Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/03/2005 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meetin~_ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., WRM NO. 10748 October 3, 2005 ~ Held 20 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the regular meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, October 3, 2005 at the Dublin Municipal Building. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Lecklider led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present were: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, Mrs. Boring, Mr. Keenan, Ms. Salay and Mr. Lecklider. Mr. McCash arrived at 7:05 p.m. Mr. Reiner arrived at 7:10 p.m. Staff members present were: Ms. Brautigam, Ms. Grigsby, Mr. Smith, Mr. Hammersmith, Ms. Puskarcik, Ms. Ott, Ms. Crandall, Ms. Hoyle, Mr. Hahn, Ms. Ruwette, Ms. Gilger, Ms. Yorko, Ms. Martin, Ms. Wanner and Mr. Gunderman. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Salay moved approval of the minutes of the meeting of September 19, 2005. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Mr. Keenan noted a correction to page 7, where it should state, "Will the buildings constructed accrue to the benefit of the schools and the other entities that collect taxes?" Ms. Salay noted a correction to page 15 where there is an incomplete phrase in the fifth line of the second paragraph. The Clerk indicated that she would make these corrections. Vote on the motion: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. CORRESPONDENCE The Clerk reported that no correspondence was sent to Council requiring their action. PROCLAMATION Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher presented a proclamation recognizing the month of October as "National Arts & Humanities Month" in the City of Dublin to David Guion, Executive Director, Dublin Arts Council. Mr. Guion thanked Council and noted that the support of both the City of Dublin and the Ohio Arts Council have been key to the advancement of the arts in Dublin. CITIZEN COMMENTS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Joel Campbell, 5565 Brand Road addressed Council regarding an issue with the improvements being made on the north side of Brand Road. He expressed appreciation to the City for undertaking this project which will benefit the residents along that portion of the roadway. The community at large will benefit as well, as they will be afforded protection from a traffic standpoint, the aesthetics will be improved, and the long-term erosion of the creek will be addressed. He thanked the Engineering staff and the City Attorney who met with him a couple of weeks ago regarding the plans for the project. The issue he is bringing to Council tonight is with the guardrail material itself. During his Council service, Council focused a lot of time on street sign appearance, the light pole style and color, the mast arms on traffic lights, and having consistent landscaping throughout City roads, such as Emerald Parkway. However, they may have overlooked the guardrails, noting that there is a range of styles and paint throughout the City -silver, brown and rust colored. While the Brand Road installation impacts those living along the roadway, those driving down the road will view this for decades. There is a need to address the policy issues of the type of guardrail installed throughout the City. He is requesting that Council review the guardrail to be installed along Brand Road in ~ conjunction with this project. While the project bid has been awarded and work has begun, he asked that Council review some alternatives for the steel guardrail. Wood timber would be ideal, but he understands that there are significant costs involved and some potential engineering issues. Another alternative would be cable with wood posts. At the very least, if it is determined that the project will go forward with the brown painted steel guardrail, he asked that Council ensure that the rails don't begin chipping as other existing rails have done throughout the City. Ron Geese, 5584 Brand Road distributed photos of various types of guardrail in place throughout the City. He has resided for 35 years in his home on Brand Road. He is present tonight to clarify the existing City standard for guardrail composition. For him, the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of_ Dublin City Council _ Meeting - - DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., f-0RM NO. 10148 October 3, 2005 Page 2 Held 20 1,400 lineal feet of guardrail will be installed on the north side of the road which will terminate at his driveway and then another section of guardrail will continue over the tunnel. Pages 1-3 contain photos of guardrails established in the last couple of years, primarily in the Muirfield area and the roundabouts. They are requesting that similar guardrail be included in the project near their home. Brand Road was designated as a scenic roadway, and he is questioning whether the ones marked 5, 6 and 7 are the guardrails that will be installed on Brand Road. They are not maintained and the paint has chipped. He and Mr. Campbell are concerned that if this guardrail is installed, who will handle the maintenance. Items 8, 9 and 10 are guardrails in place on state highways and these are being painted where installed along Dublin highways. It concerns him that the most inexpensive alternative will be used on this scenic portion of Brand Road. There is a nice, aesthetically pleasing wood guardrail used in Muirfield. Finally, he and Mr. Campbell have had years of experience on Council. They were not notified that this would be on the agenda for bid award and what decision had been made about guardrails. Several Council members have discussed this project with him and the scenic nature of Brand Road. They are now requesting Council's reconsideration of the legislation that was previously approved. He asked for clarification about the process to do so. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that Council would likely make a decision this evening on this matter. If Council is in agreement with considering the issue at this point on the agenda, a decision can be made while they are present. Ms. Brautigam added that staff does have a brief presentation prepared regarding this issue. Wallace Maurer 7451 Dublin Road stated that he had a long conversation with the City Manager a few weeks ago in which she chastised him for not having spoken to her prior to the meeting about topics he later brought up to Council. He responded that when he comes to the podium, he never knows for certain what he will address. Such is the case tonight. He has amultimillion-dollar idea to propose, but it occurs to him that rarely has anything he has suggested moved beyond this room. Thus he will bring the suggestions to _ a broader arena. In the meantime, he chastised Council for having squandered another month on the Kindra issue. Perhaps they can consider this very serious personnel issue during their planned executive session tonight. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if the consensus of Council is to complete the discussion regarding the Brand Road guardrail at this time. There was no objection from Council. Mr. Hammersmith stated that on September 6, Council approved a resolution accepting the bid for the North Fork of Indian Run Bank Stabilization at Brand Road Project. The question came of why staff did not deviate from the City standard of steel beam guardrail to use timber guardrail on the installation. He responded that it was purely an issue of cost, both for the initial installation and for periodic maintenance costs. After that time, staff did receive a quote from the subcontractor, Paul Peterson for the cost difference for a timber guardrail installation. The project consists of 1,490 feet of guardrail. The guardrail installations for the Muirfield Drive roundabout over the north fork of the Indian Run include a steel backing plate that has to be installed behind the guardrail to meet FHA collision standards. The additional cost for this type of guardrail along Brand Road would be $107,701. What staff is proposing is painted steel for the Brand Road installation. The Concord Road and Muirfield Drive installations were replacements of existing timber guardrail with in kind material. Staff is proposing a coated guardrail that is field applied. Staff has modified the specifications to ensure that the pain does not chip. With timber guardrail, collision damage is costly to repair and requires additional time to do so. The only companies that install this guardrail are Paul Peterson and Lake Erie Construction of Norwalk, Ohio. Staff is seeking further direction from Council regarding their preference for the material to be installed for the project. Staff made the previous recommendation for cost reasons, and because the $237,000 project was being done to address a safety concern along the north side of Brand Road. He offered to respond to questions. Mr. Reiner asked if there are other alternatives available, such as cable barrier. Mr. Hammersmith responded that cable barrier is less expensive, but the issue is a matter of deflection, lateral and horizontal, upon impact. There is not adequate room in this location. Therefore, the cable barrier is not a viable alternative. Mr. Reiner asked if staff is more positive about the new surface coating that is being used currently. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 October 3, 2005 Page 3 I ; Held 2D Mr. Hammersmith responded that the initial prep and priming of the galvanized surface is the key to successful field application of the paint. The rail, bolts and timber are coated after they are put in place. Mr. Reiner asked if there is a difference in the life of the timber over the galvanized product. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the replacement costs for timber would be much more, translating into additional costs for a motorist whose car damages the rail. The issue is generally with the timber itself, and is the same whether it is a timber or steel rail -the posts are both wood and subject to rotting. Mrs. Boring noted that Mr. Campbell brought up an interesting point about City standards. She asked about the cost difference between the mast arms installed in Dublin versus the standard poles and wires used in other cities. Mr. Hammersmith stated that a rough estimate could range from $100,000 to $200,000 additional for the hardware, depending upon the intersection. Mrs. Boring suggested that staff provide more information about the guardrail policy to increase the residents' comfort level. They were apparently surprised to hear of this recommendation for the guardrail material. Mr. Hammersmith responded that Mr. Richardson met in the field with the residents as well as Mr. Smith. Much of the information was discussed with the exception of the costs and the question of whether the timber could physically be installed at that location. The answer to that is that the timber will work -the issue is the cost difference. Mr. Keenan stated that the more important question is if the City has standards relative to guardrail material. Mr. Hammersmith responded affirmatively, noting that steel W beam guardrail, brown coated is the standard and it has been installed along Dublin Road which is also designated as a scenic roadway. Mr. Keenan noted that if the City is trying to preserve some of the older elements, the structures and setbacks along Brand Road, the wooden barriers would be more appropriate and more in keeping with the character of Brand Road. Mr. Keenan responded that Mrs. Boring's point is well taken. The City has invested significantly in landscaping and boulevarding to enhance the City's attractiveness. What would the cost be of using timber guardrail for future installations throughout the City? Mr. Hammersmith responded that it would be substantial. Ms. Salay commented that much discussion took place about the City standards within the Coffman Park Task Force discussion about a central park. They had suggested special treatment of items such as guardrails and pavement to provide a certain feel. In the Community Plan update, perhaps it would be worth considering future needs for guardrail replacement and determine in what locations the standards should be wood or steel. In location, a case could certainly be made for using wood. Mr. Lecklider noted that in his opinion, Brand Road has a distinct character in the portion between Dublin Road and Muirfield Drive. He had previously requested that staff investigate using the timber rail. Although staff's recommendation was justified on the cost basis, he would support doing something different in this location as an exception. He supports Ms. Salay's suggestion of reviewing scenic roadways in the Community Plan for future installations. Under the circumstances and recognizing the costs involved, he would support an exception in this case. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher commented that she appreciates the staff process for this recommendation. However, she believes there are certain roads that are appropriate for the galvanized metal and others that are not. She does not like the galvanized steel appearance along Dublin Road, a scenic roadway. Along busy highways, such as SR 161, it may make more sense. But along scenic routes with trees, creeks, etc., the guardrail should be consistent with that look. She would support wood on both Dublin Road and Brand Road installations, recognizing the metal has already been installed. She recalls discussion about landscaping along Dublin Road to hide the metal guardrail. She is disappointed to hear that the residents were not aware of the bid award, as she had asked if staff had discussed this with Mr. Geese. Staff had indicated at the time that they had not, but she presumed that staff would have then discussed this with the affected residents. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of _ Dublin City Council Meetn~_ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 _ October 3, 2005 Page 4 Held 2D Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to instruct the staff to install wood guardrails as opposed to galvanized steel. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Mr. Lecklider clarified that his first preference would be to use timber along Dublin Road, but he would want to consider that separately. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher clarified that her motion relates only to the Brand Road project under discussion tonight. Mrs. Boring asked if a motion is needed to reconsider Council's previous action. Mr. Smith responded that Council is actually amending a portion of the bid previously approved. His question would be the appropriation of funds for this modification. Ms. Grigsby responded that there are sufficient funds in the capital improvements tax funds that can be internally adjusted. This adjustment will also be taken into account during the operating budget preparation. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher further recommended as Ms. Salay has suggested that during the Community Plan process, areas be identified where a different type of guardrail should be installed in keeping with the environment. Mrs. Boring asked if this company is capable of installing the wood timber guardrail. Mr. Hammersmith stated that they can do this work and staff has previous experience with them. Vote on the motion: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. McCash, no; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. LEGISLATION SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING -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. Wanner stated that on August 18, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to approve this rezoning with 12 conditions listed in the Record of Action. The site is generally flat with few natural features. There are some tree rows to the north and south. The existing St. John's cemetery is located along the northwest corner of the site. The current zoning is Restricted Industrial which permits manufacturing of food, textile goods and medical equipment as well as wholesaling of drugs, groceries, machinery, tobacco and furniture. The plan provides for continuation of municipal open space and includes a 200-foot setback along Avery Road. The text calls for construction of ranch style condominiums in four-unit buildings with a clubhouse and a pool. The units are generally located along public roads, which will include the extension of Innovation Drive as well as an added public street. The pool and clubhouse are located along Avery Road. Plans show public open space with several ponds and walking trails along Avery Road and a centrally located open space corridor. The publicly dedicated open space consists of 8.3 acres of public parkland with ponds and public amenities. The applicant has provided landscape plans in some detail, indicating that dry laid stonewalls will be utilized and mounding to screen the clubhouse and pool from Avery Road. The fully detailed landscape plans will be presented at the final development stage. There was much discussion of architecture at the Commission meetings. The text states that four-sided architecture will be utilized with detailing such as window grids, steep roof pitches, roof overhangs and exterior wood trim. The units utilize all natural materials and five different building styles are proposed. The applicant has indicated to staff that variation will be emphasized along Avery Road. Based on staff's recommendation, the text has been revised to state that distinctly different models will be incorporated along this frontage. The elevations are included in the packet. Some discussion was given to architectural diversity, and the applicant has committed to maintaining this by prohibiting the same elevation of a model within one building on either side and one model on the opposite side of the street or pedestrian green. She shared renderings of the architecture along Avery Road and the clubhouse elevations, noting that the proposed development matches the density and land use recommended in the Community Plan. The plan incorporates an east/west greenway corridor delineated in the Community Plan and has supplemented this open space with natural features. Staff recommends approval with the 12 conditions appended by the Planning Commission on August 18. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council _ _ Meetin~__ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10748 _ _ _ October 3, 2005 Page 5 Held 20 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that several persons have signed in to testify. It was the consensus of Council to proceed with public testimony prior to Council's discussion. John Finfgeld, 2365 Sonnington Drive, Columbus stated that he and his wife, Brenda are in support of the Epcon condominium development on Avery Road. They build a good quality condominium and this would be a nice addition to the City of Dublin. They are asking for Council's support of this rezoning. Michael Kolnok, 6239 Pirthshire Street, Dublin stated that he lives in Sandy Corners. The plan is well thought out and fits well into the area. He and his wife visited another Epcon condo community and were impressed with the neatness of the area. They spoke to residents who noted they were pleased with the construction and follow-up from the company. This will be a great addition to the southwest area, and as a member of the Sandy Corners Homeowners Association, he supports the rezoning. Kathy Vannatta, 5948 Glenvillage Drive, Dublin noted that she continues to be in support of this rezoning and asks for Council's support. She does have a concern about the access points. Her understanding is that there is a required access between Heather Glen condominiums and this project, and she does not agree with this. The two communities are private and the City does not maintain the roadways. She does not understand why there must be a gate on Heather Glen Drive. Ms. Wanner responded that there was some concern from the adjacent condominium community that they did not want this road to be utilized as a cut through. The solution was to provide an emergency access gate that the fire department could use if necessary. It would be locked and that only the emergency personnel would have access. Ms. Salay asked if the prime reason then is for safety. Ms. Wanner responded that is correct. Ms. Vannatta stated that there are already two access points. Ms. Wanner responded that the proposal was to remove one of the access points to provide continuation of the parkland. Mr. McCash stated that if the argument for having the gate is for fire safety, then the same dead end is created for the lower left portion of the plan where there is an equal or greater distance to access an exit way. Ms. Wanner responded that the Fire Department's preference is to have two access points whenever possible. Ms. Salay stated that the issue is not necessarily having two access points for this project. Heather Glen Village has only one access out at Wilcox Road and it is that neighborhood that needs two access points. Since one access is being eliminated, essentially their back entrance, this access point addresses the safety access for Heather Glen Village. Mr. McCash asked how Heather Glen Village was approved if it did not have two access points at the time it was originally constructed? The safety concern would have existed when the buildings were constructed. Ms. Wanner responded that her understanding is that the fire code has changed over the past two years and so it would not have been addressed with Heather Glen. Mr. McCash asked why the present access point couldn't remain in place. Ms. Wanner responded that staff was seeking a continuation of the parkland so that there would not be two curb cuts adjoining one another. This would provide a smooth transition for the parklands. Walking paths will be added in the future. Ms. Vannatta asked Council not to provide this direct access. These are two private communities who pay for their own roads and it serves to destroy what is already in place. Ms. Salay asked for clarification - is her concern that the gate would be removed by other than safety officials? Ms. Vannatta responded affirmatively -sometimes construction traffic has entered their private streets and damaged them. Ms. Salay stated that from the safety standpoint, if a citizen living in the condominium needs emergency services and Wilcox Road access is blocked, the EMS could not access them. Agate would provide such access. It would remain closed and lock when not used for emergency access. There is gated access in several areas of the City. If the City Council record confirms that this access is provided only to safety forces, there should not RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council _Meetn~ _ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10748 October 3, 2005 Page 6 Held 20 I~ be an issue. She acknowledged that the condo association has had ongoing maintenance issues with their roadways due to cut through traffic. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher thanked Ms. Vannatta for her comments and noted that they will be taken into consideration. Mr. McCash asked if the "gray area" portion of the road is actually owned by the Heather Glen Homeowners or by the City. Ms. Wanner responded that it is City parkland. Mrs. Boring stated that she recalls that was the request of the civic association -the City did not arbitrarily decide to remove that roadway. The Board of Directors made that request of the City. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road asked about the meaning of the phrase "infill property." Ms. Wanner responded that infill is property within the City that is currently vacant, that typically has development surrounding it on three or four sides. Infill means the creation of a use on property currently vacant. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited Council Members to comment. Ms. Salay stated that this will be a nice looking project. The site has a long history, as it was originally zoned in 1983 as Restricted Industrial. She believes that the Commission has done a good job with the site in terms of greenspace and connecting the existing park with walking paths. It sets a nice standard for condominium development. She favors the architectural diversity and the four-sided architecture. She thanked the neighbors for their patience and perseverance in this process. They are all pleased with the change to residential zoning. Mr. Keenan noted that the St. John's Lutheran Church Cemetery is adjacent to the site. Is there any separation from this development? Ms. Wanner responded that there is not a fence in place. There has not been discussion about this, but perhaps it can be considered in the final development plan review. Mr. Keenan added that there should be some type of separation provided. Ms. Salay recalled that for the parkland at the southern portion of Heather Glen, a wrought iron fence was added around a grave marker for that purpose. She is not certain who paid for that. Mr. Hahn added that the developer provided the fencing. Glen Dugger, attorney, 37 W. Broad Street representing the applicant stated that they could address this issue. They are agreeable to an additional condition and will work with staff on devising an appropriate demarcation at the time of final development plan. Mr. Keenan asked about condition #2 regarding access on Avery Road. Could staff clarify the intent of this condition? Ms. Wanner responded that staff wants to ensure the alignment of the two streets at the final development plan stage. Engineering has been working with a consultant regarding the widening of Avery Road as well as traffic mitigation measures. Mr. Hammersmith added that some consideration has been given to moving the intersection to the south. Mr. Keenan asked about the price range of the units to be constructed. Joel Rhoades, Epcon Communities. 500 Stonehenge Parkway stated that he would expect them to range from $190,000 to $250,000. Mr. Reiner asked about the units called "clubhouse" and "chateau." Is that an applied stone surface? It is not designated on the plans. Ms. Wanner responded that these will be cultured stone. Mr. Reiner asked about the Canterbury and Cathedral units. Are these to be brick or applied brick? Mr. Rhoades responded that some units will be brick and some stone. The final development plan details are yet to be determined. There would be some of each type of unit that would be cultured stone and some that would be brick. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council _Meetin~ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 October 3, 2005 Page 7 ~ Held 20 Mr. Reiner commented that this plan has come a long way from the original concept. He had hoped that a different footprint could have been developed, although he is aware this is the product Epcon builds. He is still concerned about the quests for higher density by building this product. Many improvements have been made in the process. Mr. McCash stated that this project has come a long way over a history of zonings and rezoning applications. He asked that staff respond to him regarding the PUD site information on the Record of Action. It appears that the grayed out road is actually part of the Heather Glen condos and not owned by the City. It would be important to know this. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher agreed that the project has come a long way and Council is looking forward to the final development plan. She is aware that the residents of the area are looking forward to having neighbors. Mr. Keenan moved approval with the additional condition that separation be provided from the St. John's Lutheran Church cemetery and that staff work with the applicant in terms of the design of it. Ms. Salay added for the record that the access gate shall remain closed and opened only by emergency vehicles and emergency personnel responding to an emergency in the Heather Glen Village neighborhood. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, no; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. PERSONNEL Ordinance 54-05 Authorizing an Additional Police Officer Position for a Temporary Period. There was no change subsequent to the first reading. As soon as a vacancy occurs in the police ranks, this temporary addition will be eliminated. 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. 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. Ms. Grigsby provided afollow-up to the information shared at the September 19 meeting. This ordinance authorizes the execution of an economic development agreement and provides incentives to UMC Partners based on certain development commitments by UMC Partners, included in an area known as the Central Ohio Innovation Center. A map was enclosed in the packet, showing an aerial map outlining in yellow the Center and the other parcels under discussion with the agreement. Specifically, the parcels key to this development are those located around the interchange. This project with UMC provides an opportunity to set the standard for development of the overall area -the Central Ohio Innovation Center. UMC Partners has committed to construct the following facilities, identified as the core facilities: 1. The Institute for Personalized Health Care - a 25,000 square foot facility for the purpose of exploring and growing research and development opportunities in the emerging systems of information based and patient health care. It is estimated that the facility will bring 50 new jobs. 2. The James Care facility - a 100,000 square foot facility to be used for the relocation and expansion of the various outpatient clinical care operations currently located at the Stoneridge Medical Center. It is estimated that this expansion will result in an additional 50 employees for this facility. 3. The Particle Therapy Center - a 90,000 square foot facility used for the purpose of delivering sophisticated cancer treatments and therapies. It will be the first of its type in North America and it is estimated that 150 additional employees will be hired. It is estimated that these facilities, including the equipment will be valued at approximately $200 million. This is considered the initial phase of UMC Partners Health and Innovation Park. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council_ _ _ Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 _ _ _ October 3, 2005 Page 8 ~ Held 20 The incentives offered by the City include: 1. The conveyance of land. The City has agreed to convey to them two parcels of land acquired earlier this year for the purpose of economic development. These parcels are highlighted in green on the map and are located near the interchange. The City will retain certain reversion rights to the property until UMC has met all of the following four conditions: • They have entered into a binding contract to provide for the design, construction and commission of the Particle Therapy Center. • They will have made a payment of at least $20 million, pursuant to the design/build contract. • They will have received a building permit from the City of Dublin for construction of the Particle Therapy Center. • The construction of the Particle Therapy Center has been commenced. If the Particle Therapy Center is not completed by June 30, 2013 or a later date approved by the City, the City will have the right to re-acquire for the cost of $10 any undeveloped property for which a building permit has not been issued. With regard to the land, there is land that will be utilized for the core facilities and then the other land or the land in excess of the core facilities. In terms of the core facilities - prior to the construction being commenced on the Particle Therapy Center, when a building permit is issued and construction commenced for either the Institute of Personalized Health Care or the James Care facilities, those sites will be released from the reversion clause. For the remaining land, UMC needs to obtain the approval of the City in order to sell or transfer the land not needed for the core facilities. Once the approval is given by the City, the reversion clause is released on that specific site. The ability for the City to reacquire this land is still available until the Particle Therapy Center construction is commenced. UMC cannot create a mortgage or other encumbrance on the property conveyed by the City in an amount exceeding 33.33 percent of the fair market value of the property. These are the restrictions that have been placed on the conveyance of the land from the City to UMC. 2. Infrastructure. With regard to construction of the infrastructure, this is a significant portion of the economic development agreement. Many of these improvements would have been built by the City had this opportunity not presented itself. • As previously discussed and authorized by Council in the 2006-2010 CIP adopted in September, the City will complete the improvements to the US 33/Post Road interchange, including the widening and boulevarding of Post Road form Hyland-Croy Road to Eiterman Road. The funding for these improvements is programmed in the CIP and was based upon policy direction and a decision by Council with regard to how the City allocates the property tax dollars from the inside millage and the deferral of the previously programmed City Hall project. • The City's commitment is also to construct the main internal roadways necessary for access to UMC's Health and Innovation Park. The master planning for this area is currently being completed and the location of the roadway has not been finalized. • Both the City and UMC Partners are utilizing O'Brien Atkins to master plan the area. This is beneficial not only for the larger Central Ohio Innovation Center but the fact that O'Brien Atkins is also involved in doing the master planning - for the Health and Innovation Park will provide for a cohesive development. 