Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/18/2005 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 Held April 18, 2005 20 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the regular meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, April 18, 2005 at the Dublin Municipal Building. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Mayor Lecklider led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present were: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, Vice Mayor Lecklider, Mrs. Boring, Mr. McCash, Mr. Keenan, Mr. Reiner, and Ms. Salay. Staff members present were: Ms. Brautigam, Mr. Smith, Ms. Grigsby, Mr. Ciarochi, Mr. Bird, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Harding, Mr. Hahn, Ms. Puskarcik and Ms. Richison. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the minutes of April 4 was postponed until the May 2 Council meeting. SPECIAL RECOGNITION Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher presented proclamations to City volunteers Jill and Don Butler in recognition of both Earth Week and National Volunteer Week, which are being observed during the week of April 17-23. She encouraged all citizens to continue to participate in volunteer programs and the activities of Earth Week as well. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher then read a proclamation from the Mayor of Hilliard, recognizing Dublin for lending a snow plow in January to the City of Hilliard due to a fire related loss of such equipment in Hilliard. CORRESPONDENCE The Clerk reported that two Notices to Legislative Authority were received from the Division of Liquor Control related to stock transfers for Jasons Restaurant, 50 W. Bridge Street and Mascot Petroleum, 6777 Sawmill Road. There was no objection from Council to the transfer of these permits. CITIZEN COMMENTS There were no comments from citizens regarding items not on the agenda. DISCUSSION ITEM . Swing Sets/Play Structures in No-Build Zones Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that a discussion has been scheduled regarding the enforcement of swing sets/play structures in no-build zones. Council would like to hear from the citizens regarding their views on this topic. She commented at length about the democratic process which invites citizen participation and which is the hallmark of a democratic society. Council members are also passionate about the community, having chosen to live in Dublin for the very same reasons that those present tonight have made that decision. Careful planning over many years by Council and staff has resulted in actualizing the community plans developed by Council and residents of the City. One of the greatest values of the community is the sense of family, and the City supports many special events and activities in Dublin so that citizens can stay home with their families during the holidays. This and previous Councils have invested large sums of money in planning wonderful parks for the community, with interconnectivity via bikepaths. Many citizens have indicated a desire to address Council tonight about the no-build zone issue. In reviewing the matter over the past couple of weeks, she believes there is a need to review the existing ordinance and to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the no-build zones that exist in the City. While they provide visual corridors, they also serve such purposes as accommodating utilities or as part of the subdivision grading plan. It should also be noted that Council does not have the authority to alter a subdivision's deed restrictions, which are enforced by the local civic association. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher then introduced the following motion: Staff is hereby directed to stop enforcement of the swing sets and play structures currently located in the no-build zones until further direction or action is taken by City Council. Staff is also hereby directed to prepare appropriate legislation to amend all necessary code sections to allow swing sets and play structures in the no-build zones. This legislation is to be brought back to Council at the May 16 meeting. Mrs. Boring seconded the motion. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 April 18, 2005 Page 2 Held 20 It was the consensus of Council to have testimony from the public regarding this issue. Kevin Walter. 6289 Ross Bend. Belvedere stated that he has resided in Dublin for four years and represents the opinions voiced on the web site, www.nobuildzone.com He has five children who currently play on his non-compliant swing set in the no-build zone. He supports strong zoning regulations and uniform enforcement of such, and opposes unchecked development such as that in adjacent areas to Dublin. Dublin's tradition of proactive zoning enforcement, its insistence on building infrastructure prior to development, and its penchant for approving high quality, well planned development in accordance with the Community Plan is a shining example for other cities. He believes the Planning Commission has the right and duty to set a general tenor, the density and use requirements for developments. It is the right and duty of elected officials to create an environment supporting quality developments through support of the business community, facilitation and funding of community services, and ensuring the rights of the community are balanced against the rights of the individual. It is the right and duty of the citizenry to be informed, to challenge and to hold elected officials accountable. It is also the right and duty of the individual