Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-17-03 CDC MinutesMINUTES Dublin City Council COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Wednesday, September 17, 2003 —6:30 p.m. Council Chambers Attending: Mr. Reiner Ms. Salay Mrs. Boring Mr. Lecklider. Mr. Hammersmith Ms. Crandall Mr. Reiner called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. He noted that the purpose of the meeting is to discuss the Jenmar Court/Grandee Cliffs neighborhood issues regarding the plans for the removal of houses and screening from the roadway. Mr. Reiner noted that the Committee made a site visit to the Jenmar Court neighborhood on September 2 at 4:30 p.m. to view the condition of the houses and to assess the levels of roadway noise in the area He was surprised with the amount of freeway noise in the area. The Committee observed that the house at the eastern end of Jenmar is full of water and not habitable. He asked Ms. Crandall to update the Committee on the condition of the properties. Ms. Crandall then distributed information to the Committee in response to questions raised by the residents during the on site visit. The only new information is the memo dated 9/16/03 related to the site visit and includes costs for the units and repairs. The yellow sheet was sent to Council on April 14, 2003 with a proposal that staff meet with residents in regard to a recommendation to remove the Jenmar Court homes. This meeting did take place on July 8, 2003. The green sheet is the memo dated July 14, 2003 provided to Council in follow-up to the July 8 meeting. It addresses some of the residents' concerns and includes a staff recommendation to conduct a sound assessment on the site. She then showed slides of the area. It shows the alignment for Emerald Parkway from 1996 with the three options for the Emerald Parkway route. The option selected was Option C, which was the least disruptive to the neighborhood. The drawing shows the northern line of the right-of- way needed for the Emerald Parkway extension along the rear of the Jenmar Court properties. Mrs. Boring asked if the northern right-of-way includes sidewalks and bikepaths. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the northern right-of-way line would include the planned bikepath along this portion of Emerald Parkway. Mrs. Boring asked if there is room for significant mounding along with the street, curb, bikepaths, etc.? Mr. Hammersmith stated that what he pulled from the file was the exhibit shown to Council in 1996 when the properties were acquired. It gives the distances from the houses to the right-of- way line and indicates a 20 -foot utility easement, which is typical along Emerald Parkway, for Community Development Committee September 17, 2003 Page 2 electric, fiber optic, telephone, etc. The closest home to the right-of-way is the easternmost property at 40 feet to the right-of-way and 29, plus or minus feet, to the utility easement. Ms. Crandall noted that any type of mounding would likely be installed behind the utility easement to avoid the need to tear it up in the future — and would use even more of the property. Mr. Hammersmith stated that if the homes were to be preserved, it would be difficult to establish a significant mound outside of the utility easement with the intent of having the home occupied. An easement would be needed for the mound in order for the City to maintain it, and it would limit the use of the backyard property. Ms. Crandall stated that staff s initial recommendation to Council, and which continues to be the recommendation is that as the homes are vacated and become available that they are removed. Staff initially met with the residents and proposed to them the establishment of a tree line to the northern boundary of the property lines once homes are taken down to present an initial sound barrier, with the thought that when Emerald Parkway comes through that more significant mounding/landscaping is installed toward the southern end of these properties. Ms. Crandall then reviewed the properties: • The former City Manager's property at 3615 is in need of some minor repairs and a new septic system, and the costs outlined in the memo total $2,000 for minor repairs and clean-up and an additional $10,000 for a new septic system — staff recommends the Wisconsin mound system for this area • The neat home, which is currently occupied, is in need of minor repairs. The septic system is in need of replacement as well. • If Council wants to continue to rent these two homes, staffs recommendation would be to repair 3615 on the far western end and give the option to the renters in 3601 Jenmar to move into the 3615 Jenmar property so that the septic system could be replaced at 3601. Staff estimates that the homes could be rented for $1,000 to $1,100 per month. • The middle property is in good shape and is currently rented. The septic and well are in good shape and there appear to be no major issues with the home at this time. Mrs. Boring asked about the current rental amount for the middle home. Ms. Crandall responded that the home rentals range from $900 to $1,100. She had provided incorrect information at the previous meeting. The rents have been raised over the years and are currently in the range of $900 to $1,100. • The two homes at the eastern end have significant flood damage from recent major rainstorms. The renter in one has moved out and the home is not habitable. The end home is not habitable either. It is a given that when Emerald Parkway comes through they will need to be taken down, so staff is recommending that both of these be removed now. Mr. Reiner summarized that staff is now recommending removal of three homes —the two with flood damage and the one at the western end which is