HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-14- 04 Study SessionDUBLIN CITY COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION
Monday, June 14, 2004
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the Monday, June 14, Study Session of Dublin City Council to
order at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers at the Dublin Municipal Building. The topics for
discussion were:
Joint Economic Development Districts (JEDDs) and Cooperative Economic
Development Agreements (CEDAs)
Community Plan Update
Residential Development Moratorium
Roll Call
Council members present were: Marilee Chinnici-Zuercher, Tim Lecklider, Mike Keenan, Cathy
Boring and Amy Salay. Tom McCash and John Reiner were excused.
Staff Members:
Jane Brautigam, Frank Ciarochi, Steve Smith, Jennifer Readler, Marsha Grigsby, Carson
Combs. Barb Cox.
Ms. Readler, Assistant Law Director, presented a brief PowerPoint providing background. She
noted that there are many tools available to cities, townships, and counties. Tonight, they will
describe two of the most common vehicles that Dublin may wish to consider using in future
development arrangements with any neighboring municipalities. The first one is a Joint
Economic Development District. The second one is a Cooperative Economic Development
Agreement. The purpose of these agreements is to facilitate economic growth in a certain
defined area. Typically, the aim is to create new jobs and new development opportunities.
Cities and townships may be members of a JEDD; counties cannot. The JEDD is a more
complicated in its creation. A Board of Directors is appointed to govern the economic district.
The JEDD Board then has the power to levy its own income tax, which cannot be a higher rate
than the highest rate of any municipality that is a member of the JEDD. The JEDD agreement
may also state that the city and the township will share that income tax. The agreement may
also provide that the township property taxes be shared by both entities.
Mr. Lecklider inquired the term length of a JEDD agreement.
Ms. Readler responded that the agreements are typically of a long duration - 40-50 years, and
are automatically renewable pending notice otherwise from either party.
Advantages of a JEDD
The benefit of a JEDD agreement is that it facilitates cooperation between the entities. The City
may benefit from income taxes not within the City limits. Typically, a property must be annexed
for the City to receive the taxes from the business on that property.
Disadvantages of a JEDD
The drawback of the JEDD agreement is that the City and the township must relinquish control
to the JEDD Board. There are specific requirements governing the composition of the Board.
Each entity may select a certain number of members, but there would also be members of the
City Council Study Session page 2
June 14. 2004
business community created by the JEDD. They could vote to take actions that the City would
not approve of. Because the JEDD district is not annexed to the City, the City has no control
over zoning unless the JEDD agreement provides that the City's zoning code would apply to the
JEDD area. There are cumbersome organizational notice requirements under the ORC. There
are many required meetings and filing requirements with the County Commissioners and the
State Department of Development.
If the township cannot meet the criteria, the proposed JEDD must be submitted to the township
electors for a vote. Because the land in the JEDD district is not annexed, the taxes levied do
not belong solely to the City; they are shared with the township.
Mr. Lecklider inquired if the JEDD Board has the power to levy taxes without a vote.
Ms. Reader affirmed that is the case.
Mr. Lecklider stated that terms of the JEDD agreement are determined with the initial
agreement. Are taxing issues included in that agreement?
Ms. Readler stated that they are specified in the initial agreement.
Mr. Lecklider inquired what other authority, in an addition to zoning, would be relinquished by
the City and could be addressed in the agreement.
Ms. Readler stated that the JEDD takes the place of an annexation, and the City forms a
partnership with the township through the JEDD Board. The township shares in areas it
typically would not. The terms of the agreement are negotiated, and the City can determine how
aggressive it wants the contract terms to be regarding provision of services to that area or
application of the City's laws. In fact, the City can regain some of that control by incorporating
certain terms in the agreement. The JEDD agreement prohibits annexation of the land for the
length of the agreement. The JEDD Board could add adjoining parcels to the original district at
a later time.
Mr. Keenan inquired if the City can annex only land that is within the negotiated water/sewer
area.
Ms. Readler stated that is correct.
Mr. Keenan inquired if the City could then consider only JEDDs within that area.
Ms. Readler responded affirmatively.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if police, fire, zoning and taxing issues are incorporated in the
original JEDD agreement.
Ms. Readler responded that it is recommended they be included.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if the taxes would belong to the JEDD, not to the City or to the
Township.
City Council Study Session page 3
June 14. 2004
Ms. Readler responded that the JEDD is the entity that would administer the agreement, but the
City could have contract obligations for which it is solely responsible.
