Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-15-04 CDC MinutesDublin City Council COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Monday, March 15, 2004 – 6:30 p.m. Council Conference Room Attending: Mr. Reiner Ms. Salay Mr. Lecklider Mr. Keenan Ms. Brautigam Mr. Ciarochi Mr. Harvey Ms. Puskarcik Ms. Cox Mr. Gunderman Marilyn Marr, facilitator Chair John Reiner called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Ms. Brautigam stated that staff has put together a team to work on the issues related to the US 33 corridor in response to the discussion at Council’s goal setting. It was recognized that there is a need for the Community Relations division to be involved in this effort. Mr. Harvey has assembled a map of the US 33 corridor. Mr. Harvey explained that a number of townships touch the right of way of US 33 and Industrial Parkway. Jerome Township has the most frontage, but in addition, there are the townships of Dover, Mills Creek, and Paris. The desire is to be as inclusive as possible in this process, to bring forth as many ideas in a joint effort with all players at the table. The group will also include Union and Franklin counties. Ms. Brautigam stated that it was determined that other jurisdictions should be invited to the meeting, not to participate but to listen as affected parties. The list includes Darby Township, Plain City, and the various Planning & Zoning Commissions between Dublin and Marysville. There is also a regional planning agency in the Union County area and they will be advised of the meeting as well as MORPC and the City of Columbus. For Columbus, the Mayor, the City Council and one member of the Administration will be advised of the meeting. The letter indicates an invitation to this public meeting to listen. The format of the Hayden Run corridor meeting is being used as a model, and the desire is that Dublin not drive the agenda, but that it truly be an initiative of regional partnership to work together along the corridor. A facilitator has been selected, and the meeting will be held at the Made from Scratch facility just outside of Dublin along Industrial Parkway. Mention was made in the letter of the COTA situation in Marysville, because it is a current topic of interest to the corridor and the residents of the area. If the Committee is comfortable with the package as presented tonight, they would ask that the recommendation be made to City Council tonight to send the letters out tomorrow. A media Community Development Committee March 15, 2004 Page 2 package has been prepared for release tomorrow, and this will be sent to additional media outlets in the Marysville area. Marilyn Marr has been retained as the facilitator for this session. She offered to respond to questions. Mr. Reiner stated that the plan appears very comprehensive. He did not see any omissions in the plan. Mr. Lecklider noted that the reference in the letter to COTA’s proposal was appropriate, although it should be made clear that Dublin is not in any way advocating a position on this issue. It will certainly draw their interest and encourage attendance. Ms. Salay noted that a recent Marysville paper contained a letter to the editor about the COTA proposal, indicating that it would not be a positive thing for their community in terms of pollution and traffic. There was a chemical incident the week prior in the Columbus facility. Hopefully, this comment in the letter of invitation will bring attention to the need for regional coordination on various levels. Ms. Brautigam stated that there was an article in the Columbus Dispatch last week about Marysville and the fact that Union County has passed a resolution in opposition to the COTA proposal. She spoke to MORPC about this and learned that COTA may have decided to abandon the Marysville site and move it to the Bellefontaine vicinity. The important point is that these things are occurring in this corridor and it is important to get ahead of the curve in terms of advocacy. Mr. Keenan agrees with this. He noted that one change is needed in the language in the letter where it indicates that, “your presence is not required.” This seems presumptuous, as Dublin could not require anyone’s presence at such a meeting. The Committee members agreed. Ms. Brautigam stated that this language would be revised. Ms. Salay asked why the Plain City Village Council was not on the invitation list. Ms. Brautigam responded that the focus was on a range along either side of the US 33 corridor, and Plain City is located a distance away. Ms. Salay added that she assumes that Plain City will grow to the east and north quickly and would then touch the corridor. She does not see any downside to inviting them. From the experience with the soccer stadium, they are wary of Dublin and would definitely be interested in participating. She would not want to offend them by not including them. Ms. Brautigam stated that it would not be problematic to add them. Mr. Keenan added that there was some friction between Jerome Township and Plain City in terms of fire service. He is not aware of the current political climate in those areas. Mr. Ciarochi noted that the maps indicate the watershed areas for the Darby and the Scioto. Along the 33 corridor, Union County and Marysville have partnered and are using lift stations and force mains to provide services. It is feasible that some of Plain City’s watershed service Community Development Committee March 15, 2004 Page 3 could be within the realm of the corridor being studied. Marysville has a treatment facility for the areas they serve. Mr. Lecklider asked what impact the watershed has on water and sewer. Mr. Ciarochi responded that Union County is not respecting the watershed lines and is pumping up and into the Marysville plant for treatment. The area along Industrial Parkway is served by different entities. Mr. Lecklider asked how it is that Marysville has come that far south on Industrial Parkway into the Columbus service area. Mr. Ciarochi stated that they have no contract with Columbus and have chosen to extend service to the area. Ms. Salay asked if it would be advantageous to include Plain City in the discussion. Ms. Puskarcik stated that they could always be added later. Mr. Ciarochi noted that staff is proposing a strategy to the Committee, and if Plain City is included, there are other townships that may also need to be included. The issue is how big should the table be at this point. Mr. Keenan stated that he agrees with Ms. Puskarcik that the group can always be expanded if