to maintain community standards, to contribute to the betterment of the community, and to be a positive force in bringing change to the community. Given that, in the matter of allowing swing sets and play structures in no build zones, Council has overreached what is right and sensible and has brought governmental regulation into the backyard of every Dublin home. These items set the tone in Dublin and define the community as family friendly. For many, smaller lots sizes and overly large no-build zones preclude them from having play structures or necessitate their placement in awkward locations. He supports the inclusion of sheds, basketball courts and the like in the listing of items prohibited from no-build zones. He does not support the overreach of government demonstrated in regard to swing sets. It is incomprehensible to him that children at play are viewed as a nuisance or detraction from the overall look and feel of the community. He founded the web site to establish a forum for education, community activism and to disseminate a petition in support of this position. On behalf of the 422 residents of Dublin who have electronically signed this petition, he requests that Council take immediate action tonight and that the matter not be referred to Committee or taken under advisement. He requests that Council immediately direct staff to draft new legislation addressing this matter. Dublin needs proactive zoning regulations, but needs to realize when these regulations overstep what is sensible. He presented a petition to Council which reads, "We the undersigned in support of preserving the family friendly nature of Dublin's neighborhoods respectfully request that Dublin City Council amend City Code Section 152.002 to eliminate the words, "swing sets and play structures" from the definition of no- build zone." Jeannie Vaccari. 6173 Avocet Court. Hawk's Nest subdivision noted that she is a homeowner, mother of three, holds a degree in Building Construction management, and has eleven years of experience in the building industry in Central Ohio. They built on a lot in Hawk's Nest and moved there in October of 2003. The builder did not disclose that a no-build zone existed at the rear of the lot, but she did not view this as an issue as they had no plans to build an addition or a deck that would encroach upon that area. They did install a play set 9 feet from the rear property line, which did not infringe on the utility lines. She is not opposed to the City's goal of having lots of greenspace within the community. But children and homeowners who have purchased homes should not be punished by the enforcement of the no-build provisions. The source of the problem is with the Planning staff and the builders who want to construct homes in Dublin on small lots. The zoning should be changed to require a minimum square footage in the rear lot and to standardize these zoning guidelines. Any submittals for zoning after the restrictions are in place would have to meet the requirements. Existing lots would be grandfathered and would not have to comply with the regulations. If a builder is not willing to comply with these guidelines, he can build in other communities. The visual corridors of the community are not being diminished by the play sets, but by the larger homes being built on smaller lots. Hawk's Nest is currently a very desirable area, but if the City should enforce the restrictions for the no-build zone, it will quickly become non-desirable. Ninety-five percent of the lots would not be compliant with the Code. For them, the issue is with the location of swing sets, as it is not possible to move the sets to a new location on their lot. She is willing to serve on a task force if further analysis of this subject is needed. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 April 18, 2005 Page 3 Held 20 Garv Wallberq, 4858 Chaddinqton Drive, Coventry Woods thanked the Mayor for introducing the motion regarding the no-build zones. Most of his information on this topic has come from the newspaper. He understands that in September of 2000, the swing sets and play structures were added to a larger zoning measure and some were not aware that it existed. While the City has wonderful parks throughout, it is not always possible to take children to the parks. Sometimes there is a need to have children play in the backyard on such play structures. While most play structures can be moved it the utilities are in conflict with the location, the bottom line is whether or not Dublin is a family friendly community. If Council does not address the matter, it can be brought to a vote by the citizens at the ballot box. He urged neighbors and citizens to talk with each other in regard to play structures, and to work out any conflicts about their placement. It is only the neighborly thing to do and will help to keep Dublin as a great community. Bob Fathman, 5805 Tartan Circle North. Muirfield Villaqe noted that it is important that Council not "throw the baby out with the bath water" in considering this change. He urged Council not to impede conservation design efforts and not to relax the standards that make Dublin different. Council should maintain the rules regarding sheds, and should ensure that structures such as plywood skateboard half pipes are not built in these zones. It is important that this issue not be coat-tailed to eliminate other very important design standards that set Dublin apart and make Dublin a wonderful community with lots of greenspace. David Bellman, 7649 Bellepoint Place stated that he has five children and moved to Dublin because it is family friendly and has great schools. In today's society, obesity among children is increasing, according to the CDC and these children need help. Council should promote exercise by children. He agrees that zoning is very important - he came from an area of Texas where the zoning is extremely strict. Council should ensure that the playground equipment is aesthetically pleasing and well maintained, but common sense does not dictate restricting playground equipment in this manner. Council is in a position to promote exercise for children and they should keep this in mind. Wendv Huffman. 