Mr. Keenan inquired if the City could set a price for providing police services for the JEDD area.
Ms. Readler responded that is correct, or the City could request a proportion of the taxes
consistent with the proportion of services the City would provide to the district.
Mr. Lecklider inquired if the JEDD would operate only as a "pass through," and would not collect
and hold revenues for the purpose of servicing the district. The funds would pass through to the
respective parties?
Ms. Readler responded that it depends on how the agreement is written. The Board could
make the City the responsible entity for collecting and disbursing the income tax, or the JEDD
Board could retain staff to collect and disburse the funds pursuant to the agreement.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated the JEDD Board would not be accumulating money. It would
receive and use money only per the terms of the agreement, which could be subcontracted to
the City or township involved.
Ms. Readler stated that the JEDD would have to establish long-term funds for the maintenance
of the infrastructure. As prescribed by statute, the JEDD would place a certain percentage of
the income tax revenue in those funds. The JEDD Board would then pay all those expenses.
For instance, if the City were providing Police services to the JEDD District at a cost of $50,000,
the JEDD Board would pay the cost of Police services and any other personnel from that fund.
In the end, the remainder of income tax would be split 60-40 {or agreed-upon amount), per
contract between the City and the County.
Composition
Mr. Lecklider inquired if the JEDD composition is prescribed by law.
Ms. Readler stated that the membership is prescribed by statute, but is dependent upon which
format of a JEDD is followed. Typically, there are five members: two or three representatives
from the City and the township; a member selected from the businesses in the JEDD, and a
member selected by the other members. The common composition is provided for in ORC
715.72, which provides the membership shall consist of one representative of the municipality,
one representative of the township, one representative of the business owners, one
representative of those who work in the district, and, finally, one individual appointed by the
other four members.
Mr. Lecklider inquired if the City representative is typically a staff member or an elected official.
Ms. Reader responded that the City representative is typically an elected official.
Mrs. Boring requested if Ms. Readler had any examples of where a JEDD district is being used.
Mr. Smith responded that their office has worked on an agreement for a JEDD in Circleville;
however, it was not adopted. They do not have an example of a recently formed JEDD. JEDDs
City Council Study Session page 4
June 14. 2004
are primarily used to avoid annexation arguments and share the revenues. They vary greatly in
regard to how much control is relinquished and the percentage of revenues shared. JEDDs
have been used in situations in which the townships need revenue, and the City wants to have
some control over the development. The City could agree to the township having a significant
portion of the revenue in order to gain the control without an annexation. CEDAs are easier to
implement than JEDDs.
Ms. Readier stated that Cooperative Economic Development Agreements (CEDAs) have the
same purpose as JEDDs, however CEDAs have a more expansive list for membership -cities,
townships, counties and state agencies can all be members. The primary difference between
JEDDs and CEDAs is that the areas in a CEDA are annexed to the City. There is an explicit
prohibition in the Ohio Revised Code (ORC) that the municipalities may not share income or
property tax revenue. The avenue through which the entities can share revenue is through
service payments to one another. For instance, if the City is levying an income tax, it can make
service payments to the township, actually using the income tax proceeds to make those
service payments. The benefits of a CEDA are: (1) minimal organizational requirements, as an
independent Board is not established but a mutual cooperation agreement is entered into; {2)
the City maintains control over the income tax, negotiating the service payments; (3} City laws
apply to the area; (4) the County may participate. The disadvantages of a CEDA are: there is
no independent buffer, therefore, the participating entities must maintain a good working
relationship to implement the agreement.
Mr. Smith stated that the key to successful implementation is sharing. Townships tend to
perceive cities as land grabbing and are concerned they will lose their future income. Cities are
concerned that their standards aren't being met or don't exist in the townships. The Dublin and
Washington Township relationship is very unique; a similar one doesn't exist in the state. If
another township should wish to participate in a CEDA agreement with Dublin, it will focus upon
two issues: (1) the control of the land within the CEDA area, and (2) how to share funds
generated from the property.
Mr. Keenan inquired if there must be a specific delineated service to receive a service payment.
Mr. Smith stated that there cannot be an agreement to share a percentage of the income tax.
There could be an agreement to jointly provide services. Perhaps the City would provide 90%
of the services and the Township 10%, with the revenue shared 50%-50%. The City's primary
benefit would be in the right to have influence on the development of the property.
Mr. Keenan noted that control would come to the City with a CEDA, because the property is
annexed to the City and subject to the City's zoning laws.
Mr. Smith stated that while JEDDs can work, the City does not gain the advantage of the
annexation.
