Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/17/2004 , , . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of D-ubJm-Cll-}l--Coo+lcil- Meeting~_ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, lNC,. FORM NO, 10148 Held February 17, 2004 20 " . Vice Mayor Lecklider called the regular meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 6:50 p.m. on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 at the Dublin Municipal Building, ~ Present were: Vice Mayor Lecklider, Ms. Salay and Mrs. Boring. Mr. Reiner arrived at 7:05 p.m. Mr. Keenan arrived at 8:40 p.m. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher and Mr. McCash were absent (excused). . Vice Mayor Lecklider suggested that Council proceed with the presentation regarding the Jenmar Court noise study at this time. Any action on the report can be delayed until later in the meeting when the fourth Council Member arrives. PRESENTATION Jenmar Court Noise Study Mr. Hammersmith noted that this study results from direction given by the Community Development Committee who met on September 17,2003 regarding the removal of the five City-owned homes on the south side of Jenmar Court. The report was intended to evaluate the effectiveness of those homes in terms of mitigating noise from 1-270 and the impact their removal would have, as well as what the City could do to mitigate those impacts. The firm of Burgess & Niple was retained for this purpose. They had previously done the study for ODOT regarding noise analysis for 1-270. B&N began their work in October, and Rick Fitch, project manager will present the report tonight. Rick Fitch, B&N noted that his presentation focuses on the noise generated by 1-270 and the proposed Emerald Parkway. He noted that the modeling was done by Jason Pagnard of their firm. They reviewed current and future conditions and utilized computer programs to project where the noise is coming from and the levels of noise in future years. He gave a slide presentation and provided handouts to City Council of the slides, ~--.. ODOT performed a noise evaluation for 1-270 two years ago as part of the widening of 1- 270 from Dublin to Westerville. The study identified certain areas along the road that may or may not be impacted by noise generated by 1-270 and made proposals for mitigation of such noise. Jenmar Court was originally evaluated as part of that project and it was found that a noise wall was not cost effective for Jenmar Court because there were not enough people benefiting from it. The disadvantage of the report was that it projected noise through 2020 when traffic was not at its peak for 1-270. This report looks at a 2006 potential opening for Emerald Parkway.and the regulations allow that the noise considerations be reviewed 20 years into the future or 2026. When this is done, there are additional homes along Jenmar Court and Grandee Cliffs that will be impacted. They also looked at the Emerald Parkway construction and the traffic generated and how it relates to the noise generated from 1-270. The last part of the study was to determine how much noise mitigation or buffer is occurring because of the five city-owned properties between the south side of Jenmar Court and 1-270, and what would result if they would be removed in terms of additional noise impact to current residents. He provided background information about noise in general, the varying impacts on individuals depending upon their individual sensitivity, and the noise level people are accustomed to over time. He reviewed a chart of common indoor and outdoor noise levels generated from various activities. He noted that the 67 level is where the Federal Highway Administration and ODOT both agree that traffic noise begins to impact normal conversation between people. He added that "noise" is sound that is obtrusive to lives, .,..-... impacting hearing. He reviewed the technical parameters of sound versus noise. In the recommendations, they will look at what type of barrier prevents noise at a five-foot elevation. In the studies, they review sensitive receptors - homes, churches, schools, parkland - places where noise will actually impact the use of the property. The noise receptors do not cover commercial or industrial properties because they are not impacted by the road noise and do not fall under the federal highway requirements to abate that noise. In evaluating the existing conditions, they used the year 2006, which is the earliest Emerald Parkway could be constructed, They included only peak levels of traffic - the p.m. traffic on 1-270 in that year. They also identified the impacted receptors - each home along Jenmar Court and north on Grandee Cliff to the creek. Finally, they did the same analysis for the year 2026 - the volume of traffic and the noise being generated. The , I , k ,I., I, "I 'I'HHH!""'Ii!I' I ." " I,! II I I" ..~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of . .Dub.iln.,Gi4LC.ouuci I Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO, 10148 'February 17, 2004 Page 2 Held 20 federal government identifies two ways of impacting a receptor or home: 1) by exceeding 67 decibels due to traffic; or 2) if there is an increase of 10 decibels between the base year and the future year, even if the 67 level is not reached. .