necessary. Ms. Brautigam stated that it was clear that a strategy was needed before moving forward in this effort, as residents and other jurisdictions in the corridor are already discussing the issues. Some property owners in the area had contacted Mr. Ciarochi after the recent newspaper articles about Dublin’s future plans, and it is important to meet with them. Mr. Keenan noted that there is a recommendation in the strategy for a couple of point persons as media contacts, and this makes sense. Mr. Reiner noted that the key issues in the discussion are land uses, tax base and quality of life. Mr. Keenan noted that revenue sharing would likely be brought up by the various jurisdictions. Ms. Brautigam sresponded that the focus would be on economic opportunities, as revenue sharing works only if one of the cities annexes land. Staff will brainstorm in the next few weeks about the issues that may arise during the meeting. This information will be brought to Council on April 19. Marilyn Marr, facilitator, stated that the goal at the meeting is to share information and viewpoints. It will be an information gathering session, and questions will be compiled. The purpose of the session is not to respond to all of the questions raised, but rather to bring the questions forward. Community Development Committee March 15, 2004 Page 4 Mr. Reiner moved to recommend to Council that the letters in the packet be sent out, with the amended language as suggested by Mr. Keenan. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m. Clerk of Council MINUTES Dublin City Council COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Tuesday, April 13, 2004 — 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Mr. Hammersmith Mr. Gunderman Mr. Harvey Mayor Chinn ic i-Zuercher called the meeting to order at 7:1Op. in. She noted that Council Member Reiner is the chair of the Community Development Committee. However, he is absent this evening due to the fact that he will be having surgery at Cleveland Clinic early tomorrow morning. She will chair the meeting in his absence. Mayor Chinn ic i-Zuercher stated that the City is beginning the process of updating its Community Plan. In conjunction with that, at their last Council meeting, Council also decided to look at the remaining residential development anticipated within the community and consider calling a moratorium, or something short of that, for residential development. Council haslong been concerned about the City's infrastructure, and has asked staff to provide regular reports on the projected long-term costs of the City's operations to ensure that the same level of service is maintained to which the community has become accustomed. That discussion will be initiated tonight. The goal tonight is to hear the staff responses to the preliminary questions presented to them, to raise additional questions, to hear from the public what additional issues related to this topic they desire to have considered, and to discuss how to fast-track the Community Plan update. The first request of staff was a report on the rate of residential growth in Dublin. Rate of Residential Growth Mr. Ciarochi noted that a PowerPoint presentation would accompany the report. The first page is a comparison of the number of new residential building permits issued in the three most recent years: 2001 - 308, 2002 - 375, and 2003 - 449. The construction values in that period ranged from $71M - $112M. By contrast, commercial building permits decreased from 99 to 54 in that same time period. There is a substantial imbalance between residential and commercial. This isn't surprising in view of the national economy and the low residential mortgage rates currently in effect. ATTENDANCE: City Council: Staff: Mayor Chinn ic i-Zuercher Ms. Brautigam Mr. Lecklider Mr. Ciarochi Mrs. Boring Mr. Smith Ms. Salay Ms. Grigsby Mr. Keenan Mr. Stevens Mr. Hammersmith Mr. Gunderman Mr. Harvey Mayor Chinn ic i-Zuercher called the meeting to order at 7:1Op. in. She noted that Council Member Reiner is the chair of the Community Development Committee. However, he is absent this evening due to the fact that he will be having surgery at Cleveland Clinic early tomorrow morning. She will chair the meeting in his absence. Mayor Chinn ic i-Zuercher stated that the City is beginning the process of updating its Community Plan. In conjunction with that, at their last Council meeting, Council also decided to look at the remaining residential development anticipated within the community and consider calling a moratorium, or something short of that, for residential development. Council haslong been concerned about the City's infrastructure, and has asked staff to provide regular reports on the projected long-term costs of the City's operations to ensure that the same level of service is maintained to which the community has become accustomed. That discussion will be initiated tonight. The goal tonight is to hear the staff responses to the preliminary questions presented to them, to raise additional questions, to hear from the public what additional issues related to this topic they desire to have considered, and to discuss how to fast-track the Community Plan update. The first request of staff was a report on the rate of residential growth in Dublin. Rate of Residential Growth Mr. Ciarochi noted that a PowerPoint presentation would accompany the report. The first page is a comparison of the number of new residential building permits issued in the three most recent years: 2001 - 308, 2002 - 375, and 2003 - 449. The construction values in that period ranged from $71M - $112M. By contrast, commercial building permits decreased from 99 to 54 in that same time period. There is a substantial imbalance between residential and commercial. This isn't surprising in view of the national economy and the low residential mortgage rates currently in effect. Community Development Committee April 13, 2004 Page 2 The second chart depicts a 15 -year comparison of residential and commercial building permits. In 2003, the total estimated construction costs were: residential -$120M and commercial - $42M. The comparison was also made by school district. In 2002-2003, 60 percent of the new residential building permits were in Dublin School District; 40 percent were in the Hilliard School District. A summary of remaining available lots indicates that 70 percent are in Hilliard, and 30 percent are in the Dublin School District. He requested Mr. Gunderman to report on the current status of the zoning applications on the books. Mr. Gunderman