Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/17/2004 RECOR~ OF CP~OC~EDINGS Minutes of ublln Ity ouncl Meeting ------------ - -OAYToihEGAL BLANK, INC.;-FORM-NQ.10148----. Held 20 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the regular meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 6:30 p.m. on Monday, May 17, 2004 at the Dublin Municipal Building. ROLL CALL Present were: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, Vice Mayor Lecklider, Mrs. Boring, Mr. Keenan and Mr. McCash. Mr. Reiner and Ms. Salay arrived at 6:40 p.m. Staff members present were: Ms. Brautigam, Mr. Smith, Ms. Grigsby, Mr. McDaniel, Mr. Ciarochi, Mr. Harding, Ms. Puskarcik, Mr. Gunderman, Ms. Cox, Ms. Wanner, Lt. Hirschy, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Villareale and Mr. Richardson. Mrs. Boring moved to adjourn to executive session for discussion of personnel and legal matters. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; , , Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. i I The meeting was reconvened at 7 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Reiner led the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited Mr. Keenan to introduce Ms. Puskarcik's guest. Mr. Keenan noted that she is joined by a member of the Russian delegation who is visiting Dublin as part of the Rotary exchange program. The group is in town for three weeks and is hosted by a variety of families. They are here to view how local government, the legal system and the court system work in this area. On behalf of Council, he welcomed her to the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Lecklider moved approval of the minutes of April 19, 2004. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Mr. Smith noted that the record should reflect that on Friday, May 14, Council Member McCash contacted him to report that he had that day become aware that his firm was working on a proposal for a contractor to build the Champaign Bank on the subject site of a rezoning considered at the April 19 meeting. Mr. McCash noted that he had no prior knowledge of this. The record reflects that he voted against the rezoning proposal. But Mr. McCash indicated that had he known that a proposal was forthcoming in house, he would obviously have abstained from that vote. The record should reflect this information that he became aware of subsequent to April 19. Mr. McCash stated that Mr. Smith's report is accurate. Last Friday, he learned of a proposal in their firm that was dated April 27, subsequent to the Council meeting and vote, but he is not certain whether any contact was made prior to that date. The proposal has apparently been accepted at this point, but he was not aware of such a proposal until Friday, May 14. Vote on the motion: Mr. McCash, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Mr. Lecklider moved approval of the minutes of May 3,2004. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. CORRESPONDENCE The clerk reported that a Notice was sent to Council from the Ohio Division of Liquor Control regarding the transfer of liquor permits at 6013 Glick Road from Brewery, Inc., dba Bogey Inn to One Over Parr, LLC, doing business as Bogey Inn. There was no objection from Council to the transfer of these permits. SPECIAL PRESENTATION Mike Rankin, co-founder of Mid Ohio Amber Alert addressed Council regarding the program which began in Dallas/Forth Worth, Texas in 1996 following the tragic abduction and murder of Amber Hagerman. The program began as a public/private partnership , I II RECOR~ ~F PROCEEDINGS Minutes of ub in City Council J\t1.~eting - .__.._._~~_._- --- - - --------- DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 May 17, 2004 Page 2 ---- II~------ - I Held 20 between the law enforcement community and the news media to educate the public immediately in the case of an abducted or missing child under circumstances where that child was in immediate danger of serious harm or death. In February of 2001, he and Clark Donley of Sunny 95 put together the Amber Alert working group composed of police officials, media and citizens and established protocol and forums. They kicked off the first Ohio Amber Alert program in October 2001. The protocol was thereafter adopted by the U.S. Department of Justice and was shared with the rest of Ohio by the Attorney General's office. They are in the process of working on several issues both with the State Amber Alert Board he serves on and with the computer vendors. Time is of the essence when a child is missing. The concept proposed that the Attorney General's office is working on is for a web-based program to be accessed by every officer at the scene. It can speed the process by allowing a photo of the child to be scanned at the scene and forwarded to the television station. In addition, with the sex offender registry system, the AG's office is working to have the ability to pull up on a map the locations of the registered sex offenders in the area adjacent to an abduction. Their board is a non-profit board with limited funding. They are seeking new Board members to join them in this effort. On Saturday, the Mid Ohio Amber Alert Day will take place at Wyandot Lake, with contributions made to the organization from the admissions. He thanked Council for providing the opportunity to present information to them tonight. Their web site is www.midohioamberalert.org, and he encouraged anyone interested to contact them and join the effort. He noted that to date, 134 children have been recovered in America because of the Amber Alert system, and two of those were in Franklin County. CITIZEN COMMENTS There were no comments from citizens. LEGISLATION SECOND READING/PUBLlC HEARING - ORDINANCES REZONING Ordinance 52-03 Providing for a Change in Zoning for 40 Acres Located on the Northwest Corner of Sawmill and Hard Roads, From: PUD, Planned Unit Development District, To: PUD, Planned Unit Development District. (Case No. 03-045Z - NE Quad PUD, Subareas 5A, and 58 - Kroger Centre - Sawmill Road) Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that a complete set of the proposed text was provided to Council on the dais tonight. Ms. Wanner noted that the rezoning application was submitted in May of 2003 to revise the preliminary development plan for subareas 5A and 5B. The existing zoning standards permit 198,000 square feet of retail, one restaurant outparcel for subarea 5A and office uses at a maximum density of 10,000 square feet per acre, and two retail outparcels which were part of subarea 5B. The proposed modification will still permit office and retail uses, however the development standards and acreages in both subareas have been modified due to the realignment of Emerald Parkway and the preservation of the four-acre wooded area. She showed slides with the general location of the zoning at Hard and Sawmill Roads and the development in the area. There has been final development plan approval of the Sawmill condos located to the northwest of this site. She showed a map outlining subareas 5A and B. Emerald Parkway is proposed to connect to Saltergate, and there is an extension of Summer Drive that will bisect the two areas. The site plan includes a 198,000 square foot shopping center, including a 99,000 square foot Kroger, two multi- tenant retail buildings of 8,500 square feet each, and an eight-pump gas station with a 98 square foot kiosk. The subareas have been shifted due to the Emerald Parkway realignment, but the site retains a 4-1/2 acre tree stand. She showed some general architectural elevations of the Center and other retail tenant spaces. She also showed renderings of the gas station, noting that the architecture includes a hip roof line as well as materials to match the center. Mrs. Boring pointed out that the conditional use for the gas station would be reviewed at a later date by the Planning Commission, together with the sign package and architecture. Ms. Salay asked for clarification - the architecture and signage for the gas station are not under Council's purview? Ms. Wanner responded that Council is considering the text, which includes materials and the gas station as a conditional use. The gas station is approved as part of the permitted uses as a conditional use and the applicant would be required to return to P&Z for conditional use approval. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting ----...-----. DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 ~._-- ._-~------- r---- m~ --.- .