Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/09/2007RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 9, 2007 Held 20, ~'~ Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the Tuesday, January 9, 2007 Regular Meeting of 'I 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. Ij Keenan, Mr. McCash, Mr. Reiner and Ms. Salay. Staff members present were: Ms. Brautigam, Ms. Grigsby, Mr. Smith, Mr. McDaniel, Chief Epperson, Mr. Hahn, Ms. Puskarcik, Ms. Ott, Mr. Hammersmith, Ms. Hoyle, lil Mr. Earman, Mr. Harding, Mr. Langworthy, Ms. Husak, Ms. Keller-Wilt, Mr. Burns and Ms. Wawszkiewicz. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. McCash led the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • Regular Meeting of December 11, 2006 Mr. Reiner moved approval of the minutes of December 11, 2006. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. CORRESPONDENCE There was no correspondence requiring action from Council. ~~ SPECIAL PRESENTATION Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher presented a framed photo of the Dancing Hares -- a sculpture located at the entrance to Ballantrae -- to Charles Driscoll, who was representing Peter Edwards. The Mayor provided a brief history of the artwork, which was commissioned by Peter Edwards in 2001 to serve as the centerpiece of the Ballantrae development in southwest Dublin. On behalf of City Council, Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher thanked Mr. Edwards for his generous donation of the sculpture to the City of Dublin's public art collection. Mr. Driscoll thanked the City for their help in developing Ballantrae Park, and particularly to Mr. Hahn and staff for their ongoing maintenance of the park. CITIZEN COMMENTS There were no comments from citizens. LEGISLATION SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 81-06 Vacating High School Road as a Public Road in the City of Dublin, Ohio. Ms. Brautigam stated there is no additional information to report at this time. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 01-07 Rezoning Approximately 18 Acres, Located at the Intersection of West Dublin Granville Road and Shamrock Boulevard, from SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District, R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District, and R-4, Suburban Residential District, to: PUD, Planned Unit Development District. (Shamrock Crossing -West Dublin Granville Road -Case No. 06-076) Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Ms. Husak stated this is a request for rezoning to a planned unit development district for a proposed 136,000 square foot commercial development located north and south of West Dublin-Granville Road (161). Planning & Zoning Commission approved the application on December 7, and Planning staff recommends Council approval the rezoning at the second reading/public hearing on January 22. The 18- acre .site consists of several parcels that include portions of the Sharp property to the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 9, 2007 Page 2 Held 20 south, the Warner/Belz property to the north, and David Road parcels along David Road to the west. She identified recently approved developments in the vicinity, ~ including Greystone Mews to the north and the Shoppes at River Ridge Lifestyle Center to the west. The Wendy's headquarters is directly west of the site, the Lowe's store is to the east of the site and to the west is the Stoneridge Medical Center. She showed a conceptual drawing of the vision of the 161 Corridor, which was discussed during various work sessions of the Community Plan Update. The direction from these work sessions address the overall character of the corridor, ~ which included a building orientation toward the street and creating a higher density mixed use environment. She noted that the proposal for the site contains four subareas as outlined on the ~ plan, and the proposed preliminary development plan shows the potential layout of each of the subareas in greater detail. The final details will be determined at the ~,i final development plan stage. Subarea A The preliminary plan indicates an office/retail building oriented toward Sharp Lane with parking areas to the south and east of the building. Subarea B The preliminary plan shows a proposed extension of Stoneridge Lane to the south. ~ The plan indicates buildings facing 161 with head-in parking behind the building as ~ well as a smaller building located along Shamrock Boulevard. Per Condition 12 of ~'~ the P&Z approval, the development text has been modified to require buildings with frontage along 161 to be located in close proximity to that right-of-way, with the ~~ specific setbacks to be determined at the final development plan stage. The text states that the goal in this area is to encourage pedestrian activity and outdoor Ili activities. The Planning division believes this language will allow for future flexibility to create such spaces and to differentiate this area from the environment that currently exists along 161. In this development, adrive-through is envisioned for a bank, dry cleaner or pharmacy and the development text limits drive-throughs to a maximum of one drive-through for the entire site, in either subarea B or C and does I, not allow it to serve an eating or drinking establishment. Subarea C This is located to the north of 161 with the extension of Banker Drive as the northern boundary of this site. The text addresses setbacks and other development standards similar to Subarea B. Subarea D This is located to the north of Subarea C and has frontage along the Banker Drive extension to the south as well as the proposed extension of Shamrock Boulevard to the north and east. The plans indicate an auto service facility located in the western portion of the subarea as well as a detached carwash in the eastern portion of the subarea, which will exclusively serve customers of the auto service facility. Planning staff has determined that the proposed use in this subarea is appropriate, as it is located adjacent to the existing AEP substation and is also removed from the 161frontage. The development text includes provision for a combination of wall and ground signs in this subarea, the details of which will be determined at the final development plan stage. The applicant is working with the Finance Department on a tax increment financing agreement, which addresses the participation in the road network which is to be extended with this project. This includes the extension of Stoneridge Lane to the south, as well as Shamrock Boulevard north and east and Banker Drive from David Road toward Shamrock Boulevard. The City may also consider vacating David Road north of Banker Drive, which will require Council action in the future. The development text requires that structures have a common architectural theme, which is described as a traditional Irish town, with common building materials throughout the development. The proposed architecture provides for interesting and RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 9, 2007 Page 3 Held 20 appropriate building types, which Planning staff believes coordinate well with the ~I Shoppes at River Ridge as well as are complimentary to the Historic District. (i She displayed an elevation of the proposed auto service center, and the applicant ~j has worked with staff to achieve the same quality of architecture shown for the other subareas. She then displayed views of the proposed development from the various locations 'I around the site. The applicant has worked extensively with Planning and Engineering as well as the Finance Department on this proposal. The text and preliminary plans, as well as the architectural renderings successfully address the desire for a more identifiable '~ streetscape, with buildings and pedestrian spaces oriented toward the road. The (~~ proposal includes interesting architectural components and appropriate uses and the ii high level of development quality desired in this area is likely to be achieved by this proposal. ~ Planning staff therefore recommends approval of this rezoning at the second ~ reading/public hearing of January 22. She offered to respond to questions. ~~ Mr. Reiner asked if there is a firm commitment from the developer on the architectural renderings enclosed in the packet. Will this tower be built? Ms. Husak responded affirmatively, noting the text has been revised to address this. The applicant has stated that the drawings represent the intended architecture. ~ Mr. Reiner stated that in the presentation, she indicated the architecture will be similar to River Ridge. Do these renderings reflect the final product? ~ Ms. Husak responded that she meant to state that the architecture will complement River Ridge, but the intention is for the architecture to be very similar if not the same as shown in the preliminary text. Mr. Reiner asked for verification that it is four-sided architecture. ~ Ms. Husak responded affirmatively. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited the developer to testify. Ben Hale, 37 W. Broad Street noted he represents the developer, Mr. Stavroff who is present tonight. In response to Mr. Refiner's question, the developer has committed to this architecture. They have hired Brian Jones for the project, and there will be four-sided architecture. He shared that Germain has been told by Lexus that they need a new service facility and need to upgrade their existing facility. Although it is not a part of the zoning, Mr. Germain attended the Planning Commission meeting and they have committed as a part of this to take their existing dealerships -the used and new car -and will do architecture that is very comparable to what has been shown tonight. They will soon come to the Planning Commission with a corridor review. Therefore, not only these buildings will have high quality architecture, but Germain's architecture will be upgraded. It has not been upgraded since it was originally opened in 1988. They've also given Planning staff drawings of that building, and it is compatible with this architecture. In addition, they have been able to assemble the David Road property which has been a long standing goal of the City. This will allow Banker Drive to go through to access Lowe's and completes the rearrangement of Shamrock with the new roundabout. Mr. Reiner noted that the Lexus dealership has outgrown its facility and has stacked automobiles for their carwash. Is there enough space for them to accommodate their client base? Ms. Husak responded it appears there is adequate space. The Code has large numbers of parking spaces required for auto service facilities, and with the addition of the David Road parcels, this site is expected to function well with the parking provided. Mr. Reiner asked about the total height of the buildings as shown in the elevations. Mr. Hale responded these are 2-1/2 story buildings with towers. At the time of final development plan, those renderings and drawings are what will be built. Mr. McCash noted that when this case was presented to the Planning Commission, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 9, 2007 Page 4 I '~ he abstained due to a conflict relating to his employment. He is no longer working for that employer and can therefore participate in this discussion. His question relates to the extent of uses permitted. Is there a way to reduce the size of this list? Mr. Hale responded