6190 Enke Court, Hawk's Nest explained that they installed a swing set in their backyard due to the changing times and the aggression of sexual predators. The only alternative available is for children to use City parks, yet these are high traffic areas for pedophiles and sexual predators. She does not want to see her family on Fox news. She wants to live in a community that is willing to change with the times and cares more about the safety of children than the aesthetics of landscaping. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited Council Members to comment prior to voting on the motion on the table. Mr. Reiner commented that he is very impressed with the comments by the citizens of the community and with their emphasis on the quality of the community, as evidenced by greenspace and aesthetics. The swing set issue is a moot point and he will support the motion. Council does not always receive feedback about legislation and the quality issues required of developers, but he is impressed with the turnout tonight. He thanked the Mayor for the motion she has proposed to resolve this. Ms. Salay commented that she agrees with the motion. However, when the legislation comes back from staff or at the time of the study session on conservation design, she would like to understand the practical effect of conservation design on things such as swing sets, gazebos, etc. If conservation subdivision design translates to larger houses on smaller lots, Council should consider the practical effect of this legislation on these matters. Also, with play structures in the no-build zones, does this refer to only swing sets or does it include such items as portable sport courts, trampolines, large playhouses, etc.? While these do not have foundations, would they be considered a play set under the definitions being developed? If there is concern about the visual corridor, are homeowners allowed to plant trees in the no-build zone? It would interrupt the visual corridor as well. Clarification is needed on all of these issues. The public needs to be informed about the restrictions on their lot, whether it is provided at closing or at the time of purchase of the lot. Residents need to be made aware of the restrictions on their land. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 April 18, 2005 Page 4 Held 20 Mr. Smith stated that in the past, the City has required the development community to provide notification of such items on the plat. Staff will review this and the definitions of structures prior to the next discussion. Vote on the motion: Mr. McCash, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. LEGISLATION PREVIOUSLY TABLED ITEM SCHEDULED FOR SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING LAND EXCHANGE Ordinance 13-05 Authorizing the Exchange of Land with Grabill & Company, LLC for Commercial Development and Parking Improvements in the Dublin Historic District. Ms. Brautigam stated that Mr. Grabill has requested that this item be postponed until May 16. Staff concurs with this request. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that there was a good turnout at the April 6 meeting regarding the land exchange, and Mr. Grabill has indicated his desire to have this item scheduled after the Historic Dublin team presentation takes place on May 9. Ms. Brautigam noted that staff delivered notices to the affected property owners that this item would be postponed for hearing until May 16. Mr. Reiner moved to postpone this item until May 16. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. The second reading/public hearing of Ordinance 13-05 was postponed until the May 16 Council meeting. SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCES ECONOM/C DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Ordinance 22-05 Authorizing the Execution of an Economic Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and CMHC Systems to Induce the Retention and Expansion of Its Operations within the City of Dublin. Ms. Brautigam stated that Ms. Gilger has provided updated figures in a staff report on employment projections for the company, in response to questions at the last hearing. Staff has also received word from the company representatives that they plan to attend the meeting on May 2 versus attending tonight, due to the large audience expected for other issues on tonight's agenda. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher thanked Ms. Gilger for the additional information. It was very helpful in distinguishing the figures provided previously. Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING - ORDINANCES REZONING Ordinance 23-05 Rezoning Approximately 3.59 Acres Located on the East Side of Shawan Falls Drive, Approximately 325 Feet North of West Bridge Street, From SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District, To HR, Historic Residential District. (Case No. 05-017Z - Indian Run Falls Park, 700 Shawan Falls Drive) Mr. Reiner introduced the ordinance. Mr. Bird stated that this rezoning would permit the construction of Shawan Falls Park in a residential district. A memo outlines the improvements proposed. The second reading/public hearing will take place on May 2. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if there is a formal plan available. Mr. Bird responded that this information would be provided at the public hearing. Mr. Keenan asked if this is the acreage owned in partnership with Washington Township, and will they be notified of this action? Ms. Brautigam responded that it is, and the township is involved with the project. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 April 18, 2005 Page 5 Held 20 There will be a second reading/public hearing at the May 2 Council meeting. LAND PURCHASE Ordinance 24-05 Authorizing the Purchase of a 0.480 Acre, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest, From Richard W. Anderson, Located West of Wilcox Road, City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Mr. Smith stated that this ordinance is related to the settlement of the last land acquisition case in conjunction with the southwest traffic calming. The City was in litigation with the property owner and now has a proposed settlement. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the May 2 Council meeting. INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTIONS ADOPTION OF GOALS Resolution 07-05 Adopting the City of Dublin's Goals for 2006-2007. Ms. Brautigam stated that Council was provided with a report in follow-up to the March 11 retreat. She made some minor clarifications to the information. At the retreat, Council had requested that the S.R. 161 corridor plan goal be moved to a higher priority, and that has been done. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher thanked Ms. Brautigam for condensing the report into goals for Council to adopt. Mr. Keenan asked about the S. R. 161 corridor goal and whether the area is defined in a City document. Ms. Brautigam responded that it has not been clearly defined, but this will be part of the comprehensive plan update effort. In the context of the retreat, her understanding is that it included the area from the river eastward. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher agreed that the exact area could be defined within the community plan update work. Mr. Keenan commented that he would like to revisit that issue when the time is appropriate. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. OTHER . Concept Plan - Avery Road Condominiums (Case 04-119CP) Mr. Bird stated that this is a concept plan appeal to Council regarding the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission to deny the plan for what is known as the Avery Road condominiums. The proposed development is located on the east side of Avery Road, just south of Shier Rings Road. The site consists of 25 acres, surrounded to the east, west and south by residential zoning and to the north by Restricted Industrial zoning. The site is currently zoned Restricted Industrial. The Community Plan calls for the site to be used for residential development at a density of five plus units per acre. He showed slides depicting an aerial photo of the site. He noted that Innovation Drive would extend through the site in some fashion, regardless of the zoning. Another important item is the open space park corridor, and the expectation that it would extend through the site. The site is 25 acres, is basically flat in topography and was apparently used for farming in the past. The site plan proposes to construct 22 attached four-family condominium units on approximately 25 acres, a net of 3.5 units per acre. The required open space is indicated at nine acres or 36 percent of the site. He distributed a revised conservation design principle matrix to Council, as the one in the packet was labeled somewhat differently on some of the points. After the applicant first appealed to Council in December of last year following the Planning Commission's decision of 6-0 to deny the concept plan, the staff made the determination that the site, under Resolution 27-04 was not a prime candidate for conservation design. It lacks natural vegetation, steep slopes, or other natural features. However, that does not mean that the applicant should not make every attempt to meet conservation design principles and for this reason the chart is provided. Staff identified 21 criteria from the resolution, and the matrix shows that the applicant has met a significant number of conservation design principles. A couple were not applicable relative to historic landmarks and curvilinear streets to take advantage of topographical changes. There are four areas in which the application does not meet the strict definition RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 April 18, 2005 Page 6 Held 20 of conservation design. Those relate to open space of 50 percent, 75 percent adjacent to open space, clustering of units and the four to one ratio. Taking into account the private open space on the site, adding that to the overall open space results in around 50 percent. This does not strictly meet the criteria of a four to one ratio of open space. The original plan proposed 108 units and it now includes 88 units. Mr. Bird noted that another version of the plan was presented by the applicant as a conservation subdivision design submittal. Practically speaking, it was a poor attempt to meet the design standards. Staff has worked very hard at applying the conservation design criteria to this site, even after determining that it is not a prime