- May 17, 2004 Ii 20 I Held i Mr. Lecklider clarified that the gas station is a conditional use, and if the proposed text is approved by Council, the gas station is a possibility, subject to approval of the conditional use by P&Z. If Council has concerns with any of the permitted uses in the text, further discussion can take place tonight. Ms. Wanner noted that a condition of approval at P&Z was that the applicant submits the fence detail for a future retail area of 24,000 square feet. The applicant is not proposing to build this immediately, and a screening detail for the rear of these buildings has been provided. It includes a fence atop a landscaped mound. Another condition was that the applicant provide screening detail, and the details have been provided consisting of a screen wall to hide the loading dock area from view of Emerald Parkway. The proposed rezoning is generally consistent with the existing text and will provide additional services to support surrounding residents and future office employees. P&Z approved this by a unanimous vote on March 18 with 27 conditions. All of the conditions required to be fulfilled prior to scheduling the Council hearing have now been met. She emphasized that there is a condition that requires the applicant to return to P&Z prior to submitting a final development plan for an informal review for the signage, architecture and landscaping. Mr. Lecklider noted that this is a major project and he appreciates the complexity of the issues addressed by staff and the Commission. If Council approves the text tonight, what discretion remains for the Commission in regard to signage, architecture and landscaping? Ms. Wanner responded that the PUD is a fairly flexible zoning district, and the final development plan approval is subject to the discretion of the Commission. The applicant has proposed a palette of colors to create more subdued colors for the signage. Staff is confident that the proposed signage package is fairly complete in terms of scale, and is discreet and subdued. There is more identification in place along the main retail shopping center area. At the final development plan stage, if the Commission determines that what is submitted is not in keeping with the text or is something they do not support, they have the discretion to disapprove it. Discussion followed about the discretion of the Commission in regard to signage should Council approves the text tonight, given the level of detail provided. Mrs. Boring stated that to her recollection, the scale of the project was so large that some things may have been missed in the review at P&Z. She understands Mr. Lecklider's concerns. The fact that there are 27 conditions is reflective of the Commission's desire to approve the project and yet retain discretion for some of the items. They did not discuss signage, as the Commission understood that the sign package would be brought back at a later date for review. Ms. Wanner responded that the condition reads that the sign package will be brought back to the Commission for informal review prior to final development plan submittal. Mr. Lecklider asked if the same is true with respect to the architecture. Mrs. Boring responded that her sense was that the concerns about the architecture were that there should be something in the conditions to require it to appear more "village-like." Ms. Salay asked how that could be accomplished. Mrs. Boring stated that the developers were given the latitude to address this, perhaps with separate buildings, similar to the recent development in Historic Dublin. The Commission was hopeful that they would bring back revisions to reflect this direction. The key issue related to the front of the retail buildings. This is in condition #21, on page 33 of the minutes. Mr. Keenan pointed out that this rezoning has been recommended by the Commission by a unanimous vote. Given tonight's discussion, are there some aspects that the Commission did not support? Mrs. Boring responded that it was a matter of the enormity of the project and the time allocated to discuss some of the major portions of the development, such as signage and architecture. The Commission felt comfortable approving this, given the fact that a later review would take place for signage and architecture. Ms. Salay asked if Council approves the proposed text, what is the discretion of the Commission to make changes to architecture and signage? Mr. Smith responded that the understanding is that the sign package will be reviewed again by the Commission prior to final development plan submittal. He suggested that Mr. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council _M~~ting - ----~ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 -. --- ~------------...- 'I --------..--- May 17, 2004 --Page 4 II " I Held 20 Hale indicate that although the text provides sign package details, that he is willing to take the sign package back to the Commission before final development plan. Ben Hale, 37 W. Broad Street, representing the applicant provided some contextual history, explaining that the condo development received preliminary development approval without a lot of detail provided about the finished product, due to the variety of units included, with the understanding that the final development plan submittals would address the detail items at a future date. The applicant, in fact, provided much more detail than what would be expected at the preliminary development plan stage from a legal standpoint. There were some particular concerns about the gas station and landscaping, and the appearance of the buildings in the front. So what was determined is that the applicant would come back with all of the detail of the architecture and sign package prior to the final development plan submittal. Under the zoning text, the Planning Commission has no right to expand what is in the text. They can't require more or allow more than what is in the text; the text establishes the maximum of what they can approve. Once Council approves the zoning text, this moves into an area of administrative law, where the Commission has administrative discretion. The applicant has agreed already to an extra step of submitting additional detail prior to the final development plan. The costs involved in preparing the final development plan submittals are very high, in view of the engineering, final architecture and other items required. With the condo development, the applicant returned to the Commission and staff prior to preparation of final development plan in order to ensure that a "meeting of the minds" was reached prior to finalizing all of the detail items. The process worked well with the condo development. He noted that the architect for the project is present tonight. He added that the East Dublin Civic Association encouraged two things: they did not want a regional use, but more of a neighborhood service center; and they wanted the woods to be preserved as part of the development. Kroger was pursued aggressively as a likely user due to their location across the road and their need for expansion. As part of the Emerald Parkway extension, the plan was modified to have Kroger at the other end of the site. The right-of- way needed to be modified for the Emerald Parkway, and this affected the site. In today's market, Kroger builds new stores with gasoline services included without exception. He demonstrated the site plan with the modified layout. Mr. Reiner asked why Kroger, which is presently under Columbus zoning, would want to move across the street to a much more restrictively zoned City and abandon their nearby site. Mr. Hale responded that there are two issues: Wal-Mart is entering the market nearby and Kroger wants a more improved and efficient store. Kroger typically owns their own buildings, but in this case, they will lease the new building from the property owner, as owning the store as well as building it is not feasible. The property owner does not anticipate making any profit from the Kroger lease, but hopes to make profit from the remainder of the tenant mix. They have made this a very attractive offer for Kroger and this is why they will come to Dublin. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that Council Members have the opportunity to ask their specific questions at this time for response by the applicant and colleagues. I Mr. Hale suggested that they demonstrate the architecture on the building prior to taking II questions. Mr. Lecklider noted that if Council agrees that the site is not regional in nature, then the preservation of the woods actually enhances the site in terms of repeat customers. Does the Kroger store as proposed meet the City's guidelines for large format retail? Ms. Wanner responded that they meet the guidelines. Mr. Hale and the project architect showed some of the renderings of the proposed center. Mark Ford, Ford Architects stated that they made a fairly lengthy presentation at the Commission, and the main focus of the architectural details related to the two smaller outbuildings at the far eastern end of the site. He described the renderings and their features. They have added more stone with the brick in response to the Commission's suggestion. Mrs. Boring pointed out that on page 31 of the minutes, there is an informal review planned for the architecture and landscaping prior to the final development plan. Mr. Hale Minutes of RECORgut9rfhf~~~EED I NGS Meetin~__ _.---------- DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC',..FORM NO. 10148 May 17, 2004 :>",,.,'" r:; ';:;J' Held 20 indicated that if there are issues at that time, there could be changes. So what is being presented tonight has not been approved by the Commission. Mr. Hale noted that they will continue to work on the details and will have an informal review to ensure that they are on the right track with the Commission prior to submittal of the final development plan. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher offered Council the opportunity for questions. Mr. Reiner asked for confirmation that the plan will preserve all of the very large trees. Mr. Hale responded affirmatively. They have tried to leave a buffer in place to maximize the survival rate of the trees. Ms. Wanner stated that they are working with the Engineer who is preparing the plat for all of Emerald Parkway, and they are including a tree preservation/no disturb zone note on the plat. Mr. Reiner stated that he appreciates the preservation efforts for this spectacular entryway to the City. Mrs. Boring noted that page 3 was not included in the distributed text, but it has been included tonight. It mentions a gasoline sales kiosk with a maximum square footage of 150 square feet. That seems to be an enormous sign. Mr. Hale clarified that this is actually a small building for the gas station attendant, not a sign. Mrs. Boring noted in regard to the outbuildings that the Civic Association believes they should be single, not multiple use buildings. Having four to five tenants in the outbuildings will not encourage pedestrian traffic into the center. Also, in the previous zoning text, there was a specific size limit for each of the tenants, but there are no restrictions included in this text. Mr. Hale responded that if Council wants to add this condition, they would include the maximum sizes in the text. Mrs. Boring asked that this condition be added, that other than the main store, no individual tenant exceed 10,000 square feet to ensure that the