reviewed the number of anticipated developments for which the rezonings and final plats have been approved. If all the developments were in the pipeline, there would be 2,657 single-family lots in the system. Of that number, 914 have either completed a new family home construction or have a building permit. That leaves 1,743. There are 504 vacant lots that are in already approved single-family subdivisions —the plats are approved and recorded. In addition, there are another 498 lots that are final plats that have been submitted but not yet approved. That leaves a balance of 741 lots yet to be submitted. Of those, there are four applications, or 245 lots, that do not have rezoning/preliminary plat approval and would be impacted by a moratorium. In summary, there are approximately 1,500 single-family lots that can truly be considered "in the pipeline." He reviewed a chart of multi -family development applications that have been submitted. Only one of those does not have rezoning approval. In summary, five projects, 4 single-family and 1 multi -family, would be affected by a moratorium -- Brand Road, Avondale (1 single/1 multi- family), Freshwater and Heather Bluff. Mr. Hammersmith provided an overview of water distribution/sanitary sewer collection systems and the capacity analysis and constraints on growth. The diagrams reveal that the growth area is in the northwest, adjacent to the negotiated expansion area. The City has abided by the Community Plan, except in one case —the Solove property at the southwest corner of Hyland - Croy Road and Brand Road to the west or Mitchell-DeWittto the east. This annexation is in the negotiated expansion area, and permission was secured from Columbus to serve this property. Hyland -Croy is the line of demarcation between Dublin's exclusive expansion area and the Dublin -Columbus negotiated expansion area. This line is consistent with Columbus's planning boundary, which was approved by the EPA a year ago as the area to which Columbus could provide sanitary sewer service. The Hayden Run area is in Columbus's exclusive expansion area The Community Plan also included a schematic of the utilities for the water distribution/sanitary sewer collection systems. Some extensive modeling was done for both systems to predict what could be serviced in the future. Beginning in 2002, Dublin has worked on updating those systems, focusing in particular on the North Fork Indian Run sanitary sewer shed. It is the largest sanitary sewer shed and is in a growth area of the City. There was concern that there could be constraints based on the pipe sizes and the trunk that serves that area. The resulting 2002 NFIR study did reveal constraints in that area, in particular what could be served further north within that sewer shed. The study proved to be extremely beneficial in the utility analysis for the Tartan West development, which was proposed in 2003. A final report has been compiled based on all those studies, which indicates that some land use decisions must be made Community Development Committee April 13, 2004 Page 3 regarding that sanitary sewer shed, such as the reservation of existing sanitary sewer capacity for the potential future residential development of the Riviera Country Club. The Community Plan assumed the density to be two units/acre. Given the fact that the City is running out of capacity in that sewer shed, does the City want to continue to retain that capacity for Riviera? Currently, the City is working on two other studies: (1) the Cosgray and (2) the Cramer North and Cramer South sewer sheds, to determine if the City can provide adequate service to the exclusive service area in the west. Due to that analysis, the need has also become apparent for a study of the Deer Run sewer shed, which serves the northern section of Muirfield, to determine if there is any residual capacity that could be used to help the North Fork Indian Run situation. The Tartan West Study was also used as the basis for updating a water distribution model this year. The CIP has recently included a second elevated water storage, 2 -million gallon tank at the Post Road location, adjacent to the existing tank. The recommendation is to try to match the land use with the available capacity. Mr. Lecklider requested a definition of a sewer shed. Mr. Hammersmith responded that a sewer shed is a topographic area that provides natural drainage for an area The North Fork Indian Run collects the rainfall for that area Sewer sheds typically run in the same direction. Mr. Gunderman reviewed a schematic that depicts where the vacant land is located and where residential development is occurring within the City. He reviewed a table of Dublin rezoning cases from March 2004. The undeveloped area, which is within the City's exclusive water and sewer service area, totals 2,915 acres. At a density of 1.75 dwelling units/acre, it would yield 5,000 dwelling units. Mr. Ciarochi reviewed the past 15 years' history of building permits issued by the City. The last time the City experienced a similarly high volume of residential development was in 1994, with 488 building permits. In 1998, the City experienced a high commercial building volume at $269M. The balance between residential and commercial has fluctuated throughout the years. He presented a report requested by Council of the densities approved in recent zoning cases since the 1997 adoption of the Community Plan. With only one exception, Council has approved rezonings with densities consistent with the Community Plan; that exception was Cramer's Crossing. Mr. Lecklider inquired how development within the negotiated expansion area occurs. Mr. Ciarochi responded that if either city wishes to develop within that area, they must secure the approval of the other city. Typically, it is initiated with an annexation petition. When the recent annexation occurred on Hyland -Croy, Mr. Ciarochi informed the City of Columbus Utilities Department as soon as Dublin received the petition. Columbus's Planning and Engineering Departments reviewed the request and inquired about Dublin's capacity within the existing trunk Community Development Committee April 13, 2004 Page 4 lines to serve that area They checked the distribution lines for storage and pressure. Once Dublin's utilities had received clearance, the Columbus City Council passed a resolution agreeing to Dublin's annexation of that area The process would be reversed if Columbus wished to annex within the area. Those are the options if a property owner wants to annex into Dublin or