Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/19/2005 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council _ _ ___Me__etin~ _ DAYTON LEGA_L_BLANK, IN_C.. FORM NO. 10148 - ~ September 19, 2005 Held 20 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the regular meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 6:30 p.m. on Monday, September 19, 2005 at the Dublin Municipal Building. ROLL CALL Present were: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, Mrs. Boring, Mr. Keenan, and Ms. Salay. Vice Mayor Lecklider arrived at 6:40; Mrs. Boring arrived at 6:45; and Mr. Reiner arrived at 7 p.m. Staff members present were: Ms. Brautigam, Ms. Grigsby, Mr. Smith, Mr. Ciarochi, Chief Epperson, Mr. Hammersmith, Ms. Puskarcik, Ms. Ott, Ms. Crandall, Ms. Hoyle, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Harding, Mr. Bird, Ms. Gilger, and Ms. Willis. SPECIAL PRESENTATION Mr. Keenan introduced Gary Lee, Union County Commissioner and Steve Stolte, Union County Engineer who provided a presentation to Council regarding the Union County/City of Marysville proposed water and sewer agreement. Steve Stolte, Union County Engineer thanked Council for the opportunity to share this information. • He noted the City and County agreements were originally executed in 1995, providing for the distribution of water along the Industrial Parkway corridor and the collection of wastewater along the corridor, pumping it back to Marysville for treatment. In later years, the agreement became an unfavorable situation for the county users. There were unresolved issues between the entities, which resulted in the filing of a lawsuit by Union County against the City of Marysville. The court ordered mediation, and as a result, the City indicated their willingness to purchase back the facilities from the County. • Based upon the negotiations, a tentative agreement was reached in 2005. The tentative agreement provides a framework for water/sewer service beyond the City limits. • The current sewer rate charged by the county is $64/800 CF, which is the typical household usage. The City projects an 85 percent increase in City rates by 2013. The County rate would have to increase to nearly $120/800 CF by 2013. The water rate charged by Union County and Marysville are currently the same level. • He reviewed the current water and sewer tap fees in place for each entity, noting that the county sewer tap fee is the highest in Central Ohio at $10,400. Currently, the county tap fee for water is $5,600 and the Marysville tap fee is $3,000. • Based on the current contracts with Marysville, the county's sewer capacity is limited to 600,000 gallons per day, and the county is currently using 250,000 per day. The capacity remaining is 350,000 gallons per day. Gary Lee Union County Commissioner noted that both parties are pleased with the results of the mediation. The proposed agreement of May 2005 provides a framework for water/sewer service beyond the City limits and has numerous benefits for both parties: • Serves as a major step toward meeting the Ohio EPA mandates for water quality management. • Improves county/city cooperation and efficiency in providing wastewater and water service to the community. • It is environmentally sound, operating one plant, improves the water quality by providing a state of the art wastewater treatment. Will enhance economic stability for all of Union county, creating jobs and expanding the tax base for future generations. • The townships and the City can work together cooperatively to properly manage and control their own development. • An issue with the previous agreement was that, with the exception of the far Industrial Parkway area from State Routes 42 to 161, for anyone in the area of Marysville to receive services, they were required to annex. For the residents of the rural county area outside the City's growth area, there is no longer a requirement to annex in order to receive water and sewer services. In addition, existing township residents within the City's growth area will be allowed water and sewer services without any requirement to annex. If the lines are available to a home, the City will allow the residents to tap in at the fees agreed upon. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council _ _ _ _ _ _ Meeting - - - - DAYTON LEGAL BLANK_ ,INC., FORM NO. 10148 - - September 19, 2005 Page Held 20 I This is a huge benefit to those in the peripheral areas considering future annexation. • He reviewed the map, as distributed to Council tonight highlighting the 30-50 year growth area delineated in dark green, as agreed upon by the City and the County. • The dotted areas represent exclusive service areas for the City of Marysville. When growth occurs in that area, Marysville is guaranteed the right to serve it. • The City will provide water and sewer service for residences and businesses outside of the City's growth area if approved by the County. The water/sewer service will be development driven. • Customers outside the City will see an average reduction of 15-20 percent in monthly sewer bills, and monthly sewer rates will be frozen for the short term. • Customers outside the City will have sewer tap fees reduced from $10,400 to $7,080. • The developer of a residential area will pay the City 20 percent above the City's current tap fee in place at that time. • The "catch" to that is that the sewer and water facilities that the County is transferring to the City under a purchase agreement amounts to just over $4 million. Once that debt is repaid through tap fees, the tap fee will drop to a 10 percent differential, which is locked in for the life of the contract. That has to happen by 2013. If the City doesn't pay off the $4 million by 2013, the rates per tap will drop from 20 percent to 10 percent above the normal. This is a huge win for the rural areas. • Customers outside the City will see a reduction in water tap fees from $5,600 to $3,600. The same scenario comes into play with the additional differential paid by developers. In this contract, the water rates will stay the same as for customers inside the City. • Another concession by Marysville is that the existing County package sewage plants are currently in their last years of performing well. Two are very close to the growth areas of the city and will likely not be annexed to the city. The City has agreed to allow tap in for these houses when a sewer line runs by the areas without charging atap-in fee. This is an environmentally positive arrangement in terms of impacting the streams in the area. • The City has an around the clock operation which can provide better emergency response to water main breaks and pump station problems. • To receive water/sewer services, the City may require annexation or agreement to annex for new residences or businesses within the City's growth area for properties contiguous to the City. The key word here is that it is not required. • Another benefit to the City is that it will be an exclusive service provider for the growth area and in the exclusive service area outlined on the map. This guarantees that tap fees will not be directed to other service providers such as the City of Columbus or Delaware County. The monthly fees will help to reduce the debt or operating costs of the City's wastewater treatment plant. • The benefits to the City are that long-term sewer rates for customers outside the City will be 10 percent higher than those within the city. Tap fees for County customers will be 20 percent higher than for City customers in the short term, and 10 percent higher in the long term. There will be increased revenue from water and sewer tap fees, and this expanded customer base will help support the costs of the new wastewater treatment plant and sewer improvements, stabilizing the City's long-term rate structure for these services. The City acquires $8 million in infrastructure while assuming only $4 million in debt. The County users will now become customers of the City. No County monies have been expended to specifically support the wastewater and drinking water for County residents, as it was all paid for by the users. Mr. Stolte showed visuals with projected sewer rates under the existing contract, under the tentative agreement and summarized the information presented. There is a substantial reduction in County sewer rates. The County water rates will remain the same as they are under the existing contract. The sewer tap fees for the County for a typical house are currently $10,400, and the proposed agreement will bring that to $7.080 and eventually $6,490. Water tap fees for a typical house in the County under the current agreement are $5,600, and under the new agreement will become $3,600 and then $3,300 in the future. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council_ _ _M_e_etn~ - - DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 _ - - - September 19, 2005 Page 3 I Held 20 The final agreements are currently being prepared. Marysville City Council action is yet required. It should be presented to them at their first meeting in October and they are hopeful that it will be approved by the end of the year. The Union County Commissioners also have to take formal action on the agreement. Mr. Keenan noted that it was mentioned that the City might require annexation in the z; growth area. Wasn't the requirement to annex an issue in the original agreement for that particular area? Mr. Stolte responded that it is a change from the original language. What is shown in the darker green is the growth area, and within that area, the City may require annexation as a condition to receive water and sewer services. Outside of the growth area, the City is obliged to provide water and sewer service, but they may not require annexation. Mr. Keenan asked about the differential with the exclusive service area. Mr. Stolte stated that they are the guaranteed service provider in the green area and the hatched area. Outside of the hatched area, the commissioners have the authority to authorize Delaware County to serve that. Mr. Lee added that under the previous agreement, if another municipality wanted service, the City of Marysville was required to charge four times their current rate. Under the new agreement, the language states that they "may" -which allows them to negotiate with any entity desired if the need arises for sewer and water in another municipality. Under the old agreement, they could negotiate, but the County would have insisted that the City charge four times their current rate, as the County users were paying the rate agreed upon in their contract with the City. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher thanked them for sharing the information with the City officials. It is helpful as Dublin moves forward with future decisions. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Lt. Von Eckartsberg led the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Lecklider moved approval of the minutes of the meeting of September 6, 2005. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. CORRESPONDENCE The Clerk reported that a notice to legislative authority was sent regarding a new D2 permit for House of Style, dba Modern Male at 24 Darby Street in Historic Dublin. There was no objection from Council to the issuance of this permit. PROCLAMATION Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited the 15 members of the Dublin Hurricane Katrina response team to come forward for a special recognition of their efforts. The team members included: Lt. Heinz von Eckartsberg; Sergeants Rodney Barnes and Steve Farmer; Corporal Tim Hosterman; Officers John Wright, Brian Nimmo, Chuck Rudy, Jake Stoll, Phil Hetzel and Andrea Shull; Communication Technicians Carolyn Fergus and Ben Karns; Service Department Crew Leader Jeff Stallings; and Pastor Terry Hofecker and Sergeant Craig Hungler, who volunteered their services as Police Chaplains. Chief Epperson made brief comments regarding their service in New Orleans, as did Lt. Von Eckartsberg. _ Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher presented the team with a proclamation declaring the week of September 19 through 25 as, "Support the Victims of Hurricane Katrina Week" in the City of Dublin. CITIZEN COMMENTS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road stated that there is a trace of connection between what he will speak of tonight and both the preparations for catastrophe, as just described, and the conservation design matter. He is not certain if any Council Members have walked along Dublin Road between Brand and Limerick, and if so, if they encountered any citizens. His imagination did not conceive the picture of a 300-foot stand of trees and the huge trees on the corner yard, which have been newly devastated in conjunction with the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of _ Dublin City Council _ _ _ M_e_etin~_ - - - - - DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FOFM NO. 10148 _ - - - - September 19, 2005 Page Held 20 roundabout project. The reactions of those seeing this are shock, silence and rage. While none of this devastation can be undone, there are two high level issues in the Dublin Community Plan which were violated: 1) a continuous reference to respect for trees and (2) continuous reference to preservation of the rural area. He asked here in the Council Chambers three times about whether or not all the citizens in the path of the roundabout - east and west sides of Dublin Road and north side of Brand -have been informed of this. Staff responded three times "yes." His question was not precise enough - he should have asked if all affected residents were all informed at one particular time and site, similar to the bikepath meeting that took place at the Dublin Library. In that case, everyone was shown the plan at the same time and had the opportunity to respond. This was a model for what should take place with large projects that impact the citizens to a great degree. The result would probably have been the same -the roundabout being constructed. However, there would have been some discussion and substantive justification shared. There is a need for preparation for something like this. The impact continues to be a fantastic shock to those who pass through the area and to those who live in the area abutting the roundabout. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that Council did receive some a-mails about this. She asked staff to comment. Ms. Brautigam stated that staff is aware of concerns about the number of trees removed with the roundabout project, but only those necessary to perform construction operations were removed. Obviously, there is an area of temporary construction easements where trees were removed as well to house equipment for the project. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she agrees that somehow, Council needs to educate themselves about the visual impact of the removal of so many trees from a previously wooded area. She is concerned with replacement and what that will consist of, especially in the areas where equipment was housed. Ms. Brautigam responded that there would be some tree replacement, but that it will not be to the extent of what existed. It will be landscaped as opposed to forested. LEGISLATION SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCES LAND PURCHASE Ordinance 50-05 Authorizing the Purchase of a 0.10 Acre, More or Less, Tract of Land, from Continental Sawmill Limited Partnership, Located West of Village Parkway and South of Tuller Road, City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio. Mr. Smith stated that staff recommends adoption at this time. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. ROADWAY DEDICATION Ordinance 51-05 Accepting the Hospital Properties Section 2, Roadway Dedication Plat of Perimeter Loop Road and the Re-Subdivision of Lot 1 of Hospital Properties Section 1 Addition, City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio. Mr. Smith stated that this allows for the plat to be recorded, per the staff memo. Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING -ORDINANCES REZONING Ordinance 53-05 Rezoning Approximately 25.78 Acres, Generally on the East Side of Avery Road, Opposite Dan Sherri Avenue and Tuswell Drive, From RI, Restricted Industrial District To PUD, Planned Unit Development District. (Case No. 05-0652 -Avery Road Condominium Community -Avery Road Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Mr. Bird stated that this project is known as the Avery Road condominium community. It was reviewed by Council as a concept plan, then by Planning Commission who reviewed the proposed preliminary plan and recommended approval by Council. The public hearing will be held on Monday, October 3 and staff will provide a detailed presentation at that time. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of_ _ Dublin City Council - _ Meeti~-- - _ _ _ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10748 _ _ _ _ _ - - September 19, 2005 Page 5 Held 20 There will be a second reading/public hearing at the October 3 Council meeting. _ PERSONNEL Ordinance 54-05 Authorizing an Additional Police Officer Position for a Temporary Period. ~ Mr. Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam stated that during the most recent police officer hiring process, the City inadvertently hired one more police officer than Council had authorized through the budget process. The officers hired were so excellent that staff felt it would be inappropriate to ask one of them to leave. Staff is therefore requesting temporary authorization for one additional police officer than what is contained in the budget. Staff believes this will be only temporary, as at least one officer has indicated that he will retire in 2006. Staff believes there may be other opportunities before that time to reduce the force back to the budgeted amount. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked that staff make sure that procedures are in place to reduce the possibility of this occurring again. Ms. Brautigam responded that her understanding is that staff is reviewing the systems and processes in place to ensure this does not happen again. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the October 3 Council meeting. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Ordinance 55-05 Authorizing the Execution of an Economic Development Agreement Between the City of Dublin and UMC Partners to Induce UMC Partners to Facilitate the Development of a Health and Innovation Park in the City of Dublin. Mr. Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Ms. Grigsby stated that this ordinance provides for the execution of an economic development agreement with UMC Partners for the development of the health and innovation park within the Central Ohio Innovation Center. (A map provided in the packet provided the detail of the entire area, and highlights the parcels to be discussed this evening.) UMC Partners is anon-profit corporation that has been established to facilitate business opportunities for The Ohio State University and OSU Medical Center. The agreement is being finalized at this time and will be provided prior to the second reading/public hearing on October 3. Staff has been working with Jeff Wilkins, President and CEO of UMC Partners, but he was scheduled out of town this evening and could not be present. David Issler, Chief Financial Officer of UMC Partners is present tonight. Ms. Grigsby provided background information: • In 2004, the City began focusing on this area and initiated efforts to develop a tech or research park. This area was also identified in the 1997 Community Plan as an area appropriate for a technology or research development park. • In late 2004, the City began working with O'Brien Atkins to assist in master planning for the 1,500 acres now called," The Central Ohio Innovation Center." • In early 2005, Council authorized the acquisition of two parcels of land totaling 90 acres south of SR 161 and Post Road, and west of US 33/161 which were identified by O'Brien Atkins and staff as key to future development of the area around the interchange and entire planning area for the center. • The consultant also identified the importance of any research or technical park being connected with a major university. The execution of the proposed agreement with UMC Partners involves the two parcels discussed and establishes the university connection. City Incentives - ~ • The contribution of two parcels of land acquired by the City, totaling 90 acres. There will be performance conditions and limitations on encumbrances they can place on that property. She noted that dedication of land as an economic development incentive has been done in the past, such as with the Cardinal/Verizon site. City incentives are generally tailored to the specific needs of the individual project. • The construction of infrastructure by the City, which is typical with major incentive agreements where there is not sufficient or there is no existing infrastructure in place. The upgrade of the interchange was identified during discussion with O'Brien Atkins as key to the viability of a tech park or research park development. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - Meetin~_ - - - DAYTONLEGALBLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 _ September 19, 2005 Page 6 Held 20 i~ so in con'unction with this The interchan a needs to be im roved in any case, ~ 9 p project, UMC wanted this to be identified as a commitment by the City. Staff had discussions with City Council late in 2004 regarding the reconstruction of this interchange, and Council authorized staff to move forward with funding of the project by means of a change in allocation of inside millage and by deferring construction of the municipal building beyond five years. The interchange ~ improvement is already programmed in the recently adopted 2006-2010 capital improvements plan. • Tax increment financing district. A benefit of this project is the discussions with UMC Partners regarding the establishment of a tax increment financing district, which will allow the City to secure another funding source to be applied toward the construction costs of this project. • Income tax incentive payments. These are tied to performance by UMC Partners or the developments that they will locate at this site. This is a standard provision with most incentive packages, referred to as income tax performance. • The acquisition of the stream corridor that runs through the parcel identified as the OSU parcel on the map. As part of the 1997 Community Plan, the City committed to preserving this stream corridor in future development efforts. • Fiber use. The DubLink system currently terminates on Perimeter Drive near the existing Pacer Global Logistics site. Part of the City's commitment to UMC Partners is to extend the conduit and fiber out to this site, benefiting not only the development site, but also the entire area. • Option on City-owned land. The City owns land to the west of the interchange - 100 acres acquired several years ago. Part of the discussion with UMC Partners involved their desire for an option to acquire this land or a portion of the land for a certain period of time, based on fair market value. This is proposed as part of the ,r agreement. UMC Partners development commitment. They will commit to constructing a series of facilities: ~ The first is the Institute for Personalized Health Care - a 25,000 square foot facility for the purpose of exploring and growing research and development opportunities and emerging systems of information based and patient health care. • The James Facility, approximately 100,000 square feet, will be used for the relocation and expansion of the various outpatient clinical care operations currently located at the Stoneridge Medical Center. She noted that if the overall project did not locate in Dublin, there was a potential that the Stoneridge facility would be relocated outside of Dublin. • A cancer treatment facility of approximately 94,000 square feet for delivery of sophisticated cancer treatment and therapies -one, if not the only facility of its type in North America. She summarized that these facilities are considered the initial phase and what has been committed to by UMC Partners as part of the economic development agreement. These facilities are estimated to cost in the range of $200 million, including the buildings and equipment. It represents a significant investment by UMC Partners. Staff believes that these facilities provide the opportunity to set the standard for the development of the Central Ohio Innovation Center and will create new jobs in Dublin and across the region. Subsequent to the announcement by UMC Partners, staff has received several inquiries from interested parties about potential location in the Center. It has created a lot of interest at this point. She emphasized that this is a unique economic development incentive that will have long-term economic benefit to the City and will help to kick start the implementation of the Innovation Center. Staff recommends that this ordinance be held over for second reading/public hearing at the October 3 Council meeting. At that time, Mr. Wilkins and the City's bond counsel will be present to respond to questions. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that there have been some issues raised regarding the economic development package for this project. She reiterated that Council and staff have been working with a consultant on plans to accommodate economic development in this area of the city. It was determined that the desire was to establish a technology or research park. As the city develops to the west, it has become apparent that the interchange at Post and US 33 needs improvement. The timeframe by ODOT for participation in the improvement was not possible in the near future, given ODOT's RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of _ Dublin City Council - Meeting - - - - DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 _ _ _ _ _ _ September 19, 2005 Page 7 Held 20 financial constraints. Council has agreed to delay the municipal building and has reallocated inside millage to provide funding for the project that will serve both residents and future economic development needs. The residential development of the western portion of the City, as well as the Ohio Health project coming on line and the related economic development in the Perimeter area have contributed to the need for the interchange. Ms. Grigsby stated that the five-year CIP is modified each year, and some projects are delayed or accelerated. The intersection improvements in the Avery-Muirfield corridor have been accelerated due to the continued growth in the area. In 2001, the City did an interchange justification study that ODOT adopted for improvements to this interchange. The City wanted to have approval from ODOT so that when the project became feasible for the City, the City could move forward. There will be some modifications needed, based on current information. But the City has focused on this interchange improvement for some time. The development of a high quality project will allow the City to capture service payments to be utilized for the construction of the interchange and other infrastructure improvements needed in the area. Mr. Keenan asked Ms. Grigsby to clarify the redirection of inside millage. Ms. Grigsby stated that since 2001, 100 percent of the inside tax millage of 1.75 mills has been dedicated to parkland acquisition. This has allowed the acquisition of significant pieces of land. When this opportunity arose, Council endorsed the concept of a 2007 allocation of .75 mills of the total 1.75 mills to the capital improvements tax fund. These .75 mills will be dedicated to this project. Some potential parkland acquisition will be delayed in order to accommodate this economic development project, which will benefit the City long-term. Mr. Keenan asked about the entities involved and their tax-exempt status. Will the buildings constructed accrue to the benefit of the schools and the other entities that collect taxes? Ms. Grigsby responded affirmatively. The Institute of Personalized Health Care may be non-profit, but the other two will be for profit facilities and taxable. Staff also anticipates more development in future phases. Mr. Keenan noted that these tax dollars would help to support municipal services, reducing the burden on residential taxpayers. Ms. Grigsby stated that the development listed in the agreement likely includes a 7-8 year payback on the land. Ms. Salay complimented staff on this extremely significant project. During the 2004 goal setting, Council expressed concern about ensuring the economic viability for the future. This project represents a major step forward, and it will lead to long-term quality of life for residents and corporate citizens. Mr. Reiner asked about the commitments for advanced prototype equipment - is this a written commitment? Ms. Grigsby responded that this would be included in the specifics of the economic development agreement. Mr. Lecklider asked about the 100-acre land option to be proposed with the agreement. Has the City completed an assessment of what portion of this land may be needed for future parkland? Ms. Grigsby responded that the original piece acquired by the City consisted of 157 acres, and 57 acres have been utilized for additional soccer fields with the expansion of Darree Park. Staff has discussed options for the use of this land. In reviewing the overall area for the highest and best use, staff believes that future development for the research park would make the most sense. Mr. Lecklider added that for a number of years, Council has contemplated offering this land for economic development purposes to bring a return on the investment. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher commented about the timeframe for this option. She would hope it is not along-term option because of the significant inquiries staff has received about development opportunities in the area. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council_ _ - _ - __Meetin~__ - - - - _ - - DAVTON LEG_A_L _B_LA_ NK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 _ September 19, 2005 Page 8 Held 20 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked that Council provide any questions to staff prior to the next meeting so that staff can be prepared to address them. INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING -RESOLUTIONS COUNTYAUD/TOR CERTIFICATION Resolution 60-05 Accepting the Amounts and Rates as Determined by the Budget Commission and Authorizing the Necessary Tax Levies and Certifying Them to the County Auditor. Ms. Salay introduced the resolution. Mrs. Boring asked for verification of the amount to be dedicated to parkland acquisition, assuming that the allocations of the inside millage remain the same as today. Ms. Grigsby stated that currently, two pieces of debt are being retired out of the parkland acquisition fund. One expires in 2009. After that, $1.1 million is projected to be available. Prior to that time, it is estimated at $500-600,000 per year. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. WAIVING COMPETITIVE BIDDING Resolution 61-05 Waiving Competitive Bidding for the Purpose of Repairing Pavement for SR 161 - Dale Drive to Shamrock Boulevard. Ms. Salay introduced the resolution. Mr. Hammersmith stated that he is requesting that Council waive competitive bidding to repair pavement on SR 161 from Dale Drive to Shamrock Boulevard. There has been a progressive pavement failure, particularly in the westbound lanes that has resulted in a safety concern. Staff believes the cause of the problems relates to a storm sewer beneath the roadway, but that is yet to be determined. Strawser Paving has the most competitive price at this point and has the best ability to perform in a timely manner this construction season. The work will require three weeks and will be completed by the end of October, weather permitting. Traffic will be maintained along 161. Mr. McCash recalls that this was originally a state project and state funded. Why must the City undertake the repairs at this time? Mr. Hammersmith responded that the City actually funded a majority of the project at the time it was constructed. The state provided only a small portion. Ms. Grigsby stated that there was a combination of state and federal dollars involved, but with the necessary land acquisition involved and the limitations of what state and federal dollars can be used for, the City funded 60 percent of the overall project, with the remaining 40 percent funded by federal and state monies. The City reserved funds in the construction account for this project, as the final closeout had not been received from ODOT. The final closeout was recently received from ODOT and $220,000 remains in the construction fund that is available for this project. Mr. McCash asked if there is recourse against the contractor for improperly performing the work. Mr. Hammersmith responded that staff would discuss this with ODOT after the cause of the pavement failure has been determined. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that waiving the competitive bidding is done to have the project completed this fall. If for some reason the weather is not favorable to undertaking the project this fall, she assumes that the project would then be bid. Mr. Hammersmith stated that is correct. Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road wondered whether the original road construction company can be held accountable for their work, but this has been addressed. He has had Strawser perform work and has been very satisfied with their performance. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. OTHER • MORPC I-270/US 33 Northwest Freeway Study Update Mr. Hammersmith noted that Bob Lawler, Director of Transportation, MORPC and Nick Gill, Transportation staff member from MORPC are present tonight to update Council on the progress on the study. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of _ _ Dublin City Council _ _ _ _Meetng _ - - - DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 _ _ _ - ~ September 19, 2005 Page 9 ~i Held 20 Nick Gill, MORPC outlined the parameters of the study, reviewed the background, the status, the findings, and the next steps in the study process. The study was prompted by rapid growth in the area; existing congestion at most interchanges; US 33 congestion, particular in the segment between Avery-Muirfield and the 270 interchange; concepts of new interchanges in the area; arterial congestion in the area; and the need for a comprehensive examination of the entire system. • He then summarized ODOT's 14-step project development process. Presently, only steps 1 and 2 have been completed -general planning studies to identify problems and collecting and analyzing data. The next phase is seeking input from stakeholders and the public. After that, they will proceed with identifying and evaluating possible solutions, reviewing the results with the stakeholders and outlining the possible solutions, and developing a strategy to address the purpose and need. Then they will do environmental analysis, selecting the preferred alignment, detailed design and right-of-way acquisition, final design and lastly, contract award and construction. • Currently, they are in the process of writing up the results of the existing and future conditions report to be submitted to ODOT. For the remainder of this year, they will focus on the conceptual alternatives over the next 6 months and have a final plan by the latter part of 2006. • He reviewed the process that has taken place to date and the entities involved in developing study goals and objectives. The goals include improved operational efficiency; accessibility; traffic safety and security; enhancing the quality of life for the area; preserving the environment; fostering economic development in the area; and feasibility both from a cost standpoint and physical standpoint. • Technical study activities to date include land use forecasts out to 2030; geometric deficiencies; safety/crash analysis; existing and future traffic forecasts and congestion analysis; bike and transit inventory; and whether environmental constraints exist in the corridor, both natural and man-made. • He reviewed the eight interchanges in the study and noted that each has some geometric deficiencies which he then described. • They reviewed the crash rates for the eight interchanges. Of all the interchanges, the I-270/33 area has the highest crash rate in the corridor. • In addition to the freeway systems, they considered the local arterial street systems within the study. He reviewed the various crash statistics for these. • They also analyzed and projected the level of service in the corridor out to the year 2030. • The next steps for fall and winter are to develop and evaluate conceptual alternatives to address the various problem areas, using a systematic approach. In the winter and spring, they will seek input to select a preferred conceptual alternative. It will include a mix of strategies and independent projects. • Conceptual alternatives to address the problems in the study area include: existing interchange reconfigurations; possible new interchange locations; reviewing the number of freeway lanes and any need for collector-distributor roads; making improvements along the interchange arterials; transportation demand management especially during peak periods; and other opportunities available to impact the freeway operations. • He explained the various features of safe and efficient freeways and safe and efficient service interchanges. He offered to respond to any questions. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher commented that her concern is that the project will take three years to complete and much can change during that time. Given the cost of the ultimate recommendations, it may take years for federal and state dollars to be appropriated as well as for local municipalities to determine their ability to participate. The system is failing already -that is clear. She hopes that the first four steps can be completed as soon as possible in 2006 and that the next ten steps can be completed more quickly than the first four. Mr. Gill responded that the project has taken longer than originally anticipated and they are trying to expedite the process as much as possible. In the late winter or early spring, they will have recommendations for the corridor and then the process can begin of prioritizing RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council __Meetin~ - - I I EGAL BLANK, INC., FOflM NO. 10148 _ - - ~ - - - September 19, 2005 Page 10 ~ ~ I~, Held 20 the most important pieces of the corridor. He added that the North Outerbelt study from the US 33 area to Easton went through a similar process that resulted in the addition of two lanes added to the freeway and improvement of the Sawmill interchange. Now, the other interchanges along that area are being improved. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she understands the requirements in place, but it is discouraging that it has taken three years to get to this point. The congestion is very apparent and impacts all of the communities and corporations who depend on the freeway for access to transportation. CITY MANAGER/STAFF REPORTS • Draft Conservation Design Ordinance Mr. Bird noted that as a result of the Council workshop in June regarding conservation design, the possibility of codifying some of the items in the resolution was discussed. Should the draft ordinance be adopted in some form, staff will continue to work on guidelines and standards for development as part of the implementation of the Community Plan. Key changes in the legislation are to clarify the review process and ensure continued enhancement of creative design in new residential developments. He noted that the goals of conservation design are: protect/provide ample blocks of contiguous open space; preserve natural resources and environmentally sensitive areas; provide a diverse range of housing/models of high quality; avoid "cookie-cutter," monotonous subdivisions; and to protect views and rural character. Resolution 27-04 has been revised into an ordinance, with key changes of clarifying the conservation design review process; ensuring continual enhancement of creative design in new residential developments; and better accomplishing conservation design goals. He summarized the changes: Section 1 -Applicability • Density as established in Community Plan for overall site; increased densities for smaller areas within the parcel may be permitted to facilitate clustering and lot/housing variety. • Sites over 25 acres must conform to the ordinance; sites less than 25 acres or infill sites would be exempt, but remain subject to planned development and all other City regulations. Section 2 -Preservation of Natural Resources • Requires rather than suggests that conservation design techniques be applied to preserve natural features and provide open space. Section 3 -Conservation Design Principles • Sets forth clear principles for conservation design. • Requires 50 percent open space be incorporated into project design rather than striving for 50 percent. • Replaces 75 percent adjacency requirement with general requirement for clustering so that design and preservation of open space will be the driver rather than a mathematical calculation. • Encourages open space areas in front of homes rather than behind developments. • Provision has been made fora "town-center" option to encourage increased pedestrian orientation and alley-accessed lots where appropriate. Mr. Bird provided visual examples from Westhaven, Tennessee conservation design areas. Section 4 -Open Space Design and Preservation Principles • Principles for open space design and preservation have been specifically called out and provided in a separate section. • Strict width requirements (75 feet minimum/4:1 ratio) have been eliminated to encourage creativity in design and layout of open space areas. • Golf courses are limited to 50 percent of the total open space to encourage diversity in the nature of open spaces. Section 5 - 4-Step Conservation Design Process • Modified to spell out four-step process to be used by development community to demonstrate conservation design process applied to sites proposed for development. • Provides a common base for discussion and evaluation of proposed site's application of conservation design principles. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council _ _ Meeting - - - DAYTON_LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FOFM NO. 10148 _ _ _ _ - - September 19, 2005 Page 11 Held 20 - Section 6 Conservation Design Review Process • Clarifies the development review process: the scope, timing, findings to be made and appeals. • Planned unit developments with residential components to apply conservation design four-step process. Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning to issue written findings as to conservation design/compliance with ordinance. • Director's findings must be made within 90 days of application. • Applicant can appeal Director's findings to City Council within 30 days of findings. • City Council to make a determination within 30 days of receipt of appeal. • Director to report findings to Planning & Zoning Commission who shall not have authority to alter Director's findings. • Commission maintains review function over application of Planned Unit Development standards. Section 7 -Added Section on minor administrative modification • Sets forth procedure for the Director to approve minor changes. • Director may not approve changes to overall site densities. • Director can approve up to 20 percent change to numeric standards and minor conservation design elements. • Director must issue written report on findings concerning modifications. • Applicant may appeal any determination of Director to City Council. Mr. Bird stated that this concludes his overview of a draft ordinance that begins to speak toward the issues related to make conservation design more integral to projects within the City and begins to build that bridge to planning and developments and the types of things that Planning Commission considers. The bottom line is quality of development and good design for the City. He offered to respond to questions. Mr. Reiner commented that the introductory portion of the draft ordinance is well done in terms of establishing the legal basis for the City's desire to implement conservation design. He will need clarification on the intent of some of this. When talking with the consultant, he had mentioned 25 acres as a minimum site for conservation design. This is a large site, in his view, and he is not certain if 25 acres should be the cut-off point. An area of 5-10 acres could be done with conservation design planning. The consultant also said that if 25 acres is the cut-off, another standard should be in place for smaller acreage. He does not see anything included in the ordinance to address restrictions for smaller parcels. Mr. Smith responded that the 25 acres is the consultant's recommendation, based upon what he reviewed in Dublin's plan and what is left in infill development. However, just because one does not have to adhere to strict conservation design for a smaller infill project, the same principles can be used. These numbers were recommended by the consultant, not by staff, who provided examples from throughout the country. Mr. Reiner commented that his fear is that the City will then receive many zoning proposals for development of parcels of 25 acres or less because the conservation design principles would not be required versus having a progressive ordinance that would encourage conservation design and diversity. Mr. Smith stated that staff does not intend to allow someone to purchase a large acreage and divide it into smaller parcels for this purpose. The consultant has recommended this as the best way it would work for Dublin. Mr. Keenan asked if it could be worded to clarify the definition of infill. Mr. Bird responded that part of this relates to the characteristic of the site itself. A site under 25 acres may have natural features to be protected. The question is one of good design, not just conservation design. Mr. Reiner noted that Mr. Duerksen had indicated that other standards could be adopted for parcels under 25 acres. What has he recommended and why is it not included in this draft ordinance? Mr. Bird stated that he would check on this with Mr. Duerksen -perhaps the open space for a smaller parcel could be less than 50 percent, based on the smaller parcel. Mr. Reiner would like to close the loopholes in order to encourage creative and innovative design. The goal is to set the bar higher to encourage unique housing and not cookie- cutterdesign prevalent across Columbus. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of _ Dublin City Council _ _ Meetin~_ _ - DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 _ _ - - - September 19, 2005 Page 12 Held Ms. Salay commented that it is significant to her that Mr. Duerksen reviewed the maps and made this recommendation, based on the available land remaining in Dublin. Mr. Smith responded that the consultant proposed this number, based on his review. Staff will check with Mr. Duerksen regarding this question. Mr. Reiner stated that his concern is not with the breakup of a large farmland tract, but with ~ the planning for a parcel of less than 25 acres. There can still be a workable formula to secure creative housing on the smaller parcel. Mr. Reiner asked what is meant by modifications by the Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning? He had understood that conservation subdivision principals would apply to all parcels of a certain size as determined by Council. What modifications would be allowed? Mr. Smith responded that the consultant suggested that when a figure is determined, that the Director has the ability to modify that to a certain percentage, with the requirement for a full report to Council regarding the findings. The ultimate check and balance would be with Council. Mr. Reiner asked if he believes this opens the City up for much conflict. Mr. Smith responded that it does not, noting that Mr. Duerksen recommended this flexibility, as absolutes limit design options for unique circumstances. This language has been used in other areas throughout the country. Mr. Reiner commented that he has concerns with who makes the final determination. Currently, the consultant and staff have indicated that Dublin's open space requirements are nearly 50 percent with the setbacks, parkland dedication, etc. Is this correct? Mr. Bird stated that it is likely closer to 40 percent. Dublin allows only 50 percent of the 200-foot setback requirement to be counted toward open space, so one could argue that this equates to a higher percentage of open space in the end. The issue at hand is to grant any percentage reduction, that it would have to be unique - it would not be automatic. This is the discretion provided to the Director who would make a finding of fact. Mr. Reiner commented that the developer's representative will try to secure the highest density possible for his project and will argue its justification to the Director, whether or not the project merits this. Mr. Smith pointed out that the consultant recommended that Dublin not be tied to specific percentages, because it may preclude someone from bringing in a highly desirable project with unique features. Council always has the discretion to review the percentage. Mr. Reiner responded that he still believes that the bar should be set at 50 percent. Mr. Smith responded that with all of Dublin's other requirements plus the 50 percent open space, it could preclude some of the products desired. Mr. Reiner stated that, other than portions of Muirfield, he has yet to see different products of housing in Dublin. Mr. Smith responded that he disagrees -there are different products in Ballantrae and Tartan West. Mr. Reiner noted that the consultant alluded to the New Albany product, but that product has not been brought to Dublin by the developers who build in both communities. Mr. Reiner noted that in regard to the 75 percent adjacency, there are two key elements of conservation design: an open space requirement and that the project should face out into a common area, adjacent to open space. In the recommended examples provided in the attachments, the units abut open space. Yet the language regarding "striving for 75 percent of units directly adjacent to open space" has been replaced with "having dwelling units clustered in patterns that preserve sizeable open spaces and yet permit a high percentage of dwellings to be directly adjacent to the open space." This is not a mandatory requirement. Mr. Reiner pointed out that there is an amendment in the draft ordinance to allow a town center type development, using Franklin, Tennessee as an example. So the developer now has an "out" which allows the ability to develop in this way. Mr. Reiner noted that taking out the second major feature of how the units face onto common space essentially guts the legislation. Mr. Smith responded that the issue seems to be with the way conservation design is viewed. What Council has said for years is that they desire something unique, of high RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of _ _ Dublin City Council _ Meetin~_ DAYTON LEGAL__BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10748 _ _ _ _ September 19, 2005 Page 13 Held 20 quality, different and without regard to density. Mr. Duerksen reviewed the conservation design resolution in place, cautioning that Council will not reach their goal with all of the number restrictions included. He has recommended the things that are done in other parts of the country. When placing so many restrictions on parcels less than 25 acres, the architectural design options are limited. _ Mr. Reiner stated that, to the contrary, he believes that guidelines would stimulate architectural