center is neighborhood friendly. Mr. Hale responded that there are some tenants, such as bookstores, who want a larger footprint and for that reason, these sizes were shown. .. Mrs. Boring stated that the text could then include two buildings at a maximum of 18,000 square feet, with the remainder of tenants limited to no more than 10,000 square feet. She is still advocating that the outlots be single uses. Ms. Salay commented about bikepath access. Has this been discussed? Mr. Hale responded that there are hike and bikepaths on the plan. The Commission has also requested a sidewalk in a portion of the site. All of these provide good access to the center. Ms. Salay asked about the 8,500 square foot retail outparcels. For comparison purposes, how large is the building in front of Meijer's? Ms. Wanner responded that it is 12,600 square feet. Ms. Salay asked about the maximum number of tenants in the outbuildings. Mr. Ford responded that there are five sections of storefront, at 1400 square feet each. Mr. Hale added that the applicant believes that some of these will be taken by tenants such as a coffee shop. Ms. Salay asked the applicant to point out locations of the monument signs for the center and for the gas station. Mr. Reed, landscape architect pointed out the locations of these on the map. Ms. Salay asked for confirmation that the text of the signs indicates, "Kroger Centre." Mr. Reed confirmed this. Mr. Hale added that they are in compliance with the Code. Mr. Lecklider asked if the main sign would require a variance. Mr. Hale responded that in terms of the height on the building, it is in compliance with Code, not exceeding 15 feet. Every similar building in Dublin, including the Avery Kroger Minutes of RECORguQfci~ag,~EED I NGS Meeting -------- DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 ~A...., 17 ')nnA ::>",.,,, &:: ..-} , --- ";:' Held 20 and former Big Bear has built into its text a variance from the Code to allow the sign to be up where it should be located on the building. Ms. Wanner clarified that if it is in the text, it will not require a variance. Mrs. Boring clarified that the design and each individual sign package will be reviewed by the Commission, but if the text indicates the allowable signage is up to 110 square feet, they already have that permission. The text governs the amount. Mr. Lecklider noted that he is curious about why staff supports the gas station. Ms. Wanner stated that in terms of a gas station as a permitted use, when staff reviewed the site and permitted uses, it seemed appropriate in view of the lack of service stations in the vicinity. The scale fits within a locally oriented gas station, with eight pumps. Staff felt this use was appropriate in combination with the retail and other uses. The other factor is the number of residential units to the north - the single-family homes, the condominiums, and these people will need the services. Mr. Hale noted that they have visited the Cincinnati headquarters many times over the plans for this Center. Kroger understands the need to comply with the Dublin Code, but II they also have requirements that make this a feasible project for them from a business point of view. Kroger will not build on a new site without an accompanying gas station I facility. Mr. Lecklider responded that BJ's also required a gas station, but ceased business operations in less than 12 months. In terms of the substantial landscaping and architecture requirements for stations such as BP and Shell, how can they compete with this proposed station? Mr. Reiner noted that the station would be screened from the front. Mr. Hale added that the Commission has made it clear that the gas station will need to have a first class landscaping plan as part of the conditional use approval. Mr. Lecklider asked what is unique with respect to the eastern portion of the site that doesn't exist elsewhere on the site? Mr. Hale responded that the Commission has indicated that the conditional use approval will require a special landscaping plan for the gas station, and this is the expectation they will have to meet. The other stations, BP and Shell, do not make the majority of their profits with gasoline sales - they make money on the other items and services they provide. This station provides only fuel to the Kroger customers and is not a full-service gas station such as those at Perimeter Center. Mr. Reiner added that this provides an option to obtain fuel on the western side of Sawmill, and may lower the price through competition. Mr. Lecklider stated that his concern is the proliferation of these types of gas stations in parking lots, both to be developed and those existing. !: Mr. Keenan asked if his concern is with the use or the amount of screening for the gas station. Mr. Lecklider responded that he is not comfortable with the use in what is essentially a parking lot. There is the potential for a lot of conflict here, and Dublin does not have much experience in planning this type of facility. Mr. Hale clarified that they have spent the past 2-1/2 years to persuade Kroger to come to this site, and the effort is to build a high quality neighborhood center. If Kroger leaves, they will not come back, and the property owner will use it for their existing zoning. Everyone has indicated their desire to have a neighborhood center, with a grocery store, with great architecture, something that identifies this side of the road as Dublin. But from a business standpoint, there are things that are needed to make this happen. If Council turns down this proposal, Kroger will not be back. This is an important decision for Dublin, and it is inconceivable that someone would turn this down. If Kroger is not able to obtain approval with the gas station at this time, they will not build on this site. Mr. Hale noted that the proposed Wal-Mart to the north will eventually be built, and Kroger's plan calls for this store to be established before that time. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the east side residents have indicated that they have a need for a gas station in their area, so this is an opportunity to provide an easily accessible station on the west side of Sawmill. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that Mr. Lecklider RECORg ~~.f~O~EEDINGS Minutes of u In I Y ouncl Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 May 17, 2004 c,...""'" 7 ";:" Held 20 articulate his objections and his recommendations for making this proposal more acceptable to him. Mrs. Boring noted that the neighborhood believes that, compared to what was discussed 12 years ago, this grocery store is the best option for a neighborhood use. Currently, people travel to Powell to access a larger, newer grocery store, and having one in this location will alleviate traffic. In addition, with appropriate landscaping and signage, the residents support a gas station in this location, which will also reduce traffic. The other consideration is that under the existing zoning, the property owner can develop the site without preserving the trees. She asked that Council seriously consider this proposal. The process over the past 12 years has been long and difficult, and has resulted in this proposal being brought forward. Mr. Lecklider noted that he has difficulty in distinguishing this gas station from BJ's, which had existing mounding and landscaping. The landscaping and mounding in this proposal seems to be that which would exist with or without a gas station. Mr. Hale responded it was clear at the Commission that the expectation for a conditional use approval is upgraded landscaping. It will far exceed the existing landscaping code. This will be a first-class center. Mr. Lecklider recalled reading in the Commission minutes about landscaping, particularly due east of the Kroger site. There was some debate that the applicant did not want to do a lot of landscaping because they did not want to obstruct the views. Mr. Hale responded that the only discussion was that the architect had proposed a hedge in this area, and the Commission requested mounding plus the hedge. For this reason, the applicant agreed to bring the landscaping portion back to the Commission to show the revisions. Mr. Lecklider asked how this could be structured such that Council has leverage, and not the applicant. If the City prefers something more opaque than the hedge, and the text is approved as written, the applicant may insist that they want the hedge treatment. Who would prevail in this? Mr. Hale responded that the City has made their desires very clear in terms of landscaping. They will meet all of the expectations within the voice of reason. Mrs. Boring commented that she recalls that the Commission wanted undulating mounding, and the applicant agreed to incorporate this. Mr. Hale added that the Commission also wanted them to match the treatment already approved for the condominiums to the north. They will meet the community's expectations as articulated by the Commission. Ms. Salay asked if mature trees will be removed with the gas station - maybe they could be incorporated into the landscape treatment. Ms. Wanner stated that some of the problems encountered relate to construction around the drip line. The tree may die in spite of efforts to save it. Mr. Hale pointed out that the tree in question is a cottonwood tree - it may be a landmark tree, but it is not a good tree. The good tree species have been preserved. Ms. Salay noted that she visited a gas station in Longboat Key, Florida a couple of weeks ago and the site was so heavily landscaped that the gas station identity was nearly indiscernible from the center. It was a busy shopping center, with a grocery store, and the signage was very subtle behind the landscaping. She would like to see the gas station heavily landscaped. If it is the only gas station in this vicinity, people will find it. When Perimeter Center was built, there was a lot of discussion about colors for the various tenants in the large retail center. She would personally favor allowing four subdued colors from which the tenants can choose. The lighting should also be subdued to complement the village architectural look of the center. Mrs. Boring asked if she would suggest adding a condition in regard to the color palette. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that it would not be reasonable to actually select the colors at this time. Ms. Salay suggested that a palette be submitted, similar to that in Perimeter Center. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if there is any known reason that there could not be a limitation of colors. Perhaps the motion could limit the number of colors, and staff could work with the applicant on the actual palette. II Minutes of RECORgut9~i~aQ~EED I NGS M~eting ------.-.--- DAYTON ~G~~~NK, INSiORM ~Oc_'0~~ May 17, 200-1 Page 8 ----~ Held 20 Mrs. Boring asked the Law Director how this could be removed from the text temporarily so that it could be approved, with the condition that the color palette be brought back to be incorporated into the text at a later date. Mr. Smith asked for clarification - does Council want to make the final decision on the colors or do they want the Commission to do so? Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Council does not want to make the final decision - they want to give direction to the Commission on this. Mr. Smith suggested that the condition be amended to state that the applicant has agreed that Council's recommendation with respect to the number of colors should be passed on to P&Z as to the sign package, and that number of colors would then become a part of the requirement when they return for approval. Mr. Hale clarified that he understands this direction in regard to the shopping center, but Kroger has a color palette specific to them. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that those colors could be included in the palette. Mr. Hale reiterated that if there were a restriction of four colors, he would recommend that the Kroger colors be separate from the colors for the remainder of the center. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that this seems reasonable. Ms. Salay commented in regard to the gas station canopy. The Shell station at Perimeter has very balanced columns that are rectangular in shape and has a nice appearance, in contrast to those at the BP station at Perimeter that are not balanced. Mr. Lecklider asked about the gas station lighting underneath the canopy. Is there a reason, regulatory or otherwise, that the gas station lighting has to be extremely intense? Ms. Wanner responded that it is subject to the City's exterior lighting guidelines. Mr. Lecklider noted that the lighting under the gas station canopies seems much brighter than in the parking lot around them. Ms. Salay commented that the type of lens used seems to affect this - the Shell station canopy has a light lens that is acceptable. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that these are details that must be addressed at the staff level. There is a balance issue with lighting to ensure the safety of the customers. She noted that another issue is with the shopping cart corrals. At a Target store in Indianapolis, she has seen a brick cart corral in a rectangular shape. It has a very nice appearance and yet it was understood by the location visually that it was intended to house the carts. Mr. Hale responded that Kroger is not enthusiastic about the current option of cart bays that exist in Dublin, so they are willing to look into other options. He asked that she obtain a picture of the Indianapolis example. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher commented that this has been a very controversial zoning for many years. She feels strongly that the property owner has taken into consideration the concerns and desires of the area citizens. This development is an excellent addition to this portion of Dublin and will provide services and amenities close to their homes. She asked about the timeframe for construction. Mr. Hale responded that this can be built while Emerald Parkway is under construction, but cannot be occupied until the Parkway is completed. Their estimated timeframe for occupancy of the Centre is late spring/early summer 2005. Mrs. Boring moved to approve the rezoning with the added conditions that: 1. The text includes defined limitations of the tenant space. 2. The reference to colors in the text be eliminated at this time; the color palette be brought back for approval by staff and P&Z; the color palette, other than the Kroger sign, be limited to no more than four in the center, with an emphasis on subdued/muted colors. 3. Special emphasis be given to the landscaping around the gas station. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, abstain; Mrs. Boring, yes. . Tree Waiver Request - NE Quad PUD, Subareas 5A and 5B - Kroger Centre - Sawmill Road Ms. Wanner stated that the applicant for the Kroger Centre has requested a tree waiver as outlined in the staff memo. Minutes of RECORgu~if~g&EEDINGS M_~~tin~ --------.-- DAYTON LEGAL BLANK,_INC., FORM NO. H)148 May 17, 2004 Page 9 -------- I] I, Held 20 Ms. Salay asked for verification of the size of the replacement trees. Ms. Wanner responded that the developer's request referenced two-inch replacement trees, but the City requires the replacement trees to be 2-1/2 inches. The staff report calculations are based upon the 2-1/2 inch tree replacements. Mr. Reiner moved approval of the waiver. Mrs. Boring seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, abstain. WAIVING COMPETITIVE BIDDING Ordinance 30-04 Waiving Competitive Bidding Requirements, Pursuant to Section 8.04 ('Contracting Procedures'), Paragraph (C) ("Waiver of Competitive Bidding") for Alcoholic Beverages, Soft Drinks and Bottled Water for the Dublin Irish Festival. There was no further questions. Vote on the Ordinance: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. ACCEPTANCE OF BID Ordinance 31-04 Accepting the Lowest and Best Bid for Sanitary Sewer Cleaning and Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Contract for Procurement of Said Services. There were no further questions. Vote on the Ordinance: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. INTRODUCTION IFIRST READING - ORDINANCES BID Ordinance 35-04 Accepting the Lowest/Best Bid for the Muirfield DrivelBrand Road Roundabout Project, and Declaring an Emergency. (Request to dispense with public hearing) Mr. Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam stated that staff is requesting waiving the public hearing and passing this as an emergency so that work can begin on June 7. A very favorable bid was received, and staff is recommending award of the bid to the lowest/best bidder. There was no public testimony. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Council has discussed this issue on several occasions and there are no further questions at this time. Mr. Reiner moved to dispense with the public hearing and to declare an emergency. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. INTRODUCTIONIPUBLlC HEARING - RESOLUTIONS CONTRACT Resolution 25-04 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Two-Year Contract with the Law Director. Ms. Salay introduced the resolution. Ms. Brautigam stated that the current contract expired on May 1. Some of the changes that staff is recommending are for a two-year contract, retaining the same rate for fees as that of last year. In effect, this would constitute three years of rates not being raised. She apologized for her memo that contained a typo - the Mayor's Court fees are $9,000 per month, and this amount is accurately reflected in the contract itself. One other addition is that the Law Director will be handling the Mayor's Court cases that are sent to the Franklin County Municipal Court. Staff believes that better services will result from this arrangement. Currently, the City is paying $15,000 annually for that representation through Franklin County. Staff will have to work on amending the current contract with the Franklin County Prosecutor to effect this change. Staff recommends approval of the two-year contract. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Minutes of RECORgut9l~it~\~~g~EED I NGS Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC" FORM NO. 10148 1111...." 17 ')nnA :)",,,,,,, 1 n "J , -;:;J Held 20 APPOINTMENT Resolution 26-04 Appointing a Member to the Community Services Advisory Commission. Mr. McCash introduced the resolution. Mr. McCash noted that a vacancy exists on the Community Services Advisory Commission and a previous candidate, Robin Campbell, was contacted and is willing to serve in a three-year term on the Commission. Vote on the Resolution: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES Resolution 27-04 Adopting a Resolution Superseding Resolution 48-03, Establishing Residential Development Principles in Planned Development Districts. Ms. Salay introduced the resolution. Ms. Brautigam noted that Mr. Harvey would address this matter. Mr. Harvey noted that he has distributed tonight a redlined version comparing the current Resolution 48-03 with the proposed Resolution 27-04 as submitted by the Planning Commission. He then provided background on what has prompted Resolution 27-04. Resolution 48-03, which focused on conservation design, was adopted in late 2003. It was adopted after substantial discussion of the benefits and principles of conservation design. Subsequent to its adoption, Avondale Woods was the first residential planned district proposal to be subject to its requirements. The experience of the Planning Commission with that case indicated potential ramifications from Resolution 48-03 that were not anticipated. The Planning Commission questioned whether conservation design was the best approach to take in all cases. Conservation design may not always represent the overall Community Plan objectives. This led to confusion