Columbus. In addition, Marysville and Union County have a cooperative agreement to provide water and sanitary sewer services to the industrial area in the Industrial Parkway Corridor. However, Union County did extend services to the east side of U.S. 33 recently to service what is anticipated to be a Catholic high school. There is area in the U.S. 33 corridor that is unincorporated, and land use is regulated by the townships with some oversight by the County. There is also the possibility of Plain City extending service east, or Marysville extending service south. That is the Darby watershed area. Mr. Keenan inquired if the Union County -Marysville waterline would have adequate pressure for fire service for that area, if it were to develop into office/commercial. Mr. Hammersmith indicated that is currently unknown. Mrs. Boring inquired what the population estimate is at total buildout of Dublin. Mr. Gunderman stated that it would be an approximate 20,000 additional residents. Mayor Chinn ic i-Zuercher inquired where Riverside Woods is in the statistics. Mr. Gunderman stated that at the time the chart was developed, Riverside Woods had been denied. Now that the application has been reconsidered, that information should be included. Ms. Salay inquired to what area was Mr. Hammersmith referring when he stated that the City would have some land use decisions to make. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the most immediate concern is the North Fork of the Indian Run sanitary sewer shed. The problem is due primarily to the ultimate location of the Metro Parks land. According to the Community Plan, what is now Tartan West was planned to be predominantly Metro Parks. That analysis indicated the capacity within the exclusive expansion area to serve the negotiated expansion area However, with the trade-off, Metro Parks ended up in the negotiated area, and capacity was lost in the exclusive expansion area Some other things occurred, such as the new high school, which is a more intensive use in that area than was originally planned. Sanitary sewer systems, like roadways, must be designed to accommodate peak use. Although daily use is not that high, with a full stadium during a football game, the peak can be high. As the City develops north and reaches its outer limits, the sanitary sewer system reaches its limits. The Community Plan update will determine how many units per acre could be served in the last remaining area of the community within the exclusive expansion area There is the possibility of building a way out of it. However, there is a constriction in the trunk sewer in the Cardinal Health area. While there is a length of pipe that could be upsized to provide additional capacity, the question is whether the additional capacity is sufficient to justify Community Development Committee April 13, 2004 Page 5 the cost. That option is weighed against diversion to another sewer shed, which, in this case would be Deer Run sanitary sewer shed. This must be considered when determining the future land use of the remaining area in the north. Ms. Salay inquired about the negotiated service area Mr. Hammersmith responded that it is actually fortunate that the Metro Parks was placed in the negotiated service area. The City is unable to increase service in that area unless there are substantial improvements with the existing system. Ms. Salay inquired about Metro Parks' intention to acquire more land in this area. Mr. Ciarochi responded that Metro Parks' plan was to acquire 1,000 acres; they have acquired approximately 900 acres. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the Metro Parks provides a barrier, so it is not cost effective to serve the outlying areas. The remaining land is 2 -acre to 5 -acre lots, which probably won't be developed for some time. Mr. Lecklider inquired if the City has the present capacity to serve any future development within the negotiated area Mr. Hammersmith responded that it would be very difficult. The City does a perpetual assessment as new development occurs, and those assumptions are verified by flow monitoring/data collection. At this point, the City is fine-tuning its system, because the system has reached its threshold. The City uses a measurement of "percent full" — ensuring that the system does not reach a level greater than 75% full. The safety margin will prevent overflow situations, such as occurred in the past. Mr. Lecklider inquired what type and extent of improvements would be necessary to serve that area. Mr. Hammersmith stated that it would probably be more cost effective to establish a separate tributary area. The City would locate a sanitary pump station there, run gravity sewers to that centralized location, collect the sewage there and pump it to another receiving trunk elsewhere in the community. That could be located anywhere there is the capacity, even as far as the deep tunnel interceptor as an outfall. Mr. Lecklider noted that it would be necessary to lay a significant amount of new pipe. Mr. Hammersmith agreed, noting that the waterline for the sanitary sewer would be a pressurized system, laid approximately four feet deep, whereby the sewage is pumped to another gravity system located elsewhere. Short of a major expansion of existing lines, this would be most cost- Community Development Committee April 13, 2004 Page 6 effective. The remaining alternative would be to go through the EPA and locate another plant out in this area of the City, which would be both difficult and expensive. Mr. Lecklider stated that another option would that a different entity would provide service. It was mentioned earlier that there is a line that extends east of U.S. 33. Mr. Hammersmith stated that there is a 30 -inch line, but it was run relatively flat in order to get service to the desired area It doesn't actually have 30 inches of capacity; it is more restricted. He discussed this with the Union County Engineer, Steve Stolte. There is no intention to serve a large area with that sewer. There is another piece of property proposed for a single-family development, which it could serve. In addition, the Marysville wastewater treatment plant is also suffering constraints and needs expansion. Ms. Salay inquired, if it is assumed that Columbus would encounter similar issues with their ability to serve the far northwest area, what is the alternative? Mr. Hammersmith responded that if Columbus should desire to service that area, it would first have to be annexed into Columbus. They would provide sewer through a main that they