that what has been done in other zonings in the City is to review the uses and eliminate the more objectionable ones. They are willing to review this list with staff to consider which uses could be eliminated. Ms. Husak commented that this text reflects the Code language. ~ Mr. Hale noted there is a universal Code that has standard industry classifications. He would prefer to specify the uses allowed versus having the large list. ~ , Mr. McCash commented that perhaps it could be viewed as a general category without reference to the SIC Code. His other question relates to the drive through. If ~ the goal is to create apedestrian-friendly environment, having adrive-through seems counterproductive and encourages vehicular traffic. ' Mr. Hale responded they are aware of the requirement to have a conditional use reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission. At this time, they don't have a proposed use requiring adrive-through, but there is potential for that in the future. They would have to demonstrate how adrive-through could work with the buildings. ~ It would likely result in losing some parking spaces behind the buildings. They have tried to purchase the corner piece on David Road, but have not been successful. They are aware of the challenge of obtaining the conditional use, but would want the opportunity to pursue it. Mr. McCash noted there are some issues with the combinations of wall and ground signs. It is unusual for the City to deviate from its base standards. Mr. Hale responded that sign specifically relates to the auto use. Because the auto use faces a couple of streets, it could have wall signs, but they also have an entry sign. Although they are permitted to have another sign on the other side of the building, they do not want to confuse people about which way to enter. They have therefore requested a small sign at the corner. There are some physical constraints ~ with how the site works and a wall and ground sign are needed. i Mr. McCash responded that the signage is therefore being used as directional ~ signage. Mr. Hale responded it identifies the building, but also informs how to enter the site to drop off their cars. Mr. McCash asked about the text of the sign at the street. Will it indicate, "Germain Lexus Service Center" or "Entry/Exit?" Mr. Hale responded it will likely state "Germain." Mr. McCash stated that directional signs are exempt under the Dublin sign code. Mr. Hale responded that the sign will be larger than the size directional signs are permitted to be. They are trying to inform those southbound on Shamrock, westbound on Banker Drive that this is the Lexus dealership service center. Mrs. Boring asked which direction the garage doors will face. Mr. Hale responded they will face south. Mrs. Boring asked if there has been any consideration about defining hours of operation for the subareas. Ms. Husak responded there has not. Mrs. Boring asked if there are such restrictions on property in the vicinity. Ms. Husak responded she is not aware of any. Mrs. Boring noted that during the Community Plan process, a consultant provided information about the amount of retail development which could be supported. Most of the potential future retail development was not located in this area. At one time, when working with the residents of David Road, Council wanted more office use than what is presented tonight. Ms. Husak responded there are provisions for office and retail uses in the development text, however it is leaning toward more retail in certain subareas as A and D. Staff has looked at those uses and believes they are appropriate in this area. Mr. Hale clarified that the southern portion of 15.8 acres is to be office use. They are aware of the concern about retail, and talked with a retail consultant, Robin Warms RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 9, 2007 Page 5 Held ~ about whether the market would support these buildings, and the kind of tenant mix possible. He believes this will be a very successful center and that there is adequate demand for this. '; Mrs. Boring responded that her concern is not with support of this retail development, but with what will not be supported in the process -creating other i empty storefronts in the area. For example, in filling the new retail space at the ~~ Kroger Center on Sawmill, what will remain empty along Sawmill Road? It is ~ important to support the existing businesses in the community as well. ~ Mrs. Boring asked if the Lexus auto dealer would leave in the future, could the site automatically become big box retail? Ms. Husak responded no, adding there are uses other than auto service outlined in that subarea. Mr. Keenan commented that the streetscapes are very similar to Perimeter. In reviewing the signage portion of the development text, will there be signage on the front of the buildings similar to what has been done at Perimeter Center? Mr. Hale responded affirmatively. The applicant believes signage is needed on the front, and there is signage that is interior on the parking lot as well. This has been addressed in the text. Ms. Salay noted that part of the presentation referenced the 161 corridor vision that Council discussed in the Plan update and agreed to. She shares Mrs. Boring's concern with the amount of retail in this proposal. While there is some office use, it is primarily a retail site. She supports the quality of the architecture which has been shown and would be pleased with having this architecture in the future, should the uses change. She asked for staff's opinion on tying together the vision for the 161 corridor and this proposal for a largely retail use and how it dovetails. Ms. Husak responded that staff has reviewed the current office uses at Stoneridge and Wendy's headquarters and believes the vision of the 161 corridor will be achieved with this development. Staff also looked at the residential development existing in this area and believes there is a customer base for the services. Ms. Salay summarized that staff is then completely comfortable with this proposal ~ and how it dovetails with the Community Plan update. Ms. Husak responded affirmatively. Ms. Salay asked about future parking, with Subarea D going to the existing David Road. Will all of this area be parking? Ms. Husak responded it will not all be parking area. At the time the plans were submitted, the details of Subarea D had not been worked out. The intention is for the subarea to be developed where the carwash is actually detached. The parking will be more interior to the site. Ms. Salay asked if the architecture of the carwash will be of the same quality as the remainder of the development. Ms. Husak responded the details will be reviewed at final development plan, but it is expected to be of the same quality. Mrs. Boring noted that in the permitted uses, it indicates storage of new and used automobiles and that no automobile sales shall be permitted. She is concerned about this becoming a massive used car lot in the future, similar to what currently exists at Dublin Village Center. Is there a safeguard that will prevent this? Ms. Husak responded that the Germain site currently being used for retail on 161 is small in view of the entire inventory. The intention is to have the overflow stored on this site. The provision in the text regarding no retail activity is so that customers will not be on the site looking at cars. Mrs. Boring asked about screening of the car storage area. Ms. Husak responded that screening and landscaping will be required to meet Code. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that a similar issue exists for another dealership on Sawmill Road, which has not complied with the screening required in the text. It will RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 9, 2007 Page 6 Held 20 be very important for staff to hold the developer accountable for installing and ~~ maintaining the screening. She shares Mrs. Boring's concern about the hundreds of ~j cars parked in the vacant lot at Dublin Village Center, which is aesthetically unappealing. In regard to the car wash, it is not a matter of "working toward" the same architecture as the other properties; it needs to be the same architecture as those other buildings, as Council is permitting a carwash to be part of this proposal. ~~ This is not something that Council believes is desirable. It is important to remember that the Wendy's corporate headquarters is adjacent with beautiful and well ~ maintained property. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked for clarification regarding subarea D and future parking. Does the text limit automobile storage in this location or not? Ms. Husak responded that the text allows such storage. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked about the future plans for David Road. Ms. Husak responded that Engineering and Planning staff have contemplated vacating David Road north of Banker Drive. To the east of David Road is a retention pond for Lowe's, and the AEP substation is to the north. There is no need for the roadway to exist in this area, and there have been discussions regarding vacating this it Vice Mayor Lecklider noted that it seems to be an odd placement for the carwash. However, he appreciates the need a car dealer has for a carwash. Mr. Keenan pointed out the carwash is exclusively for the dealer's use - it is not a public car wash. Mr. Hale agreed, noting that it is used only by customers of the dealer and not the public. One reason for this car storage is the amount of cars on the existing ~'~~ dealership site. They want the lot along 161 to be uncluttered by removing the car storage. ~ Vice Mayor Lecklider asked why the carwash cannot be part of the main building. j Mr. Hale responded that the desire was to have the garage doors off of Banker Drive. The location next to the detention basin and substation seemed appropriate for this use. They are willing to comply with a condition that the architecture of the carwash meets the architecture of the rest of the service facility. Ms. Salay asked if it would be possible to flip the carwash so it is oriented east and west. The side of the carwash would then be the visible portion from the backs of the buildings along 161. Ms. Husak stated this could be reviewed as part of the final development plan. Mr. Hale agreed it could be considered. Their thinking was to locate the carwash near the undesirable portions of the site. Vice Mayor Lecklider commented that Ms. Salay's suggestion is interesting and should be considered. Mr. Keenan asked how the cars enter and exit the carwash. Mr. Hale responded there is a dedicated drive for this purpose. Mr. Reiner added that currently, the Lexus dealership has problems with the queuing for the carwash which results in a dangerous situation in terms of ingress and egress. Ms. Salay noted that she understood only the employees of the dealership would be driving the cars into the carwash. Mr. Hale responded that owners of a Lexus vehicle can also use the carwash. But most of the car wash activity is for the dealer preparing new cars for delivery. Vice Mayor Lecklider reiterated Mr. McCash's concern about the potential for conflicts with the drive-through uses. He appreciates that these will be designated as non-food uses. He asked staff to comment regarding the proposed tax increment financing agreement. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 9, 2007 Page 7 Ms. Grigsby responded that as part of the discussion regarding the development and the use of tax increment financing, staff reviewed the infrastructure needs in the area, specifically the extension of Shamrock Drive and Stoneridge Lane. As the discussions continued, and there was a possibility of incorporating and redeveloping the residential properties, it made sense to consider the extension of Banker Drive and include that in the TIF. To summarize, what is being considered is a funding ~ source or mechanism to provide for those infrastructure needs in that area. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked if a TIF will absolutely occur with this development application. Ms. Grigsby responded that for a developer contribution for Banker Drive and Stoneridge Lane, the TIF would be the funding source for those improvements. The extension of Shamrock Drive and anticipated intersection improvements at Riverside 't ' five- ear CIP. ill Drive and State Route 161 are already included in the Ci y s y Mrs. Boring noted that in essence, this text allows a conditional use without undertaking the current conditional use process. Ms. Husak responded that for the carwash specifically, that is correct -with the understanding that the carwash serves only this user. Mrs. Boring noted that the text does not indicate this, but rather references "associated with an automobile service facility located in this subarea." What would ~ be defined as an "automobile service facility"? Could that be a gas station? It does not specifically state it is to be used for an automobile sales showroom or service center. Mr. Hale responded that when they meet regarding the issues Mr. McCash has raised, they will make the text clear to indicate it is only for this user -not a commercial, available to the public carwash. Mrs. Boring asked if there are other items of concern which should be addressed by appending conditions at the next reading. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that Council Members give further consideration to any desired conditions before the next reading on January 22. Mr. McCash asked about the new auto storage component. The intent with the landscaping is that it is screened as a typical parking lot - it doesn't have the 30 or 20 percent perimeter display space area. Ms. Husak responded it is not the intention, as there is no sales activity to take place on this subarea. The second reading/public hearing will take place at the Monday, January 22 Council meeting. Ordinance 02-07 Amending Section 73.01 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances Regarding Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs, and Section 73.03 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances Regarding Physical Control of Vehicle While Under the Influence, and Declaring an Emergency. (Request to dispense with the public hearing) Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Mr. Smith explained this is a housekeeping measure to include the drug provisions approved by the State in 2006 in the City's Code. Staff is requesting passage by emergency to have conformity with the state code immediately upon passage. Mrs. Boring asked about the definition of a vehicle within the Code, for example, a motorized vehicle. Mr. Smith responded that a motorized vehicle operated on the street is considered a vehicle for purposes of the law. For example, if someone is drinking and driving a golf cart on the street, it is considered a vehicle. Mrs. Boring asked about a motorized wheelchair crossing a public street. Mr. McCash stated that it is interesting that a motorized wheelchair is listed, but a RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 9, 2007 Page 8 ~ non-motorized wheelchair is not. Mr. Reiner moved to dispense with the public hearing and treat this as an emergency. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. ~ Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. ~ Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, ~ yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, Yes. INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING -RESOLUTIONS Resolution 01-07 Acknowledging the Donation of Certain Property by Peter H. Edwards. Ms. Salay introduced the resolution. Ms. Brautigam stated that in order to receive a tax deduction for the donation, the Dancing Hares was donated to the City in 2006 and she accepted it on Council's behalf. This is a formal acknowledgment of that gift. Mr. Reiner asked about the value of the artwork. Ms. Brautigam stated it is $250,000. Mr. Keenan asked for confirmation that the sculpture is housed on City owned parkland. Ms. Brautigam confirmed this. Vote on the Resolution: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. Resolution 02-07 ~ Intent to Appropriate a 1.722 Acre, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest from Thane F. and Stella C. Thatcher and their Unknown Successors, Transferees and Assigns, Located on Avery Road, Township of Washington, County of ~ Franklin, State of Ohio. Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the resolution. Mr. Smith stated that Resolutions 02-07 and 03-07 relate to takes along Avery Road to accommodate the widening, which will occur in late spring or early summer. Staff is in discussion with attorneys representing both of the property owners. In order to meet the timeframes, staff is requesting passage of the resolution of intent. The property owners are aware of this action being taken tonight and staff will work toward a reasonable settlement. Mr. Keenan asked if this would be characterized as a "quick take." Mr. Smith responded that the property owner is served with a resolution of intent, and this is followed by passage of an ordinance to appropriate. The monies are then deposited at the court and this gives the City the right to enter the property. The valuation is determined at a later date for settlement purposes. Mr. Keenan asked for confirmation that this taking is for road improvements, not for economic development. Mr. Smith confirmed that is correct. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. Resolution 03-07 Intent to Appropriate a 1.03 Acre, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest, from Michael S. Blue and his Unknown Successors, Transferees and Assigns, Located on Avery Road, Township of Washington, County of Franklin, State of Ohio. Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the resolution. Ms. Brautigam stated that this relates to the Avery Road widening as well. RECORD OF PROCEE®INGS January 9, 2007 Held Page 9 Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, ~~ yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. ~ OTHER ~! Historic Dublin Redevelopment Ms. Ott reported the following: • Approximately 18 months ago, staff began a request for qualifications process and request for proposals. Seven objectives were outlined for this project, ~I including that it would anchor Historic Dublin; have a good mixed use between commercial, restaurant and retail functions; great architecture; pedestrian oriented; includes a creative and engaging outdoor space; parking would be appropriately addressed; and there would be sufficient private investment. • From that request for qualifications/request for proposals process, staff recommended in June of 2006 that the City enter into negotiations with ~ Stonehenge Company, based upon four criteria: the Stonehenge Company represented a good balance between public and private areas of the project; they had the best proposal for meeting the project objectives; they presented a ~ strong financial plan for the project to the City; and as an alternative in the request for proposals, they provided ways to potentially incorporate into this development two additional parcels of land that are privately owned. • Ms. Ott showed a slide of the site, pointing out the parcels involved in the project. • In June of 2006, a conceptual development plan was shown to Council, which incorporated two new buildings on the corner property at Bridge and High for a ~ total of 20,000 square feet of new construction. It also included the concept of complete replacement of the privately owned property at 24 Darby Street where Modern Male is currently located, increasing its size to 8,000 square feet. At ~ that time, the Stonehenge Company acknowledged the 24 Darby property was not in their control, but they had been in discussions with parties that have interest in that property, including the lessee, the owner and a sub lessee on that site. Over the past eight months, the Stonehenge Company has been diligent in trying to work with those parties, but it has been a complex process. As of today, Stonehenge has not yet gained control of the 24 Darby Street parcel. At this time, it appears to be economically unfeasible to incorporate this parcel into their pro forma for the project. • If the 24 Darby parcel is not included, there would be a reduction of 8,000 square feet of space that was anticipated to be incorporated into the tax increment financing district for this project. That will lengthen the amount of time for the City to obtain return on those public improvements on the site. • To explore alternatives, staff reviewed the parking site presented by the Stonehenge Company with their proposal. It consists of 102 spaces through the combination of 35 and 37 Darby Street. Currently, the City controls 35 Darby Street, as it was purchased in June for $690,000 or $23/square foot. Stonehenge Company has brought forward a willing seller for the Dublin Banquet Hall. Based upon the seller's appraisal, they view the property value at $450,000 or $32/square foot. This is a substantial increase over what the City paid for an adjoining property six months ago. The City ordered an appraisal of the Banquet Hall property two years ago, and it was valued at that time at $325,000. • In working with the Stonehenge Company to find a way that would be economically feasible for both parties to acquire this block of parking and making it public parking for the long term benefit of the district, a couple of ideas were explored. These included outright purchase by the City, purchase by Stonehenge, making the Banquet Hall property private parking area, or potential lease terms proposed by Stonehenge for the banquet hall site. • In reviewing these options, staff believes the lease terms to make that public parking are not in the City's favor, particularly the request for an option for Stonehenge to purchase some City-controlled land in this area if the City chooses at lease end not to exercise its own option to purchase the Banquet Hall property. • Staff also explored whether there was a way to change the orientation of what is RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 9, 2007 Page 10 Held publicly and privately held property on this site and adding some additional square footage in line with the redevelopment of the district and as outlined in the draft revitalization plan. When this was looked at, staff estimates it would create 12,000 square feet in two structures of two-story use. • In discussions with Stonehenge, focus was on three areas. First was the appropriate use of those buildings, given their site. Staff did not want a restaurant use because of the parking impacts in this quadrant of the district. In terms of potential for residential or commercial use at that location, several ideas were