among staff and the applicant regarding how designs should be submitted and what the applications should include. The Commission suggested the formation of a subcommittee of Planning Commission to review the content of the resolution as well as the procedures outlined. The Subcommittee held several meetings and arrived at several conclusions: . Conservation design is an excellent type of development, but it is not necessarily the only type of desirable development for residential planned districts. As originally conceived, conservation design applied to farmland preservation, prairie preservation, natural features preservation, and was typically associated with very large developments with very large open spaces. When those same principles are applied to all types of residential development, it can be contradictory or confusing. If the location is ignored or the size of the project, a number of conservation design principles become contradictory. . The Committee concluded that in reference to densities, the Community Plan is probably a better control, considering low-density development versus having a certain percentage of open space always required. The merits of a proposal ought to indicate whether the upper or lower ranges of density proposed in the Community Plan should be accepted. . There were some characteristics of residential development that were always deemed desirable, whether it was a true conservation design or not. All planned development districts should significantly exceed minimum standards and enhance overall quality of development. He then outlined the specific differences between Resolution 48-03 and Resolution 27-04: Adopted Resolution 48-03: . Identifies conservation design not only as a highly desirable approach but as the only approach. The key control is for low-density development, trying to realize the objective of 50% open space. As a result, development proposals are forced into looking at smaller lots, or condominium lots, regardless of the site or its location within the City. . Includes a number of very good and appropriate conservation design principles, but focuses on conservation design without looking at the other objectives of the Community Plan. . Forces the applicant to submit a conservation design for the site and requires the Planning Commission to determine if it is appropriate for the site. When it is not Minutes of RECORgu~~i~~g~EEDINGS Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 I\A-." 17 ')('\('\,1 n. 11 .. .~) " -~~ . ~::1~ Held 20 the appropriate design, it results in wasting time for the applicant, staff, Planning Commission and Council to review such proposals. Proposed Resolution 27-04: . Reiterates conservation design as a good design -- it does not exclude it, but it also elaborates on other types of residential development objectives. . Recognizes that planned districts should have enhanced standards, not minimum standards . Recognizes when conservation design is most appropriate. . Includes a number of other residential design objectives that are appropriate, whether it is a true conservation design proposal or not. In that respect, it provides more objectives and greater flexibility for the Planning Commission to look at the merits and demerits of any particular site. . The key control for encouraging low-density residential development would be in the density of the land use plan in the Community Plan, rather than forcing a particular percentage of open space. . Encourages creative planning and alternative layouts as opposed to the traditional design. . Recognizes Dublin's unique sense of place and residential character. . Recognizes that providing quality and diverse housing types aids economic development, as it encourages the retention, expansion and attraction of new jobs. . Looking beyond the site itself, recognizes the desired connectivity of the new project, both functionally and visually, to its surroundings. . Elaboration of several design elements, specifically looking at open space and natural features, rather than looking only at the quantity of space. It emphasizes the effectiveness of the use of natural features. . Recognizes that other types of coordinated landscaping may be desired, as conservation development in its traditional sense would not have street trees every 25-35 feet. . Recognizes that, in terms of architecture residential appearance standards, the standards are minimum, and planned districts are to exceed the standards. . Extracts several elements from the Community Plan for convenience sake, such as: recognizing the hierarchy of street sizes; providing visual relief to street patterns; introducing suggestions for traffic calming; and if a grid street system is being considered, considering the visual impact and traffic flow impact. . Reiterates connections of bike paths and pedestrian trails and connections of open space. . Reiterates diversity in lot sizes and setbacks, and considers the orientation of the house upon the lot. . Retains the emphasis on open space, preservation of natural features and effective utilization of such features, as is contained in Resolution 48-03. . Reiterates diverse housing types, suggests creative lot layouts, indicates that clustering of housing and reduced lot size is appropriate, provided off-setting benefits are included in the proposal. . Reiterates curvilinear streets are desirable and elaborates on screening, buffering and setbacks that might be associated with special corridors. . Reiterates that City Council, Planning Commission and staff must work together with the applicant to obtain the best solution for any site. Resolution 48-03 has a series of graphics associated with it to help explain what conservation design is. Those graphics are still appropriate and could also be retained in the proposed Resolution 27-04, if Council desires. There are additional graphics that staff intended to provide to applicants. Those could also be included. However, with the proposed Resolution 27-04, graphics within the Resolution probably are not necessary, and could be provided as additional guidelines. The Planning Commission reviewed the subcommittee's recommendations, made some additional changes, and recommends that Council consider Resolution 27-04 as a replacement for Resolution 48-03 - not because it is completely different, but because it has a great number of elaborations that may be confusing, if Resolution 48-03 were to merely be amended. Mr. Reiner stated that he was unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting at which this legislation was proposed. He believes this is a more "watered-down" effort, negatively impacting the excellence that this City Council and staff want to achieve. It would probably Minutes of RECORgut9l~if~g~EED I NGS Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 ~._..~ ')('\(,A D~~~ ... ') oJ , ";:;> Held 20 be necessary to adopt a new concept to stop the building of non-creative, non cutting- edge subdivisions that are currently proliferating Dublin's neighborhoods, unfortunately reflecting other neighborhoods throughout areas outside of Dublin - cities which do not have the creative staff Dublin has nor the restrictive zoning and desire for excellence. In the 7-8 years he has served on Council, he has heard previous City Council members indicate their support for these standards. In his business, he has observed that developers produce footprints most conducive to profit making. They have a standard set of footprints that are reproduced throughout the area. The Columbus Dispatch reports that conservation ism has yet to come to Ohio, although it has been embraced everywhere else. No Ohio City has been smart and bold enough to motivate developers to submit such development footprints. It behooves Dublin to be that courageous body that forces the developers to do something different. Otherwise, Dublin will end up with the usual pattern of streets with the standard subdivisions built throughout the area by numerous builders. Dublin deserves better. Financially, it will not benefit the City to approve these subdivisions, which are coming in very quickly and will soon fill the City. Due to the low interest rates in recent years, the developers want to produce these houses as quickly as possible. They will pressure the City to be permitted to do so. With the threat of imbalance between commercial and residential development, the City is concerned about the erosion of its financial base. However, Council has the power to impact the City's position in this respect by embracing the conservation residential development design or better. Only another Muirfield or Ballantrae would be better than a conservation design. Two years and a million dollars were spent on the Community Plan, developed to respond to the community's clearly stated desires for standards to protect the community. Therefore, Council should not only live up to those standards, but should also create neighborhoods that set examples for other Ohio communities. That is the City's mission. Council should refuse to let it happen - a City soon to be filled with little more than standard subdivisions. Council needs to give Planning staff a tool with which to put pressure on developers to propose new footprints for conservation design neighborhoods. That design has been very successful elsewhere. The City is now running out of land, and it will soon be too late to achieve anything better. Now is the time to act. Council should aim for the highest goal possible. There is nothing more important to the City than land use - the visual, physical aspect of the City. When he drives around the City, he is very disappointed in the housing stock that is proliferating - it is not creative, not interesting, and will not likely meet the future demographics of the City. He would rather see the City communicate that the City has new goals, and while it considers how best to achieve those goals, delay further development. He added that it behooves Council to honor the desires of its residents for a green environment. That is why Columbus residents came to Dublin. He represents his constituents, is ready to try something new, and hopes his colleagues feel the same about this endeavor. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if Mr. Reiner believes that Resolution 27-04 is a step backward from Resolution 48-03. Mr. Reiner responded that is correct, and he will not support the proposed Resolution. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that because the new legislation is substantially different, it would be appropriate to refer it to the Community Development Committee for further study. Mr. Keenan stated that Mrs. Boring made a comment, as noted in the April 15 Planning Commission minutes, that she was concerned about the process - that Council had not directed the Planning Commission to undertake this. He asked her to elaborate. Mrs. Boring responded that when the Planning Commission set up a subcommittee to study the issue, she did not anticipate that such significant changes would be proposed. She was not sure that was Council's direction. She would have been more comfortable if the Planning Commission had clarified Council's direction regarding the subcommittee's task. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she believes this came about as a result of discussion at the Development Code Revision Task Force's last meeting. This task force membership included two Commission members. The last meeting discussion centered primarily on conservation design. Mr. Gerber evidently believed that because he participated in that conversation, he should take the subject to the Commission for additional discussion. That was his personal decision; it was not a direction from the Task RECORg ~~.e~O~EEDINGS Minutes of u In I y ouncl Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 . . _ ~"7 t"\"" A n. ~,., 'Yroy -. , . ~~~ Held 20 Force or from Council. Therefore, if Council has any interest in substantively changing the legislation Council previously passed, the issue should be referred to the Community Development Committee for review. Will the newly proposed Resolution achieve Council's goals when they passed the original Resolution? Mr. McCash stated that Mr. Harvey noted that graphics were part of the original resolution. He does not recall them being a part of the Resolution, or being referenced in the Resolution. He cannot vote on a Resolution that incorporates and adopts graphics not part of the review of Council. In addition, architectural standards were addressed in the residential appearance standards legislation. The intent of the present effort was to address land planning. Therefore, this resolution should relate to land planning. However, Resolution 27-04 states that "residential appearance standards should be considered minimal standards and should be exceeded by the proposal..." or even "are to be exceeded," as stated in the presentation. He is concerned with that expectation. If Council does not expect that everything in the Code be exceeded, why would Council expect these standards to be exceeded? In addition, planned developments are in essence a deviation from the standards. If it is silent to the standard, then the standard applies. He cannot recall a residential development in Dublin that is not a planned development. Therefore, what this document does, in essence, is nullify the residential appearance standards by saying that it is expected that all applications should go above and beyond those standards. The issue is that architecture is very subjective. He understands the concern about the monotony of the same footprint - no architect would want that. However, most of the homes in the subdivisions are not designed by architects -- that is also part of the problem. If Council intends that all proposals exceed those standards, it places the burden on the Planning Commission to write an architectural appearance code for each and every planned development. The present Planning Commission does not include an architect. Mr. Harvey stated that it was not his intention to state that the architectural appearance code must be exceeded by all planned development. He meant to state that those are the minimum standards that should be exceeded, not that they must. The Resolution states objectives that should be strived for, but does not state that they are absolute req uirements. Mr. McCash suggested that the line concerning architecture be deleted from the Resolution, and that it be treated solely as land use, or as conservation subdivision design legislation. The architectural guidelines have already been addressed in the earlier legislation. It is preferable to adjust those in a separate document than to combine them into other legislation. Mr. Harvey agreed that the reference could be deleted. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that this legislation is substantially different from the one previously approved by Council. If Council has any interest in considering these changes, it should be referred to the Community Development Committee. If the Committee scrutinizes the proposed changes, and subsequently determines that some of those changes are warranted, it can make that recommendation to Council. Because the Development Committee did the original work, it is appropriate that it conduct a review of any proposed changes. Ms. Salay stated that the graphics referred to in the original resolution are the drawings comparing existing approved subdivisions with the same subdivision done as a conservation design. The conservation design showed much more open space, but did show lot dimensions. She questioned the size of the lots. By scale, they would appear to be 50 feet wide, and a tract builder would build very small houses on those lots. A situation such as that did occur. Shortly after Council passed Resolution 48-03, the Avondale project came before Planning Commission with 50-foot lots. The subdivision designed in the conservation style did achieve more open space, but the homes were of a much lower price point. She requested Mrs. Boring's corroboration of those facts. Mrs. Boring stated that the conservation design subdivision did not fit the Avondale project. What the Planning Commission desired to conserve was the large section of woods in the northwest corner of the site. The site did not lend itself to conservation design. RECORg ~~.~~O~EEDINGS Minutes of u In I y ouncl Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 1\ A...,,, ~ 7 ')('\(\11 ['" ~~~ ~ 11 'J , ." Held 20 Ms. Salay stated that the Planning Commission could not decide how to make the design work within the site, and staff was not prepared to redesign the project. The applicant pointed out that the plan was the result of meeting the conservation design requirements. She reported that Mr. Gerber contacted her and indicated that the Commission was having difficulty implementing the Resolution. The Commission decided to form a P&Z subcommittee, propose changes to the resolution and forward those changes to Council. She added that acquiring more open space at the expense of significantly reduced lot size was not Council's intent. Mr. Reiner stated that issue was brought up in many of the Task Force's discussions. If the yard frontage is reduced, the house is elongated to the back. Every existing house in the Mews is set up with that configuration. The houses, valued at $.5 million, are quite large on deep, but narrow lots. There is a huge amount of open space, including a golf course. The City's planners are creative and well trained. When such a project comes in, based on Council's direction, they can instruct the applicant to discard his standard footprints and design something that will work. Developers are quite capable of providing a high quality home in a new style to accommodate these requirements. And if the requirement temporarily stalls residential development, that is acceptable. Residential development in general only increases the tax burden on the schools. Mrs. Boring stated that when Council first discussed conservation design, the issue was brought up that the lots would be narrower in a conservation design district. It was also recognized that there are some sites, such as Avondale that are not appropriate for that type of development. In those cases, this type of design should not be forced on them. The proposed resolution may have some suggestions worth keeping, but it does not at all meet Council's goals with conservation design developments. She would still support the preservation of 50% open space. She agrees with the suggestion to forward the proposed resolution to the Community Development Committee. Ms. Salay requested Mr. Harvey's opinion, comparing the two resolutions toward the goal of conservation development. Mr. Harvey stated that the Section 2 of proposed Resolution 27-04 looks at conservation development. It states that when the developer is "pursuing reduced lot size, pursuing clustering of homes, when there are natural features, when there is something to preserve," that this is what the City wants the developer to do. It eliminates the absolute requirement for conservation design, but reiterates conservation design as a good approach, when appropriate. Section 3 states that all residential developments should include a multiple of other design objectives, which would also apply to conservation design. Conservation design is not eliminated, but it is suggested that it is not the only desirable type of development. Conservation design, when taken in concert with all the other requirements, forces a cluster approach on smaller lots or a condominium approach in order to achieve 50% open space. Sometimes that is appropriate, but not always. Mr. Reiner stated that he agrees that it may not always be possible. However, he believes the language in the new resolution does not achieve Council's goal. It should state, "The developer is encouraged to do a conservation design or better." That allows for an executive housing development or for Dublin Village Center to be replaced with a New Urbanism development. The objective is to force developers to come up with new footprints for homes. If that goal is accomplished, Dublin achieves what no other Ohio city government has achieved - to require conservation design unless a better design is proposed. It behooves Dublin to save what forests it can and to achieve open spaces adjacent to its homes. That will secure value for the homes in Dublin in the future. The conservation design would also allow bike trails connecting from the shopping center, through the subdivisions, to Glacier Ridge Metro Park. That is one of the greatest gifts Council can give its residents. It adds quality of life for the community, but also a greater financial benefit to individual homeowners. Mr. Harvey stated that the suggested language of "conservation design or better" leaves the question of what is "better?" In a manner of speaking, the proposed resolution does say the same thing, but in Section 3, it also answers the question, by suggesting ways in which to make the development better than standard. RECORl[3 ~FC.