would have control over. He noted that the only other alternative is zero -discharge developments, such as Tartan Fields, Scioto Reserve on Home Road are good examples. They have onsite systems, which collect the effluent, separate the sludge, and spray the remainder on the golf courses as irrigation. Mrs. Boring inquired about a legally acceptable interim policy for Council to adopt while revisions are made to the Community Plan? Mr. Smith stated that if Council desires to take a "time out" from accepting new applications for residential development while they update the Community Plan, a temporary moratorium is a defensible policy. During the time that such a policy is in effect, it is important that the study is ensuing — consultants hired, engineering studies conducted on sewer capacity/water pressure. Referring to Mr. Ciarochi's comments about problems in the negotiated service area, he added that there is also the problem of contiguity in the new annexation law. Mrs. Boring inquired if there is another way to handle this aside from a moratorium. Ms. Brautigam responded that the fiscal analysis alone would take a minimum of six months, and that is a critical component of the Plan update. However, at the same time the fiscal analysis is occurring, the planning component could be worked on. Before the studies can begin, a scope of services must be developed and advertised, and the consultants selected. In addition, the public input component will be time-consuming. Although possible, it would be difficult to accomplish the update in a year. There will also be staff constraints, as there will be applications in the pipeline, and those property owners will be anxious to get their projects approved. There will likely be more pressure on Planning staff in the beginning to work on pending applications. In addition, the Engineering Department will be very involved in the update, due to the Community Development Committee April 13, 2004 Page 7 transportation component. They are already overloaded with other pressing projects, such as the Tara Hill Traffic Task Force. Staff may bring to Council a list of these projects for re - prioritization. Mrs. Boring inquired if one approach could be to limit the number of building permits issued for this period of time. Mr. Smith responded that there are currently zoning projects in the pipeline, which must be allowed to complete the approval process. To take approved development plans and impose a permit limitation would be a problem -- the developer has vested rights. In looking at the 5 -year chart, it is apparent that limitations are actually self -imposing. In any given year, 350-400 homes are built. There are enough permits already in the system to outlast the update of this plan. There are 3,000 acres in the exclusive area that will remain untouched and perhaps acreage remaining in the negotiated area that would be desirable to develop. Mrs. Boring stated that she is not referring to those projects in the pipeline. Aside from those, can the City state that instead of 300-400 houses per year, only 75 houses/year will be permitted? Mr. Smith responded that it is an option that has been determined constitutional in other parts of the nation. He is uncertain if it has been tested in Ohio. The balance between residential and commercial will correct itself when the interest rates begin to climb, or office space is gone. To give a more definite answer, Council will need to have more comprehensive data on what remains to be built in the future. Mr. Keenan noted that putting a number on future development would be administratively difficult to do. Mr. Smith stated that the first step is for Council to decide how they want future Dublin to look; that is, they must make decisions regarding the land that has not yet been annexed and zoned. Ms. Salay inquired if, taking into account the factors listed by Ms. Brautigam, 18 months would be a realistic timeframe for updating the Community Plan -- the update shouldn't take as long as the original creation of the plan. Ms. Brautigam agreed that 18 months would be realistic. Mayor Chinn ic i-Zuercher stated that many of the components of the Plan would not need to be re -done, such as the values — a year was spent on determining that component and reaffirmation would suffice. The update would focus on those other pieces that were left incomplete in the 1997 Plan with the statement that they would need to be studied in the future. There is probably some level of prioritization that can be followed. Perhaps after a designated number of pieces are completed, Council would be able to move forward on a decision regarding residential development. Community Development Committee April 13, 2004 Page 8 Mr. Ciarochi stated that his greatest concern is a realistic timeframe for this process. Although the update could, perhaps, be done in 12 months, it is desirable to have a well -thought-out product. Many future decisions will be based upon it. His experience in working on comprehensive plans is that the first component to decide is the vision. Everything else will be based on the vision. The current plan is based on a past traffic model, which needs to be updated. That in itself will take 6-8 months. Although some studies can be conducted simultaneously, 18 months would appear to be a more realistic timeframe. Mr. Keenan noted that the U. S. Corridor is in the middle of the study area That constitutes yet another overlay, which entails water/sewer issues in the area, new development, and multi - jurisdictions — all major issues. If the U.S. 33 Corridor remains outside Dublin's control, it will also remain unpredictable in terms of planning. In that case, two years of study and all the money for consultants and new traffic models would be for naught. Mr. Gunderman stated that would also be a larger area north and west of that corridor — a riskier situation than the corridor alone. He noted a correction in the population given for the vacant area The answer he gave encompassed the empty lots listed on the chart as well as the vacant area— 20,000 on top of the 36,000. Ms. Salay stated that is the number projected by the Community Plan — 57,000. Mr. Lecklider requested clarification of Mr. Smith's earlier comments about residential development — was he referring to the cyclical nature of residential vs. commercial? Mr. Smith responded that it is an economic fact of life. Looking at the 15 -year chart, when Dublin experienced a commercial boom, the interest rates were not low and residential development