discussed. Other discussion related to the orientation of the ~I buildings. Lastly, discussion occurred regarding timing. If these were to go forward, what would be the obligation on the developer to construct these buildings? From discussion with Stonehenge, they wanted to focus on the market conditions and it was not possible to resolve a more definitive way to ~ describe that -such as a reaching a certain rate of leased space, or at a certain time after issuance of final building permits for buildings at Bridge and High. There has not been agreement with Stonehenge on this. ~ Staff has tried to closely monitor the costs of the project for each party going ~ forward. To date, with the value of the land assembled by the City, minus what would be purchased by Stonehenge under the proposal, the City has $1.2 million invested in land. Staff estimates that, depending upon the final components of the public areas, the City would spend approximately $600,000 ~ additional on items such as the plaza, landscaping and sidewalks. Stonehenge has the purchase price for the footprints at the corner and they are estimating $3 million in construction for the project components. Additionally, staff has encouraged Stonehenge to assist with some of the public areas, and from staff's perspective, the $300,000 listed is for construction of the parking lot of 102 spaces. These estimates do not address which party purchases 37 Darby Street. ~i Ms. Ott summarized that staff is seeking Council guidance regarding the following: • Whether or not to pursue any acquisition of 37 Darby Street and commencing negotiations on that land; • Input regarding additional developed office or commercial space in this project, particularly along Darby Street. Staff's recommendation is to delay negotiations for some time and focus on some other ~ items of value to the District long-term. Those involve four areas: 1. Conduct a market study regarding what should exist in the District in terms of the mix of commercial, retail and restaurant use to bring long-term success for the District. Staff has made some preliminary contacts of firms with experience in this area to gauge their interest, and has begun to identify a scope of services of what this would entail. 2. Update the parking study in 2007. It was last done in 2001 and there have been some changes in the area, including the Town Center I and II lots being opened, the City owned property at 35 Darby Street, and changes in other area parcels. There is a desire to look at this comprehensively versus a parcel by parcel approach. 3. Update the zoning code for this area in 2007 to level the playing field for those who want to develop in Historic Dublin. 4. Short-term improvements that can be done for the District. This includes addressing the merchants' requests for increasing the number of parking spaces that are time limited in the public areas. Staff will bring a proposal back for reaction from the area businesses and Council. Other items are way finding improvements to direct people from High Street to the public parking and address the pedestrian connections between the parking areas and the district. She noted that Mo Dioun, Stonehenge Company is present to address Council. Mo Dioun Stonehenge Company. 147 North High Street, Gahanna stated that he has worked with staff over the past six months to put together a developer's agreement. There have been some challenges not anticipated at the outset, although there has RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 9, 2007 Page 11 I been success in many areas. • In regard to the two properties at 24 and 37 Darby, staff recommended the Stonehenge team work with the owners and individuals were in the Council ,) Chambers at that time who expressed their support for the project. Specifically for 24 Darby, the owner and the gentlemen who has along-term, 25 year lease ~~ expressed their support. There was good consensus at that time, including for i 24 Darby, as a part of their development which was felt to be ideal long-term. In the last six months, he has maintained two of the parties in cooperation - Ms. Kocak of Modern Male and the property owner. For two of the three parties, it ~ has been difficult to have them cooperate with each other. At this stage, while he made a commitment to include 24 Darby in this project, he cannot commit that he can deliver that in the short-term. j • For part of that reason, they have phased the project as Phase 1A and Phase (~ 1 B. They still believe the project is viable. They have looked at some other ~ alternatives and retrofitting 24 Darby Street if legally permissible. He has spoken with Bird and Houk about this and Mr. Bird is present tonight for questions. He believes this could be made to be architecturally consistent with the project. • In terms of 37 Darby, he made a commitment to facilitate the effort to include that property as a part of the development. He has managed to do that by the owner of 37 Darby agreeing to sell it. Staff asked him to find out from the owner the price he desires for this property; the owner had an appraisal done, and the asking price based upon the appraisal is $450,000. Although the owner claimed he desired a higher price, he has agreed to sell it at that price. This commitment is still valid. Stonehenge presented this to staff, along with some other alternatives, and they are hoping staff returns with some suggestions or direction on this. He would like some direction from Council in order to return to the table to negotiate with the property owner. • In terms of the tax increment financing and the impact of not having the additional 8,000 square feet as a part of this development, they did a brief calculation. Based on that, they believe that even without the additional 8,000 square feet, the project will bring a positive revenue of $400,000. • Stonehenge believes that cohesive development of 35 and 37 Darby, whether private or public is critical within the long-term Historic Dublin development. Controlling that property -whether by the City or private developer - is critical. ~ Ten years from now, it may become even more difficult to work out, and so an option for the future was devised of leasing by Stonehenge or by the property owner with an option for the City to purchase it. If the City decides not to ~ purchase the property, it would be fair to provide an option for a private developer to purchase and develop it cohesively. It was proposed with the goal of developing those two parcels together. • In regard to doing some vertical development on 35 and 37, they considered this idea and believe it viable, although somewhat premature time wise. They believe that the Bridge and High corner needs to be developed, stabilized and matured and in the meanwhile, provide the 102 parking spaces that is a part of their proposal that was committed to in the public forum. Some Council Members voted for the Stonehenge proposal on this basis -providing parking for the public and the area businesses to use. They are willing to make that kind of a commitment for additional private development in that area if instructed to do so and as the marketplace allows. They find it somewhat premature at this point. • They believe alease-purchase plan, along with a commitment on their part for future development on 35 and 37 may be a viable alternative to consider. He encouraged Council to allow them to continue these efforts on the project. David Garcia, 109 S. Riverview asked about the staff comment regarding update of the zoning code. Residences are briefly mentioned in that. He asked staff if some of this work will accelerate the plans that have been discussed in the past to allow properties that qualify to be rezoned to Historic Residential. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 9, 2007 Page 12 ~'~ Ms. Ott stated that staff would have to research and respond to this. ~ ~ Mr. Garcia added that quite a few of the property owners on S. Riverview are very ~j much in favor of it. They spent time and money to assemble the package to bring it to i Council last May. It was their understanding that before they purchased their property, a couple of developers were considering it. It would have been unfortunate for a house with that history to become commercial. There are other houses on the street that fall ~~ into that category. When it is appropriate and staff can push this forward, it is important to know there is support of the property owners on the street and the HDA. Craig Sonksen, 5679 Haddington Drive noted he is the owner of Grandma's Fruitcake and Krema Peanut Butter Company, formerly located at 35 Darby Street and continuing to operate in that location. He noted he is disappointed, discouraged and frustrated that this is the point the project has come to. He entered into the negotiations with the City in good faith. There was good discussion which led to a good agreement and they are honoring their commitment by moving forward. They are committed to Historic Dublin. The City made the commitment that 35 and 37 Darby Street would become public parking and he believes that still needs to happen. This is the reason why he participated in the agreement, as he sees the vision and wants to be apart of this. It was somewhat disingenuous of the Stonehenge Group in their presentation to indicate they had control and to make it appear it was a "done" deal and would happen, only to be at this point. He is discouraged, frustrated and disappointed. He encouraged Council not to lose momentum, but to keep the long picture in view. He knows from his customer base that the people in Dublin are excited about what is occurring in Historic Dublin. He is concerned that this opportunity could be lost. He supports the City in this endeavor. Steve Rudy, 129 S. Riverview commented that in keeping with the 2005 viewpoint of Council, a better public space will be achieved with moving the building footprint away from the corner. That is what was envisioned in the Grabill 2005 plan. Is that plan i within consideration at this time? Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if he attended the public meetings last year on this ~ topic. Mr. Rudy responded he was out of town. j Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that both firms presented their vision for the development and ultimately, staff and Council decided to pursue the Stonehenge proposal. Mr. Rudy asked why the Council's opinion changed from the 2005 vision. j Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated there were several items in this proposal that Council felt were a more comprehensive long-term approach for the corner development. Those items were incorporation of the Modern Male business and 37 Darby Street ~~ property. Mr. Rudy stated that one of the objectives was to create an engaging public space. i Whether that is engaging is a subjective matter, but whether it is public or not compared to the other building footprint is not. The square footage is the same in both. In his view, it seems that the compromised objective is the public space. This is also the opinion of the HDA, based on its members' input. This is the last opportunity for a public square and is an important feature to be considered. He does not believe the City would be compromised financially to flip that building footprint. Modern Male would still be incorporated in that square. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that the question for Council tonight is whether staff should continue to move forward in negotiation for the purchase of 37 Darby Street. Ms. Ott responded that the question is should 37 Darby Street continue to be a part of this project, along with who needs to own it and under what conditions. Ms. Salay asked about the potential future use of 37 Darby without the public parking to be provided on 35 Darby. Ms. Ott responded that the current lease arrangement with Krema Peanut Butter is that during business hours, the area is for the business use. After hours, it becomes public RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 9, 2007 Page 13 Held 20 ~ parking. Krema's use of that site under the lease term ends on March 31, 2007. Staff is investigating the cost of razing the buildings on the site and what parking on the existing impervious surface would be available. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher recalls that from the outset the plan was to use this as public parking. It was clear that there would be costs involved in razing the building and building a parking lot. Ms. Ott added that staff believes the City-owned land can accommodate about 75 spaces. Adding the Banquet Hall brings 32-35 additional spaces. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked why the property owned by Mr. Eggspuehler would increase in value by such a substantial percentage in a short period of time. Ms. Ott responded that the appraisal received from the owner involved a comparison of not only properties in Historic Dublin, but other such districts throughout the Columbus metropolitan area. Those included some very high visibility areas leased to high end j retail uses. Such intensity of uses would not be desirable, given the alley system in Historic Dublin. Ms. Salay summarized that the comparables were not actually comparable properties for valuation purposes. Ms. Ott responded that from staff's perspective, this is a definite concern. ' Mr. McCash asked if the appraisal was done by a real estate company. Ms. Ott responded it was a complete appraisal done by an independent party. Ms. Grigsby added that staff did not obtain an updated City appraisal, as it was understood that the developer was to acquire the property. If Council's direction at this time is to consider acquiring the property or to gather additional information for this decision making, staff would recommend an updated appraisal be ordered by the City. Mrs. Boring is not certain she wants to incur the expense for another appraisal. Ms. Grigsby stated that another option is for staff to talk directly with the property owner. If resolution cannot be reached, other options can be explored. Mr. Reiner suggested that Council direct staff to do this. Ms. Salay noted that Ms. Ott mentioned additional development on 35/37 Darby Street. This development would remove parking spaces in the project. Is there another option to add parking space under this scenario? Ms. Ott responded that there are some efficiencies gained with this scenario versus the L-shape. With this layout, there are 92 spaces inside the 35/37 Darby Street property boundaries and an additional 20 spaces should the Franklin Street extension be implemented. I Ms. Salay noted that these two buildings would then be in addition to what would occur on the corner, and Council has not discussed these previously. Ms. Ott confirmed this. This was an alternative proposed by staff to ensure there is sufficient square footage within the TIF district to make it viable, and it would provide an additional means for Stonehenge to meet some of the needs of its pro forma. This would also meet Council's goal of having more quality development in the area. Mr. Keenan asked if the anticipated use of these additional buildings would be office. Ms. Ott responded that this has been discussed, including live/work office buildings. One option not considered is restaurants, due to the parking requirements and the desire to have a restaurant use on the corner property. Ms. Salay noted that her understanding is that living space on top of office space is very expensive to build, due to the building codes. Is this correct? Ms. Ott responded that this would be a separate matter for the developer and the Planning and Building staff to address. The other issue is the marketing of such living space, due to the immediately adjacent parking use. Ms. Salay stated that in Grandview, this idea seems to be working. If Franklin Street were to be extended, where would it go through? RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 9, 2007 Page 14 He1_d 20 (! Ms. Ott responded that the draft revitalization plan calls for Franklin Street to be (! extended to the south to Bridge, and to the north it would depend upon the future ~~ development of the Indian Run elementary site. Short-term, extending it to the south would provide another connection into the Indian Run elementary parking lot that has 88 parking spaces that are available to the public after school hours. Ms. Salay asked if the daycare building would then cease to exist and that area would become Franklin Street. Ms. Ott confirmed this. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she has concern with the additional development proposed as an option to make the TIF viable. Currently, the City is in discussion about the future library location. Why would the City propose this without knowing the library plans for the future? If the City makes this decision, it forces decisions about purchasing other properties that the City may not actually be interested in purchasing. In regard to the Franklin Street extension, it has been presented a couple of times and there has been a lot of opposition from the residents. She is surprised this would be presented as an option by staff, given the past discussion. It would also beg the question of forcing another political entity to make other kinds of decisions about the expenditures of their money due to the need for road structure and infrastructure to service the area. Ms. Ott noted that another key factor is that the area of Wing Hill is not under City control. In regard to the library site, staff's thinking is that whether it is occupied by the library or another user, it would be an occupied building. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the City would be compounding the traffic ~~ problems that already exist in the alley. Adding additional development will bring even more traffic, adding to the problem of movement of cars in a constricted space. She does not understand why the City would want to bring more traffic into the back portion of this, given the existing school and library uses. Ms. Brautigam stated that staff is not proposing this as a solution for the area, but rather providing Council with information about some innovative solutions as the negotiations continue with the Stonehenge Company. This was one of the options discussed. There is no decision needed tonight. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated she understands this, but questions why it is being presented, given the other potential conflicts. She noted that the question before Council tonight is whether or not to continue the negotiation for the 37 Darby Street property, which can be done in a variety of ways, including staff communicating with the property owner regarding the appraisal and purchase price. Mr. McCash suggested the City obtain an appraisal based on valid comparables. Mr. Keenan agreed. Mrs. Boring noted that staff offered the alternative of the in-house staff negotiating, without obtaining another appraisal. Mr. Smith stated that in November of 2004, an appraisal was done of 37 Darby Street which resulted in a value of $325,000. If Council desires, the same appraisal can be updated. Staff would then have current information with which to negotiate with the landowner. Mr. Keenan asked about the City's lease with Mr. Sonksen, which expires in March of 2007. Mr. Smith stated that the new building is about one month behind schedule at this point. There is a provision in the existing lease to accommodate this. Mr. Keenan moved to direct staff to obtain an update of the appraisal done in 2004 for the 37 Darby Street property and bring the information back to Council for further direction. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 9, 2007 Page 15 Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that Council has now directed staff to: continue moving forward with the project; to update the previous appraisal for 37 Darby Street; ~' and to bring the appraisal back to Council for further direction. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked for clarification regarding the four staff initiatives outlined in the memo. She had understood that the update of the zoning code was already taking place in 2007 and was underway. Ms. Ott responded her understanding is that a draft update of the zoning code will be I ready for review after Council's recess in July. ~ Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher commented regarding the short-term improvements proposed ~ in the memo. Many of these were committed to three years ago. She encouraged staff to work with the Historic District businesses and consider inexpensive options for way finding. Ms. Ott responded that these items are not programmed in the 2007 capital budget, ~ unless Council directs they be funded in the Bridge and High project. Staff will likely I I need further guidance about the budget for this and appropriations needed. Mr. McCash asked if monies are already included in the budget for the market and parking studies. The parking study was done previously, but roadblocks were encountered at the im lementation hase. He does not see an benefit ins ending p p Y p monies to update that study, which will likely have the same outcome, namely, the discussion of a location for a parking garage. Ms. Ott responded that a different approach will be used. The parking study may be done in-house, as it is only an update. There are some other options to consider aside from a parking garage, such as working with other landowners who have available parking space. Staff wants to bring this to Council for a full discussion. Ms. Salay stated that there is now a business association that works well together and has a vested interest in the parking situation. She is hopeful there will be more fruitful discussion than in the past. Mr. Keenan noted that staff spoke of time limited parking in the district. Would this be for the entire district? Ms. Ott responded that from discussion with the Code enforcement staff and Planning and Engineering staff, they are looking at all public lots and on street parking as well. Mr. Keenan noted the need to be sensitive to the residents of the area as well. Ms. Salay asked if the City has the ability to enforce such regulations. Ms. Ott responded that is another consideration. The focus is on the Monday through Friday daytime hours. Mrs. Boring commented in regard to the market study, there have been many plans done over the years. She cautioned that the City should identify a consultant who is not only a land planner, but has expertise in retail. Ms. Ott responded that the firms contacted are focused on financial and market considerations. The market study will influence the draft revitalization plan for Historic Dublin. Ms. Salay asked if staff is considering not only the immediate Bridge and High corner, but areas to the west along Bridge Street to include some of the other properties discussed during the Community Plan update. The long-term vision of moving the district toward Frantz Road should be considered in this study. Ms. Ott responded that staff will take this into consideration as they define the scope of the study. • Approval of Amendment to Planning & Zoning Commission Rules and Regulations (Ex Parte Rule) Mr. Langworthy stated that after review, the Planning Commission has forwarded an RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 9, 2007 Page 16 Held 20 ~,' amendment to their Rules and Regulations for consideration. The amendment regarding ex parte contact addresses the freedom of the Commissioners to discuss ~ cases outside the context of their meetings. He asked Mr. Smith to elaborate. i Mr. Smith stated that the recommendation would not impact cases concerning zonings, which are legislative matters. However, any case of an administrative nature could no longer be discussed with anyone outside the context of the meeting, including City ~ Council members. Ms. Salay inquired if the restriction applies to members of the public. ~ Mr. Smith responded that it does. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if the changes from the existing ex parte restrictions primarily address Commissioners' discussions with Council members. Mr. Smith responded that, presently, members of the public can discuss any case with the Commissioners. The existing rules restrict only discussions between the Commissioners and developers. If Council adopts this recommendation, residents would be required to discuss administrative cases with City staff only, not with the Planning Commissioners. Discussion with the Commissioners would be limited to open meeting discussion. This issue is totally under Council's purview. The Commission members serve at Council's pleasure, and an amendment to the rules and regulations of that body can only be made by Council. Mr. Langworthy clarified that this change would not limit the public's access to information regarding the cases. It would require that they obtain that information from ', staff members, not Commission members. ~I Mr. Keenan noted that the recommendation states that, "no Commission member may engage in any communication..." and it defines "Commission member" in another section. The question of whether or not "Commission member" includes Council's liaison to the Commission arose previously. If Mr. McCash is a Commission member by definition, then the restriction would apply to him as well. His position has not been exempted in the recommendation as presented. Mr. Smith responded that is true. Mr. McCash is a Commission member, and this is the language the Commissioners have requested Council to approve. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher requested clarification. If " no Commission members" includes Council's liaison to the Commission, then is the suggestion that Council no longer can discuss Planning and Zoning cases with their representative -presently, Mr. McCash? Mr. Smith responded that Council could continue to discuss cases with the Council liaison. Ms. Salay inquired if members of the public could contact Mr. McCash. Mr. Smith responded that they could not. Mr. Langworthy stated that the public could not contact Mr. McCash when he is acting as a Planning Commission member. Ms. Salay inquired if Council members could communicate with Mr. McCash regarding Planning and Zoning Commission cases. Mr. Smith affirmed that this is permissible. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it was her understanding that the representative of Council was exactly that; it was not a position identical to the other Commission positions. Mr. Keenan stated that the definition states that "Planning and Zoning Commission shall consist of seven electors who shall serve.....one of which may be a Council member." Discussion of this issue has been an item on the Administrative Committee's assignment list for some time. Mrs. Boring noted this is confusing. When engaging in a Commission meeting, Mr. McCash would be subject to this restriction; but when he is serving as a Council member, he would not. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 9, 2007 Page 17 Mr. Smith agreed that the language presented here is very confusing. Mr. McCash is a Council member, and he is Council's representative on the Planning Commission. When a citizen calls him -- not as a Commission member, but as their elected official on Council to discuss a pending Planning and Commission issue -- Mr. McCash is expected to do so. However, the amendment is written such that he should not discuss the case whatsoever. The issue is not clear, and he has pointed that fact out ~ to the Commission. Aside from that, the major change is that this prohibits any discussion on cases other than zoning matters between the Commission members and !~ the public and the Commission members and City Council (other than Council's representative). Mr. Keenan stated that the biggest impact would be prohibiting the public from speaking to the Planning Commissioners. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it would not prohibit them off from speaking about the cases in the context of the meeting. What the Commission appears to be asking for now is to receive all comments from any individual, no matter who at their meeting. That means that Council members would attend the Commission members as a Council Member, not as a member of the public, because there would have been no other opportunity for the Council Members to discuss the case with the Commissioners as representatives of the citizenry. Ms. Salay stated she has refrained from calling the Planning Commission members to ~ inquire their reason for suggesting this amendment. However, why have they ~~ requested it? Have the Commissioners been unduly inconvenienced by resident calls, or has a Council member unduly harassed them? In her view, part of the Planning Commissioner's duty is to listen to resident concerns, to listen to the Council members' input and to interact with all. It is their duty to take into consideration all of those views '~i when making any decisions. Mr. Langworthy noted that because he only recently joined the City staff, the case was already pending. He is not aware of the original motivation. However, for 20+ years, he has taught Planning Commissioners how to deal with the ex pane issue. One thing he has stressed is that a problem can be created when a Commissioner speaks individually with individuals outside the context of the meeting -and that is because only two people know what was said. They encouraged all of the decision makers to have the same information, presented in the same way, and heard together. A Planning Commissioner is not an elected official; they are to represent all the citizens, not just those who contact them. Mrs. Boring stated this topic was discussed by the Planning Commission two to three years ago, and at that time, the Commission was split on the issue. At that time, the Commission consisted of some members who had been active in the community on different issues. They believed that it was their duty to represent the community, and as such, they wanted an open door to speak with members of the community. The differing opinion was based on the fact that some Commissioners did not want to be contacted at their places of employment. They also wanted everyone to hear the same comments in the same manner. Ms. Salay stated that it isn't necessary for the Planning Commissioners to take calls from the public at their office or their homes in the middle of family time. The Commissioner can let the caller know that the time is not convenient for conversation and make arrangements to speak at another time. Mr. Keenan stated that Mr. Langworthy has also indicated the benefit of all of the Commissioners having the same information. The real issue seems to be that the Council representative may talk to developers, but no one else can. That may be what has prompted this amendment. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that is the distinction between an elected official and an appointed official. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 9, 2007 Page 18 Held 20 Mr. Keenan stated that is why he does not believe there should be a Council representative on the Planning Commission. Mr. Langworthy noted that it could also work as Mr. Smith has indicated -the Council ,j person is treated as a Commissioner, not a Council Member, while acting in a j Commissioner capacity. ~ Mr. Keenan suggested that they could also be anon-voting liaison. Mr. Reiner inquired how the Council liaison would handle a situation in which he/she is contacted by a citizen to discuss a Planning and Zoning Commission case. Does the Council liaison refuse to discuss the case? Mr. Langworthy responded that they could (1) provide information to the caller concerning the appropriate Planning staff member to contact with questions or for information, and (2) suggest they could share their views with the Planning Commission by correspondence or by speaking at the P&Z meeting. Mr. Reiner stated that in his opinion Commission cases should be conducted similar to jury trials, with everyone having the same information and not having been lobbied individually. The question is how to legally resolve the issue regarding the Council representative speaking to the applicants. ' Mr. McCash responded that he does not believe it is a legal issue. It is a question of how it is dealt with internally. The way he has dealt with it is this: if it is a quasi judicial application, it receives a formal public hearing. If there was contact with anyone regarding the case, he shares information regarding that contact at the Commission meeting. It is his opinion that there should be no contact with the public, whether it is legislative or quasi- judicial, other than with Council. When the Planning Commission is making a legislative recommendation for Council, it should be based on information mutually shared by the Commissioners. There should not be unlimited lobbying of Commissioners and then another unlimited lobbying effort behind the scenes at the ~~ Council level. Ms. Salay stated that the existing rules prohibit the Planning Commissioners from having contact with the developers. Mr. McCash agreed, but it has occurred in the past. In his opinion, it is also not appropriate for the public to have the power of lobbying individual Commissioners. The public may have valuable input, but it should be done in a way that all the Commissioners hear or receive the same information. He would even err on the side of requiring everything to occur within the context of the public meeting. ~ Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that he served on the Planning Commission for five years. In his experience, that type of situation did not occur frequently. He cannot recall any occasion where 20-30 individuals called him regarding a case. He did not have a problem with numerous phone calls at work or home. His practice was, after receiving 4-5 similar calls, to indicate that he had already had that conversation with others. He emphasized that the entire Commission should hear their concerns, and because it would be of more benefit to the citizens, he encouraged them to attend and