Mr. Lecklider inquired what reason would exist for a township less well funded, without the level
of resources that Washington Township would bring to the table, to be interested in participating
in a CEDA with Dublin. Doesn't Dublin "hold all the cards?"
Mr. Smith responded that townships cannot levy income taxes. In a partnership with Dublin,
they could gain significantly with income tax revenue. The Township may not be able to attract
City Council Study Session page 5
June 14. 2004
certain types of development that the City can attract due to its ability to provide a certain level
of infrastructure.
Mr. Lecklider inquired who would collect the income tax revenue in a CEDA district.
Mr. Smith responded that the City would do so.
Mr. Lecklider noted that the City would be prohibited from sharing that income tax.
Mr. Smith stated that is true, but there would be an agreement for payment for services.
Mr. Lecklider inquired what services a small, poor township could offer that Dublin would want.
Mr. Smith responded that a lawful agreement far the exchange of something would be arranged,
in order to provide that income to the Township. With the CEDA it is not possible to setup a
50150 or other percent share of income tax in an area; with a JEDD, it is possible.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if the payment must be tied to a service activity.
Ms. Readler stated that it could be fashioned on the same principle as the new annexation law,
which provides that a City would pay reparations to the Township.
Mr. Smith stated that the key is for both parties to believe they have gained something with the
agreement that they otherwise would not have gained without a fight.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired about the possible recourse should there be future difficulties
in administration of the agreement.
Ms. Readler stated that safety clauses would be built into the CEDA agreement.
Mrs. Boring inquired an example of a scenario in which the City would find motivation for a
CEDA agreement.
Ms. Readler responded that it could be a situation in which the township did not want to agree to
an annexation. Under the new law, the Township has more rights to participate in the
annexation hearing.
Mr. Smith stated that Dublin has entered into municipal agreements in the past, but the JEDD
and CEDA agreements are geared for agreements with the outlying areas.
Mr. Keenan stated that Ohio economic deals are partnered with Cities and partnerships.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired when the joint meeting between the City and the township
was to occur.
Ms. Brautigam responded that the meeting is scheduled for Thursday, June 24, 7:00 p. m. at the
Jerome Township City Hall. The trustees had indicated they wanted to discuss JEDDs and
CEDAs -that is the reason Council had this preliminary discussion. On July 15, there will also
City Council Study Session page 6
June 14. 2004
be a joint session hosted by the Union County Commissioners of all the parties involved in the
US 33 corridor discussion.
• Community Plan Update:
Staff Background
Carson Combs, Senior Planner, provided a preview of the proposed schedule for the
Community Plan update. It is staff's assessment that most of the current Community Plan is
accurate and relevant. Therefore, the update will look at some key areas of the Plan regarding
land use and fiscal analysis. It was noted that Council's desire was to complete the update
within 18 months.
Mr. Combs noted that the public participation process of the project is divided into three phases:
Phase 1 -Policy and Participation -Staff and City Council will develop policy direction for
undertaking the update, and, based on that, a final project scope. Until then, it is difficult to
send out Requests for Proposals and engage consultants. Once the scope is in place, the next
step would be the visioning sessions, targeted surveys, area public meetings and stakeholder
interviews. The existing policy, service and framework of the plan will be evaluated to confirm
the validity of the current plan and reveal any areas that need to be revised
Phase 2 -Focused Public Review -- The Plan is divided into chapters. In order to conduct the
review in the timeframe and budget desired, internal staff working groups will work through the
various chapters of the Plan. The existing boards and commissions will be utilized as a focused
public forum to obtain community input. The last Community Plan was very broad in its scope
of public input because the Plan was being developed "From scratch." For the update, however,
the existing vehicles for public participation should be adequate and would facilitate the timeline.
The individual internal working groups would work with the board, commission or committee
associated most closely with that chapter of the Plan. A working draft will be developed. It is
also suggested that the Community Development Committee of Council averseethe process,
holding quarterly meetings to ensure that the Plan update is evolving in a desirable direction.
A task worksheet has been prepared for each of the internal working groups to guide their six-
month review and keep them on timeline. A steering committee of staff will oversee the internal
working groups and provide coordination. Each group has a list of team members, a project
manager, and a consultant appropriate for each group. A summary of the 18-month timeline is
also included.