was slow. Now, the interest rates are low and the City is experiencing residential growth, but in the natural cycle, commercial growth will return. He stated that this study would cause the City to make some decisions about the negotiated area Are all those homes needed to respond to the coming business expansion? Or should some residential areas be converted to commercial? An economic model will be helpful to Council. Mr. Lecklider stated that if the economic analysis indicates that the City cannot serve the amount of residential indicated in the Community Plan, what is the practical solution? Is it as simple as changing the uses on the map? Mr. Smith responded that it is not as easy as changing the map. The desired modifications must be studied by the consultants to determine if those changes would be practical. There are other components to be factored in, for instance, Emerald Parkway, which presently runs by Cardinal Health and terminates past the river. If that highway is extended and commercial development occurs, perhaps all the present numbers are balanced. Mayor Chinn ic i-Zuercher stated that Council could adopt a policy of purchasing more land for parks and soccer fields, the result of which would be the reduction of housing, Community Development Committee April 13, 2004 Page 9 Mr. Smith stated that is possible. When the City built the golf course at Ballantrae, the net effect was 220 acres that did not have homes. Mayor Chinn ic i-Zuercher noted that while there is a fair amount of parkland within the neighborhoods, there is not sufficient parkland for youth athletics for the children. It is not an issue of not wanting to do certain things, but rather a desire to provide a certain level of service for Dublin residents. Mr. Keenan stated that some entity — either Dublin or Columbus, will want to develop within the negotiated expansion area Mr. Ciarochi stated that there are two limiting factors for both Dublin and Columbus: (1) There is already water and sewer service in the Industrial Parkway area, and (2) the property must be contiguous to the City in order to annex. It is the right of a property owner to petition annexation into the City. What are the incentives for property owners in the West Corridor area to want to annex into Dublin or Columbus? Mr. Keenan inquired about the limitations of the contract. If Dublin wants to join with Union County, is this possible? Or does the contract preclude that? Ms. Brautigam stated the contract does preclude that. Mr. Smith stated Dublin has a contract with Columbus regarding all the exclusive or negotiated areas. The contract came into being at a point where the City was anticipating paying $50M to build a sewer plant. With the terms of that contract, everything around Dublin can be negotiated, but Dublin cannot be footprinted -- Dublin wants to decide what will be around it. If Dublin can serve it, it wants to determine the development and the density. Mr. Keenan stated that in terms of water/sewer, Dublin either serves the area with Columbus, or not at all. Mr. Smith indicated that unless the contract is amended, that is correct. Mrs. Boring stated that this discussion needs more direction. She suggested that staff draft legislation for atemporary moratorium, then move forward on the traffic, housing and financial impact studies, involving the public. Ms. Brautigam stated that before writing the legislation, it is necessary to define the parameters. Legal counsel and staff s recommendation is that applications in the system be permitted to continue. Mr. Lecklider inquired if the moratorium would apply to commercial as well. Community Development Committee April 13, 2004 Page 10 Ms. Salay stated that if this effort also involved Columbus and Hilliard, it would make sense, for the real concern is regarding those areas not within Dublin. Dublin will be able to handle what occurs within its exclusive expansion area To the west, the Community Plan shows rural/ residential/agricultural or residential low density -- .5 — 1.0 dwelling unit/acre, but that is not what will happen. In reality, Dublin will be surrounded by development. It is not likely 5,000 more units will come in during the next 6-8 months. That will take some time to happen. If an application should come to Planning and Zoning, and it's not what the City wants, there is the ability to say "No." In reality, how low in density can the City go? Primarily, the Commission has restricted the density to 2.0 units/acre. Planning Commission recently turned down an application because it exceeded the Community Plan recommended density of 1.0 unit/acre. In addition, there are some areas in which nothing other than residential can be placed. Other uses often have a greater traffic impact. As Mr. Mohr of Dublin City Schools has said, it's not what is in Dublin that is a concern. Dublin is a well-planned community. his what is outside its borders that causes unease. If the City is considering a residential moratorium, Dublin should also talk with the Dublin Schools about residential growth to the north. Someone is amassing land for some unknown purpose, which will probably affect the school district. She is uncomfortable with the concept of a moratorium for a period of a year or 18 months. That is too much to expect of the development community. It could also hinder the City's ability to attract a commercial base. Is it possible to do the Community Plan update without imposing a moratorium? What alternatives exist? Mayor Chinn ic i-Zuercher noted that at Goal -Setting, Council identified the Community Plan update as a priority. Since then, there has been discussion regarding its prioritization. She is interested in the update occurring within 18 months, regardless of a moratorium. That information is critical for decisions on many City issues. Can the development of a work plan for the Community Plan update be scheduled for one of the next three City Council meetings? She added that she agrees with Mr. Smith — the market dictates how many housing permits will be issued. Even though a development is approved, it doesn't mean many more housing permits will come online on an annual basis. Ms. Brautigam responded that staff would prepare a draft work plan for that project. The intent was that when the Economic Development update is ready the first of June, staff would also have a scope of services to distribute to long-range planning consultants. The hope is to have a contract in place by July 1. A change in focus appears to have occurred in the last couple of