~ They performed ambient noise readings on site to assess the effectiveness of the existing homes in blocking the noise. They also reviewed the future conditions in year 2026 with and without structures on the city-owned properties. The contours which reflect the homes being eliminated indicate a level of 70 decibels or a 4 decibel increase between 2006 and 2026 and the elimination of the City homes. They then used the Federal Highway Administration Traffic Noise Model and looked at the 2006 versus 2026 noise levels and identified that there are six receptors that are impacted - that they are at or close to 67 decibels or higher. They used 2026 because it represents the worst case scenario in terms of noise to be abated. They looked at two types of physical barriers - a wall or a mound. The first is a long wall that extends past the city-owned property on either end, six foot high, 900 foot in length. This takes the noise level for homes on the north side from 70 to 66 - the current level with the homes in place. Wall 2 is shorter and is located on city property. Slightly more noise reaches the homes on the north side under this scenario. The last option is a series of mounds - one mound near Jenmar, six feet in height, and two mounds on the Emerald Parkway side. The design would accommodate the future bikepath along Emerald Parkway. Based upon the modeling done, the receptors are identified which are impacted in 2026 -- above federal highway and ODOT sta~dards. For existing 2006 with no barrier, there are , no properties that would meet the state requirements for any type of noise abatement. , The two walls do give the reduction that the statefdesires for receptors 6, 7, 8 and 9 of a five-decibel decrease. The mound, however, does not achieve the reductions they desire, ODOT would participate in some of the funding for the walls, based upon the impacted receptors and the fact that the necessary noise reduction can be achieved. The next step would be to submit a final report to ODOT. Based upon their review and approval, they could then participate in the noise barrier - be it the walls or the mounds. He offered to respond to questions. Mrs. Boring asked if a type of material has been recommended for the wall. ML.Fitch stated that ther~.are options available. The ODOT standard as pictured is a concrete barrier, with concrete posts and a concrete cap. There are different types of textures that can be placed on the waiL He showed examples of some textures offered. Mrs. Boring asked if Council considers using wood for a barrier, would it impact the effectiveness of the noise barrier? Mr. Fitch responded that a barrier that is solid and of a certain height will provide the same level of noise reduction, regardless of the material. However, ODOT has moved away from using wood due to maintenance issues. Because most of o DOT's walls are within their right-of-way and are subject to being hit by vehicles, it is easier to replace panels versus wood. Aesthetically, they are using more rock finishes on the walls to give them a ~ more natural appearance. Mr. Hammersmith added that in regard to 1-270 noise walls, ODOT's policy is to fund the base wall and the City would fund any upgrades. Mr. Reiner asked about the timing of funding from ODOT. Mr. Fitch responded that currently, ODOT has a proposal under consideration for the design/build of the walls recommended in the 1-270 noise study. The chances of having this barrier included in that are very slim. But ODOT's central office has indicated that once they received the report and it is approved, this piece of the project would then have to be considered within their proposed funding list. In response to Mr. Reiner, Mr. Fitch stated that they evaluated three other locations for walls - on the shoulder of 1-270, on the barrier of the right-of-way line, and on the north face of Emerald Parkway. At the shoulder of 1-270, a high wall of a longer length is I I " ') 1."'+H':."'c,,,~,,,,,,,,,,,'t'::~'t'f.Ji'i~i~'!1'Ali~(at\,i'4t!llit4!HfHtF nl:~:i il':tllnt:'t:'i]"ili;',,-mll;U::_)iIHltlt;'~"""'rfl':I:!:li"1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin-Clty-Gouncil Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO, 10148 February 17, 2004 Page 3 Held 20 required and becomes very costly. The best reduction with the lowest cost and the lowest wall height was the option of locating the wall on the north side of Emerald Parkway. ,,--...., Ms. Salay asked for clarification regarding the implications of the study. There are feur : houses on the north side of Jenmar Court that are impacted under ODOT's standards and which they would agree should be reduced. Mr. Fitch stated that receivers 6,7,8 and 9 on Jenmar are impacted, as well as receiver 12. Receiver 13 was not tied to a house. So there are four homes in the first row and one in the second row that are impacted. With five homes impacted, it allows the modeling to proceed. ODOT will likely also ask if the impact is due to. the combined Emerald Parkway/I-270 or just from 1-270. The analysis shows that all four homes are still above 67 decibels, and a fifth home just under that level. Ms. Salay asked him to define the "participation" from ODOT. Mr. Fitch responded that ODOT uses a $17,50 per square foot multiplier for their participation in the wall. Cost effective in their view is less than $25,000 per resident. They take the square footage of the wall, multiply it times $17.50 and this determines their maximum participation. For a mound that would be at a lower cost, their contribution would be less. With past projects, for walls which have exceeded the $25,000 per house cost, ODOT participated up to that level. If the City chose a costly wall with a lot of aesthetic enhancements, they would still fund up to a certain portion of the barrier. For the 900 foot, full-length wall, the cost is estimated at $94,000 for a six-foot high wall or $13,000 per resident. The shorter wall was approximately $58,000 - well within the amount of their funding. A cost estimate was notdone fer the mound, but it is expected to be lower than $58,000, dependent upon the landscaping included. ,..,....