Phase 3 -Final Public Review -- When a draft document has been produced, staff will work with
the Community Development Committee to obtain final revisions and general direction for
completion of the final draft. The internal graphics and communication group will work with the
consultants to put the document in a publishable format and to ensure appropriate public
meetings are held. When the second draft is in place, the document will be forwarded to
Planning and Zoning Commission and other applicable boards or commissions for final
recommendations. The document will then move to City Council for review and adoption. The
end result is a document ready for publication.
Council Discussion
City Council Study Session page 7
June 14. 2004
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher referred to the first step, Policy Direction from Council. Is there a list of
the policy questions staff would like answered?
Mr. Combs responded that a discussion between staff and Council would reveal the current
issues Council believes should be considered and the day-to-day operational issues that staff
faces, relevant to the Community Plan. The main policies are listed in Chapter One of the
Community Plan. Once those are clarified, the framework for the rest of the Plan update would
be determined, and the working groups would be able to move forward.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the policy discussion with Council should be scheduled
quickly. She inquired about the role of the commissions.
Mr. Carson responded that depending on the chapter, a particular Council board or commission
might be more suited to review that chapter. The attempt will be made to spread the review
work over as many boards and commissions as possible, using their existing schedule of public
meetings. The Community Development Committee would review the big picture to ensure the
project is moving in a desirable direction.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired who would develop the updated chapter an Land Use?
Mr. Combs responded that an internal working group would develop the update with input from
a consultant and from a public forum, which would occur with the Planning and Zoning
Commission. The Community Development Committee will also have opportunity to provide
input as the draft is being developed.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she wanted to clarify that neither the Planning and Zoning
Commission, nor other boards or commissions, have the responsibility of developing the
update. They would hold a public forum to react to the first draft. From those reactions, staff
would revise the draft.
Mr. Combs confirmed the process.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it is important to clarify that Council does not want to use
the same process used in 1997, which was that board and commission members also served
on the Community Plan working groups. With this update, staff members will compose the
working groups. The role of the boards and commissions in this process is not to participate in
the re-write, but to facilitate the public forum by which the public may respond. Referring to the
draft schedule, she noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission should not be involved in
the Transportation section, and Council definitely does not want them involved with the Fiscal
Analysis and Economic Development chapters. It is Council's desire that the Planning
Commission focus on Land Use.
Mrs. Boring inquired why the boards and commissions are needed to facilitate the public forums
on the Community Plan update?
Mr. Ciarochi responded that the members of the various boards and commissions are
knowledgeable in those respective areas. When questions are raised in public forums, often the
commissioners can answer the questions at that time. Other times, they can identify that a
City Council Study Session
June 14. 2004
page 8
problem exists related to a policy, program or plan that the City should address. From that
aspect, their recommendations would be helpful in updating the Community Plan.
Mrs. Boring responded that the Commissions would then be involved in guiding the Plan
update.
Mr. Ciarochi responded that they would not be guiding it, but, certainly, Commissioners would
be asked if they have any recommendations before the document would near a final draft.
Mrs. Boring stated that she is concerned that the project is too large for the Planning
Commission and the Community Development Committee to take on. Both groups already
have a heavy workload. The area-wide plans, southwest, northwest, etc., will be large studies
in themselves. Perhaps a Transportation working group composed of individuals with expertise
in that area of study could be formulated.
Ms. Salay agreed. She noted that, according to this plan, the P&Z subcommittee would have
five areas of review. She is concerned about the already heavy workload -they have $ cases
to hear this Thursday evening. How can they be expected to maintain expertise and
enthusiasm for the 18-month Community Plan update? While she appreciates the fact that the
process was very well thought out with well-defined lines of communication, it appears to be
more complicated that she expected the project to be. She anticipated that the update could be
a simpler project.
Mrs. Boring stated that it appears the update would be a "word by word" review and re-write.
Ms. Salay stated that the Community Plan is still a very good plan. It merely needs fine tuning
in certain areas. Perhaps the Transportation working group needs to look at 4 or 5 roads to
update that section, and the Land Use working group needs to fine tune the southwest and
northeast areas.
Ms. Brautigam stated that while staff presented the entire scope of the project, certain areas
might not take that long to complete, for instance, the section on demographics. Due to the
imbalance between residential and commercial development, the fiscal issue may take some
time to update.
Ms. Salay stated that community facilities, infrastructure, transportation and character/
environment could be under one heading. What are some examples of infrastructure and
community facilities?