candidate. Staff views the submission as somewhat of an insult to their intelligence. Nonetheless, staff believes that the applicant has made efforts in terms of the design of the site to strive for conservation design, even though a determination was made that it is not a prime candidate. Staff's recommendation would be to approve the concept plan, but he added that staff has concern about the diversity of the architecture. The next step would be to return to the Planning Commission to address the architectural diversity of the site. Mr. Reiner asked about the matrix. It indicates categories of, "meets principle, meets principle intent and does not meet principle." He asked for additional clarification about the open space and adjacency requirements in terms of this plan. Mr. Bird responded that this detail is included in the staff comments. In regard to the 50 percent open space requirement, if the private space is included, it meets the criteria - but with the caveat that it does not meet the four to one ratio. It does meet the 75 percent adjacency requirement, but again with the caveat that it does not meet the four to one ratio. The dwelling units are clustered to preserve sizable open space, but the issue is once again the four to one ratio. Mr. Keenan stated that he is confused about the language, "meets the principle intent." What is the principle? It calls for 50 percent, yet the legislation states, "strives to" in regard to meeting the intent. This is very confusing. Mr. Reiner responded that in reading a tract on conservation design for any municipality, it indicates the principles that govern such design and these are what should be met. If the conservation design plan submitted by the applicant was not a serious effort to try to meet the principles, is the bottom line issue with the site one of density? Mr. Bird stated that to meet the four to one ratio on open space would require them to reduce the number of units. Mr. Reiner summarized that this plan is then an attempt to obtain a higher density and not meet the conservation design requirements. Mr. Bird stated that the Community Plan shows a density of five units per acre and this application is at 3.5 per acre. Again, the caveat is the four to one ratio of size on the open space. It comes back to the issue of whether this site is a prime candidate for conservation design - is it along the stream corridor, or does it have natural features for preservation? Even though staff made the determination it was not a prime candidate, staff reviewed the conservation design criteria and made every effort to meet them. Mr. Reiner stated that it appears the applicant attempted to create a nice site plan, to create interesting amenities for the neighborhood, for a project with a higher density that does not mean conservation design requirements. The question is if conservation design is desired, it could be done with these same units by having them radiate up along the lakes. Mr. Bird agreed that would be an option. But relative to the site itself, its location within the neighborhood, and looking at this as a transition site between what exists around it, it is less dense than the condominium development around the site. A conservation design would require a different layout to accomplish. Mr. McCash asked for clarification about what Council is considering tonight. Council is in fact reviewing the concept of rezoning this land from industrial to a residential use, not reviewing the layout of the site. Mr. Bird responded that the Planning Commission denied a concept plan which is non- binding. The applicant is requesting that Council approve a concept plan which is also non-binding. In effect, Council would be indicating that this type of development is appropriate for this site. It would then go back to the Planning Commission, and staff suggests a condition that the Commission reviews the diversity of the architecture. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 April 18, 2005 Page 7 Held 20 Mr. McCash stated that Council is neither rezoning the property nor approving a specific layout. The layout would be a preliminary development plan and final development plan matter. Mr. Bird concurred. Mr. Reiner noted that he is not opposed to this being an Epcon built or other residential project. He hopes that the adjacent residents are not fearful of this being developed under the current industrial zoning. He is interested solely in the applicant meeting the standards of the City. Ms. Salay asked about the current zoning classification of this site. Mr. Bird responded that it is Restricted Industrial. Ms. Salay asked what type of development could occur on the site with minimal review, given this zoning classification. Mr. Bird responded that a significant number of industrial uses are possible. This area has a carryover zoning from the township, and is not a planned district. Potential development could include most any type of general industrial use. Ms. Salay stated that she is aware that there was at least one other residential project disapproved by Planning Commission for this site. Mr. Bird stated that there were at least two others in addition to this one that were denied. Ms. Salay summarized that this is the third residential proposal that has been brought forward for this site. She is confused about the matrix and the comments relative to the two different plans submitted. Does the matrix refer to the plan on page 6 or page 11? Mr. Bird responded that the plan referred to is the one on page 6 with 88 units. The caveat in this is the four to one ratio