- Mr. Hammersmith added that a combination of mound and wall could also be done. For modeling purposes, these three.rterationswere done. ,:,::; .. :.J:<'t':',-::.:j'":')"_".-.::>,;<,,,,,:'-.:'./:':"<',.,"}::::':O:."::.,/_._.".:.':',,:- '::", -.",','.:,-";.,.,:,.:,,,',-.',-. d' ""':'.'., ",.'."" ': "'" '.., "_ "', Ms. Salay asked what type of wall isto'be constructed for the noise wall in the Willow Grove area. Mr. Hammersmith responded that there will not be a wall in this location. There was an issue with constructability from ODOT's perspective. Mr. Lecklider asked for clarification: will ODOT fund any portion of a mound barrier? Mr. Fitch responded that they will participate in a mound, but they will make it very clear that a mound is considered a landscaping type of noise abatement and will not provide the same reduction as a full-size barrier. The mounding has slopes versus a flat wall to reflect the noise. The participation by ODOT would be at a reduced level. Mr. Lecklider noted that on one of the charts, in the mound column, there is indication that the reduction of noise is not significant enough for ODOT's standards. Mr. Fitch clarified that for a barrier, ODOT leoks to achieve 5 decibel or greater decrease. With the mound, it does not achieve that level ef decrease, and therefore would be funded at a lower level. If they feel there is not enough reduction, they could decline to participate whatsoever- it is their discretion. Mr. Hammersmith stated that this participation level will not be determined until after the study is submitted to ODOT and reviewed. - Mr, Lecklider asked if the noise reduction levels for mounding take into consideration any landscaping which would be added to the mounds. Mr. Fitch responded that it would require 150 meters in depth of dense forest to obtain a decrease of 3 decibels. Mr. Lecklider asked how the full-length wall could be installed on property that the City does not own. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the City would have to acquire land or easements for such wall placement and would have to be worked out in the cost estimates. Mr. Lecklider asked how many property owners are involved. Mr, Hammersmith responded that he believes there are two property owners involved. ! I I. .! j ! .... ,11", Itlll.i 1,11..1101 1 - II': , , , lilfl,rf}I>M;"'~~W"'_,-"1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dut>lin9ity Council Meeting DAYTON LEGALBLANK,INC" FORM NO, 10148 February 17, 2004 Page 4 Held 20 ;:.. .::.......-.:.'...:.-...", .:' Mr. Lecklider asked stafftosumrTIarize:t6~dire~ii()'6f~eyareseekingat this point.. Mr. Hammersmith responded that direction is needed regarding the removal of the homes on the south side of Jenmar Court and whether to proceed with that. Tonight's report has ~ indicated that the existing homes are providing only a low level of noise mitigation to the area. Secondly, Council's direction is needed to submit the study to ODOT for review and participation in the project for noise mitigation for the remaining residents along Jenmar Court and Grandee Cliffs Drive. Mr. Reiner suggested that staff submit the study to ODOT for review. He asked if the houses constitute a nuisance and should be removed for liability reasons. Mr. Hammersmith responded that four of the five homes are currently vacant and there is a concern with the vacant homes unattended. In order to secure ODOT's participation in the project, the homes will need to be removed to demonstrate that the area is available for installation of the barrier. Mr. Reiner moved to submit the study to ODOT and to proceed with removal of the homes. Mrs. Boring seconded the motion. She asked if the materials to be used for the wall must be specified upon submittal of the report to ODOr. Mr. Hammersmith responded that staff recognizes that this is a sensitive issue and options will be discussed with ODOT and reported back to Council. The study will be submitted with three options for their consideration. Mr. Fitch added that ODOT would review which option has the best noise reduction, determine if it is within their reasonable and feasible category of $25,000 per house and then make their recommendation. ~ Mr. Hammersmith added that the City can indicate a preference without making a strong recommendation. Mr. Lecklider asked if feedback has been received from the remaining residents regarding demolition of the homes. Is their preference to have them removed sooner than later? Mr, Hammersmith responded that he would defer to the residents on this matter. He believes there was support for their removal as long as the noise levels were not increased in doing so. Ms. Salay stated that she recalled from the Committee meeting that there was one family who has asked for some lead time to vacate the home. Mr. Hammersmith stated that that particular family has already vacated the property. Staff would be sensitive to the remaining resident. Vice Mayor Lecklider noted that the motion will be considered after the meeting is formally called to order. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mrs. Boring led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present were: Vice Mayor Lecklider, Mrs. Boring, Ms. Salay and Mr. Reiner. Mr. McCash and Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher were absent (excused). Mr. Keenan was scheduled to - arrive at a later time following a township recognition dinner, Staff members present were: Ms. Brautigam, Mr. Smith, Mr. Ciarochi, Mr. McDaniel, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Stevens, Ms. Crandall, Ms. Hoyle, Mr. Gunderman and Chief Epperson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Reqular Meetinq of February 2. 