vacant. Community Development Committee September 17, 2003 Page 3 Ms. Crandall agreed, adding that as the other two homes become available when the renters move out, they would be taken down as well. When the homes are taken down, some plantings would be installed. Mrs. Boring stated that a noise study was discussed. Will the noise study in fact indicate that the plantings should be installed where staff plants to do so? Her issue with the noise study is that it may indicate that the most effective noise barrier should be built further from the Emerald Parkway — so will staff then proceed with planting an additional barrier? Ms. Crandall stated that she believes that the residents wanted to look at some different scenarios: (1) if the homes stay up, what is the noise barrier currently from I-270; (2) if the homes are taken down and 3-4 rows of trees are installed, what would the impact then be of I- 270; (3) what would be the prediction of the noise impact when Emerald Parkway goes through under both of those scenarios; and (4) at the time Emerald Parkway goes through, what type of additional mounding would be sufficient to reduce the noise in the area. Mr. Reiner stated that he hopes that when the Emerald Parkway comes through and excavated soil is available from the roadbed that a much -improved barrier could be built at that time. He believes that in order to move this issue along Council should undertake the sound study and consider the tree barrier option. Ms. Crandall stated that even if Council does not support a sound study, staff would still want to gather some data now for use in the future. Mrs. Boring stated that having read the neighbors' letter, her concern is with the need for some restrictions on the sound study. First, is the option still on the table to keep some of the houses? If Council intends to remove all of the houses, the sound study will be done on that basis. She would want the sound study to focus on acceptable materials to be used in mitigating noise, i.e., concrete walls are not acceptable. It should consider the appropriate, effective locations for mounding and/or vegetation and that they are restricted to natural materials. Ms. Crandall stated that staff could respond to questions. Mr. Reiner invited public testimony. Public Testimony Randv Roth, 6987 Grandee Cliffs Drive stated that it is important for the Committee to understand the background about why these houses were purchased by the City. At the time he moved to Dublin, the Community Plan called for single-family in this location and the bridge was to connect Hard and Brand Roads. There was to be an elementary school in their neighborhood, etc., and the neighborhood was satisfied with that. And then the bridge location was changed with the new Emerald Parkway. Council recognized the creation of a potential disaster, because they did not want to see what happened at the eastern end of Bright, David and Martin Roads happen here. The biggest houses are along the north side of Jenmar Court, and the south side includes modern two-story homes. The idea that the development industry would be Community Development Committee September 17, 2003 Page 4 willing to pay $250-350,000 for two-thirds of an acre was not feasible. They decided to try to save the neighborhood. The goal and public policy was — and until tonight, still is —to save the homes, keep them landscaped, and keep the neighborhood together. They understand the reasons why staff under new leadership wants to change things —the houses were not as well maintained as they had hoped, they have been a problem, and there are aesthetic considerations about Emerald Parkway. And so they would like to change the policy. The neighborhood is willing to accept that change in policy with certain conditions. It is about making the neighborhood whole. They don't expect the City to remedy the noise problems with I-270. At the time I-270 was widened and noise walls were explored by the federal government, the neighborhood attended the hearings but were told that because they are a rural area, the federal government was not required to do anything to mitigate the noise. The neighborhood does not want the noise to become worse with the Emerald Parkway construction. They are seeking a commitment that the City will do what is necessary to "make them whole." They know in advance that trees do not take care of the sound, and that when the center homes are removed, the sound will echo up the middle of the street and may actually be loudest farther away from Jenmar Court as the elevations are higher. Realistically, the sound study will likely indicate that trees do not stop noise and that the mounds will be too low. He believes that a commitment is needed to build a wooden wall of some sort, aesthetically pleasing, a good distance from Emerald Parkway which can be hidden from both sides with trees. There appears to be adequate room for that. This is what is needed for the neighborhood to be comfortable with the change in policy. He agrees with Mr. Hammersmith that if there is an attempt to save the homes at this point, what is the guarantee that the neighbors will be satisfied in the future? He believes that it is possible to do something to save this neighborhood. The other consideration is the Bright Road plan that calls for 20 percent of the available land to be used for housing. On the other side of the bridge, single-family housing was added north of the Cardinal Health development for traffic reasons — not just out of respect for the neighborhood. From the traffic studies, it is apparent that if the whole area is developed with straight commercial, it will congest Sawmill to the point that it will fail. Cardinal will not be able to move their traffic out. There was a