weeks on the balance between commercial and residential development. She believed the two were in balance. However, due to Council's concern, Ms. Grigsby prepared the report that has been presented to Council. It reflects that the City's economic status is healthy. She noted that the information, including a fiscal analysis, would be provided to Council at the first meeting in May. Ms. Brautigam referred to an earlier discussion regarding permitting practices in Boulder, Colorado. Rather than providing that as a separate item, could this be included in the Community Plan discussion? Community Development Committee April 13, 2004 Page 11 Council concurred. Mrs. Boring stated that she is concerned that if a "time out," or moratorium, is not done, Planning will be too involved in the day-to-day planning process to update the Plan. Ms. Brautigam stated that a moratorium would not significantly spare staff. The applications currently in the pipeline will remain, and that is where the heavy volume is. Where alleviation of the load is needed is in Engineering. Some re -prioritization of Engineering projects will be essential. Mr. Ciarochi noted that although consultants will do much of the work, it is essential that staff drive the project. He agreed that re -prioritization of the projects is essential. In so doing, Tara Hill Traffic Task Force is one of the projects that might be delayed. When staff begins the Community Plan update, it will be essential to keep a momentum to meet the timeframe. Mayor Chinn ic i-Zuercher agreed that if Council makes the Community Plan update a priority, Council members would need to temporarily disregard their own priorities. The Community Plan drives who the City is, and the need to update it is apparent. She suggested that instead of the project being organized and managed in the usual way, the City look at a unique way of doing it. If there is not a desirable model from another community to emulate, perhaps the City of Dublin could create a model for developing a Community Plan. All communities have the constraints that Dublin is facing — lack of staff and managing a heavy workload while developing a Community Plan. If Dublin could structure a process that could be trusted, then it wouldn't be necessary to control the project so closely. Presently, there is a pattern of not relying upon anyone to understand the community. Staff should identify other ways of handling this process without extensively tying up staff, engaging new and interesting voices in the process, yet achieving the desired goal. Mr. Lecklider referred to Mr. Ciarochi's earlier comment — how would this project impact the timeframe for the Tara Hill Traffic Task Force? Mr. Ciarochi responded that it would probably take longer to complete that process because of the Engineering staffs inability to keep up with the Community Plan consultant and the Task Force. Mr. Lecklider stated that probably tonight he would agree that the Community Plan update is the higher priority, but the Tara Hill residents have been waiting ten years for that traffic issue to be addressed. Mr. Keenan agreed. After conducting interviews and appointing the Task Force members, how can the project really be delayed? Mayor Chinn ic i-Zuercher agreed that the Tara Hill Traffic Task Force would not be the best project to delay. Community Development Committee April 13, 2004 Page 12 Mrs. Boring suggested the Muirfield/Brand Road roundabout. Mr. Ciarochi stated it is difficult to pull staff off the roundabout design process. Mr. Hammersmith suggested a better one to delay would be the sidewalk program. Mr. Ciarochi suggested that the different Code amendments that Planning has been working on could be temporarily tabled. Mayor Chinn ic i-Zuercher suggested that staff bring a list of projects to be prioritized by Council. Mrs. Boring stated that moratoriums have been enacted in Dublin in the past. Could the Law Director recall the purpose, the parameters, and what was accomplished by doing so? Mr. Smith stated that two or three have been called in the past 15-20 years: one for the southwest area, one in the northwest, and an earlier one on all residential growth within the City while it was determined if the City's infrastructure could serve additional homes. The key is to get the work done so that good decisions can be made. Even if a moratorium is not done now, it is possible to do so later, if the need becomes evident. The northwest area is where there may be a sewer capacity issue, and that is where someone is also amassing land. Finally, Council does have the right to reject rezonings, if there appear to be issues. Public Comment Cvnthia Reed, 5208 Arvshire Drive, stated that she is frustrated. She has attended many meetings in Concord and Jerome Townships. The growth there is phenomenal and entirely outside Dublin's control. Therefore, Dublin needs to get a better handle on what it can control. While Dublin cannot change others, it can control itself. Mrs. Boring had the right idea when she suggested halting everything while the City looks hard at what else can be permitted in Dublin. The Community Plan, including an updated vision, should be in place before anything else is permitted in. When applications come in one at a time, it is difficult to say "no," unless there is a basis. The growth will happen outside of this jurisdiction, and it will impact Dublin schools. When her family came to Dublin, the schools enjoyed a 45% tax base provided by residential, and 55% provided by commercial. Today, the latest figures indicate that 67% is picked up by residential and 33% by commercial. Why would the City allow more residential zoning until the commercial tax base has increased to pay for the infrastructure needs? Mayor Chinn ic i-Zuercher requested Ms. Grigsby, Finance Director, to correct some erroneous numbers presently being circulated within the community. Ms. Grigsby stated that for real estate, assessed valuation is what is considered when comparing commercial to residential. When the City establishes a Tax Increment Financing District, those properties are exempted properties. In the past several years, all the TIF's have been in commercial districts. The properties still considered exempted in TIF districts amount to almost Community Development Committee April 13, 2004 Page 13 $300M of assessed valuation. When that is added to what is presently on the tax rolls, the percentage has actually improved in the last 10 years. Adding in the values of the TIF's and CRA's bring the commercial value to 