2004 Ms. Salay noted a correction on page 9, paragraph 4. She would like her comments clarified to read, "Staff reports to Council with regard to the other area wide rezoninqs have been that although neighborhood attendance at the meetings has been poor, the issues are being resolved." Mrs. Boring moved to approve the minutes as corrected. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. I I , 1.1 11I1}11H~'II:i',;:1lI?V:IN RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of D-Uhlin-City-Counci I Meetin~___ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC" FORM NO, 10148 February 17, 2004 Page 5 Held 20 Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Jenmar Court Noise Studv - Mr. Reiner moved to submit the study to ODOT for review and to proceed with removal of the homes. Mrs. Boring seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs, Boring, yes; Mr, Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. CORRESPONDENCE The Clerk reported that there is no correspondence requiring Council action. CITIZEN COMMENTS Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road noted that only four members are present tonight and he will delay addressing the Council on some important matters until the full Council is present at a later date. He noted that he was not present at the last meeting due to some pressing personal issues. In any case, hecouldnothave attended because he was stopp~d that~vening by the Dublin Pol.ice fordisplaying expired license tags. He commented that the police officer was very observant in noting his expired tags. He has taken care of this situation. . Scott Harinq, 3280 Lilly-Mar Court commented regarding the proposed revisions to the 1999 traffic calming policy. He noted that there was discussion regarding the 90 percent approval required from residents along the affected street, and he supports revising this percentage to a lower number. He was involved with the Martin Road traffic-calming petition and the speed humps have been very effective both in reducing volumes of cut- ~ through traffic and reducing speeds. In their situation, the area was defined as 66 households in the affected area and 19 households on Martin Road. There was a concern with the 90 percent requirement, because if two households did not support the petition, the effort would have failed. He asked about the origination of the 90 percent requirement, and if there are other decisions made by City government where 90 percent concurrence is required. He can understand the 67 percent concurrence of the overall neighborhood, but the 90 percent requirement seems high. He asked that Council consider this in reviewing the traffic calming policy. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked staff to respond. Mr. Hammersmith stated that he was not on staff at the time the policy was adopted, and he does not know the origination of the 90 percent requirement. Mrs. Boring added that she believes this direction came from the traffic task force. Ms, Salay added that the rationale of the 90 percent was to secure an overwhelming majority support for the traffic calming measures. It was intended to avoid a situation where a large percentage of the neighborhood objected to the installation of such devices. Ms. Crandall noted that the Community Services Advisory Commission had originally recommended this percentage to Council after reviewing policies of other cities. Vice Mayor Lecklider thanked Mr, Haring for his input. Council will give these matters further consideration in the policy revision discussion. I LEGISLATION - SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCES REZONING Ordinance 07-03 Providing for a Change in Zoning for 5 Acres Located on the West Side of Avery Road, Approximately 200 Feet North of Belvedere Green Drive, from R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District, to: PUD, Planned Unit Development District. (Case No. 02-138Z - Scenic Estates on Avery aka Hansel Subdivision) Fred Forrester, representinq the applicant, requested that Council postpone this hearing until the next meeting where the full Council will be present for the presentation. Ms. Salay moved to postpone the public hearing of the ordinance until the March 1 Council meeting. i I . I".T '..l <iii",",,:'''' c",:':;Jlt~;.mJIW:'R!I\~~")1!~"(t\lWIJJjUW,f,j1fl:n'U'ln'tlm'J:'tt~HJiffir::NIIII: lilft;tjl!U~''Jfj'4lt:!}'IM RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of DublirLCiiY--Co1 mGiI MeetinL____ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK,INC.. FORM NO, 10148 February 17, 2004 Page 6 Held 20 Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr, Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. - INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING - ORDINANCES ECo..NOM/9DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS Ordinance 06-04 Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of an Economic Development Agreement Between the City of Dublin and CoreSource to Induce a Relocation of its Operations to the City in Order to Increase Employment within the City. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Mr. Stevens stated that this ordinance provides an incentive for the relocation of 114 jobs to Dublin ata leasedbuilding at 5200 Opper Metro Place building. The incentive is for a five-year period, with the company receiving 25 percent of their actual withholdings. There is an extraordinary performance clause wherein if the company reaches payroll withholding of $600,000, this arrangement would be extended for a sixth year. The maximum incentive payments to the company over the period of time are limited to I $200,000. I There will be c:l second reading/public hearing at the March 1 Council meeting. Ordinance 08-04 Authorizing the Provision of Certain Incentives for Purposes of Encouraging the Expansion by CC Technologies International, Inc. of Its Operations and Workforce Within the City and Authorizing the Execution of an Economic Development Agreement. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Mr. Stevens stated that this agreement is proposed for CC Technologies, currently located ,1""""'< on Avery Road. CC Technologies is a world leader in corrosion science and engineering. The incentive proposal is unique compared to what has been done in the past. This incentive is being offered to a smaller company to retain them and includes an upfront payment. CC Technologies is looking to move to theWitco building on Frantz Road, and a $175,000 incentive is being offered - $100,000 to be presented upon relocation to the new building, $50,000 to be paid out next year, based on certain payroll withholdings, and $25,000 in the final year based upon withholdings. The agreement also contains an extraordinary performance clause. There is a callback provision in the agreement related to payback of the $100,000 should they not reach and maintain certain withholding requirements. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked about the extraordinary performance clause and the estimated cost associated with it. Mr. Stevens clarified that he would estimate $30,000 as the cost of this clause if they reach their withholding requirements. The total incentive package is valued at approximately $205,000, There will be a second reading/public hearing at the March 1 Council meeting, Ordinance 09-04 Creating the Tartan West Incentive District, Declaring Improvements to Certain Real Property within that Incentive District to be a Public Purpose, Describing the Public Infrastructure Improvements to Be Made to Benefit that Parcel, Requiring the Owner Thereof to Make Service Payments In Lieu of Taxes, Providing for the Union County Treasurer to Distribute Service Payments to the Dublin City School District in the r-- Amount It Would Otherwise Receive Absent the Exemption, Creating a Municipal /, Public Improvement Tax Increment Equivalent Fund for the Deposit of the Balance of Such Service Payments, and Authorizing the Execution of a Tax Increment Financing Agreement and One or More Infrastructure Agreements, and Declaring an Emergency. Ms, Salay introduced the ordinance. Ms. Grigsby stated that this provides for establishment of a non-school tax increment financing district for the 251-acre Tartan West development. Staff is requesting this be held over for second reading/public hearing at the March 1 Council meeting. She pointed out that: 1. A TIF is a tool to provide a funding mechanism to fund public infrastructure improvements that are needed to provide access or improve access to a development site. In the past, the majority of TIF's have been strictly for commercial development. State law changes in late 2001 provide some additional flexibility in regard to residential developments. Part of the requirement is that it be .1; . I I ~ II I; il ,Jillll, m'llH Iilt,l!1 I i .: : ., 'I' , , , 'I' ....L'f:.'\"'.;- "-,' ,..- ''''W~''PA$l''!tl\jllf'!:Y:!''iI''',tFtr;'~'Ja!~~-lif1'l1H<,Utl'!TlJt;!ImWf'!tl!W:IIIt'!JJlIiIi. ", 1IlffHty.'ni;'1~i;:IH RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of 1111 bJln-Clty-CounciJ Meeting DAYTON LEGALBLANK,INC.. FORM NO, 10148 February 17, 2004 Page 7 Held 20 a 300-acre or less development, that it have a continuous boundary, that it meets certa.in ch~r~9t~ri~ti9~' <?ne,pfvvhichis that.the. gity Engineer must certify that the existing infrastructure is not sufficient to adequately support the proposed - development. The City Engineer has certified that the existing infrastructure in the area is not sufficient. Another requirement is that an economic development plan must be adopted by City Council, and this was done in January of 2004. 2. Staff reviewed this TIF and discussed the bases for recommending a TIF for a residential development. 3. Staff looked at the financial benefits to the City and identified $9.6 million in public infrastructure improvements that are currently programmed or would be programmed in the future by the City that would now be eligible for reimbursement over the next several years. It provides an additional revenue source to reimburse the City over the next approximately 10 years and will free up funding for other public infrastructure improvements needed elsewhere in the City. 4. It does provide financial benefits to the developer, and those improvements are identified in category C of the attachments to the agreement. The City prefers to encourage large scale, cohesive developments that will result in a much better deyelopment overall. Similar to what was done through different mechanisms in southwest Dublin with Ballantrae, this TIF will encourage a higher standard of development and will provide different types of housing options to accommodate the needs of "empty nesters", as well as an economic development tool for the employees and executives of the businesses within the City. 5. Staff believes that there is afinancial benefit to the City from the standpoint of improvements already programmed and which will be reimbursed under this TIF, additional infrastructure improvements that are not currently programmed by the City but would have been needed in the future are also included and will be .