previous proposal to develop the entire area and ODOT indicated that it would not work. It would have absorbed the whole capacity of Emerald Parkway. So saving some housing in their neighborhood when more housing and mixed use in this area will be needed to reverse the traffic flows for at least part of the acreage is simply good policy. Mr. Reiner asked for clarification of the timing of the previous proposal. Mr. Roth responded that there was a proposal from a Houston company for a huge office development of 1.25 million square feet, not including the school board parcel. They wanted their own ramp onto I-270, but ODOT said this would destroy the interchange. While everyone wants developer contribution on Emerald Parkway, there will have to be some kind of mixed-use development in order to have the roadways work responsibly. The Bright Road plan should be revisited, as it was well considered, protected the neighborhood and did have traffic considerations. Mr. Reiner asked about the sound wall issue. Community Development Committee September 17, 2003 Page 5 Mr. Roth stated that businesses on the opposite side of 270 qualified for a sound wall, but they chose not to have them due to signage and visibility issues. Their neighborhood was interested in other options for sound walls but found that ODOT was not required to do so. But upon development, the entire area would become eligible for sound walls. There needs to be a compromise of protection and visibility, with a uniform look along Emerald Parkway. Don Spangler, 3614 Jenmar Court stated that his house is the last house to the east on the north side of Jenmar. He will be one of the first to hear the noise and view whatever is decided upon as a sound barrier. The reality is that there is a problem in the neighborhood. When the City purchased the properties, the goal was to build Emerald Parkway. For whatever reason, Emerald Parkway does not exist except on paper. They are not opposed to Emerald Parkway, but whatever is done, he would like to be protected from some of the noise; he does not want to look at the traffic; he would like to live in the neighborhood as long as he can, as long as it is comfortable. The committee viewed the area — it is a nice area, but it has freeway noise during rush hour traffic. There is nothing that can be done to eliminate the noise, only to somewhat curtail it. He wants to see something that is palatable for the neighborhood. If the houses are retained, they really need to be repaired. He would like to remain in his house that is paid for — his wife has lived here for over 20 years. He cannot justify spending money on the house now in terms of improvements or additions, as he is uncertain about what the City plans to do. Unfortunately, at this point in history, the City's actions affect him and other residents of the neighborhood. They are looking for fair treatment. Karen Spratley, 3593 Jenmar Court stated that they rent from the City of Dublin. They have three children — one of whom graduated from Dublin. They have rented this home for five years. They are expecting another child in February. They are an integral part of the community and have enjoyed living in Dublin. In regard to the resale of the homes, she disagrees with the opinion that they are not saleable. There are many who would be happy to purchase a home in Dublin under $200,000. Lots of people don't have huge back yards. They want to live in this home, and believe others would as well. Secondly, in terms of noise —they are aghast at the idea that a line of trees to be planted will save the neighborhood from noise. There is a huge difference in freeway noise in their back yard versus their front yard, and there is already an existing stand of trees along their rear property line. Trees cannot block noise as houses do. She does not agree that a strong, ten-year growth of trees will stop the noise. If the houses are taken down, they would hope to stay in their home as long as possible. When they moved there, they were led to believe they could stay until the roadway came through. They have built their family here and are very involved in the community — volunteering at the DCRC, events, with the girl scouts. Their fear now because their circumstances is that if they have to leave this home within the next 12 months, they will have to leave Dublin. They are not in a position to buy a home, as she is finishing her PhD and they are still saving for a home. She asked Council to remember that this is not only a decision about trees and sound barriers, that it affects families and lives. She is hopeful that Council will take this into consideration. Community Development Committee September 17, 2003 Page 6 Committee Discussion Mr. Reiner thanked the citizens for their involvement in this process, especially Mr. Roth for the history and perspective he provided. While the commercial tax base expansion along sections of Emerald Parkway is good for the City, the City also has an obligation to protect the property if this neighborhood is to remain an integral part of the community into the future. What Mr. Roth has testified about the traffic makes sense. This is not an issue of a barrier for those on Jenmar Court, but also for Grandee Cliffs. He personally was shocked with the level of noise on the street when he visited the site. In terms of a recommendation, he asked if there is a motion to commission a noise study. Mrs. Boring stated that this is her intent, but she wants to establish parameters. She is hopeful that a noise study will identify the best way to block the noise as much as possible. Is the Committee going to consider leaving any of the homes in place? She sympathizes with the resident who rents one of the homes, but the Emerald Parkway