for size of open space. That is the key issue. But staff found that this site is not a prime candidate for conservation design, given the criteria established in the resolution. The resolution also states that regardless, the applicant should strive to meet the standards. Staff believes that they have done so. Ms. Salay noted that the general fear of the area residents is that the site is zoned industrial, regardless of what the Community Plan indicates. Until it is rezoned to residential, the fear will continue - unfounded or not. Mrs. Boring pointed out that the industrial zoning was in place long before the area houses were built. If there were a plan to develop this with industrial development, it would have happened long ago. The land prices and Dublin's Code requirements now preclude this type of development. Mr. Bird responded that he could not speculate on this. If it is zoned industrial, someone could indeed develop it that way. Mr. Reiner noted that the older businesses along Avery Road are being removed and he would expect this to finish out as residential, not as an industrial park. While it is zoned industrial, it is very unlikely that will occur. Mr. Lecklider pointed out that a car wash has already been developed along Avery Road. Mrs. Boring stated that this is a transitional area, especially in view of the Ballantrae development. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that the issue before Council tonight is a proposal for residential condominium development on this site versus industrial. Mr. McCash stated that the current conservation design resolution indicates that staff makes the determination of whether a site is a prime candidate for this design. Staff made the determination that this site is not an appropriate site for conservation subdivision design. Even with that determination from staff, the goal is for the applicant to try to incorporate as many principles as possible. Based upon that standard and the adopted resolution, he understands that the applicant has strived to incorporate as many of these principles into the 88-unit plan as possible. Mr. Bird concurred that this is staff's determination. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 April 18, 2005 Page 8 Held 20 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited public testimony. Barrv Acklev, 6279 Ruth Ann Court, Sandv Corners subdivision requested Council's support for the concept plan and for the future rezoning. Living in this neighborhood, he realizes that this area is currently zoned industrial and there is the potential that someone could at anytime build a big metal box. John Finfoeld. 2365 Sonninqton Drive. Dublin noted that he and his wife support having the condominium development built by Epcon along Avery Road. They have lived in the Old Sawmill subdivision for 28 years and are considering downsizing. They feel that the condominiums would be very interesting and are in an excellent location. After seeing the plan with the lakes and 88 units, they are very impressed. They sent a letter dated March 23 to Council expressing their support of the proposal. They are interested in greenspace and conservation, although they are somewhat confused about the requirements. With industrial zoning, there are likely far less requirements for greenspace. There are condominium units being built on the western side of Sawmill, and he assumes they are meeting the same requirements. In reviewing the project along Sawmill, it does not appear there is as much greenspace as that in the Epcon project. They are interested in having the condos built along Avery Road and request Council's support. Mr. Lecklider pointed out in regard to the project along Sawmill that the zoning was in place long before the conservation subdivision requirements were adopted. He noted for the record that Mr. Finfgeld presently lives in Columbus, not in Dublin. Council would certainly welcome them to the Dublin community. Linda Kolnok, 6239 Pirthshire Street. Sandv Corners subdivision stated that her subdivision backs up to this area. She urged Council to approve this concept plan for residential development, as they are very concerned with the present industrial zoning. They have witnessed the car wash being built and they understand that under the present zoning, almost anything can be built. With the great area surrounding this - Ballantrae, Kendall Ridge, Heather Glen and Sandy Corners - they definitely do not want industrial zoning on this site. Planning Commission two years ago indicated that they wanted bigger and better things for this area, and industrial zoning would not constitute either. She urged Council to consider approving this plan. Peqqv Burrows. 6179 Glenvillaqe Drive. President of Heather Glen Villaqe Condo Association which is to the immediate east of this indicated that they have two main concerns. First, it is zoned industrial and the industrial to the north has proven to be a noise pollution source. Secondly, Epcon has committed to working with them in regard to concerns with the private road which leads to Innovation Drive and which goes through their development. Every other proposal brought forward has wanted to use this private road to go through their development. The Association spent $6,600 last year repairing this road, and they estimate another $7,600 is needed this year because of the high traffic volume. They totally support Epcon developing this property. Ben Hale. Jr.. 37 W. Broad Street noted that one of his previous applicants for this site was also his client and based on the staff feedback, he