~ reimbursed, and the fact that the developer will receive reimbursement after the City is reimbursed 100 percent for its costs, 6. In regard to the impact on other governmental jurisdictions, the inside millage is not adjusted on an annual basis and therefore there are additional dollars generated which would now be directed to the City and be used to reimburse the infrastructure improvements that are identified. The governmental jurisdictions will still receive the current tax revenues that they have been receiving - it would just be the incremental increase from the value of the new construction. Currently it is estimated that once buildout occurs, in 2008 or 2009, that the total value of the housing will be in the range of $240 million. For the outside millage - the levies voted upon by the residents of various jurisdictions - it does not generate additional dollars for the governments, so therefore there are not any dollars being directed to Dublin and not to them. It would result in the millage rate not being reduced by quite as much as it would have been if the TIF district were not established. 7. Lastly, this TIF does not obligate the City in the future regarding TIF's for other residential properties. Similar to economic development agreements, each development is reviewed on its own merits and structure, with review of its impacts and benefits to the City. Ms. Salay asked about the time period for the TIF. Ms. Grigsby responded that state law allows for TIF's up to 30 years for non-school TIF's. Based on current projections, staff is estimating that once service payments are initiated, the - infrastructure - both the City's share and the developer's - will be reimbursed over a 13-year , period, based upon current projections of the value of the homes. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked about the parkland. While he appreciates that the parkland dedication is twice the amount required, is the developer required within the agreement to maintain the parkland? Ms. Grigsby stated that this is part of the zoning text, wherein the public and private parklands are identified and the commitment is that the developer will maintain all of it. This is what has been agreed to by the parties. Vice Mayor Lecklider noted some concern with access to the parkland, given the nature of the development. He does not want a future situation where the residents of Tartan West do not understand that the public parklands are to be accessible to the community at large. , ' - "l~~:t,:~,"m'ffJJJ':!WPIIL"~),!,,-,t~B!JiI~\~t1~1iJ'.t~Jt1':,'tljN:t;;nl\~II!:,-_:l'.Illi',I' : ',lilt~tli 'i;',';-!Jt:!,J[!'1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of 1)11 bl in-.-Cit}LCounciL Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO, 10148 February 17, 2004 Page 8 Held 20 Ms. Grigsby responded thatthe public and private areas will be identified, and access will also be provided to the public sites through the bikepath. Staff can provide a map at the next meeting showing the public versus private parklands. - There was no further comments or public testimony. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the March 1 Council meeting. BID Ordinance 10-04 . . . \ Accepting the Lowest and Best Bid for the Landscape Installation Right-of-Way Project. Mrs. Boring introduced the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam stated that an excellent bid was received for this project from Miller Paving in the amount of $118,239. The budgeted amount for the project was $138,000 and the estimated project cost was $128,000. Staff is recommending acceptance of the bid at the March 1 Council meeting. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the March 1 Council meeting. CODE AMENDMENTS Ordinance 11-04 Amending Section 76.02(E) of the Dublin Codified Ordinances Regarding the Posting of Handicapped Parking Fine Amount, and Declaring an Emergency, Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam stated that in view of the fact that there are not five members present required for passage of the ordinance by emergency, staff recommends this be held over until March 1. ~ Ms. Brautigam stated that in late summer of 2003, Council passed legislation regarding posting of signs regarding the $250 minimum fine for parking in handicapped parking spaces throughout the City. When state law changed in early 2004 and the ordinances were recodified, the change was not included in the Dublin Code. This ordinance will address this. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the March 1 Council meeting. Ordinance 12-04 Amending Sections 93.03 (20), 93.80 (Private Fire Hydrants) and 150.193 (Fire Hydrant Permits) of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Dublin. Ms. Brautigam stated that this change is brought forward as a result of recent Council discussions regarding private fire hydrants. It incorporates into the Code the changes requested by Council, including yearly inspection and filing of reports. The information was prepared by Sara Ott, Training and Accreditation Manager from the Service Department. She is available to respond to questions. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the March 1 Council meeting. REZONINGS Ordinance 13-04 Providing for a Change in Zoning of 22.657 Acres Located on the Southeast Corner of Metatec Boulevard and Post Road, From: PUD, Planned Unit Development District, To: PUD, Planned Unit Development District. (Case No. 04-028Z - Homestead at Coffman Park) - Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance and moved referral to Planning & Zoning Commission. Mrs, Boring seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Ordinance 14-04 Providing for a Change in Zoning of 16.87 Acres Located on the East Side of Eiterman Road, Southwest of the Post Road/US 33 Interchange, From: R, Rural and RI, Restricted Industrial District, To: PCD,Planned Commerce District. (Case No. 04- 021Z - Gateway Professional Center) Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance and moved referral to the Planning & Zoning Commission. Mrs. Boring seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; M$. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of nuhlillj:::~GounciL Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC,. FORM NO, 10148 February 17, 2004 Page 9 Held 20 LAND PURCHASE Ordinance 15-04 -- Authorizing the Purchase of a 33.1 Acre, More or Less, Tract of Land, Located North of Hard Road and East of Riverside Drive, City ofDliblin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio, and the Appropriation of $1 ,900,000 for Payment of Said Purchase. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. !\As. Brautigam stated theit this al.Jthorize~theCitYrv1anager to execute documents to purchase the bait store property and appropriates the funds. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the March 1 Council meeting. INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTIONS LEASE Resolution 06-04 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agricultural Lease for Certain City- owned Land, and Waiving Formal Bidding Requirements of Chapter 721 of the Ohio Revised Code. Ms. Salay intrQduced the resolution. Ms. Brautigam stated that staff is recommending that Council authorize the City Manager to execute a lease for this property as outlined in the attachments. Vote on the Resolution: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. At this point, Mr. Keenan arrived at the meeting. EASEMENTS ~ Resolution 07-04 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Easement with American Electric i Power (AEP) for the Development ofDarree Fields Park. Ms. Salay introduced the resolution. Ms. Brautigam stated that this will allow electrical service to the new portions of Darree Fields Park. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Resolution 08-04 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Easement with the Stonehenge Company for Water Service for Stonehenge Place Office Complex. Ms. Salay introduced the resolution. Ms. Brautigam stated that this provides a good solution for the waterline placement, both for the developer and for the City. It results in the loss of fewer trees and is less costly, as it will not have to go under the creek or under the road. Ms. Salay asked about the project and whether there are more trees lost than anticipated. Mr. Ciarochi responded that there has been some clearing on the west side of the site involving honeysuckle. The goal is to have the same appearance as other areas along Rings Road. Staff is monitoring this situation. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, Mr. Lecklider, yes. - ANNEXA TION - STATEMENT OF SERVICES Resolution 09-04 Adopting a Statement of Services for a Proposed Annexation of 8.0 Acres, More or Less, from Washington Township, Franklin County to the City of Dublin, Ohio as Required by Section 709.023 of the Ohio Revised Code. Mr. Reiner introduced the resolution. Ms. Brautigam stated that this statement of services is required from the City as part of the annexation process. It sets forth the types of services that could be provided by the City should the annexation be accepted. Vote on the Resolution: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. OTHER i i 1~,l-llnk'~!,:;,~,,111'1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of D'lb1in-Ci4t COllncil Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, lNC.. FORM NO, 10148 February 17, 2004 Page 10 Held 20 . Discussion of Cemetery Expansion Mr. Hahn stated that this issue was brought up by Council a few meetings ago. It was pointed out in the Cemetery report that at the current rate of sale, the cemetery spaces -- will be sold out in 6-8 years. Staff is recommending that the cemetery expansion and t I related issues be referred to the Community Services Advisory Commission for further discussion and recommendation back to Council. Mr. Reiner suggested that the Commission also explore locations and costs of such expansion. Mr. Hahn stated that Council should also consider whether they should continue to provide this service into the future. It could be provided at this or other appropriate locations. Ms. Salay summarized that the Commission should review whether the City wants to continue to provide cemetery plots to residents, appropriate locations, expansion at the current location, and costs. Mr. Keenan stated that he has heard from several developers that the City does not have interest in locating funeral homes in Dublin. It seems odd that Council would consider expanding cemeteries when they don't want to have funeral homes located within the City. Ms. Salay stated that the issue has been with finding an appropriate location for a funeral home. Ms. Salay moved to refer this matter to CSAC. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. CITY MANAGER/STAFF REPORTS Ms. Brautigam stated that the Development Committee meeting should be scheduled in the near future in follow-up to the study session of February 9. It was the consensus of Council toschE1dulethis meeting at 6 p.m. on Monday, March 1, prior to the Council meeting. Topic for discussion is the Route 33 corridor. Staff is also requesting an executive session tonightfor discussion of legal matters. ~ cd uNCI L C()MMltTEEREP6RT$ICc>u~erL'R6tJ~'DT.4:B[E Mrs. Borinq: 1. Noted that in a. Counc;il goalsetting session in 2003, a request was made of staff for a housing inventory. In view of the claims for a need for certain types of housing, it would be important to have this information to better assess the balance of housing types available in the community. Ms. Brautigam responded that the housing inventory has been on the staff assignment list during the past year. With the many administrative matters that went before the Planning & Zoning Commission, it became a low priority. Currently, there is not a staff member available to prepare this. Staff did attempt to seek information about multi- family housing, particularly the costs, but staff has not been able to obtain this information from apartment owners or from realtors. She cannot commit to having the housing inventory information in the near future. Mrs. Boring noted that during the Community Plan process, a chart was provided which showed the current multi-family zoning's and projections. One of the justifications for the TIF for Tartan West was providing empty nester housing, and she would like more statistics on what types of housing is needed. It is important to maintain a balance of housing types, and this information would be helpful to Council and the Planning Commission. She asked that staff provide this past report to Council. Mr. Ciarochi offered to provide 2000 census data and any other information which would be helpful. Mrs. Boring asked that the report sent to Council regarding the commercial and residential permit activity be forwarded to Planning & Zoning Commission. 2. Noted that a recent newspaper article about Jerome Township sent by staff discussed a 35 mph speed I hl1it 011 certain roads. Did these include the roadways requested for speed reduction by Dublin? The article noted a concern with the cost of the signs. Therefore, if Dublin is requesting that speed limits be lowered, Dublin should provide the signage in order to facilitate the process. I 1 . ~ ", "'. ,"':ot'ij!t\"<Il:,~"mfQ1J,1t\I~JW~~l!il\1'~t'l:*l\lr"il;I~Hl"tmT V)':!'Yll~:':1l'J!I:t,::lltt~iUt:JL;.','11l~S','1;t;:J RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of D.ub1in_Git~LCol Jnci I Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO, 10148 February 17, 2004 Page 11 Held 20 Mr. Hammersmith stated that staff has a policy of providing this type of signage, including school zone signage. 3. Commented that staff has asked for input on the water and sewer extension ~ information. It is important to emphasize the mandatory connection to the lines, if an area desires the services. On the survey questions, it should begin with, "Understanding that if the neighborhood supports it, it will be mandatory for all citizens." There should be no misunderstanding that if lines are extended, connection will be mandatory. She would prefer that the language not say, '~re you interested in a water line or sewer line being extended" - but rather, "Would you support the extension of a water line or sewer line to your area." This would secure more of a commitment on the part of the property owner. For the quarterly water bills, it should be indicated that there is a Dublin surcharge for water bills. Ms. Brautigam stated that the meetings are scheduled on February 18, 24 and 25. Mr. Keenan asked about the format for the water and sewer meetings. Ms. Crandall stated that there are different levels of koowledge by the residents of the issues, Staffwill provide background regarding the water and sewer extensions, what Council is looking at in terms of options, as well as cost implications for connection, i.e., tap fees, waterline connection, etc. It is designed as an informal meeting. Ms. Brautigam added that staff members present would be Ms. Crandall, Mr. Hammersmith and a Finance Department representative. The maps will be available, a PowerPoint presentation will be provided to explain the program, and there will be an opportunity during and afterward to ask questions regarding individual properties. Ms, Salav commented: ~, 1. In the paragraph that mentions costs to be paid for by the City of Dublin, she would be more comfortable with the language, "The City of Dublin is considering assuming the costs associated with the water and sewer line extensions" versus, "The City will be assuming.. ..". If staff comes back with the recommendation that the extensions are not financially workable without foregoing something major, Council might want to make a different decision. Council should therefore not commit to this, although obviously, the meetings are being held to explore the level of interest by the residents. Ms. Brautigam stated that staff had a long discussion about the wording of this piece. It will be revised based upon this discussion. The meetings are scheduled from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. on the 18th, 24th and 25th. 2. Asked about the response to the postcard sent out soliciting applications for the Tara Hill Comprehensive Traffic Task Force. The Clerk reported that an additional 10 applications have been received. Ms. Salay suggested that these be included in the next packet and that interviews be scheduled in the near future, perhaps in conjunction with board and commission interviews. Vice Mavor Lecklider echoed Ms. Salay's comments regarding the language in the survey. He does not want to mislead people. He is not certain what Council will ultimately conclude, but the language should be revised as suggested. ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Mr, Keenan moved to adjourn to executive session for discussion of legal matters. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. ~ Vice Mayor Lecklider noted that the meeting would be reconvened only to formally f adjourn. No further action will be taken. The meeting was adjourned to executive session at 9: 1 0 p.m. The meeting was reconvened and formally adjourned at 9:30 p.m. W~~JX'~ Vice Mayor - r siding Officer ~ 0 ~ Clerk of Council