situation could change at any time. Council is considering some TIF's and working with Cardinal Health in regard to issues affecting Emerald Parkway. While the resident may desire to remain in the home for an additional two -three years, the City is in no position to guarantee that could happen. She would suggest that the Committee first decide whether to accept staff s recommendation of having all of the houses removed. Mr. Reiner responded that the plan as proposed is to remove the two eastern properties and the one western property at this time. The one at the eastern end is flooded. Mrs. Boring noted that her concern is that although the one house may be in good condition, one was flooded as a result of the property management company's disregard of City ordinances. It does not reflect well on the City. Staffs recommendation was to no longer continue in the business of property management and to remove the houses. Ms. Crandall stated that staff would immediately remove the three homes that are currently vacant and then establish a timeframe for the others. Mrs. Boring stated that the Committee could recommend removal of the three homes and establish a timeframe for removal of the remaining two so that when the noise study is commissioned the parameters will be that all of the houses will no longer exist on the site. Mrs. Boring moved that the Committee recommend that the three vacant houses be removed and that atimeline be set for removal of the remaining two houses. Ms. Salay noted that she has a question about the noise study. She agrees with the citizen who testified that planting trees would not mitigate the noise. With the noise walls ODOT is willing to build, and in discussion about alternatives such as landscaping, it was indicated by staff that landscaping would not mitigate noise. Mr. Hammersmith stated that this is not exactly correct. The difficulty along I-270 for ODOT was with the amount of room available adjacent to the properties. Vegetation can be effective, but requires more space than the walls. ODOT would prefer not to acquire the additional property needed for vegetation. They preferred to do the wall within their own right-of-way. Community Development Committee September 17, 2003 Page 7 Ms. Salay stated that the single-family lot depths could be used, and it is possible that vegetation and mounding could be an option. Mr. Hammersmith stated that vegetation could be used for noise mitigation. He would not want to exclude this as a potential option in the noise study in an effort to maintain the current conditions or to reduce them. Mrs. Boring stated that in hearing this, it might be possible to have a stamped concrete wall if thoroughly shielded with vegetation such as evergreens. Mr. Reiner agreed with leaving this open to the recommendation of the consultant. Noise generally rolls over objects, so a greater height of barrier would likely be needed. The other question relates to the maintenance of the rental properties. In the contracts with the tenants, were they to mow the grass and maintain the properties? Was the City mowing the grass only when there were no tenants in the properties? Ms. Crandall responded that there is a minimal level of maintenance when the tenants are in the homes, and if the homes are vacant, the City assumes ahigher level. The landscaping maintenance for vacant homes was also minimal. She noted that staff admits that they are not experts in the landlord/property maintenance business and has not done a good job in maintaining these properties. Mrs. Boring stated that when the barrier is discussed, she would leave it to the noise study to determine what is needed and in what location. Mr. Hammersmith stated that this should be a coordinated effort between the engineering study and landscape architects to make it aesthetically pleasing on the five lots, and then coordinate it with what the City plans to do with Emerald Parkway in the future. Mr. Reiner asked for a motion to remove the three houses and that a noise study be commissioned under the parameters discussed tonight. Mrs. Boring seconded the motion. Mr. Hammersmith stated that staff could provide a scope of services at the time the recommendation is presented to Council. Motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Boring noted that atimeframe must be set for removal of the other two houses because of the desire to have the noise barrier coordinated across the entire site. Should the Committee have staff recommend atimeframe? Ms. Crandall stated that staff had planned on removing the remaining homes in the late fall 2004 in order to give the renters 12 months' notice. She clarified that staff had planned to begin planting trees to serve as somewhat of a sound barrier and visual barrier, but they knew that something more substantial would be needed when Emerald Parkway comes through. This was a plan for phasing. Ms. Salay stated that long-term, she is not interested in the City being in the rental property business. However, in terms of the house in good repair and the young family struggling to stay Community Development Committee September 17, 2003 Page 8 in the community, she would like to have staff be sensitive to that and if possible to build barriers around them and give them some extra time. Mr. Hammersmith stated that this would be a stepped approach. Until the noise study is completed, the costs of any type of barrier would not be known. If it is a significant amount of money, it would have to be programmed in the CIP. That allows some latitude to work with the renters on the timeframes. Mrs. Boring summarized that the recommendation will be taken to Council for a final decision. The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Clerk of Council.