advised them to withdraw. The client prior to that was Romanelli and Hughes and they withdrew due to cost considerations. He persuaded Epcon that this site would be appropriate for their type of development concept. There is no question that this site is more valuable as residential today than as industrial. He showed Council a drawing showing the exact buildings that exist on the Restricted Industrial site to the north and placing them on this site. It would meet the zoning code under the present zoning. But the site is more valuable as residential versus industrial development due to the square footage restrictions on the industrial zoning. There are two other things that occurred with this site. One is the adjacent existing park, and the Community Plan calls for that park to be extended - which they have done through this site. There is also a desire to maintain a 250-foot setback along the roadway. What results is a remaining site which is very contained. Either the park is not continued, or two-story units are built on the site. But to meet the absolute criteria, it would require a different plan. The question is what will occur on this property. He believes that one-story condominium units are appropriate on this site. Epcon wants to have a location in Dublin because in the last 18-20 months, they have sold 40 units of this type in Powell to former Dublin residents. The buyers wanted to stay in Dublin, but RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 April 18, 2005 Page 9 Held 20 did not have such units available. Other factors are that these residents place few demands on the City - in terms of schools, traffic, and services. Most residents are 60 years of age or older. This is an excellent site plan and includes water feature amenities. It is a better use on the site than the current zoning. Even with Council's endorsement, there is much work to do with the Planning Commission to secure approval of a preliminary development plan. This is an expensive development in view of the roads and the open space requirements. It is not appropriate to require them to meet the absolute requirements of the conservation design as well. Mr. Reiner commented that no one on Council is in favor of this being anything other than residential zoning. However, if Council approves this concept plan, does it also constitute approval of the proposed density? Mr. Bird responded that essentially, the density proposed of 3.5 units per acre is non- binding to the Council or to the Planning Commission. But Council can be assured that conservation design principles are going to be applied to this property. Essentially, the density shown on the plan is 3.5 units per acre. So in reality, Council is endorsing the proposed density. Mr. Reiner asked staff if this would constitute setting a precedent in terms of others coming in with conservation design plans. Mr. Bird responded that he does not believe that is the case. He believes that the resolution states that there are certain criteria and a determination is made if the site is a prime candidate for conservation design. It relates to the natural features of the site and to the criteria in Section 3 of the Resolution. Mr. Reiner further commented to staff that conservation design could be done on a site of only three or five acres, depending upon the layout and the number of units. He is not certain that staff should make judgment calls on parcels, especially as large as this as to whether conservation design is applicable. The land planner in this case did a nice job in creating a series of lakes and upgrading the site, but that same site and upgrades could be included, allowing for better views and open space by modifying the design. Conservation design should not apply only to sites sitting within a forest. Flat fields can be beautiful communities, based upon what has been done with conservation design. It does not depend on the site amenities of creeks and forests, and staff may have missed the cue on this. Mr. Lecklider commented that he will vote in favor of this concept, but wants his rationale understood. In approving a concept plan, it is his understanding that it is non-binding, even with respect to density. He appreciates the fact that the plan will not likely come back at a significantly lower density, but his support of this concept does not necessarily commit him to supporting a specific density of 3.5. Mrs. Boring noted that in many cases, Council indicates that the concept plan is non- binding, yet it becomes the final proposal. At this point, she is hesitant to support the plan, although she does support residential development in this location. Mr. Keenan asked where the matrix came from? Was this taken from the resolution? Mr. Bird responded that staff devised this matrix as an evaluation tool to determine what constitutes conservation design. Mr. Keenan stated that to him, the key question remains what does, "meets conservation design principles" mean? What does "strive to" mean as it applies to development approval? These are the issues for him. Secondly, he would like to see an example of an acceptable conservation design plan on the site. Perhaps the study session will help to clarify these issues. Mr. Reiner stated that on a 25-acre site, it is very easy to accommodate a conservation design plan. He agrees with staff that there was not a good effort made by the applicant on such a plan. Mr. Keenan commented that at the outset, staff indicated that this site was not appropriate for conservation design. As a Council Member, he relies upon staff for their expertise. Mr. Reiner stated that staff essentially "missed the beat" on this. Conservation design relates not only to preservation of natural features, but also to layout of the site. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 April 18, 2005 Page 10 Held 20 Mr. Lecklider commented that he is in agreement with Mr. Keenan in regard to deferring to staff's original determination in this case. In addition to the comments he has already made about the density, he does like the water features, the road layout, the bikepaths, and the extension of the existing park. This feedback should be provided to Planning & Zoning Commission. Ms. Salay noted that she met with principals of Epcon at a project near Polaris of 3.5 units per acre. She was impressed with the product and the site and can envision this fitting into the Dublin site. She recalls being present in the audience at the hearings on a previous application for this site where the developer wanted to donate money in lieu of parkland to the City. The Commission responded that they wanted to extend the parkland from the Heather Glen North area to enhance the view shed. She thinks that this proposal meets the expectations of the Community Plan, and the conservation design resolution that exists today. Staff has indicated that the applicant is striving to meet all of the criteria. She supports having this plan built. She believes there is much confusion about the conservation subdivision design resolution and what it does and does not do, and what the roles of staff and Council are in this. Ms. Salay moved approval of the concept plan for the Avery Road condos. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, no; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, no; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the discussion tonight provides some good guidance regarding the expectations with the final plans. . 2005 Community Plan Calendar Ms. Brautigam stated that Carson Combs has provided a proposed calendar of the various items for the Community Plan. They involve a number of opportunities for public input, as well as a Saturday study session in November for Planning Commission and Council. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that November 19 is the OSUlMichigan game and so this session should be rescheduled. It is an ambitious calendar and Council looks forward to participating as much as possible. She asked when the names of the speakers would be available. Mr. Bird responded that this information would be available within the next month. CITY MANAGER/STAFF REPORTS There were no reports from staff. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Mr. McCash. Administrative Chair noted that Tony Collins is not able to accept the appointment to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission and Council needs to schedule a session to discuss the appointment. It was the consensus of Council to discuss this at 6 p.m. on Monday, May 2, prior to the 7 p.m. Council meeting. Mrs. Borinq commented that she has been trying to recall exactly how the swing set provision came to be. She asked staff to research the minutes to determine how this occurred in the process of amending the zoning code in 2000. Ms. Brautigam responded that staff would research this. Mr. Lecklider asked if a date has been set for the conservation subdivision design study session. Ms. Brautigam stated that staff is targeting a date toward the end of Mayor in June. Mavor Chinnici-Zuercher: 1. Noted that she, Mr. Keenan and Mrs. Boring attended the ground breaking ceremonies today for the Washington Township fire training center and Administration building on Eiterman Road. Congratulations to the Chief and to the Trustees, current and past! This will be a state of the art training facility and is scheduled to open in the spring of 2006. 2. Reported that a concern was received from a resident of Blackhawk Court. She provided this to the City Manager for follow-up. 3. Asked if Council Members will receive a copy of the cemetery book. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC., FORM NO_ 10148 April 18, 2005 Page 11 Held 20 Mr. Hahn responded that he would provide copies to Council if they desire them. 4. Thanked Chief Woo for the report regarding the Crescendo property. She asked if staff is aware of the rebuilding plans at this time. Ms. Brautigam responded that staff is not aware of their future plans at this time. Mr. Keenan noted that he, Mrs. Boring, Mr. Reiner, Ms. Brautigam and several staff members attended the YWCA Women of Achievement luncheon recognizing Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher. Congratulations on this fine representation of the City! Mr. Reiner added that the Mayor made the City proud at this ceremony. Her speech was well thought out and she brought both honor and glory to the City of Dublin. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher thanked everyone for attending and sharing this wonderful occasion with her. ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION There being no further business, Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to adjourn to executive session for discussion of land acquisition and personnel matters. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that following the executive session, the Council meeting will be reconvened only to formally adjourn. No further action will be taken. The meeting was adjourned to executive session at 8:50 p.m. The meeting was reconvened and formally adjourned at 9:40 p.m. ~ Mayor - Presiding Officer ~O-~ Clerk of Council