3. Tax Increment Financing District. The EDA also provides that the City and UMC agree that a Tax Increment Financing District will be established for the product developments that occur on the property conveyed. The City estimates that approximately $405,000 in annual service payments should be generated from the investment in the Particle Therapy Center and the James Care facilities. The Institute for Personalized Health Care is to be a not for profit and therefore service payments will not be received from that development. The service payments generated will be utilized to fund a portion of the costs associated with the City's public improvement commitments, and so this project RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council ___Meeti~_ DAYTON LEGAL BUNK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 _ _ October 3, 2005 Page 9 Held 20 provides an additional funding source for the improvements already programmed in the City's CIP. 4. Income tax incentive payments. This is an incentive tool used by the City many times and it relates directly to performance by UMC Partners for the Particle Therapy Center and the Institute of Personalized Health Care. It is based upon both the withholding and the net profit income tax revenues, and there is an annual cap of $250,000 and a total cap of $2.5 million. 5. Acquisition of the stream corridor. This parcel is currently owned by OSU and will be incorporated into their Health and Innovation Park. The City has agreed to acquire the stream corridor that runs across this parcel of land for $250,000. 6. Based upon the service payments estimated to be generated and the net income tax dollars received from this project, the City is estimating that repayment of the land will occur in approximately 7.9 years. The service payments and net income tax dollar estimates are conservative and will likely be higher. 7. Industrial Revenue Bonds. Another incentive option is that the City will work with UMC Partners to explore options related to the financing of the Health and Innovation Park. Industrial revenue bonds were used on a regular basis in the 1980's. The City would be the entity authorizing the issuance of the debt which could therefore result in tax-exempt debt, lowering their interest costs. The City has no liability with regard to that debt. 8. Fiber use. The City will extend Dubl_ink from its existing terminus on Perimeter Drive to the Health and Innovation Park, benefiting the area as well. This agreement is being drafted by the City's legal counsel. 9. Acquisition of additional land along Houchard Road, south of SR 161/Post Road. The City currently owns approximately 100 acres in this location and the EDA provides an option period of three years for UMC Partners to acquire the property at the then fair market price. At the termination of the option period, the City will provide UMC Partners with the right of first refusal for an additional ~ three-year period. Ms. Grigsby noted that a significant portion of the City's incentives is tied to performance by UMC Partners and the majority of the infrastructure improvements are improvements that the City would have made at some point and are currently programmed in the CIP. These constitute a summary of the commitments made by the City and the UMC Partners as contained in the economic development agreement. She introduced Chris Franzmann of Squire, Sanders and Dempsey, bond counsel for the City who drafted the agreement and worked on issues relating to the agreement. Also present tonight is Jeff Wilkins, President and CEO of UMC Partners who can provide additional information regarding the Health and Innovation Center. Jeff Wilkins. President and CEO of UMC Partners noted that he is very excited about working with the City of Dublin on this opportunity to build aworld-class research park. They have been working on this project since last December 13 and believe it is a great opportunity for both the City and UMC Partners. UMC Partners is a supporting organization of The Ohio State University and was formed to commercialize new ideas and to develop world-class facilities. He offered to respond to questions. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher thanked Mr. Wilkins. She asked staff about the naming rights included in the agreement. She does not recall this being brought to Council's attention previously. What amount of the property is to be named, "Health and Innovation Park," as the property is larger than what will be occupied by UMC and the name may not be relevant to other industries present in the future? Ms. Grigsby responded that the naming rights involve the areas highlighted on the map containing the core facilities -the two parcels to be conveyed by the City and the parcel currently owned by OSU. The Health and Innovation Park will be those developments involved with or under the guidance of UMC Partners. Mr. Wilkins added that this consists of 120 acres currently. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked when the naming rights would go into effect. Ms. Grigsby responded that will occur when the economic development agreement is executed, thirty days following adoption of the ordinance. At that point, the area would be identified as the Health and Innovation Park. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council _Meetin~_ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 October 3, 2005 Page 10 Held 20 i Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked about the reason to place that name on a City-owned water tower. Ms. Grigsby responded that it is a visibility issue. When this was first discussed, the City did not have ownership of the DBS parcel along US 33 and this was felt to provide some additional visibility to the site from US33. The concept was discussed at staff level and was presented to UMC Partners as a possibility. UMC Partners viewed this as a favorable incentive from the standpoint of providing guidance to the site. Mr. Wilkins added that obviously, the City would have to approve whatever that would consist of and it would be tasteful. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher expressed concern with the precedent of this, as the City has more than one water tower. The City has sign legislation which, while relatively controversial, has been generally strictly applied. This is not consistent with the City's sign ordinance and the tower is on public property. Ms. Grigsby stated that the water tower would be constructed in the next couple of years. Other City water towers would not be tied to specific projects. This is not to serve as advertising, but rather to facilitate access and visibility to identify the site more easily. Ms. Brautigam stated that this new water tower would be housed on land that UMC Partners will dedicate to the City. Mrs. Boring stated that the research triangle park in North Carolina is very tastefully done, and she is trying to visualize a water tower with a logo. What comes to mind that is similar is in Florence, Kentucky near the mall. She is not certain it lends any dignity to an area. Ms. Brautigam responded that the existing Dublin water tower in the area has a sports motif which helps to identify Sports Ohio. It is done tastefully, and she believes the new one could be tasteful as well. Mr. Wilkins added that this would serve as a means of way finding to the park. Obviously, Council has the ultimate authority to approve this. It would have to be tasteful or likely could not secure approval. Mr. Lecklider asked for the specific location of the new water tower. Ms. Grigsby responded that it would be adjacent to the existing one. The land it will sit on is part of the land currently owned by the City that will be conveyed to UMC Partners. As part of the agreement, UMC Partners will dedicate back to the City the right-of-way needed for the roadway, for easements, as well as the site for the water tower. Mr. Keenan asked if there are any existing tax increment financing districts in place for the current Stoneridge facility. Ms. Grigsby responded that there are not. Mr. Keenan asked about acquisition of the stream corridor from OSU. Ms. Grigsby responded that as part of the development, the stream corridor will be preserved. The dollars involved relate only to acquiring the OSU property. Mr. Keenan wanted to ensure the City is not conveying property and buying back the same as part of this purchase. Mr. Keenan asked about the acquisition of the additional land at the then current fair market value. Who determines that value? Mr. Franzmann responded that Section 4.11 of the agreement covers the process of determination of fair market value. Ms. Salay commented that the City is not certain at this time what will happen with the road network, but discussion took place previously about the alignment of Eiterman Road potentially changing. Ms. Brautigam stated that no determination has been made about this. Staff is working with O'Brien Atkins to master plan the entire Center. It has not been finalized at this point. Ms. Salay stated that this is a very exciting project and she extended a welcome from Council. Mr. Reiner stated he, too, is very thrilled about the technology park and what it will mean for Dublin. In regard to the construction date by 2013, why will that particular facility require such an extended period to build? Mr. Smith responded that the construction timetable for the Particle Therapy facility is estimated at 48 months, and there is potential for delays as well. It was a negotiated point, but staff is comfortable with the 2013 date. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council _Meetin~ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ October 3, 2005 Page 11 Held 20 Mr. Reiner noted concern as well with the water tower and how it would relate to the City's signage requirements. He has reservations about how it will be handled. Mr. Wilkins stated that he believes that the Research Triangle Park has a water tower with "RTP" inscription. Obviously, Council is the body that approves what is proposed. Mr. McCash noted a question regarding Section 6.3, Commercial Activity Tax. There has been discussion of exploring other financial incentives to reduce the economic impact on the commercial activity tax. Has anything been considered in terms of a pro forma in trying to determine what other economic incentives can be offered? The commercial activity tax is to replace the franchise and personal property tax. Ms. Grigsby state that this has not been done. In some early discussions, there was a potential incentive relating to the personal property tax. As a result of the State budget adopted July 1, the issue was raised of whether the City would consider in the future any effects of the commercial activity tax. The City indicated it would be willing to look at that, once it could be determined what impact that would have on this project and if there is anything that can be done to mitigate or offset some of those costs. Mr. Wilkins stated that they had a number in mind, based upon personal property tax that was discussed in great detail. Then the legislation changed and they were not able to determine how to do this. The parties then agreed to do this at a later date. Mr. McCash commented regarding Section 5.3, Naming Rights. In the case of the Research Triangle Park, the "RTP" name would reflect the entire park, not an individual entity or company. Perhaps an option would be something such as, "Dublin Health and Innovation Park" which would not be corporation specific. He understands the provisions of Dublin's sign code and has listened to discussions about sign code issues over years on Council. A logo or name on the water tower seems quite different than what has been the practice in the City. What is the justification other than the amount of income tax dollars, etc. from this project? Mr. Lecklider echoed some of the comments regarding the naming rights, noting it is not a ~ reflection on UMC Partners or The Ohio State University. Everyone is very excited about the partnership. Having lived in Dublin and served on Planning Commission and Council, the sign code is a hallmark of the community. He is not saying, however, that he could not ultimately be convinced that the signage is a good idea for purposes of identification and not advertising. Perhaps identifying the park and not an individual user is something that could be considered, as Mr. McCash has suggested. Section 5.3 as written would seem to indicate that the City is committed to having such signage. Mr. Smith responded that for these reasons, the language was included, "Subject to approval by the City." Staff was aware that this was a challenging idea and it was a part of the negotiations. Mr. Wilkins added that he would not envision a commercial name on the water tower. His original intent in requesting this was for way finding purposes for the Park, not to identify an individual user. Mr. McCash stated that having a commercial name on the water tower would open up the possibility of many similar requests from commercial enterprises. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher commented that this provision is creating much angst for Council, as the Council strongly supports the sign code. It is one of the standards that makes the Dublin community different. If the provision is left in the agreement, she would prefer that the language calls for approval by Dublin City Council. However, the wording of the provision seems to indicate that the City has only the right to approve the appearance of what is put on the water tower, not whether or not there will be any language or logo on the .F water tower. She also has a question regarding the name. She had understood this was being called, "The Central Ohio Innovation Center." Why would that name not be placed on the water tower versus a component of the Center? Mr. Keenan stated that there is significant fundraising potential here and there are two parts to this: 1) naming and the fundraising associated with that; and 2) the right to place the name on the tower. These two issues must be separated. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher clarified that the naming rights apply only to the land that UMC Partners is involved in. Mr. Smith added that UMC Partners wants to name their 100-acre portion of the Center, calling it the Health and Innovation Park. Whatever that 100-acre name is determined to RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council _ _ Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 _ _ - October 3, 2005 Page 12 - Held 20 h t name on the water tower versus be, Council would have to approve the nght to place t a the name of the overall center. Mr. Wilkins added that if their portion were to be named, "The Health and Innovation Park" and they wanted to put something to indicate that name on the water tower, the request would be brought to Council. They will not use this for commercial purposes, but for way finding. It would obviously have to be tasteful and would have to be approved by City Council. Mr. Smith suggested that an appropriate amendment to the Section could be that the naming rights and the placement of such name shall be approved by City Council. Mr. Lecklider noted that the ultimate question is does this leave Council with the discretion to determine that they do not want a name on the water tower? Mr. Smith responded that the language indicated that the right to place any name on the tower would be subject to approval by Council. Mr. Wilkins stated that from the outset, they have asked for the right to place something on the water tower, recognizing that Council has the right to approve what that is. He believes they have the right to return to Council until something is approved that will address the way finding issues. Mr. Lecklider commented that a development such as Tartan West may in a similar fashion desire to place their name on the water tower for way finding purposes. Mr. McCash suggested that perhaps the issue of the way finding is mitigated if the City works closely with ODOT in obtaining signage on US 33 and I-270 to direct people to this location. Local directional signage on the roadways would help people to access the various components within the park itself. Easton has such signage. Mr. Lecklider suggested incorporating the signage into the improvements of the interchange. Mr. Wilkins added that their thinking was that patients traveling from many directions to the facility could view the water tower from a long distance. He would be content to leave this matter in Council's hands at the end of this process. Mr. Smith attempted to clarify this, suggesting the amendment to the agreement: "The parties agree that UMC Partners shall retain the right to name that area of the park that they are developing. The parties further agree that, subject to approval by Dublin City Council, they may have the right to place such name or names on the water tower." He believes this would address everyone's concerns and would achieve the goal of identification. Mr. Wilkins stated that he can accept this amendment. It was the consensus of Council to modify the language as Mr. Smith has suggested. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that Council is very pleased that these facilities will be coming to the community. The combination of the Health and Innovation Park and the Dublin Methodist Hospital will provide an enormous medical and health service to people in Dublin, the surrounding communities and throughout the world. Council is delighted that UMC Partners has chosen to come to Dublin. Vote on the Ordinance as amended: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING -ORDINANCES ANNEXATION PETITION Ordinance 56-05 Accepting an Annexation of 65.5 acres from Washington Township to the City of Dublin. (Petitioners Floyd and Joyce Miller, 5274 Cosgray Road) Mr. Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam stated that staff recommends acceptance of this annexation. Mr. Keenan noted that there is a case in Colerain Township, Butler County regarding expedited annexations relating to ownership of the roadway. Sometimes the property rights go to the center of the road. The annexation is being challenged on that basis. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of _ Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 October 3, 2005 Page 13 ~ Held 20 Mr. Gunderman responded that he is familiar with the case. In this instance, the full right- of-way is being taken and there is not an issue. There will be a second reading/public hearing on October 17. REZONING Ordinance 57-05 Rezoning Approximately 21.092 Acres, Generally on the Southwest Corner of Hard and Sawmill Roads, From PUD, Planned Unit Development District To PUD, Planned Unit Development District. (Rezoning -Preliminary Development Plan - 05-0912 - LifeTime Fitness PUD -LifeTime Fitness Facility -Hard Road -Case No. 05-091Z). Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam stated that Mr. Gunderman is available to respond to any questions. Mr. Lecklider asked Mr. Gunderman and Mrs. Boring about the minutes from the August 18 Planning Commission meeting where discussion took place regarding signage. What concerns were expressed? Mr. Gunderman responded that most concerns have been resolved. The biggest point of contention was the desire by Lifetime Fitness to have additional signage on the building. While they were not totally satisfied, it was not approved by Planning Commission. The remainder of the signage on the property was consistently agreed upon. Mr. Lecklider asked if the monument signs were all within Code. Mrs. Boring stated that they three major roadways were involved. Mr. Gunderman recalled that they were permitted a sign at each exit. Mrs. Boring stated that they had requested an additional sign as an architectural feature to the building, but this was an issue. Mr. Lecklider summarized that as far as staff and the Commission are concerned, the signage issues have been resolved. Mrs. Boring responded that they were instructed that if they want something other than what was approved, it would have to be brought back to the Commission. Ms. Salay asked if this facility will have an indoor pool. Mr. Gunderman responded affirmatively. Ms. Salay stated that she has been contacted by the Dublin Dolphins who are very interested in additional lanes for swimming. Their program is growing and they have had to cut swimmers from their program due to lack of available space. Perhaps this would be a good opportunity to partner with them. This facility will be close to Dublin Scioto High School and perhaps could accommodate some of the swimmers, freeing up lanes at the Dublin Rec Center. She asked that Mr. Dugger convey this to his client. Mrs. Boring commented that she had brought up this idea to the Lifetime Fitness representatives at the hearings. At the time, the revenue issues would likely drive this decision and a partnership arrangement would be needed with another entity. Ms. Salay stated that this is a timely issue, as the Dolphins are planning to approach the City and the Schools about their need to obtain additional lane space to accommodate their program needs. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the October 17 Council meeting. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING AGREEMENT Ordinance 58-05 Authorizing the Provisions of Certain Incentives for the Purposes of Encouraging the Location of LifeTime Fitness within the City of Dublin which Include, Declaring Improvements to Certain Real Property to be Developed as a LifeTime Fitness Facility to be a Public Purpose, Describing the Public Infrastructure Improvements to Be Made to Benefit the Parcels of Such Development, Requiring the Owner Thereof to Make Service Payments in Lieu of Taxes, Providing for the Franklin County Treasurer to Distribute Service Payments to the Dublin City School District in the Amount It Would Otherwise Receive Absent the Exemption, Creating a Municipal Public Improvement Tax Increment Equivalent Fund for the Deposit of the Balance of Such Service Payments, and Authorizing the Execution of an Economic Development and Tax Increment Financing Agreement. Mr. Lecklider introduced the ordinance. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council _Meetn~_ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 70148 - - October 3, 2005 Page 14 ~ Held Zp Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she was contacted by the Tolles Joint Vocational School District regarding the City tax increment financing districts and their financial impact on Tolles. Why does the City not strive to reduce the impact as the City does for the Dublin Schools? They do service students from Dublin City Schools. Ms. Grigsby responded that the City has considered this. What is done presently is what is M required under the Ohio Revised Code with regard to the school districts. While Tolles is part of the community and some Dublin students attend Tolles, due to the amount of revenues brought in during recent years, their millage has been reduced from 1.6 mills to .5 mills. This is a result of the significant cash flows to them from this area which has allowed the millage to be reduced. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that his issue was that Tolles does serve Dublin residents and therefore meeting the minimal requirements of the Code does not seem to make sense. She suggested that staff have a more formal meeting with the Superintendent to discuss this. Ms. Grigsby responded that she has had several discussions with the Superintendent, but will be happy to meet with him again to discuss this. The City recognizes that this is additional revenue that Tolles is deferring, but similar to the question regarding the township impact, if the City begins allocating these dollars to the various entities, at some point in time, the positive impact of the TIF is lost. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that she is also concerned about the increased potential for additional calls for EMS services for the Lifetime Fitness facility and yet the City's policy is not to make the township whole in terms of the financial impact of the TIF. Ms. Grigsby stated that is the policy in place. Mr. McCash asked about the estimated payback period for this TIF. If it extends 30 years, there would be potentially more loss of revenue for the entities impacted. It would make more sense to use a TIF for an area with more potential for a shorter payback time. Ms. Grigsby stated that staff has had this discussion, and other developers have requested the establishment of tax increment financing districts that staff has not supported. For this project and the Kroger Centre, the key difference is the fact that the City is seeking other funding sources for the completion of Emerald Parkway. This provides for an additional revenue stream for that project. In addition, the economic development incentive portion relates to the Hard and Sawmill intersection improvements. The City has taken this into account. The majority of the City TIFs are related to high-end office construction, with the exception of these two, the Shoppes at River Ridge and the Perimeter Center TIF established in the mid-90's. Mr. McCash stated that he is not comfortable with approving these smaller tax increment financing districts, essentially "chipping away" at the potential larger economic development potential for the area. Ms. Grigsby added that Emerald Parkway Phase 8 from Riverside Drive to north of Bright Road will be an expensive piece of roadway due to the topography and limestone. It was always anticipated that development along I-270, even office at the density allowed, would not generate sufficient dollars to fund that roadway. The roadway will be designed next year in order to obtain a better estimate of the costs. The cost of the portion of Emerald Parkway along Cardinal Health totaled $12 million, not including interest costs. The second reading/public hearing of the ordinance will take place on October 17. REZONING Ordinance 59-05 Rezoning Approximately 0.57 Acres, Generally Located on the North Side of West ~ Bridge Street, 100 Feet West of Darby Street, From CCC, Central Community Commercial District, To HB, Historic Business District. (Rezoning -Jason's Restaurant - 50 West Bridge Street -Case No. 05-1372) Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Mr. McCash asked if this is related to the construction currently taking place on the site. Mr. Gunderman stated it is indirectly related. Ms. Salay clarified that this rezoning formally brings the property into the Historic District. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the October 17 Council meeting. HISTORIC DUBLIN Ordinance 60-05 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of _ Dublin City Council Meetin~_ - DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 - - - - - 9 - - October 3, 2005 Pa a 15 ~ Held Zp Adopting the Historic Dublin Revitalization Plan. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Ms. Gilger stated that a draft of this Plan was presented to Council in May by the Historic Dublin Revitalization Team. Subsequently, four public input sessions were held in July and August and a summary of the input was provided to Council. Staff is requesting that y Council now refer this Plan to the Architectural Review Board to begin the process of formally adopting the Historic Dublin Revitalization Plan as a part of the Community Plan process. Ms. Salay asked what uses are permitted in the R4 zoning category. Mr. Gunderman responded that, generally speaking, R4 allows multi-family uses. Ms. Salay pointed out that the R4 zoning category is designated along a portion of the South Riverview area. The residents along South Riverview desire to be recognized as a neighborhood and are not comfortable with having multi-family next door to them. She would like to request that as part of the Community Plan process staff rezone that portion of South Riverview that is strictly residential. There are a couple of twin single properties that would likely be grandfathered in, but the neighborhood would appreciate the City taking the initiative to rezone that area to recognize it as predominantly asingle-family neighborhood. If there is no objection from Council, perhaps staff could bring that forward in the Community Plan process. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher agreed that this should be taken under consideration. Mr. Keenan would like the area very specifically defined. Ms. Salay stated that it is strictly South Riverview between Blacksmith Lane and the river, and further south on Riverview, the properties that front onto South Riverview. Mr. Keenan would like to see the specific area defined before commenting. The ordinance will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission for recommendation to Council. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS Ordinance 61-05 Authorizing the Provision of Economic Development Incentives to Smiths-Medical to Induce the Creation and Expansion of the Smiths-Medical Shared Service Center and Workforce, and the Retention and Expansion of the Existing Medex, Inc. Operation and Workforce Within the City of Dublin; and Authorizing the Execution of an Economic Development Agreement. Mr. Lecklider introduce the ordinance. Ms. Gilger stated that in the fourth paragraph of the memo, there is a typo. It should state $14.6 million in payroll. This agreement relates to retention of the former Medex facility as well as the creation of its new shared services operation at a different location. There is also a growth incentive for new jobs at the former Medex facility on Shier-Rings Road. Smiths-Medical is also on the agenda at the State for Job Creation Tax Credit at the end of October, and this agreement would serve as the required local support component. The agreement will result in retaining $1.9 million in withholdings and nearly $600,000 in new income tax withholdings. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher commented that she is pleased that Smiths-Medical has decided to stay and expand in Dublin. Three people have signed in to testify -Troy Frey, Cliff Owen and Chris Bresingham. All indicated that they have no comments at the time and are available for questions. Ms. Salay thanked the company for staying in Dublin and for choosing to expand in Dublin. It is her understanding that the parcel at the westernmost part of the Smiths-Medical property with a large sign "Will Build to Suit" currently has industrial zoning. She is interested in securing an upgrade on that corner. She recalls that a retail proposal was submitted a while back . The site is wooded and the industrial zone would permit a corrugate building at this gateway location to southwest Dublin. She is interested in working together to secure a zoning that is better suited to everyone's goals. The representatives of Smiths-Medical in the audience commented that Medex no longer owns the property. It was sold 1-1/2 years ago to Glimcher. Medex had entered into a relationship with Glimcher who wanted to develop this as a retail space, but City staff was not supportive of the rezoning at that time. Subsequent to that, Medex sold the property. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the October 17 Council meeting. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of_______ _ _ Dublin City Council _ _ Meeting DAYTON LEGA_L_ BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 October 3, 2005 Page 16 Held 20 Ordinance 62-05 Authorizing the Provision of Certain Incentives for Purposes of Encouraging the Establishment by the Garden City Group, Inc. of its Operations and Workforce within the City and Authorizing the Execution of an Economic Development Agreement. Mr. Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Ms. Gilger stated that this is related to a Job Creation Tax Credit with the State of Ohio and this agreement would serve as the local support component. Garden City currently employs about 40 people in Central Ohio and has several out of state operations. Because of the tax reform in the state of Ohio, they have chosen to consolidate in Central Ohio. There will be 80 new jobs, in addition to the 40 currently existing jobs in Central Ohio. This is a four-year incentive with a 20 percent withholding equivalent incentive that is tied to new jobs and significant payroll growth. At the end of the agreement, the City looks to net approximately $300,000 in new income tax revenue. Company representatives will be present for the second reading. She confirmed that the majority of the jobs are new to the state of Ohio. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the October 17 meeting. ROAD NAME CHANGES Ordinance 63-05 Requesting Approval to Change the Name of a Portion of Perimeter Loop Road to Hospital Drive in the City of Dublin, Ohio. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the staff report provides details regarding this change. Based on comments received from affected property owners, staff is recommending that the ordinance not be effective until October 30, 2006 to allow sufficient time for affected businesses to make appropriate changes to their letterhead, advertising pieces, etc. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the October 17 meeting. Ordinance 64-05 Requesting Approval to Change the Name of a Portion of Manley Road to Avery Road in the City of Dublin, Ohio. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited public testimony. Alice Bond, 7747 Crawley Drive noted that she travels this road frequently due to commutes to school and church. She pointed out an error in the legislation. It should state, "north of the Franklin/Delaware county line" instead of "north of the Franklin/Union county line." Mr. Hammersmith stated that staff was aware of this error and will correct it prior to the second reading. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the October 17 Council meeting. INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING -RESOLUTIONS BID ACCEPTANCE Resolution 62-05 Accepting the Lowest and Best Bid for Rock Salt and Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Contract for the Procurement of Said Commodity. Mr. Lecklider introduced the resolution. Ms. Brautigam stated that staff has received a favorable bid and recommends acceptance. Mrs. Boring asked if the City should need more supply than anticipated, can the bidder deliver it in a timely manner? Ms. Grigsby stated that the estimate is made based on normal usage, but there is no minimum purchase and additional supply is available if needed. Vote on the Resolution: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of _ Dublin City Council Meet_i_n~ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10748 _ October 3, 2005 Page 17 Held 2p Resolution 63-05 Accepting the Lowest/Best Bid for the 2005 Reforestation Project and Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Contract for Said Project. = Ms. Salay introduced the resolution. Mr. Hahn stated that this relates to planting trees in several locations throughout the City. He can respond to questions. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. BID ACCEPTANCE Resolution 64-05 Accepting the Lowest/Best Bid for the Dublin Road/Brand Road Roundabout Landscape Project. Ms. Salay introduced the resolution. Mr. Hammersmith stated that staff is recommending the bid award to Environmental Management Services. This as well as the next two resolutions were the result of a combined bid which was opened on October 27. The staff report provides the percentage of landscape costs relative to the construction costs, particularly the base project costs. Mr. Keenan noted the discrepancies between the Engineer's estimates for the projects and the bids. He asked staff to comment, in particular how that impacts the budgeting process for the future. Mr. Hammersmith responded that it was a result in this case of bidding the landscape component separately. Previously, the landscaping portion was included in the project and was treated as a subcontractor cost within the entire project. Staff is recognizing a savings in bidding the landscape portion separately. In addition, there is a substantial reduction in the staff's estimate for tree costs versus the actual bid. Mr. Keenan asked for clarification of the bid process in general and when a project must be rebid. Ms. Grigsby responded that the City has legislation that allows the City to set the rules. 4V Currently, there is nothing in place that states that bids 10 percent or over require a project to be rebid, but that has been the City's practice to do so. Ms. Martin added that another reason why the bid was under the estimate is that there is an extended completion date of just prior to the Tournament date next year versus having this completed in the fall. This allows time for them to obtain plant material at a very competitive price. Mr. McCash commented that the truck apron on the plan is actually bomanite. He has observed in several intersections throughout around the City that the bomanite stamping is failing. These existing areas will need to be repaired. The salt on the roadways may impact this installation as well. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the cause of the failure has been determined to be the original process for stamping the concrete -not the salt from the roadways. They have since changed their process. Mr. McCash asked if there is a quality assurance process or onsite monitoring that can be done to ensure the problem does not occur again. Mr. Hammersmith responding affirmatively. Ms. Salay asked if there is a warranty provided from the contractor. Ms. Martin stated that the warranty has been extended to three years in some cases to demonstrate a good faith effort regarding their process changes. Staff believes this will be an adequate period of time. Mr. McCash also noted concern with the type of plant material being included after viewing what was done on Avery-Muirfield, south of Post Road. Much of those plantings have died, either from lack of water or from salt damage. A lot of money is being spent on plantings in the islands only to be damaged with the salt from the roadways. Ms. Martin responded that Engineering works closely with Grounds and continually modifies plans to select materials which are salt tolerant or modifies the locations to keep the plants back from the curb. Mrs. Boring asked about standards, and if there is a reason that dry laid stonewalls were not included for this location, yet were included for the Manley Road location. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FOAM NO. 10148 October 3, 2005 Page 18 Held 20 Ms. Martin responded that it was determined to be in keeping with the character of the landscaping up and down Dublin and Brand Roads. The ones that exist are at entry features of subdivisions. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that there are some dry laid stonewalls along Dublin Road, such as across from Amberleigh North. . Mr. Hammersmith stated that this was purely a softer approach at the intersection and a desire to blend in with the scenic surroundings. Mr. Reiner stated that several years ago, discussion took place regarding European pavers versus stamped concrete for intersections. If the city is using stamped concrete, it should be resealed constantly. Does the City have a program for this maintenance? Ms. Martin responded that staff has been trying to implement this into the Street Maintenance Program. The recommendation for resealing is a frequency of two to three years. Mr. Reiner stated that if the City uses European pavers, would the problem be with the weed maintenance? What is the life of the stamped concrete? Mr. Hammersmith stated that the life is estimated at 15-20 years for the stamped concrete, which depends upon the sealing, the professional maintenance, and the snow removal equipment impact. With European pavers, the concerns would be with weeding and having a good base to mitigate displacement and settlement over time. There has been mixed success with the pavers used at the intersection in Ballantrae. If staff is not satisfied with bomanite, the alternative is to use a paver. Staff prefers a true clay paver instead of concrete. Vote on the Resolution: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. Resolution 65-05 Accepting the Lowest/Best Bid for the Emerald Parkway Phase 5A Landscape Project. Ms. Salay introduced the resolution. Mr. Hammersmith reported that staff recommends award to Environmental Management Services, and this represents six percent of the total project costs. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that from reading the staff memo, the total Emerald Parkway Phase 5A project costs since June of 2004 are $2.3 million. Mr. Hammersmith confirmed this. Mrs. Boring noted that there has been an effort to set a standard along Emerald Parkway - is this consistent with Emerald Parkway standards to date? Ms. Martin responded affirmatively. The same designer has been engaged for all phases of the project. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. Resolution 66-05 Accepting the Lowest/Best Bid for the Glick Road/Avery Road/Manley Road Roundabout Landscape Project. Ms. Salay introduced the resolution. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. OTHER • RFQ for Historic Dublin Ms. Brautigam noted that this was carried over from the last Council meeting, and based on Council discussion, the proposal has been revised from an RFP to an RFQ. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher directed her question to Mr. McCash. Are these the typical components of an RFQ? Mr. McCash responded affirmatively. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin Cit Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 October 3, 2005 Page 19 Held 20 Mrs. Boring stated that it mentions that, based on response, four developers will be invited to proceed to Phase 2. At that time, they will present their proposal for public and City staff's consideration. Ms. Ott responded that is correct. It may be three or four, depending upon the response. This will provide the opportunity to comment on footprints, etc. The preferred developer brought back will then continue to work with adjacent property owners and interested parties regarding the final proposal. Mrs. Boring asked if the desire is to have public consideration, why isn't a presentation to Council by the finalists built into the process? Ms. Ott responded that staff would hope that Council would attend the public meeting. Mr. McCash stated that he understands that this has been broken into an RFQ and an RFP now. Would it be preferable for the City to select the preferred developer from the RFQ's and proceed with the design process and charettes with that preferred developer versus than having them meet with all of the public and undertaking the input process before putting together a development plan? Ms. Ott responded that the challenge is to balance creativity by having multiple perspectives looking at the use of the site, and does the preferred development merit having those multiple perspectives and selection process versus naming the preferred developer first. Mr. McCash commented that his concern is with having four firms undertake this entire process, having discussions with Council, seeking public input, responding to questions, before even developing a master plan. Ms. Ott responded that staff has not designed the details of what the public input process will look like, but she would anticipate all four proposals at a similar site for review and comment by citizens. Mr. McCash stated that would translate to designing the project before obtaining public input. Ms. Ott stated that conceptually, they would do so -where the footprints will be, what type of elevations are being considered, etc. Mr. McCash noted that these were the problems experienced previously -too much conceptualization prior to public input. It is important to deal with public input in the design process before concepts are proposed for reaction. He would envision public input before anything is put on paper. Mrs. Boring recalled that there was a previous project where this was done, and two companies merged their resources for a presentation on the entire project. Mr. McCash stated that this occurred with the Ballantrae Park, but the private developer paid the firm a stipend for their work. In this case, there is not a stipend to be paid to those who qualify and then plan to carry forward into the RFP process. Ms. Salay commented that couldn't the City assume that if someone is presenting concepts for this location that they would be familiar with the process to date and with the public input already received? In the interests of moving this along, she would support proceeding as proposed so that some concepts can be brought forward. If Council and the public does not support the concepts, they can be rejected. This is a key piece to Historic Dublin and it should move forward. Mr. Keenan stated that this speaks to the complexity of the problem. The RFP is more in keeping with what he had in mind, but no one really knows what is wanted at this location. There has been significant public input over the past 1-1/2 years. Mr. McCash noted that he wants to ensure that the prior public input received regarding this corner is provided to those interested in making proposals. Ms. Ott responded that staff is including several items along with the RFQ to help potential applicants, such as the Area Plan meeting summaries. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that providing past minutes could hinder creative thinking and newer ideas. She favors having several proposals so that there are some options. But she wants to ensure it is clearly communicated that it is not required that four be presented, in the case that there are not four that the City is interested in moving forward in the process. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited public testimony. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin Cit Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 October 3, 2005 Page 20 Held 20 Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road noted that this mix has the potential for immense, unpredictable, creative explosion and allows for an enormous amount of contemplation and creative force. He has two questions: 1) The list of qualifications for developers includes an ability to attract quality tenants. What is defined as a "quality tenant"? t_., Ms. Ott responded that staff does not want to have a building that sits vacant because it is not designed in mind with the needed uses that would be appropriate and welcoming to the location. Secondly, staff wants to ensure that the uses conform and are able to anchor the site as a community destination point, reaffirming the entire role of the Historic District. Mr. McCash added that a quality tenant would be something people want to patronize and utilize. Mr. Maurer noted as a preface that there is no suspicion in his mind that prompts this question. Who will constitute the selection committee? Ms. Ott responded that it would consist of the City Manager, Finance Director, the Land Use and Long Range Planning Director, herself and a member of Legal staff. There will be feedback solicited from others who are interested in what happens with the corner. Mr. Maurer noted that he is not questioning the competency of staff or of Council. But perhaps other people should serve on the selection committee, from outside -those who might bring forward some intriguing things not considered. While the individuals named are vital, the net should be as wide as possible for this task. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that this raises an interesting question that should be considered by staff. Ms. Brautigam asked to respond. She noted that the asset involved is owned by the City of Dublin. While the creative ideas of others will be brought forward at the public hearing opportunities, staff's perspective is that City officials and the City staff, through delegation by City Council are the ones who have the primary responsibility of selecting an appropriate developer to work with the City on the development of this City property. Including those who are not part of the City government in the selection process would not be appropriate. It is important to have input and comments to help City official to make an informed decision, but the responsibility for the decision lies with the City officials. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher commented that this is certainly one point of view. Mr. Maurer asked if the Dublin Arts Council could be involved in this. Ms. Brautigam responded that staff views the Dublin Arts Council as an important part of this project and wants them to be involved in the public input. The desire is to have a portion of this area remain a public plaza. The Arts in Public Places may be an appropriate component here, and the Dublin Arts Council would have a significant role in that. Staff wants to keep everyone that cares about the central part of Dublin engaged in the process. Staff and City officials will take the responsibility for making the decision. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked when the RFQ will be sent out. Ms. Ott responded that should Council give direction tonight, it will take two to three weeks to finalize the presentation format. It will require the rest of the year to review the RFQ's to determine up to four developers that will move on to Phase 2 in January. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to direct staff to move forward with sending out the RFQ as presented tonight. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. • Report re Veterans' Memorial/Monument Project Ms. Brautigam stated that during the capital improvements process, staff recommended and Council accepted the concept of working on a Veterans' Memorial project. Staff formed a committee of Mr. Hahn, Ms. Puskarcik and herself to discuss how to move forward on this project. Ms. Puskarcik provided a memo summarizing the discussion of the staff committee. Staff is requesting Council's approval to move forward with this process and is requesting two Council volunteers to work with staff on selecting the larger community committee. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that Mr. Keenan has expressed interest in volunteering. Mr. Reiner also expressed interest in volunteering. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 October 3, 2005 Page 21 Held 20 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked that the Dublin Arts Council select their own representative, versus the City designating their representative. CITY MANAGER/STAFF REPORTS There were no further staff reports presented. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Mrs. Boring noted that she received a draft of the Historic Dublin Revitalization Plan as a member of the Planning Commission. She did not realize until tonight that Council did not receive that draft. Ms. Gilger stated that a draft was provided to Council on May 9 when the recommendations were presented to Council. Mrs. Boring asked if the document has been updated since May 9. Ms. Gilger responded that it has not. Staff is in the process of making modifications to the draft based on the public input sessions. The revised draft will be presented to the Architectural Review Board, then Planning Commission and back to Council for final adoption. It will then be included in the Community Plan document. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher commented that Council is then referring to ARB and P&Z a document that they have not yet seen. Ms. Gilger stated that it was presented to Council in draft form, and the results of the four public input sessions and summary report to Council will be incorporated prior to ARB review. Mr. Keenan: 1. Acknowledged the efforts of Bob Price and Jan Rozanski of the Building division who are volunteering with building related work in the areas of Mississippi impacted by the hurricane. Council is very appreciative of their efforts, especially in view of the fact that Jan's son, Alex will arrive home from Iraq this week. 2. Commented that he appreciates the staff updates from Ms. Ott which are included in the packets. Ms. Salav stated that she had read somewhere that Dublin had lost jobs in 2004. She would appreciate receiving information about the number of jobs gained and lost in the last two years through all of the economic development efforts. Ms. Gilger responded that this information was included in a Columbus Dispatch article about I-270 and movement of jobs around the outerbelt. They had counted the loss of BMW, but did not consider the gains in jobs in Dublin. Mr. Lecklider noted that in the Planning & Zoning Commission minutes of August 18, under Administrative Business, it indicates that Mr. Gerber requested that staff outline for the Commissioners what they are to do under the new Code with preliminary development plans and what subsequently occurs at the final development stage. Mr. Gerber further stated that he also requests that City Council be informed of the process. He noted that there has been a hesitancy to follow this process by the Commission because when it goes to City Council, most of the members having been former Planning Commissioners cannot resist the temptation to modify it. Mr. Gunderman stated that he believes that Mr. Gerber was concerned that the Commission at that point was taking up a preliminary development plan, had not done so very recently, and was seeking clarification between preliminary and final development plans and the appropriate level of detail to be considered. His concerns were that sometimes the whole system becomes too involved with details in reviewing some preliminary plans. Mrs. Boring added that the Code has been modified somewhat to allow for more movement on the final development plan than previously was permitted. Sometimes the Chair tends to be concerned that the Commissioners are focusing on details that can wait until the final development plan stage to be addressed. Mr. Lecklider asked if there was some implication by Mr. Gerber that Council is doing something it should not be doing. Mrs. Boring stated that she does not know if that was the intent. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS _ Minutes of Dublin Cit Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FOfiM NO. 10148 October 3, 2005 Page 22 Held 20 1. Noted she appreciates the Dublin Dolphin Boosters offer to donate a flag for the south pool. She wonders what the City's policy is about City-owned buildings having flagpoles in place. It makes sense for the City to pay for and provide for w such flags and flag poles. Perhaps this can be addressed in the future. 2. Commented that she does appreciate the updated reports from staff, but it would be helpful if the new information or changes could be bolded. Council could then discern the new or changed information. 3. Commented that she is concerned with the September 29 report regarding the Dublin Road roundabout tree removal question that came up at the last Council meeting. It indicates that the construction drawings were not clear and consistent in identifying the small tree areas being outside the clearing limits and for this reason the trees were cut in error. This is not the first time the question has come up, and a better system is needed of ensuring that the drawings are clear and allowing for discussion so that this does not take place. Mr. Hammersmith responded that he does not believe this has ever occurred during his tenure with CIP projects. It has happened with new residential and commercial developments, and for that reason, tree protection measures were implemented by the City. In this case, the construction plans were prepared by DLZ and there was a discrepancy in the plans. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated she appreciates this clarification and knows that staff will ensure this does not happen in the future. 4. Commented that there is a first draft in the packet of proposed Council meeting dates for 2006. She suggested that Council review the draft and forward any considerations to the Clerk so that these can be incorporated in the next draft. 5. Noted that a new calendar was distributed tonight which reflects cancellation of the Monday, October 10 study session. The planned topic was not ready for presentation. 6. Reported that because of the impending COTA issues recently covered in the newspaper, the COTA Legacy Council will not meet again until December. ~ 7. Wished a "Happy Birthday" to Mr. Keenan on September 27, to Ms. Brautigam on October 6 and to Mrs. Boring on October 7. 8. Noted that on the last update, it was indicated that the Brand Road tunnel would be completed at the end of September. She has had several calls from residents and asked for a verbal update. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the delays are a result of some delay by the utility companies with the hurricane event. That has since been addressed. The tunnel has now been backfilled. Complete General, the contractor for both the tunnel and the stabilization projects has been given permission to keep the road closed a little longer to have the stabilization project done without through traffic. This was done for safety reasons and the desire to dovetail the two projects. He estimates that the projects will be completed in two weeks, assuming the weather is favorable. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that the information be provided to the newspapers to let the residents know of the status. ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to adjourn to executive session at 10:10 p.m. for personnel and land acquisition matters. She noted that the meeting will be convened only to formally adjourn. e meeting was reconvened and formally adjourned at 11:30 p.m. tom.-~,~ ~_o-_~ Mayor -Presiding Officer Clerk of Council