Mr. Ciarochi responded that infrastructure is utilities. Community facilities would relate to parks,
pools, and public works facilities. Perhaps the best way to simplify the project is in the initial
Council policy direction. If Council identifies a couple of key areas of concern and indicates that
the remainder of the plan can be kept intact, staff will work off that direction.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that this is not intended to involve a subcommittee of the
Planning Commission. This is not afull-fledged re-writing of a Community Plan; it is merely
updating the one that exists. Council needs to clearly prioritize the issues. For example,
perhaps the "Character and Environment" working group is scheduled, according to its
City Council Study Session page 9
June 14. 2004
prioritization, to meet twice for two hours. If that is the amount of time allotted to that working
group, it will complete its work in that time.
Mr. Ciarochi stated that the reason the P&Z subcommittee was listed is that the Planning
Commission subcommittee has had a very busy agenda. If there were a more appropriate
entity to review this document, they would be used. Present Council members or Planning
Commission members who were involved in the earlier writing of the Community Plan are
deeply committed to the Community Plan. It is desirable to gain some of that commitment from
current board and commission members to the Community Plan update. However, changes in
this project plan can be made according to Council's direction.
Mrs. Boring stated that Council members do not want to criticize this. It has already
accomplished a focus for Council, which is much appreciated. The commitment to the present
Community Plan is due to the number of people from the community who were involved. She
is concerned that with a limited timeframe for this update representative members of the
community will not be involved in the update, and the community "buy in" to the Plan will be
sacrificed.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that might be unavoidable due to the shorter timeframe.
Mrs. Boring stated that perhaps there are existing groups that could be involved. For instance,
so much work has already been done recently on the transportation topic. Perhaps it would be
possible to involve some of those individuals with the Transportation working group.
Mr. Ciarochi stated that staff attempted to simplify the work flow chart. However in A2, under
"external resources," civic associations and identified stakeholders are listed. The implication is
that external input into the process is sought prior to the public hearing stage. This update will
not be completed by staff in a vacuum, then culminate in board and commission public
hearings. While community input will be obtained, it will not be to the extent that was pursued
with the 1997 Plan.
Mr. Keenan stated that Council is happy with a large portion of this Community Plan as is. His
perception is that only certain areas would be revisited because there have been changes in
those areas, such as Ballantrae in the Southwest Area. From his perspective as the new
member on Council, clarification also needs to be made as to how this document will be used.
Is it a flexible or inflexible document? It is very important that the Planning Commission and
Council know how it is to be used.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that the Community Plan is a guideline.
Mr. Keenan noted that he has heard conflicting interpretations that it is a flexible guideline, then,
an inflexible guideline.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it has never been inflexible.
Mr. Keenan responded that there have been votes on certain cases that were cast on the
premise that it was inflexible. Therefore, it is essential that Council agree, as much as possible,
on which it is, and conveys that accordingly so that both the Planning Commission and Council
are using it similarly.
City Council Study Session
June 14. 2004
page 10
Mrs. Boring stated that even if Council identifies it as a flexible document, the Planning
Commission could choose to abide by it because those decisions are legally defensible.
Mr. Keenan responded that he is not asking that a position be taken that is strictly "black and
white," but he would like the position to be less gray. That should be achievable.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that if Council must do a prioritization of issues before the
working groups can proceed, a policy meeting is critical. A "free for all" discussion would be
undesirable. A list of specific issues or topics, perhaps tied to the chapters in the Community
Plan, is needed -perhaps the three main issues in each area.
Mr. Ciarochi responded that, based on their observations since 1997, staff could develop a list
of issues. The first chapter of the Plan lists the general topics in the Plan. Council could read
through that chapter and identify the topics where they recall problems occurring. If Council
members redline Chapter One and staff presents a list of the issues they have identified, that
should give direction to the process.
Mrs. Boring requested copies of Chapter One be provided to Council to use for this purpose
Ms. Brautigam suggested that a time be scheduled. There is only one Council meeting in July
Could this be scheduled on the July 6 agenda? If so, Council's deadline to turn in their list of
issues would be June 30for the July 1 meeting packet.
Mrs. Boring stated that she prefers not to turn in her ideas before the meeting. As the
discussion evolves, she may discover that some issues she had listed are no longer valid.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher agreed. She believed the suggestion was that Council members bring
their redlined versions of Chapter One to the discussion.
Ms. Brautigam agreed
Mr. Ciarochi stated that Engineering has already completed RFQs for the transportation element
and will attempt to move to the RFP process to secure consultants. This is necessary for the
fiscal analysis element.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the fiscal analysis element is so critical that the Finance
Committee of the Whale should discuss it. It might be worthwhile to involve certain community
members in that discussion also. She considers the Land Use element and the Fiscal element
to be the mast critical pieces for the elected body -Council, to spend its energy on.