speak at the Commission meeting. They could also bring signed petitions and fill Council Chambers with like supporters. In regard to "leveling the playing field" -- in his view, the residents' freedom to contact the Commissioners accomplishes that. The residents participate in otherjobs all day. They are not professionals as are the applicants and those hired by applicants to represent them. Residents try to share their concerns by phone in their few free minutes between families and jobs. The professionals, however, give formal presentations to the Commission, which are prepared after spending a great deal of time in discussions with City staff. That is not inappropriate. However, no resident has the luxury of spending so much time in the Planning office discussing the case with the particular Planner assigned to it. He understands that there have been different personalities on the Planning Commission over the years, but RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 9, 2007 Page 19 20 he believes that the Commissioners are not obligated to have extended conversations with everyone who may call them. I Mr. McCash stated that the applicant retains an advocate to speak for the, however the public and the community has an advocate in the Planning staff. For administrative issues, it would be of more benefit to the residents to share their concern with a staff ~ member who would analyze it in relation to the City Code and the Community Plan. Planning staff could then make an informed recommendation to the Commission. ,~ Residents who wish to share their views personally can also submit them in writing or in person at the hearings. The preliminary input to the Planning staff is beneficial. There are times when the public attempts to discuss a case with a Commissioner prior ! to a meeting or with the Commission as a whole at the meeting and feels they are fighting an uphill battle. Staff has prepared a staff report supporting one position because they were not able to take into account some of the issues of the residents. The residents are then battling both the Planning Commission and staff. It would have j served the public better to have shared their views with the Planning staff, who could ~ ~ then advocate on their behalf. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that he does not disagree with that theory. However, very few residents have the ability to contact the Planning staff during the day. Most of the contacts he received were during the evening or on weekends. ~ Mr. Langworthy noted that one concern with any public forum, particularly a Planning and Zoning commission, is the perception that someone has access or influence with a decision maker that others may not have -whether it be the applicant or members of the public. This rule would eliminate all of that. ~ Mr. Reiner stated that the solution would be to either adopt the ex pane amendment or ~I to remove the Council liaison from the Planning Commission. Mrs. Boring stated that this issue re-surfaces every couple of years. Council could adopt it and then gauge how it works. It would mean re-educating the community, because they are accustomed to contacting the Commission with their comments. The Council representative will experience some difficulty knowing where to draw a line. Ms. Salay agreed. At what point, does he become a Commissioner and not a Council Member? Mr. Keenan inquired what Mr. Langworthy had observed as the practice in other jurisdictions. Mr. Langworthy stated that in his opinion, a connection between City Council and the Planning Commission is valuable -whether it is through a Council liaison or by some other method of communication. In his experience, while a City Council member is serving on the Commission, they abide by the Commission rules. When serving as a Council member, they essentially "change hats." Ms. Salay inquired if that occurs after they have cast their vote on the Commission. Mr. Langworthy responded that, typically, it would occur at the time a matter is forwarded by the Commission to City Council. Mr. Keenan stated that much of his experience has been as a township trustee. The trustees were advised not to attend their planning commission meetings as they could be influenced and Trustees have the final vote. In Dublin, after the Commissioners vote on a case, however, it can be appealed to Council. A case could hypothetically receive two votes from the Council liaison on Planning Commission, and they could conceivably change their vote. Mr. Langworthy responded that type of situation actually occurred in Michigan, and the Michigan Attorney General ruled that was an automatic conflict of interest. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 9, 2007 Page 20 Held 20 (~ Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that Mr. Keenan's comments imply that Council members should abstain from attending the Planning Commission meetings in order not to hear the discussion. Does that mean that Council members also should not read the Commission meeting minutes? Planning Commission meetings are public meetings. i' In some communities, these meetings are televised. Council members should be able ~ to attend the meetings and hear the discussions. Mr. Langworthy agreed that Council members should be able to attend the meetings and represent the interests of the community as a whole. A problem can arise if the Council member represents the personal interests of their neighborhood. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that is exactly the reason she pointed out that it would be necessary for the Council member to speak as a Council member, not as a resident. Ms. Salay stated that she has attended Planning and Zoning Commission meetings to learn what her neighbors think and to hear the Commission's response. That information is important to her in representing her constituents. Mr. McCash responded that he does not see a problem with that, yet some Council liaisons have felt that having another Council member in the audience exerts undue influence on the proceedings. Ms. Salay stated that, currently, final development plan appeals are heard by the ~ Franklin County Courts. They are no longer referred to City Council. So this change would eliminate the residents' ability to comment at all before that hearing. They could provide only written comments and wait until the hearing. If the residents are unable to attend the hearing, they have no ability to be fairly heard. She has always made a point of telling the residents to come to the meetings and to call the Planning Commissioners and Council members and share their views. In this community, the City government actually cares about what the residents think. Council is interested in the residents' views on any given proposal. She often tells them that one person can make a difference, and they should not believe they can't "fight City Hall," because ~ they truly can. In her view, this proposal says to the residents that the City Council and the Planning Commission are no longer interested in hearing from the residents. Instead, Council prefers to "level the playing field" for the developer who has unlimited dollars at their disposal to have their project approved. Mr. Reiner stated that the same argument could be presented to support the point that the residents should share those views with Planning staff. Ms. Salay responded that in a perfect world, that argument could be made. In the distant past, however, Planning staff was not an advocate for the residents. In fact, they had opposing objectives. If the residents had been restricted by rules such as this, how extremely frustrating it would have been. If the right to lobby is the issue, then she would prefer to give the developers the right to lobby as well. Then the Commissioners can do as Council members do -share information regarding those contacts with all of Council. Mr. McCash noted that this restriction as proposed would apply to administrative cases, not zoning cases. Ms. Salay responded that she understands that, and she is referring to the administrative part of the program. The trend of this Planning Commission is to approve a rezoning today with the understanding that the details can be worked out ~ later. For the residents, the "devil is in the details." Mrs. Boring stated that should not be the case. The development text provided with the rezoning addresses those details. Ms. Salay responded that the text is provided, but the statement is made that "the fine details" will be worked out later, generally at the final development plan stage. That is RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 9, 2007 Page 21 20 a common statement in the Planning Commission minutes. That is fine for Planning 'i staff and the Planning Commission, but because the final development plan never ,~, comes to Council, the citizen would be taken completely out of the equation. ~ Mrs. Boring stated those are very minor details. Ms. Salay responded that they are not minor details. There was a case that involved her neighborhood, and those "minor" details were very important. If the residents were aware of the discussion occurring tonight, this Chamber would be filled with citizens in opposition to the suggestion that their access should be cut off. Mrs. Boring clarified that the residents would not be cut out. At the time of the ~ rezoning, the residents can have their issues addressed in the zoning text that is approved. ~ Ms. Salay responded that to accomplish that the residents would have to rely upon staff to be their advocates. Mr. McCash stated that the issues need to be addressed at the rezoning phase. Ms. Salay responded that for some rezonings, the final development plan may not be submitted for ten years. Mr. McCash responded that if on the administrative side, contact is occurring outside of a public hearing, there is the risk of providing the developer the opportunity through a 2506 appeal of a new hearing in front of a judge, aside from what is heard with the 'I Planning Commission. Ms. Salay stated that is the basis for her earlier argument that if Council had the ability to hear those appeals, a Franklin County judge would be taken out of the equation. The Law Director has provided his opinion on several occasions about this. She does ~ not understand why Council would not prefer that appeals come to them versus ~ forwarding them to Franklin County. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that the reasoning at the time the change was adopted was that when developers have the opportunity to appeal a Commission decision to Council, that is exactly what they will choose to do. ,~ Ms. Salay responded that Council retains the discretion not to hear the appeal. Mr. Reiner stated it is important to remember the purpose of the Planning Commission. There is a desire for the Planning Commission to be an impartial body and not a political body, subject to lobbying. He served on the Planning Commission in the 1980's when the ex parte rule was first adopted in an effort to end the constant lobbying by the developers. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that lobbying by developers is now prohibited. Mr. Reiner responded that this recommendation is an effort to further enforce it. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that is not what this amendment would do. It would prohibit Council and the residents from discussing the cases with the Commissioners. For whatever reason, this Commission is uncomfortable with those discussions. This amendment then would meet the textbook requirements. However, she does not believe that such access should be restricted to certain types of matters - it should be for all or none. Mr. McCash stated this recommendation would not prohibit the Commissioners' from meeting and discussing a case among themselves or with staff members at great length and great detail. Ms. Salay inquired why it is acceptable to prohibit the citizens from such contact, while the Commissioners may discuss their views with one another without limitation, perhaps making up their minds ahead of the hearing. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that the Commission minutes note that the cases the public is most interested in are the conditional uses and the rezonings. For that reason, this amendment would not apply to rezonings. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it appears that Council is not in agreement with this recommendation as presented. She suggested that it be re-studied in view of Council's comments tonight. An effort should be made to better define what the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 9, 2007 Page 22 1 Held 20 Planning Commission is attempting to achieve, and learn how the Planning '~ Commission anticipates engaging all of the entities, including the public, to continue to hear everyone's voice. ~~ Mr. Langworthy noted it would appear that not only should this rule be reviewed, but it ~a~~~„~o,~,~~a pia.,~a,~o,o~~=~o~,d,~,=N~eee,~~e~ e~, j would be beneficial to consider better alternatives for access to offer the public. Mr. Keenan stated for the record that he personally does not support the concept of I~,~ sending appeals to the county. There was a situation that occurred a few months ago when the developer threatened a court appeal in an attempt to secure an approval. Mrs. Boring stated that she is concerned about Mr. Langworthy's comment about considering other ways to receive community input. There will likely be some decisions Council will make regarding the direction of the Community Plan that some citizen groups will object to. It will be important for the Planning Director to uphold that direction in the face of opposition. Mr. Langworthy responded there is more than one public group. There are other parts of the public that it is important to consider as well. At times, those are the voices not heard. Ms. Salay inquired how their views can be obtained if it is not possible to hear from the residents. Mr. McCash stated that in his opinion, serving as an advocate for the community means the community as a whole, not individuals of the community. Mr. Reiner stated that in his view, a problem exists if it is possible for a Council member to lobby Planning Commissioners on behalf of a special interest or a particular part of the community. The rest of the community is often unaware of associated expenses or other negative implications that will impact the City. Ms. Salay responded that she does not understand how a Council member could do that. That is why there are seven Council members. No one Council member can secure approval for an item, unless it is in the best interest of the community. At least four Council members must agree that it is. Mr. Reiner responded that, unfortunately, that is not always the way it works out. Mrs. Boring stated that she has lobbied for things that she believed were in the best interest of the community and that would obviously benefit her ward. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that when Council is following direction originating from the Community Plan, Council is representing the community. Mr. Keenan stated that he believes it is always better for the public to have access their Council and their Commission members. Open government is preferable. Mr. Langworthy stated that the problems are often not with the public, but with the applicant. Ms. Salay responded that is the reason the rule stands as it does today. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the issue is with how that access occurs. Mr. Langworthy responded that staff will work on that aspect of the language. More than one method of access for the public is available today. Mrs. Boring stated that Mr. Langworthy shared earlier that he has observed various practices in different cities, yet all the methods worked. If this Commission would like to limit public and Council access, why not try it for a couple of years? Ms. Salay stated that to consider that, she would be interested in Council having a dialogue with the Commissioners to learn of their concerns and what they wish to achieve with this change. At this time, her view is that they are trying to "fix something that isn't broken," something that would be a real change for the public. She does not believe there is a more engaged community in central Ohio than the citizens of Dublin. She has serious concerns about changing that. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 9, 2007 Page 23 ~I Mr. Keenan suggested that five minutes be set aside in the joint session tomorrow evening for this discussion.. ~~'~ Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that dialogue would take much longer than five minutes. It would be preferable to have Mr. Langworthy discuss this matter with the ~ Commissioners. Then, additional time can be scheduled at a study session already on I Council's calendar for discussion of this matter. Mr. Langworthy noted that he will also bring back suggestions for providing more j access for the public. li STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Brautigam stated that: 1. Council had previously requested that staff provide information about the City's Emergency Operations Plan. A memo from Chief Epperson is included in tonight's meeting materials, noting this report has been scheduled for the January 16 ~ Study Session agenda. ~ Ms. Salay inquired if Washington Township will be included in this discussion. The fire/EMS is a major part of the City's response, even though that service is provided ~~ by the township. Ms. Brautigam stated that the fire/EMS portion will not be part of this report. Chief Woo has not previously been asked to participate, and it would be somewhat unfair to do so upon such short notice. However, if Chief Epperson is able to obtain Chief Woo's participation, he will do so. Mr. Keenan stated that the interaction of different agencies during emergencies has been the most significant component of homeland security planning since September 11, 2001. Ms. Brautigam responded that staff will share how Dublin operates on an interagency basis. 2. Noted that an additional item, a legal matter, has been added to the executive session agenda. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Mrs. Boring stated that, typically, there is a "hot" topic that the residents comment on during holiday festivities. This year, it was that the City roundabouts are slowing them down! Mr. Keenan reported there will be a Veterans Committee Project meeting on Friday, January 12, from 8 -11 a.m. The Committee will discuss some of the issues the Mayor raised in her email. Ms. Salay stated that she and Assistant Law Director Stephen Smith, Jr. recently met with a resident who is interested in the City's assault weapons ban. That is an issue that will be addressed soon due to recent changes made by the State legislature. The individual was very concerned because he is a participant in the competitive sport of marksmanship. He and his children are active members in the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP). He is very enthusiastic about the program and provided them with information about the CMP. She will place the materials in the Council Conference room for the benefit of all. Council can anticipate hearing from this group if Council should decide to do something other than adopt the State amendment. Vice Mavor Lecklider noted he would arrive be approximately one hour late to the Joint Work Session tomorrow evening due to a prior commitment. Mavor Chinnici-Zuercher: 1. Noted that she would be out of state tomorrow and unable to attend tomorrow's joint work session. 2. Requested an update on the status of the Schoedinger Funeral Home development. Ms. Brautigam responded that she is not aware of the current status, but staff would RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 9, 2007 Page 24 ~I research and provide afollow-up report 3. Referred to the memo from City Forester Paula Chope regarding the trees that AEP intends to prune/remove. Have the trees been marked? Would Council be able to identify them? Mr. Hahn responded that the trees are not marked. I' Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that Ms. Chope's memo indicates that the presidents of Wexford Estates and Lowell Trace civic associations have been notified about the row of white pines along Avery Road that need to be removed. Council can expect '~ to receive a number of resident calls. Are these trees located on the west side of the roadway between the road and the bikepath? Mr. Hahn confirmed that is the location. There is an approximate 75-foot setback from private properties. Between those white pines and the rear of the property lines there is also extensive landscaping that will be unaffected. Along with the development of Wexford Estates, landscape trees were installed in the greenspace along Avery Road. However, the white pines pre-date residential development in the area. Although the trees will be missed, they are diseased and dying. Two died this past year, and others are in decline. Vice Mayor Lecklider suggested that notification should be made to the property owners impacted. Mr. Hahn responded that staff could distribute door hanger notices to the property owners. Vice Mayor Lecklider requested that the information to the residents include the same explanation that was provided to Council. Ms. Salay requested that in the future, staff make property owner notification of scheduled tree pruning and removal a standard policy. In the past, trees have been removed without notification, upsetting the residents. Mr. Hahn stated that it is staff's policy to notify affected property owners. However, the trees Vice Mayor Lecklider is referring to are on City parkland; therefore, ~ adjacent property owners would not typically be notified. 4. Reminded Council that on Monday, January 15 at 11 a.m. the Martin Luther King, Jr. Remembrance observance will be held at Dublin Coffman High School. The program will be approximately one hour in length, with local musicians performing. She will be presenting a proclamation on behalf of Dublin City Council. 5. Requested that staff seriously consider the recommendations made in the Holly Days report. She supports the recommendation to consider discontinuing some of the Holly Days activities that have waning interest. ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to adjourn to executive session at 9:50 p.m. for discussion of land acquisition and legal matters. Vice Mayor Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher announced that the meeting will be reconvened following the executive session only for the purpose of formally adjourning. The meeting was reconvened and formally adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Mayor -Presiding Officer Clerk of Council