design. The density may not be as high as the developer desires, if he has to meet the requirements. But in the end, the result is a nicer looking project. Mr. McCash stated that the ordinance has to be reviewed by Planning Commission. The concept is to provide flexibility versus mandating minimum and maximum ratios of width, percentages, and strong dictates. Whatever layout is put forth has to be reviewed and analyzed by Planning Commission. He is frustrated because the document now seems more flexible, and yet there is now an effort to go back and include specific numbers. Mr. Reiner stated that he believes that if there is not a percentage included and mandated by law, it will not occur. The provisions within the resolution regarding 75 percent open space have been totally deleted from the ordinance and replaced with something entirely different. Mr. McCash responded that the language indicates a "high percentage" adjacent to open space, and Planning Commission and Council would not approve the development if the percentage is not acceptable. Mr. Reiner stated that another major issue for him is that he would prefer that the Planning Commission reviews this and not the City Council. They are the body that the Council has designated to oversee development. Mr. Smith responded that the elected officials have the ultimate vote as to whether the Planning Director's recommendation is acceptable, and not a body appointed by Council. Ultimately, an appeal would come to Council. In the other resolution, the system was not clear. This ordinance makes it clear that if an applicant is not satisfied with the staff's recommendation, the appeal comes to Council. Mrs. Boring asked if that is true conversely - if the Planning Director approves it, can Council determine that the open space percentage is not acceptable to them? Mr. Smith responded affirmatively. Council has the final authority, not Planning Commission. It also provides that a decision must be made within 90 days after submission of an application. Currently, there is no time limit. Mr. Reiner asked for a definition of what staff would consider a high percentage of dwellings directly adjacent to open space. Mr. Bird responded that it depends upon the character of the site, but certainly something between 50 and 75 percent would be considered a "high percentage." The desire would not be to accept 75 percent adjacency to open space in a conventional subdivision -but rather, to encourage design to meet the conservation design principles. Mr. Reiner asked -for the sake of design professionals who build in many communities and must be familiar with various Codes -when the City indicates that it permits a development with a high percentage of dwelling space adjacent to open space, does that imply the goal is 50 to 75 percent? Ms. Brautigam responded that it does not mean 50 to 75 percent, but it means there is flexibility. That is the hallmark. The developer must present their best subdivision, and if it is not 50 percent and yet Dublin believes it is something desirable that belongs in Dublin, then it can be approved. The developer must prove that what they are presenting is the best. Mr. Lecklider raised the issue that it may be in the City's best interest not to assign a hard number to this. Ultimately, the discretion rests with Council. Council's discussion over the past months and years provide direction to the Planning staff about what is desired to be achieved with conservation design. He would prefer having some flexibility that would foster creativity. Mr. Reiner stated that as a designer, he is concerned about this. If the conservation design goal is to allow people to have common, open views, adding value to property - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council _ _ _Meetin~ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 - - September 19, 2005 Page 14 Held 20 and if this requirement is not included for the design - he does not believe the product will be conservation design. While Council is seeking creativity, he is concerned that removing the numbers takes out the two key elements of conservation design - 50 percent common space and an adjacency requirement. When it is stated that the Director can approve minor administrative modifications of 20 percent or less or to any numeric standard set forth in these regulations what does the 20 percent mean? Mr. Bird responded that it would be the 50 percent open space requirement and the other numeric standards, such as the 200-foot setback -anything numeric relative to the development. They have to provide justification and basis for these variations. Mr. Reiner noted that the issue remains about the degree to which this will be enforced in terms of density or sewer line modifications or whatever. Mr. McCash asked if the desire is to control design or to control density. Mr. Smith responded that the Director cannot make a determination regarding the overall site density. Mr. Reiner summarized that his reservations relate to the abutting open space of the units and the percentages, and that P&Z should be the final body to decide -not the political body of Council. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked for clarification of a procedure. If the Director does makes a modification, the plan is taken to P&Z with that modification, so the developer has formulated the plan based on the Director's recommendation. P&Z makes their determination based on what has been submitted to them. At that point, it comes to Council and should Council not endorse what the Director has changed months before, the developer has expended monies and time and P&Z has made decisions based on what the Director has recommended. This is the same concern expressed by developers today -that they expend time and money and find at some juncture that they must make major changes. Mr. Smith responded that Council essentially does operate this way with any rezoning case. Council can always reject a rezoning. The hope is that the system will work. The modifications recommended by the Director may be smaller than 20 percent - it is Council's decision. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that her concern does not relate to percentages. She has limited faith that the developer will bring in his ultimate product at the outset, as this is not the way business has been done in Dublin over the years. They will continually have to make modifications to their proposals, and then it is brought to Council where it may be determined that Council's intentions have not been met. Because of that fear, including the percentages becomes important. She does believe that political pressure will be even greater because of the cost involved for a developer who has to produce many iterations of the plan, is ready to break ground, only to find out that the plan is not acceptable to Council who did not agree with the Director's recommendation several months previous. Mr. McCash stated that if the Director makes a recommendation for a reduction, and Planning Commission is charged with the responsibility of reviewing all of the development process including the Director's findings, why would Council not defer to all of that hearing process versus discounting their work? Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that her understanding is that the Planning Commission has to accept the findings -they are not to question them. Mrs. Boring added that she has the same concern because Planning Commission may not agree with the Director's findings, but they do not have the ability to question them -only Council has that ability and that opportunity would occur after all of the Planning Commission hearings have already take place. Mr. Smith stated that under the previous system, the Director made a finding of whether conservation design should apply to a project or not. Planning Commission did not always agree with the Director's findings about the application of conservation design. However, under this ordinance, every application over 25 acres falls under the conservation design ordinance. The only item modifiable are some percentages, and the Director must justify any modification. It is important to trust the system. The consultant has made recommendations about the best way to implement conservation design and the ordinance reflects those recommendations. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of _ Dublin City Council_ _ __Meetin~ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 - - September 19, 2005 Page 15 Held 20 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she wants to ensure that her understanding is correct and he has affirmed that it is correct. There is a potential of having developers in the same position they are today of being upset about having invested a lot of monies only to have Council reject their plan at the end of the process. Mr. Smith responded that he cannot change this - he can only clarify the process. Mrs. Boring reiterated that the issue for her is if Planning Commission does not agree with the Director's findings, they do not have the power to change them. Council should make a determination on the findings before Planning Commission does all of their work only to have it potentially rejected at the end of the process. Mr. Smith noted that what cannot be changed are the Director's findings on the adjustment of percentages. However, the plan must still comply with all of the other City requirements. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Mr. McCash's point is that in the design elements that are improved through the Planning Commission process, those improvements would mitigate in some way the adjustments made by the Director. Mr. McCash agreed, noting that there is a basis for why the Director makes the adjustment. He must have a finding to explain and justify why the percentages were changed and how the end result is improved. Ms. Salay stated that it is important to utilize the expertise of staff. Council Members for the most part are not site planners, and the professional staff should be allowed to carry out their job. Planning Commission cannot change the Director's findings, but the Commission can reject the project. There are checks and balances with three different levels of review -staff, the Commission and Council. Mr. Smith stated that he would speak with Mr. Duerksen about Mrs. Boring's concerns. Mrs. Boring asked if it would be considered arbitrary if the Commission were permitted to reject the project because they don't agree with the Director's findings. In that way, it could immediately be appealed to Council. Mr. Smith stated that he would discuss these issues with the consultant and report back in a memo to Council. Mr. McCash stated that he remains concerns about how the City's other ordinances such as architectural diversity and appearance code impact the applicant's ability to meet the conservation design principles and the density standards. Mrs. Boring asked for clarification of the determination of the density for amixed-use parcel. If there are 100 acres, and the residential units are clustered in one area and there is mixed-use retail on the other portion, how is the density computed for the overall parcel? Mr. Bird responded that the commercial would likely be split off. There are a variety of ways to compute the overall density - by intensity of development. The issue at hand is splitting off the portion that is commercial. Mr. McCash stated that the Community Plan includes multi-family density of 4-5, so what happens if the development is comprised of both residential at 1-2 dwelling units/acre and multi-family at 4-5 dwelling units/acre? Will it be a hybrid density overall of 2-3? Mr. Bird responded that at 1-2 units per acre with a 100 acre plan, 200 units would be included and the question is how they would be distributed on the site - it would be a function of the site design and housing mix. Mr. McCash stated that this would in effect eliminate the multi-family densities of 4-5 dwelling units per acre designated in the Community Plan. For mixed-use development with a retail component, there is a density factor needed to make it work. A critical mass is needed, and that cannot be accomplished with a density of 1-2 units per acre. It will be a combination density in the range of 4-5. Mr. Smith stated that there are obviously some considerations needed for mixed-use developments. Mr. Keenan asked if the lack of a hard percentage makes it more difficult to defend a decision by Council? RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meetin~_ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FOAM NO. 10148 September 19, 2005 Page 16 Held 20 i Mr. Smith responded that it actually makes it easier and provides more flexibility in a defense of a zoning decision. Mr. Keenan commented that if the City had followed the intent of the original resolution, these problems would not exist. It is important to have confidence in the process and to instill confidence in staff and Planning Commission that the process will work. Ms. Salay agreed with Mr. Keenan. She asked about the open space in front versus open space to the rear of a lot. Will that be site driven or will staff always request that the open space be oriented toward the front of the development? Mr. Bird responded that this is partly site driven, but it is an option for certain types of housing and layouts. Ms. Salay asked that Council be cognizant of the impact this has on affordable housing, understanding that the definition of what is affordable is flexible and fluid. Over the past few weeks, Council has seen that there is a need for some level of affordability and she does not want Council to preclude someone bringing in a project that is really great for the people of the community versus aesthetically pleasing. Perhaps credit could be given to a developer who includes an element of more affordable units in a large, mixed use development. When the consultant asked if Council wants affordable housing for young singles, older people and empty nesters, the response from Council was that they want that diversity and affordability of housing. Mr. Smith noted that there is a clause in this ordinance that provides Council with the right to waive the conservation design requirements on any site, if they so choose. Mr. Lecklider questions whether a $600,000 town home is the answer to providing "affordable" housing for these groups. In Section 3, with respect to the reference to neo- traditional town center and the example provided of Westhaven, he doesn't believe that Westhaven is the best work of DPZ who also planned the Kentlands development. In the Kentlands, there is a much wider use of pocket parks and greenspace, interspersed with - water features and bikepaths. Secondly, on Page 9 of the Council minutes of June 27, it paraphrases Mr. Duerksen's comments that given the way Dublin is currently applying conservation design, absent specifying a mix, the result would be big houses on small lots. What assurance does the City have, going forward, that this will not be the result? Is there somewhere that a mix should be specified in this rewrite? Mr. Smith responded that he would talk with the consultant and Mr. Bird about this. Ms. Brautigam stated that she does not believe the ordinance makes provision for a lot of mixture of housing in subdivisions. But the goal of the legislation was to remedy the apparent difficulties in the existing conservation design resolution and to do it quickly. The next step is to move forward with other changes in the Code via the Community Plan to focus on the design element. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher thanked everyone for their participation, noting that Mr. Smith will respond by memo to some of the issues raised and make any minor modifications necessary so that this can be moved forward. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road stated that Mr. Reiner is very sensitive to the possible subversion of conservation design. It is very fragile, and there is an election coming up in November. If incumbents are not re-elected, the new Council members may not be familiar with the concepts of conservation design. He gathers that there is some new perception and insight tonight on the concepts, which he assumes is a result of the staff and consultant's review of the concepts and the process needed to carry it through. There is only a short time to complete this prior to the upcoming election. Secondly, he is very concerned that council may not recognize conservation design when it exists. Rerouting a roadway to preserve a tree, as some communities have done, represents adherence to the principles of conservation design. In Dublin, there is a large stand of 100-year old trees along Dublin Road, many of which will be eliminated in the roundabout project at Brand Road. That stand of trees and the large tree on the Daroski property represents conservation design with its freedom of natural growth. It could have been consciously or subconsciously an opportunity for many to observe natural conservation design, which is not the same as urban landscaping. He commented that there is no guarantee that Council's current conservation design efforts will be successful. He has often pointed out Minerva Park as an example of conservation design, even though houses are close together. There are seldom vacancies in the area. He concluded by RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of - _ Dublin City Council ___Meeting__ DAVTON_LEGA_L_BLANK_, INC., FORM NO. 10148 September 19, 2005 Page 17 Held stating that if Council observes good conservation design and can identify it, they can then put the procedures in place in Dublin to reach that goal. RFP for Historic Dublin Ms. Ott, Assistant City Manager noted that the comments from the Historic District area meetings were not available for distribution until tonight. The comments are mirrored in the draft RFP being presented tonight. The first reading of the ordinance adopting the Historic Dublin Revitalization Plan will be included on the October 3 Council agenda, with a request to refer it to the ARB and Planning Commission. The expectation is that it will be brought back to Council for second reading/public hearing in December. She noted that the emphasis of the rewrite of the RFP is on five points, based upon Council's input and the public meetings: smaller building footprints and reduced square footage to ensure appropriate scale on the site; to de-emphasize the site as the premier public gathering space for larger events in the District; to increase emphasis on pedestrian scale and access; to allow a second floor to accommodate retail, commercial or residential use; and to change the writing style to emphasize creative land use that will mix well with neighboring uses and buildings. The primary objectives of the RFP remain the same: anchor Historic Dublin as a unique community destination; ensure mixed use to support the economic vitality of the area; include creative and engaging outdoor space; include architectural features that blend with the area; to adequately address the parking requirements for the site; to work with the City to replace the 35 parking spaces which will be lost from the development of the site to ensure their relocation elsewhere in the District; and to ensure there is a significant amount of private investment sufficient to maintain the ongoing vitality of the site. Staff notified 40 individuals throughout the community who have expressed interest in the project that this was included on the Council agenda. In terms of timeline, if Council approves the RFP tonight, staff anticipates issuing an RFP next month, and then bringing back in January three top proposals for public input, with recommendation of a final proposal for Council consideration in February. She offered to respond to questions. Mr. Keenan asked who is the Project Manager listed in the RFP. Ms. Ott responded that she would serve as the Project Manager. Mr. Keenan asked for clarification of the list that the RFP was sent to. Ms. Ott responded that a notice of tonight's meeting was sent on Friday to an a-mail list of 40 individuals who have inquired about the project during the past 6 months. Mr. Keenan that he will be surprised if there is a lot of interest in the RFP, given the constraints for such a small parcel. Ms. Salay noted that an important item is to encourage outdoor dining in that space, perhaps within a common area. She agrees with Mr. Keenan that the RFP is complex, but is hopeful that there will be interest. Mr. McCash stated that his concern is with the amount of information an applicant must provide as part of their package -buildings, elevations, site plan -for this small site, versus providing more generalities and working through those elements as part of the public process of the design. They are being asked to design something and then to go back and meet with the affected residents and property owners. He would advocate more of a bigger concept picture versus delineating the number of windows in the elevation or how it would meet historic design standards. Ms. Ott responded that is not the expectation at this point, but perhaps the way it is written - gives him that indication. Because it will have to be reviewed by ARB, the applicant is told upfront the expectation is to look at the design guidelines in determining the appropriate architectural design. There will be a lot of work needed after the public meetings to finalize the design. What Council will see in February will still be conceptual. Mr. McCash stated that items 6, 7 and 8 in the package proposal requirements indicate that the entire site be developed. A submittal would require a site plan with building footprints delineated, elevations already delineated that meet all the design requirements, and an aerial perspective. This is a fairly costly response to make to the RFP and would cost approximately $15,000. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of--____ Dublin City Council _ Meeting _ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 _ - - _ - ~ September 19, 2005 Page 120 I Held Ms. Brautigam stated that this is what was received from the developer who was initially interested in the project. Staff is trying to indicate that these should be conceptual in nature. Mr. McCash responded that the RFP requires more than conceptual information - it is requesting essentially what was submitted at the end of the process with Mr. Grabill. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the concern expressed by the business owners and residents with the previous proposal was their lack of engagement in the process of its development. Ms. Brautigam stated that in this case, the citizen engagement has occurred over four public meetings. Mr. McCash stated that anyone who responds to this RFP would have to submit a design before they have public meetings. What the City should be seeking from the developer is their qualifications and the size and mix of the buildings needed to make this a viable project. The detailed conceptual elevations are not needed at this point. The City wants someone who can demonstrate through past projects their experience and whether they can meet the standards Dublin is seeking. Ms. Brautigam stated that perhaps Mr. McCash's understanding of conceptual design is different from staff's. Staff envisions a snapshot of what the project may look like, but not the detail of the windows and gables. Mr. Keenan stated that this was not the way he read this, and he would be surprised if there is any interest. Mr. McCash stated that the City first wants to see more of how the pro forma works for this site, and then the public process would begin. Dublin wants to ensure that they have ~ experience in this type of urban infill project and can develop something for which the pro forma works. Mr. Grabill found out at the end of the process that the pro forma did not work for him on this site. Ms. Brautigam stated that staff will make revisions based on this input and will bring back the RFP at the October 3 Council meeting for review. Brian Kocak, 8135 Davington Drive stated that he and his wife are the owners of Modern Male in Historic Dublin . He commended the City for the process for development of the site. The Community Plan envisions some great plans for Historic Dublin. He hopes that the proposal will address the parking needs and that there won't be a piecemeal approach. The solution for parking for this corner should be finalized before moving forward with the development. He requests that language requiring that the parking for this corner be completed before construction begins be included in the RFP. The developer needs to work closely with the businesses during this process, keeping them informed about electric service impacts, waterlines, etc. They are concerned about the total square footage of the development. As the process moves forward, he encouraged good communication with the business owners in the District. Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road asked if his understanding is correct that the RFP invitations will be sent only to local developers, regional developers and local associations interested in Historic Dubin. In England, in the year 1666, a great fire provided an opportunity to rebuild the City and some magnificent pieces were created during that period. His point is whether Council would want an artist or sculptor to submit a proposal, which may result in more creativity. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that they would have to present their qualifications to develop the corner. Perhaps an artist or sculptor would be a great partner with those professionals who do respond. If he is aware of someone interested, he should encourage he or she to become involved. Mr. McCash noted that he was reminded by Mr. Kozak's comments that as part of the proposal, an important item to address is some of the sequencing and phasing of the project. It will have impacts on businesses in the District. Perhaps they should be required to submit a phasing plan. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council _ ___Meetin~ DAYTON.LEGAL_ BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148_ _ - - September 19, 2005 Page 19 20 Held Ms. Ott responded that staff has full intentions of that once the proposals are narrowed down and negotiations begin with the preferred developer. Mr. McCash stated that an applicant might change the way that they present their concept if they are aware of the need for phasing to reduce the impact on businesses. Ms. Ott responded that it is already stated in the RFP, but this language can be emphasized. Brenda Kocak 8531 Davington Drive commented that planned developments tend to overshadow the other small businesses that have had to abide by the guidelines of the Historic District. By allowing buildings to be brought in as planned developments, it overshadows existing businesses in terms of different signage allowed, etc. Whatever happens, she would appreciate being able to revisit that portion of the plan. The signage permitted in a PUD is different than the guidelines for other businesses in the Historic District. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher commented that it is not the intention of the City that they would be exempt from the Historic District guidelines. Mrs. Boring stated that they would be under the jurisdiction of the ARB. Mr. McCash commented that a different development text could be included within the planned district. For example, the Grabill project on the southwest corner had more signage than was permitted in the Historic District by means of the approved development text. Ms. Brautigam commented that the PUD would allow them to have a sign package for the site. It can be limited to Historic District standards, but there is the chance that they may be permitted some extra signage within a package. The developer may request more signage than the District allows, and Council will have to determine the appropriateness of any additional signage for the site. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Mrs. Boring: N 1. Asked if staff can arrange for a field trip for Council to the New Albany areas that have been discussed by Mr. Reiner in recent meetings. Ms. Brautigam stated that staff could do so. 2. There is sidewalk along Hard Road that is in need of repair. She asks that staff address this. Mr. Hammersmith stated that staff is aware of this and is addressing the situation. Mr. Keenan asked for a correction to the minutes of the June 27 study session on page 12. It should state that the Clintonville homes were built in the 1920's and 30's. Ms. Salay: 1. Wants to make Council aware that there have been incidents of vandalism of adjacent homes and misuse of the park along the Indian Run near the Halloran property. She received an a-mail from a resident and staff is addressing the concerns. 2. An a-mail was sent to City Council recently from a resident of the southwest regarding the Ponderosa issue. As a result of someone forwarding this a-mail, a citizen's personal information was made public. That citizen received some feedback on their comments originally made to Council. This citizen who sent an a-mail to City Council therefore felt harassed and in fear for their safety and contacted the Dublin Police. In the future, she would suggest that if Council r Members want to share a Contact City Council a-mail with another citizen that they be judicious in sharing that citizen's personal information with another. 3. Reported that the Miracle League games appeared to kick off without a hitch, although a very large soccer tournament was taking place at the same time. She sent an a-mail to Mr. Hahn about her concerns, and within a short time, signage was erected to assist with traffic and parking. Thanks to staff for their quick response. Manor Chinnici-Zuercher: 1. Commented that she spoke to the citizen who had concerns about the a-mail sharing. While the citizen recognized that such a communication is a public document and can be shared, she recommended the City's web site have a RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of _ _ Dublin City Council _ _Meeti~__ - - - _ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 September 19, 2005 Page 20 i Held 20 statement that this is a public venue and that any communication can be shared. 2. Reported that last Friday was Constitution Day in the United States, and the Department of Education mandated that the Preamble be read by all children at the same time across the country. She participated in this program at the Dublin Schools and they presented her with a gift in commemoration of Deer ~ Run Elementary's 25th year anniversary. 3. Reported that she attended the City's Hurricane Katrina benefit concert last Thursday evening. Although it was not well attended, the concert was wonderful and citizens had the opportunity to donate monies to the American Red Cross for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. 4. Reminded Council Members of the interviews scheduled this week with consultant David Latshaw. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Mayor -Presiding Officer ~j/lirt-~, C ~ ~i~~ A /rt_~ Clerk of Council m