he is not advocating today for the construction of a Memorial Drive bridge. His desire is to maintain this bridge in the Community Plan. He does not support spending monies for a bridge if it is ultimately proven not to be necessary. In regard to an outer/outerbelt, even the existing projects planned for these areas may not occur as soon as was hoped. Conceptually, he agrees with the statement about Dublin solving other people's problems when a regional approach is really needed. But including the Memorial Drive bridge within this Plan leaves open an option. Not doing so limits the options unreasonably. Some other options suggested, such as routing a bridge from Brand Road could ultimately necessitate widening Brand Road to the west. Not including the Memorial bridge could lead to a need for widening Dublin Road between Brand and Glick. There would be some resistance in the community to that option. There is no ideal solution available. Mr. McCash noted that this bridge is not new to the Plan. The same modeling and discussion took place in 1997 and the bridge was included at four lanes. Now, it has been reduced to two lanes in the Plan update. This is a planning document, and funding will not be provided until there is a demonstrated need for the bridge. Taking this bridge out and then finding the need to add it back into the Plan in 15 years creates a problem. At that point, people will not anticipate the bridge. The signs have been up for years to notify people of the future bridge location for Memorial Drive. The land has been purchased. He advocates keeping it in the Plan update. Ms. Salay agreed. In terms of the public input, there are only a handful of citizens opposed to the bridge and it may never even be built. Leaving it in the plan provides an option for future Councils who may find it is needed in 2020. Removing the Memorial Drive bridge will bring back consideration of a bridge at Hard Road to connect to Brand Road. This would result in a widening of Brand, bringing an outcry from the residents. Traffic will increase in the future, that is for certain. Engineering has done an excellent RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Meeting December 3, 2007 Page 11 1 u job of demonstrating the need for an additional crossing at some location. This plan is already in place for the bridge at this location. Mr. Reiner responded that the bridge should be removed from the Plan. The City owns the right of way and landings needed for the bridge. It can always be reconsidered in the future. Mr. McCash responded that if the bridge is taken out and Council tries to reinsert it into the Plan, there will be a Chamber full of angry residents. Mr. Reiner stated that in 20 years, depending upon traffic demands, the citizens will want the bridge. Leaving the bridge in indicates to taxpayers that they must pick up $8-9 million of indebtedness. If Dublin puts this bridge in their Plan, another municipality will believe that the problem is addressed and there will be no need to improve the Glick Road bridge. He does not agree that the Memorial Drive bridge will impact only a few people. There is a community of 2,400 families who are very upset with this bridge location. Ms. Salay asked if this group will be equally upset with a plan to widen Glick Road. Mr. Reiner noted that Glick Road has huge setbacks, and the houses do not have driveways onto the roadway. The western portion of Memorial Drive has driveways fronting on Memorial Drive. It makes no sense to run a thoroughfare through an existing subdivision. Mr. Keenan noted that the traffic calming in the southwest neighborhoods was done to address the problems of routing traffic in the neighborhoods. If a bridge is located on Memorial Drive, it will bring similar traffic patterns to the Muirfield existing neighborhood. There were far fewer people impacted in the southwestern areas with such traffic than would be impacted with the Memorial Bridge traffic. If the bridge is built, people will use it and there are houses on Memorial Drive within 20-30 feet of that roadway. Why would Council do something which would bring the need for traffic calming in the future, given the recent experiences? Mr. Reiner added that the City spent $800,000 for traffic calming on Tara Hill Drive, and this action would create a problem requiring a similar solution. It does not make good planning sense. If in 10-20 years the bridge is warranted, it can be built on the site already set aside for it. Mr. Keenan noted that the Planning & Zoning Commission has made a recommendation to Council to remove the Memorial bridge from the Plan. Mr. McCash responded that they made a political decision. It was not based upon sound engineering documentation. The Engineering Department recommends this bridge remain in the Plan. Information has been provided about Glick Road and the potential of a dam expansion. The Engineering Department continues to recommend that the Memorial bridge be included in the updated Plan. He reiterated that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommendation was a political decision. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited resident testimony. Bob Warne, 5808 Tarton Circle asked if Council has heard of pontoon bridges. He proposed making Glick Road bridge four lanes and adding a walkway on pontoons on the side, removing truck traffic from the bridge, and reducing speeds to 25 mph. That would be a logical conclusion. He noted that along Memorial Drive, there are 33 entrances onto it, including one for the golf course and three for the offices, generating a lot of vehicular traffic. In addition, the Muirfield/Memorial intersection has generated many accidents. There are 45 private driveways onto Memorial Drive, and many residents have to back onto Memorial for access. There are 425 homes along Memorial, plus 25 or more on Davington that access Memorial. All of these homes generate 500,000 trips per year. There are 750,000 passengers who risk accidents every time they access Memorial. This bridge could double the traffic, with traffic coming from southern Delaware county to cross the river. Perhaps a crossing could be provided at Harriott Road. Residents in Tartan Ridge, Tartan West and the new Jerome Village would access Memorial Drive as well. In good conscience, does Council want to double RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS December 3, 2007 Page 12 1 1 _ II the traffic on Memorial Drive? With the cost of the Tara Hill traffic calming project and the result of lowering speeds 2 mph, it was not a large dividend. Why did the City not use traffic control and take the speeders to court, allowing the speeders to pay the costs versus the citizens paying for installation of traffic controls in excess of $25 per person? Bob Fathman, 5805 Tarton Circle North stated he was heartened earlier when Council noted concern about traffic leaving a Kroger store and wanting to travel through Waterford. Due to this, Council took out the connector, and he was confident Council would remove this bridge. Eliminating the connector was a small savings for residents of $200-400,000. The price for the Memorial bridge is estimated at $8 million, which does not include land costs or intersection improvements. It will actually cost many more millions in today's dollars. The bridge has been opposed not by a handful of citizens, but he recalls 90 people attending -from Belvedere, Campden Lakes, and the Tournament Director -all in opposition to this. There is a huge mass of people opposed to the Memorial bridge. He asked that Council reframe their discussion and not focus on the two options of Memorial and Glick. He questions the traffic modeling studies and whether a bridge is necessary at all. Beyond that, there are things in the modeling in Union County and in Delaware County to build a large thoroughfare at Home Road into Union County. That bridge will undoubtedly be expanded to four lanes at some point as a major east-west thoroughfare from Rt. 23, Rt. 315 to Rt. 33. There is no need for Dublin to spend its tax dollars to serve the people in other counties who would use Dublin's roads as a cut through. If the focus is to help people access employment, other options to be considered, based upon the traffic modeling are Hyland-Croy, the Home Road bridge, the 33 expansion, and possible expansion of the Emerald bridge. He urged Council to remove the Memorial bridge from the Community Plan. Mrs. Boring noted that years ago, when discussion of the SPUI and widening of I-270 took place, Dublin Council and staff took a leadership role which resulted in accelerating the 270 widening. She suggested that if there is a desire to help traffic movement in the northern part of Dublin, Dublin should push for a regional solution. For her, this is where the answer lies. Vice Mayor Lecklider noted that he agrees conceptually with this. He does not believe that Columbus will be motivated in the next several years to make that kind of contribution to what may be perceived as solving Dublin's problem. This is the first he has heard of the potential for widening the newly built Home Road bridge and widening Home Road. He believes there would be much community resistance from the residential neighborhoods east to 315. He is not advocating the building of a bridge at Memorial, but instead keeping this bridge in the Plan. What he is hearing in terms of the cost, including land acquisition to build atwo-lane Memorial Drive bridge versus expanding existing Glick Road bridge is that it would be considerably more expensive to do something with Glick Road. He understands Mr. Refiner's support of removing this from the Plan. However, he believes it would be more difficult to put the bridge back in the Plan in the future, based on past experience. His concern is with "hamstringing" a future Council to a solution, if needed, that is potentially two o r three times as costly as the option of a two-lane bridge at Memorial Drive. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the minutes of the April 23 meeting reflect a robust discussion of the need to work to include in the community plan the need for more multi- jurisdictional cooperation and partnership. The problem as shown in the traffic modeling was to a great degree caused by the growth in surrounding communities and the traffic coming into Dublin for employment. She is not certain that another bridge is needed, as people will drive on the routes that are available to them. Making it easier for them to travel an alternate direction will bring the traffic along those roadways. It is possible to manage traffic while working to establish closer multi jurisdictional partnerships to work on resolution of problems from a regional standpoint. The region has brought the traffic problems. Because Dublin tends to have a better tax base than some otherjurisdictions, people look to Dublin to solve such problems versus better planning from the outset. As she supported on April 23, she advocates including in the Community Plan the need for multi-jurisdictional partnerships and that should be the emphasis over including a bridge in any given area. n~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS December 3, 2007 Meeti~ Page 13 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited further comment from residents and Council prior to consideration of a motion in regard to the bridge. Mr. Reiner noted it is premature to consider this type of expenditure. There are too many variables unknown. It is not prudent to place the Memorial bridge in the plan, as it indicates that Dublin will address this problem and fund it from its tax base. That is not the signal he wants to give surrounding jurisdictions. If this cannot be resolved in the next 10-20 years, the people at that time will demand a solution to the traffic problem. The citizens will tell the Council at that time to build a bridge if it is needed. It does not constitute good planning, as it is routing traffic into a residential area that is not designed for that kind of traffic. Mr. Reiner moved to eliminate the Memorial bridge from the community plan. Mr. McCash noted this is a planning document, not a capital expenditure or budget item. The Plan does not indicate the roadways and bridges will actually be built - it is simply a planning document. In terms of east-west connectors, the neighborhoods on the east side of the river are in support of this bridge. The East Dublin Civic Association supports this bridge. Council does a disservice long term by taking this bridge out and putting the bridge back in. Council has to think "big picture." This bridge has become a micro issue, and does not reflect a macro planning approach. As Council members, they should keep this bridge in as a planning element and deal with it in the budget at the CIP. Council needs to do the right thing. Mrs. Boring clarified that there are several neighborhoods on the east side of the river that have joined forces in opposing this bridge location. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion on the floor. Vote on the motion: Mr. McCash, no; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, no; Vice Mayor Lecklider, no. (Motion carried 4-3) Mrs. Boring suggested a motion to add a statement regarding regional cooperation for this issue. Mr. Goodwin responded that there are a number of strategy statements specifically relating to multi-jurisdictional cooperation throughout the Plan, specifically in the Transportation chapter. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that perhaps this could be included in the value statements as one of the ways Dublin wants to do business. Mr. Goodwin stated that staff will review the document to ensure this is accommodated. Mr. Reiner clarified that the Planning & Zoning Commission is an appointed body, and not a political body as is Council. 1 Future water tower options Mr. Goodwin noted that map 9.3 is located on page 329 of the draft plan. It identifies potential areas in the City where additional water storage facilities may be needed to accommodate low water flows or insufficient fire flows either currently or in the future. Ms. Salay noted that a lively discussion took place at a joint workshop about the idea of a water tower being located on the Buckner farm. She had understood that option was off the table after that discussion. She is aware the topic was resurrected and it resulted in many e-mails from residents. Aren't there two options in the area that are not within a neighborhood, and isn't it accurate that either of these are equally viable in terms of providing adequate water service in the future? The Buckner farm option can be eliminated, correct? Mr. Hammersmith responded that both of the other options are viable locations. The only distinguishing difference would be the construction costs related to the height of the tank on tower land. The top of the tank is fixed in elevation. Whatever difficulty exists in bringing the waterline to the tank itself is another consideration. The other two sites are viable, but there could be cost differences. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Held 1 I- 1 20 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that for some reason, the Buckner farm option is still included in the plan, even after the previous discussion took place. Mr. Hammersmith stated that staff felt there was not clear direction about removing this option. He does recall there was a preference for the Bogey Inn site as the preferred option. Ms. Salay noted that Council could remove the Buckner site from the plan, based on the other two viable locations. The Buckner property is very expensive land for such a use, and locating it in the middle of the neighborhood is not consistent with past strategies for water tower siting. Mrs. Boring noted that she is still struggling with locating water towers in existing neighborhoods. She advocates exploring other options and having more discussion. Mr. Hammersmith responded that staff will continue to monitor the situation and model into the future and consider the alternative of increasing the pipes in the area to provide for sufficient pressure and fire flow. That remains an alternative. Staff is not limiting the alternatives, but there are concerns about the pipe alternative as a fix. Mr. Reiner asked about the viability of the pipe alternative. Mr. Hammersmith responded that it is remote due to the amount of disruption and expense. It would probably be 3-4 times the cost of the water tank itself, not including interruption of service, disruption of property, inconvenience to traffic, etc. Mr. Reiner stated that if a tank is the option, there is only one alternative acceptable to the community. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked for clarification of the Bogey Inn site as being unacceptable, based on Mrs. Boring's comments. Mrs. Boring responded that she is not convinced that even with a water tower being built, there may still be a need to explore the pipe alternative in the future. She does agree with removing the farm site. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked for clarification that she does not rule out the Bogey Inn site for a potential tank if there were not alternatives. Mrs. Boring responded that her choice would be not to include a water tank as it would force the decision. However, she is not ruling out the Bogey Inn site if that is the wish of the majority. Mr. Reiner moved to eliminate the Buckner farm as a future water tower site. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called for a motion in regard to leaving the Bogey Inn water storage tank in the plan. Discussion followed. Ms. Salay summarized that no one wants to build another water tank. However, if the alternative for the neighborhood is not having adequate water pressure, the options should be left on the table, understanding that future Councils could consider the option of oversizing pipes or building water tanks. Mr. Keenan noted that there were issues with the Blazer Parkway tank location, but it was successfully implemented after all of the debate. Mr. McCash stated that if the preferred solution is not to have a tank, a tank should not be shown until it is needed. It can be added later. Showing a tank in the plan may assist the City of Columbus in providing expanded service to Shawnee Hills. The West Branch sewer now accommodates Shawnee Hills; boosting water pressure will expand potential development issues in Shawnee Hills. Mr. Keenan moved to leave the Bogey Inn site and all other remaining sites in the Plan as viable alternatives for a future water tower. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Meeting December 3, 2007 Page 14 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Meeting 1 December 3, 2007 Page 15 20 Mrs. Boring asked if a future water tower would help Shawnee Hills. What was the agreement made with Shawnee Hills to provide? Mr. Hammersmith responded that the agreement covers sewer service, not water. They are currently on Del-Co water service. Columbus is treating Del-Co generated water. Mr. McCash stated that they could transfer over to the Columbus system if the pressure were there. Mr. Hammersmith stated that is not necessarily true; there have only been emergency interconnects between Del-Co and other systems, not a continuous interconnect. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked how a water tower itself, absent any pipe correction, would improve the situation. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the elevated storage tank provides another energy source for the water, and by elevating the water, pressure is created. Trying to push the water through existing pipes results in friction. With a tank, the pressure is created from two directions. Mrs. Boring noted that she has heard that pipes break in aging systems and there is a need to update them. Does adding pressure put more risk of breakage on the pipes? Mr. Hammersmith stated that increasing the pressure reduces the friction. The static pressure will not increase on a daily basis. Mrs. Boring asked about the status of the pipes in terms of replacement. Mr. Hammersmith responded there is one situation on Leven Links which results from the configuration of the localized system. It is subject to breakage. 1 Mr. Reiner asked when an improvement in the water tower system will be needed. Mr. Hammersmith responded that it will be needed no earlier than 5 years and no later than ten years. Continued modeling and monitoring will take place. Mr. Reiner asked about the time required to build a water tower. Mr. Hammersmith responded it requires about 18 months to two years. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that there is another citizen who would like to testify on this matter. Gretchen Randall. 8883 Belle Isle Court noted that she resides on the Buckner farm. She thanked Council for removing this site from the Plan. Mr. Keenan reiterated his motion to leave all viable water storage tank alternatives except the Buckner farm in the Plan. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, no; Mr. McCash, no; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, no; Mr. Reiner, yes. (Motion carried 4-3) Other Issues Mr. Goodwin noted that there are some outstanding requests for changes to the future land use maps. They were outlined in the memo provided to Council. 1 1. Mr. Goodwin noted that there was a motion at the last meeting in regard to the land use in the US 33 corridor area to change from low density office, research and development to high density office, research and development in the area surrounded by Shier-Rings Road, US 33 and Cosgray Road. There remain some outstanding requests related to this motion: a revision to increase the density from low density office, R&D to high density office, R&D as indicated on sites 1, 2 and 3 -surrounded by Post Road, Houchard Road and Cosgray Road. He demonstrated these on the Attachments B and C. If Counci- desires to change the density on sites 1 and 2, it may make sense to change it on site 3 as well. Mrs. Boring asked about the traffic impact of that change. Ms. Salay asked about the building height which would result from this change. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council December 3, 2007 20 1 1 Page 16 Mr. Goodwin responded that Engineering could address the traffic issues, but there would be additional studies done in the future. The document is flexible and subject to change, and development is not expected for some time. Mr. McCash noted that Council had discussions regarding the Erickson site. This was to be changed to high density office, research and development. There are some discrepancies in the documents submitted. Mr. Goodwin clarified that two requests, referred to on Attachment B and C, respectively, which relate to areas identified as 1 and 2 on the map. Planning is recommending increasing densities on site 3 as well. Ms. Salay asked about the traffic impacts. Ms. Willis responded that this information is not known. There is a need to look at the entire 33 Area plan and incorporate the land uses within that area plan in the traffic demand modeling to assess impact on the roadway network. Ms. Salay asked about the difference in physical appearance between low density and high density office, R&D. Her concern is moving higher density closer to the Ballantrae neighborhood at this late date, and they have not had input on this. She suggested not increasing the density, which still leaves open an option for the future to increase density, should a proposal be submitted that warrants this. However, reducing the density from what is in the Plan at a later date is very difficult. Mr. Keenan stated that this land is prime real estate on a limited access highway, similar to I-270 or other freeways. Ms. Salay clarified that her concern does not relate to the Erickson site, as she supports the increased density in that location. Her concern is with the other areas Mr. Goodwin has identified tonight. In the future, there is always the option of increasing the density for these, but reducing the density is difficult. Mrs. Boring noted her support for leaving the other areas at the lower density as listed in the draft plan. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher agreed, noting that traffic studies are not available to support such a change. Ms. Brautigam asked for clarification: is Council referring to areas 2 and 3, or to area 1 as well? Area 1 is the north part of Darree Fields -the property currently owned by the City that had been subject to an economic development agreement with OSU. It may be an area which should be retained as high density versus low density. Ms. Salay pointed out that because the land is owned by the City, the City can do what it wishes with the land. For areas 2 and 3, she would prefer the density remain as listed in the plan. Mr. Keenan moved to change area 1 to high density office, research and development and to leave 2 and 3 as illustrated in the plan. Vice Mayor Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Mr. Goodwin noted that there were some comments at various open houses from residential areas surrounded by Rings Road and Frantz Road that expressed concern with what the future land use map showed as a substantial amount of standard office at the corner of Rings and Frantz. The future land use map currently shows the area that is encircled by red and the area directly on the corner with a pink color to indicate standard office. To accommodate some area residents' concerns, Planning proposed a modification that would divide the large parcel in half, maintaining standard office at the corner, but converting the portion substantially surrounded by existing residential to mixed residential low density classification. Ms. Salay moved to make this change as noted by Mr. Goodwin. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Mr. Reiner asked for clarification. Was the entire area to be standard office? RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council December 3, 2007 Page 17 1 1 He Mr. Goodwin responded affirmatively. The proposal is to divide the area as he has described and assign a lower density to the eastern portion. Mr. Reiner stated that he supports the standard office use for tax base reasons. Ms. Salay asked for the number of acres impacted. Mr. Goodwin responded that the total acreage is 50-55 acres. Ms. Salay stated that the issue relates to the potential tax revenue versus the impacts to the existing surrounding neighborhoods. Mrs. Boring noted that there are school impacts to be considered with making this change. Mr. Reiner stated that office use would provide an asset to the community in terms of revenue generation. Mr. Keenan pointed out that he has heard that the market for office development has moved up to Perimeter and 33 and it is unlikely that this area would be developed as office. Discussion followed about the desirable land use into the future and its impact on the residents and the traffic. Vote on the motion: Mr. McCash, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, no; Mrs. Boring, no; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. (Motion carried 5-2) Mr. Goodwin noted that testimony was provided to Council on October 15, requesting a change in land use at the southeast corner of Shier-Rings and Cosgray Road from low density mixed residential to neighborhood office use. The request was received from a co-owner of the land. Mr. McCash noted that this area has been planned for residential. He suggests retaining the residential classification, and if an applicant wants to pursue neighborhood office, they can go through the rezoning process and work with the adjoining property owners. Mr. McCash moved to leave this land use as low density mixed residential. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. McCash, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. Mr. Goodwin reported that there was a request at the October meeting to revise the land use at the northeast corner of Post Road and Avery-Muirfield Drive. A couple of alternatives were proposed. Ideally, the request was for office use. Some indication was made that an increase to medium density mixed residential rather than the current low density would be desirable. Ms. Salay moved to leave this land use as presently listed. It was identified as this land use in the 1997 plan as well. She noted that there is no gain for the City to changing this designation in the Community Plan. If the landowner has a proposal, he needs to go through the rezoning process and demonstrate to the surrounding community that what he wants to do is compatible. The concerns she has heard are from the Post Road residents and the residents due north of this parcel. One of the residents to the north has undertaken major renovations to the home, based upon the land use map at the corner being residential. When the southwestern corner of Post and Avery was rezoned, there was discussion about the potential commercial "creep," and the desire was expressed at that time that the northeast corner remain residential in character. Mrs. Boring seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, abstain -due to interest in the adjacent corner; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. Remaining Items 1. Mr. Goodwin noted a memo in the packet regarding a slightly revised bikeway map. The original bikeway map appears on page 205 of the draft plan. He noted that the bikeway map reflects general bikeway connectivity as shown in the various area plans. It also reflects the general alignment of thoroughfares, as shown on the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council December 3, 2007 Page 18 ..1 1 Hel Thoroughfare Plan, where a bikeway is expected to run alongside a future thoroughfare. A letter from the Central Ohio Bicycle Advocacy Coalition was sent on November 2 to Council, voicing some criticism about the way the Plan deals with bikeway facilities and bikeway connectivity. Staff has outlined a response in the memo. The letter received put emphasis on the need for commuter level bikeway service as opposed to recreational level bikeway service. Council has already directed the Engineering staff to investigate this matter. Staff is in the preliminary stages of technical research and is not at the point of being able to identify in this phase of the Community Plan specific bike lane locations on the bikeway map. The concept behind the bikeway plan in the Community Plan is showing broadly across the City major connections or a fully integrated system, regardless of the type of bikeway. There are 88 plus miles of asphalt separated bike lanes that serve the City well. Future studies will need to be done to identify where it may be appropriate to broaden the type of facility provided. This will be a major item of implementation following adoption of the Plan. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher is hopeful that the City will not lose sight of this memo. She has not seen implementation of bike lanes. She would support language in the Community Plan that speaks to the City's interest in not only bikepaths as traditionally built in Dublin, but also bike lanes and to incorporate them where appropriate. It is consistent with providing healthy opportunities for residents, including corporate residents. Perhaps the value statements could include language that as roads are developed or expanded, this could be taken into consideration. Mrs. Boring noted that she agrees. Her concern is that nowhere is it stated that a developer must include bike lanes in building roadways. Vice Mayor stated that he agrees philosophically with the objectives of the letter writer. Personally, he does not want the City to overreact to this. He is not certain the writer's mission is consistent with the City's mission. What is confusing to him is that when there was discussion of bike lanes at P&Z in years past, he does not believe the concept was supported. Mr. Hammersmith noted that staff has heard concern about bike lanes. The thought has been that installing such lanes in residential areas is not desirable, as they would compete with parked cars. Staff understands these lanes would be most beneficial on arterials for those traveling throughout and to the community. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that in terms of safety, are there issues staff is aware of? Mr. Hammersmith responded that there is always a concern with mixing those uses by vehicles and bicycles. There will need to be acceptable standards for such lanes, and signage will be needed as well. Mr. Goodwin pointed out that there is currently language in the plan regarding bike lanes with objective 11 in the transportation chapter on page 215, strategy B. Mr. Hammersmith stated that there may be some future opportunities for such bike lanes, and staff will review this further. Ms. Salay stated that she agrees with Vice Mayor Lecklider. She would be interested in the cost of a roadway, with and without the bike lane. Mr. Hammersmith stated that for Muirfield Drive, between Brand and Glick Road, the bike lane cost was approximately $1 million or more. Ms. Salay stated that in view of the roadways that already have an adjacent bikepath, she is not certain this is a good use of the money in this climate. While commuter bicyclists may not be interested in using a bikepath, as a motorist, she is frustrated with bicyclists who do not obey the traffic laws while on the roadways. If they are not willing to obey the laws, they should move to the bikepaths. She is surprised with criticism of Dublin's plan in terms of bikeways, as Dublin is certainly a leader in that area. Ms. Brautigam noted that Joe Ryan had been present earlier to speak about O'Shaughnessy Hills. He will write a letter to Council regarding his continuing interest in water quality. He was not able to stay for the meeting. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council December 3, 2007 Page 19 Held Other Business 1. January meeting date proposed change Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted some communication today in regard to the January Council meeting in view of the OSU BCS bowl game now scheduled for January 7. She moved to change the meeting date to January 2. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. Mr. Keenan suggested that Council begin their January 2 meeting at an earlier time in order to accommodate the organizational portion. Following brief discussion, it was the consensus of Council to adjust the start time to 6:30 p.m. A reception will be held prior to the meeting. Mr. Keenan moved to continue the policy of honoring retiring and/or departing Council Members and staff with a City hosted reception. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, abstain. Mr. Reiner noted that a packet was sent to Council regarding the homing pigeons at a residence in Lowell Trace. He requested that Legal staff review the issue, particularly about the classification of these pigeons as domestic animals under state law. Mr. McCash noted that he believes this is an issue related to deed restrictions. Mr. Smith indicated he will investigate this matter and provide a memo to Council at a later date. ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Vice Mayor Lecklider moved to adjourn to executive session at 9:10 p.m. to consider the appointment, employment, dismissal, discipline, promotion, demotion, or compensation of a public employee or official. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the meeting will be reconvened following the executive session for the purpose of considering Resolution 71-07. The meeting was reconvened at 9:25 p.m. Resolution 71-07 Appointing a City Representative to the Dublin Foundation. Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the resolution and moved to appoint Chris Kelley to the unexpired term of Kay Wilhelm on the Board of the Dublin Foundation. The term expires on March 31, 2009. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:27 p.m. Mayor -Presiding Officer Clerk of Council