43% of the total value and the residential value to 57%. She assumes the information the Schools have is related to what is actually on the tax rolls and does not include the exempted properties. She clarified that the 43%/57% reflect only what is within the City of Dublin. Ms. Salay inquired if the City builds out according to the Community Plan, what is the projected percentage at build -out? Ms. Grigsby responded that much land designated as commercial remains to be developed. Once that is built out, the ratio is anticipated to remain in the 60/40 (residential/commercial) range. Dublin has high-end commercial and high-end research and development —those are the businesses which bring in the most income tax revenue. The City's income tax has increased from $19M to over $51M in the past 10 years. That would support the City's necessary level of service at buildout. Jon Riegle, 4600 Arrowhead, stated that making a blanket statement regarding an entire area, such as a moratorium does, is dangerous. It is more important to look at projects on an individual basis. For instance, the City may want more "empty nest" developments, which will bring in property tax but not use the schools. He has been a Dublin resident since 1985 and has seen the amazing growth of the community. Matt Stavroff Dublin, stated that he is a developer and a resident. The sanitary sewer capacity concerns him. What is the basis for the moratorium? Is the City concerned about the capacity of the sanitary sewers, the imbalance of residential/commercial development, or City finances? After all the discussion tonight, he has not grasped where the concern is focused. He believes the previous speaker's point is well taken, which is, there may be individual projects that are not worthwhile because they are not particularly good for the City. To do a blanket moratorium sends the wrong message, even to the corporations which are based here. Cutting off supply increases the values of existing homes and drives real estate values higher. When deciding whether to relocate a corporation to a particular municipality, reasonable housing prices are important. It would seem totally unreasonable for a community to shut down for 18 months to two years. Mrs. Boring stated that her reason for supporting a moratorium is that if the City does not have an updated Community Plan and vision in place, the City cannot control the individual "pieces." Her thought was that Dublin could only change what was happening on the inside. This may offset somewhat that which is and will occur outside of the City's boundaries. Without avision, continuing to do what the City has, piece by piece, will not produce the desired results. Ms. Salay stated that she does not disagree — it is crucial that the City re -focus its vision. She is concerned, however, about the timetable. What timetable for a moratorium would be suggested? Community Development Committee April 13, 2004 Page 14 Mrs. Boring suggested that the same time frame be used as that for the southwest area moratorium — six months. It can be reevaluated at the end of six months. Mayor Chinn ic i-Zuercher suggested that at the meeting in May, staff provide legislation with two possible time frames — one using a Community Plan update completion date, and the second for 6 months, prioritizing the most important issues. This would identify what could be achieved in 6 months. Mr. Keenan stated that at Council Goal -Setting, Council identified the U. S. 33 Corridor plan as the #1 priority. Does that remain so? Council concurred. Mr. Keenan stated that it is impossible to have a valid Community Plan without some knowledge of the direction plans are moving in the U.S. 33 corridor. All the premises will be flawed. Mayor Chinn ic i-Zuercher stated that would be true of all the area around Dublin. Mr. Keenan stated that the U.S. 33 corridor is a major issue. There is the negotiated sewer/water expansion area and there are multiple expansion layers. It would be a waste of money to update the Community Plan in that vacuum — spending good money for a result that has no validity. Mayor Chinn ic i-Zuercher noted that there is a U.S. 33 corridor meeting next week. Ms. Brautigam stated that at next week's meeting, it would be possible to determine if the City can make any progress in a corridor discussion. Dublin does not know what the other entities have planned in that area, or how they view Dublin's issues concerning the corridor. The best scenario is that all the parties will agree to develop a regional plan, but it is likely the result will be more ambiguous. In the face of that ambiguity, Dublin would not want to wait to do the Community Plan update. It cannot wait another year. It is important to move forward on both fronts. Mr. Keenan stated that he does not disagree that the City needs to move forward on the update of the Community Plan. However, if, in order to begin the Community Plan update, Dublin must consider a moratorium, he does not like the idea of a blanket moratorium. Mr. Lecklider stated that in the course of considering a moratorium, the items he would consider necessary for study are: water and sewer capacity, traffic issues and a future acceptable balance between residential and commercial growth. Mayor Chinn ic i-Zuercher stated that one thing learned in the Hayden Run discussions was that the only thing Dublin really can control is itself. At that time, Dublin decided to reduce the density of the original plan, as it shared the responsibility of negatively impacting the area. It is hoped that there may be some progress in sharing of plans. She inquired if staff would be able to Community Development Committee April 13, 2004 Page 15 provide a definitive plan with a timeline and a list of data needed to update the Community Plan, and needed by Council to make reasonable decisions on future rezonings. This will assist Council in implementing a timeline. Ms. Brautigam inquired what additional data would be needed. Mayor Chinn ic i-Zuercher stated that the plan would list dates that certain items would be completed, and the format of execution that would be followed, such as: the fiscal, planning, traffic components. Ms. Salay stated that she is interested in staffs opinion of what a moratorium does/does not do in terms of workload for staff. Mrs. Boring requested that staff's assessment be expanded to include their opinion of whether Ms. Reed's issues would be better addressed by implementing a moratorium. The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Clerk of Council