Mr. Ciarochi inquired if Council wants to be directly involved in the Land Use discussion.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that while it is the Planning Commission's area of focus, it
is more importantly, the City's "bread and butter."
Mrs. Boring noted that it is the purpose for which some members were elected.
Mr. Ciarochi suggested a joint meeting of Council and the Planning Commission.
City Council Study Session
June 14. 2004
page 11
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Council would consider that and make a decision at the
July 6t" meeting.
Ms. Brautigam stated that a decision is not necessary at this time. The vital step is the policy
direction meeting.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if Mr. Combs is the overall project director.
Mr. Combs responded that at this point in time, he is.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it is helpful to have consistency with this project and to
have a director who has experience with the City.
Ms. Salay suggested that it would be good to involve the community within parameters. Would
it be beneficial to have Community Relations provide some communication regarding this effort?
If awareness is raised, some citizens will follow the issue and attend the public meetings. The
Community Plan is referred to so often that even new residents are aware of it.
Ms. Brautigam suggested that public awareness be a focus in the fall. At this point in the
process, it would be premature. Staff will work on ideas in the meantime.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that the newspaper series that the City does could include
this topic.
Mrs. Boring stated that she understands the conflict with the timeline and community
involvement, but whatever involvement can be achieved will pay off for the City in the long term
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the City is not where it was ten years ago. There will no
longer be that level of development in the City's future.
Mrs. Boring inquired if a newfiscal analysis model will be run
Mr. Ciarochi responded that newfiscal analysis and transportation models would be run, which
should take 6-8 months to complete. Ms. Grigsby will take the lead on the former, Engineering
on the latter, and Planning on the Policy and Land Use areas.
Ms. Salay inquired if any other entities, such as schools or townships, should be involved.
Ms. Brautigam stated that they are listed as partners on the work flow chart.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher requested that Council receive copies of Chapter one in its packet
later in the week. She thanked Mr. Combs and other staff members who worked an this project
plan. It is a thorough outline, which has energized Council's discussion tonight and should
facilitate the entire process.
Mr. Lecklider stated that Council appears to have a consensus that great detail is not necessary
on every section of the Plan update.
City Council Study Session page 12
June 14. 2004
• Residential Development Moratorium
Mr. Ciarochi stated that the memo in this packet responds to the four questions Council posed
to staff in April. In addition to a draft work plan for the Community Plan update, Council
requested staff perspectives on a six-month residential rezoning moratorium, pros and cons.
Staff's perspective is that a moratorium on new residential rezonings would not have much
impact on the imbalance between residential and balance unless the moratorium were to be
continued for a period of at least four years. There are many vacant parcels that are currently
zoned. If it were possible to limit the permitting process, a more immediate impact would be felt.
However, the City's Legal Department does not recommend that action. A sixth-month
moratorium would provide the opportunity to do some specific studies. A traffic analysis in a
given area could indicate that certain densities or intensities of uses should be adjusted in the
Community Plan. The sewer capacity analysis for the North Fork of Indian Run drainage area
indicated the need to be careful with the balance of that drainage basin from a development
perspective. Similar studies could be conducted on other drainage areas to see the impact on
the periphery. Staff will follow Council's policy decision regarding the moratorium issue.
Mr. Ciarochi noted that the packet also included a summary of staff's current project
assignments and project activities that could be affected by the Community Plan update. The
list is provided to assist Council in prioritization of issues. He suggested the list could be useful
in Council's goal setting.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher requested that Council review the list before the July 6t" meeting. Any
suggestions for reprioritization could be made at that meeting. She encouraged Council
members to attend the Planning Director candidate lunches scheduled for tomorrow and
Thursday.
Mr. Smith reported that the permit has been issued for the cart barn at The Golf Club of Dublin.
The comfort stations have also been completed.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired about the opening of the new pool.
Ms. Brautigam responded that both outdoor pools have been very popular.
Mrs. Boring inquired if the rains have impacted any construction projects.
Mr. Ciarochi responded that some projects have been affected, but there should be no serious
delays. The Muirfield-Brand project had the benefit of a jump start before the rain. Although the
ground is wet, the Tartan West groundbreaking remains planned for Wednesday. Staff is
receiving numerous calls regarding stormwater issues. He added that, today, Columbus City
Council approved the Interim Hayden Run Corridor Plan.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m.
Submitted by:
Clerk of Council