~~O~EEDINGS Minutes of u In I y ouncl Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 lA~. ~7 'lnf'\A ,. ___ ~t:: "~7 , --- ":;I' Held 20 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that there are three choices before Council tonight: (1) approve Resolution 27-04 as presented; (2) not approve it; or (3) refer it to the Community Development Committee for review and recommendation to Council. Mr. Lecklider stated that there are merits in everyone's comments. However, he is concerned that one type of "cookie cutter" development is being exchanged for another. He is not comfortable with limiting the development in this way. He appreciates the fact that Mr. Reiner's view is that this could allow other types. He is also unsure if a fixed amount of open space is always possible. Recent Planning Commission minutes on the topic seem to indicate that there are not always natural features, such as streams or woods, to preserve. Mr. Lecklider moved to refer Resolution 27-04 to the Community Development Committee. He suggested that the Planning Commission subcommittee that addressed this issue also join the Committee in the discussion. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, no; Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, on behalf of Council, wished Mr. Harvey well in his future endeavors as Director of Planning in Blacksburg, Virginia. OTHER . Ratification of Chairperson for Tara Hill Traffic Task Force Ms. Brautigam noted that the Task Force met last week. Council had indicated at the time of establishment of the Task Force that Council should ratify the Chair and Vice Chair. The Task Force is recommending Mary Bearden as Chair, and Randy Luikart as Vice Chair of the group. Mr. McCash moved to ratify the Chair and Vice Chair of the Task Force as Mary Bearden and Randy Luikart, respectively. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. . Discussion re Council Direction to Staff in follow up to Water/Sewer Extension Study Session Mrs. Boring stated that she asked the Clerk to provide background from the files regarding previous decisions of Council related to water and sewer service extensions. Based on this background information, Mrs. Boring has composed two draft motions for consideration tonight. (She distributed a copy of the motions to Council.) She commented that she was extremely frustrated with the format of the study session, as it did not provide a way to have meaningful discussion among Council members about the issues. Mrs. Boring moved that, based upon the petition submitted by the residents on March 25, 2002 indicating their desire for water and sewer services, and based upon the significant health and safety issues identified for this area, she moved to authorize staff to proceed with the design and construction of the main sewer and water lines to the Indian Run Drive area, within the framework recommended by the staff of project design in 2004 and construction in 2005, with the provision that this decision in no way sets a precedent in terms of future policy for the entire City, but is based upon current health, safety and welfare issues associated with this neighborhood and further, upon the economic viability of the City at the present time. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Mr. Reiner noted that he is in agreement with this motion. His only comment is that he does not believe that this should be the policy for every other area. In reviewing the statistics and numbers from the survey, he believes residents who do not want the services should not be forced to have them. Government should not impose its will on people who do not want the services. He believes that the situations should be addressed based on health, safety and welfare issues and that crisis situations demand action. RECORg ~~.e~O~EEDINGS Minutes of u In I y ouncl Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 ~._.. ~"'7 """"A ..... o1C .~ .-, "::::I v Held 20 Mrs. Boring agreed, noting that in this area, there was a large percentage that wanted the services. The policy decisions need to take the desires of the residents into consideration. They also need to consider cases where there are health and safety concerns and tap-in should be required. Mr. Keenan stated that he heard from many residents who were not interested in the services, based on the costs to tap-in. In particular, Indian Run and the Summitview area really are in need of the services. The out of pocket costs for them is $15-25,000 per property, and in many cases, people were not willing to pay the costs of hooking up to the services. Council's priority as public officials is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents. Mr. Lecklider stated that he does not disagree with the rationale being applied, but clarified that the City will continue to require everyone to connect when the service lines are extended by the City, per the existing policy. Mrs. Boring stated that in this case, it is a health and safety issue and people should certainly be required to connect. In addition, with the expenditure of City funds for the main lines, it is important to begin collecting user fees from those who have access. Mr. Lecklider noted, however, that he certainly supports allowing for demonstrated hardships as the City has done previously. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she would suggest amending the motion to include mandatory tap-in unless otherwise demonstrated that there is a significant hardship, per the adopted policy. Mrs. Boring accepted the amendment, and proposed another amendment that in the case of the City requiring right-of-way for the project, that it be donated to the City. Mr. Keenan seconded the amended motion. Mr. Reiner clarified that this is an emergency situation, and that the existing policy has not changed with this action tonight. Ms. Salay noted that she wants to clarify that it is Council's desire to address these health and safety issues where financially feasible, and that the sewer and water funds will be used for this purpose. In this way, a future Council will not be tied to an action taken for reasons of health and safety. Mrs. Boring responded that her motion already addresses this as drafted. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. Mrs. Boring explained in regard to Summitview that there are some people who would have a hardship situation for connection and those are the people who did not sign the petition. Mrs. Boring moved that based upon the fact that a petition containing the signatures of 25 property owners out of 28 properties was submitted by Sherman Liddell on December 13, 1999 to Council; based upon the fact that Council unanimously passed a motion to direct staff to undertake an engineering study for sewer service for the area outlined in that petition; and based upon the fact that this engineering study was not completed by the time Council proceeded to authorize construction of main lines to the Hanna Hills, Dan Sherri Avenue, Dublin Manor and MacBeth/MacDuff areas, staff be authorized to proceed with design and construction of the main sewer line to serve the Summitview area as petitioned by Mr. Liddell, within the framework recommended by the staff of project design in 2006 and construction in 2007, with the provision that this decision in no way sets a precedent in terms of future policy for the entire City, but is based upon current health, safety and welfare issues associated with this neighborhood, and further, upon the economic viability of the City at the present time, with the understanding that there will be mandatory tap-ins as well as consideration of waivers for hardship situations, and with the condition that any required right-of-way for the project will be donated. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Mr. Reiner clarified that this is based on the City having the financial resources to do the project. RECORta ~FC.~~O~EEDINGS Minutes of u In I Y ouncl __M~eting _ ___H _________.____ ~ - DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 M:JY 17, 2004 Page 17-- i 1--------- n ~. Ii Held 20 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked Ms. Grigsby if this was the timeframe recommended by staff at the study session. Ms. Grigsby clarified that for the sewer line extensions, staff had actually recommended Summitview as a first priority, with 2005 design and construction in 2006; and design for Indian Run in 2009 and construction in 2010. It was discussed that these could be flipped in order to do the Indian Run line first in coordination with the waterline extension, with ~-----'" Summitview at a later time. As part of the CIP update each year, staff can evaluate when the Summitview area would come on line, recognizing Council's desire for design in 2006. Mrs. Boring agreed that this approach makes sense from a project coordination and cost effectiveness standpoint, and added that the Summitview area is somewhat penalized in that they already have water service while Indian Run does not. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked for clarification - are there sufficient funds to do the projects earlier than staff had recommended? Ms. Grigsby stated that the projects could be programmed in those timeframes, recognizing the fact that there will be updates to the CIP and that the project could be delayed somewhat, depending upon funding availability. This would be a goal to strive for in terms of priority. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher suggested a clarification that the Summitview area is a second priority area and is to be programmed as soon as economically viable. Mrs. Boring accepted the amendment to the motion. Mr. Keenan seconded the amended motion. Ms. Brautigam pointed out that the 1999 petition as submitted includes 28 homes, 25 of which had signed it. The area staff identified in their survey actually included more homes. Is Mrs. Boring suggesting that this area be modified back to the 1999 area identified in Mr. ....' Liddell's survey? Mrs. Boring responded that the homes south of Summitview would likely not be able to be ;0;;.".' -'" served. Most of the people on the 1999 survey still live in the properties. Mr. Keenan stated that the motion would allow some flexibility in how the Summitview area is defined, based on this discussion. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that staff should bring back a recommendation to Council about the exact area that can be served. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. CITY MANAGER/STAFF REPORTS . Status Report re Community Plan Update Mr. Ciarochi stated that the report was in response to Council's four areas of direction from the April 13 study session. There is a draft work program outlined in two different versions - a spreadsheet version and working group task sheets. The report provides examples of who would be assigned to the various areas as well as the timing of individual tasks. The assumption is that 85 to 90 percent of the Plan in place will remain. As shown on the flow chart, the process begins with City Council's review of Chapter 1 of the Plan - the policy direction. From there, the vision statement is updated, and public surveys and public participation begins. There are working groups assigned to the various areas - land use, transportation, and fiscal elements. These groups work on elements, and tie them back into the existing board and commission structure of the City. The Community Development Committee of Council would review the draft reports from the working groups and the draft would come back to Council for consideration and adoption. There is also information regarding the staff perspectives on the suggested moratorium. There is a listing of projects and programs in Attachment C and the staff suggested priority of the various items. Staff is available to respond to questions, or Council may want to schedule another discussion about the process in the next few weeks. He emphasized that names have been attached to assignments, but Council's input is encouraged on this aspect. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher agreed that an hour or two of Council time should be set aside for discussion in order to move forward on this. Another item discussed previously was hiring someone to shepherd this process so that it could be done in a timely manner, and so that staff could continue to perform their already heavy workload during this update. All of Minutes of RECORlrlugfci~g,~~EED I NGS . .nM~tiJlgn DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 May 17, 2004 Rage 18----- r------- ..'n_ i' Held 20 these things playa role in how this task is accomplished in a timely manner. Taking too long to do this process will result in build out ahead of that point. She suggested that this topic be scheduled for a June study session. Ms. Brautigam responded that the June study session has been programmed for an informational presentation on JEDDs and CEDAs in preparation for the meeting with Jerome Township, and this item can be added to that agenda. ....'..'" Council agreed that these items could be addressed at the June 14 study session. Mr. Reiner noted that he was willing to vote for a moratorium tonight. However, if between now and June, someone submits applications for 300-400 more tract houses, will these be considered "in the pipeline" of development? Mr. Smith responded that filing a completed application does start the process for the pipeline, and he did provide Council with several options of how they could curtail development applications prior to update of the Plan, if they so desired. If the land were not currently within Dublin, it would first have to be annexed to the City. That process alone takes two to six months. There are no pending large tract annexations that he is aware of, but Council will be informed of any annexations that are filed. There are other options Council would have, such as an interim annexation policy. Vesting begins when a zoning is actually approved. . Report re City of Dublin Corporation Signs Mr. McDaniel stated that a report was included in the packet outlining the theft and vandalism problems with the corporate entry wooden signs. Staff's recommendation is to change the signs to metal. From a distance, it is hard to distinguish them from the wooden signs, and there is much less cost and maintenance involved. The issue can be revisited in the future, if Council desires. It was the consensus of Council to accept the staff recommendation for metal entry signage. . Joint Meeting with Jerome Township Trustees Ms. Brautigam stated that the meeting date that will work for the Jerome Township Trustees is Thursday, June 24. It likely will be held in Jerome Township at their hall. Discussion followed about who would attend. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher recommended that those who are available on that night attend the meeting. . Update Regarding Shawnee Hills Noise Agreement Ms. Brautigam reported that she has received from Shawnee Hills a signed copy of an emergency resolution approving the reciprocal noise agreement with one change - that either party could terminate the agreement upon 30 days notice. She requested that Council pass a motion authorizing her to sign this agreement. Mrs. Boring moved to authorize the City Manager to execute this agreement. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. . Appointing of Acting Clerk of Council Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to appoint Judy Beal as Acting Clerk of Council for the period of May 23-28, 2004. Mrs. Boring seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Mr. Keenan noted that the dedication plaque for the Dublin Community Pool South does not include the staff names of Mr. McDaniel, Mr. Hahn and Ms. Heal. He suggested that they be included, based on their involvement in the project. Mr. Reiner agreed. There was no objection from Council to adding Mr. McDaniel, Mr. Hahn and Ms. Heal to the dedication plaque. Ms. Salay: 1. Noted that as part of the zoning action, perimeter landscaping is required between a roadway and a row of homes. Over the course of years, homeowners make a decision RECOR~ QFC.e~O~EEDINGS Minutes of u In I y ouncl _M~~tinL___ _.. --------- DAYTON LEGAL BLANI<.INC"I'ORM NO. 10148_ May 17, 2004 ------~_. Page 19 --- Held 20 to remove this perimeter landscaping on their property and replace it with other things. A specific example is along Innovation Drive where the homeowner removed spruce trees. Is this something that the City's landscape inspector reviews? Ms. Brautigam responded that staff would check on this and report back. "':" 2. Asked about the status of the noise agreement with the City of Columbus. Mr. Smith stated that he would provide an update on this. k...,.'ij Mr. Reiner noted that the Community Development Committee must now schedule a meeting for discussion of the conservation design resolution. The Committee will review potential meeting dates following tonight's meeting. Mr. McCash: 1. Noted that the dedication plaque should also include the architects and the contractor, similar to what was done with the Rec Center. Mr. McDaniel responded that the plaque would also include the categories listed on the DCRC plaque - City Manager, contractor, architect. 2. Acknowledged the Clerk of Council for her recent election as President of the Ohio Municipal Clerks Association. Mrs. Borinq: 1. Thanked Council for their consideration of the information and proposals she made tonight regarding water and sewer extensions. 2. Reported that she attended Leadership Dublin's program and noted that they have four service projects ongoing, one of which is the universally accessible playground. A report will be provided to Council about this project. Another project they are involved with is the First Annual Dublin Ducky Derby in August. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher: 1. Noted that Green Mountain Energy Group has invited Council to a reception in Columbus on Wednesday from 5 to 6:30 p.m. at the Columbus Athletic Club. This company has offices on Frantz Road. Anyone who is available to attend should notify the Clerk. 2. For planning purposes, the new pool opening is on May 27, the Tournament begins on May 31, and the history book unveiling is on Saturday evening, June 5. 3. Asked that Council let staff know of their availability for hosting at the Tournament Hospitality Tent. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Reiner moved to adjourn to executive session for discussion of land acquisition matters. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion Vote on the motion: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the meeting would be reconvened only to formally adjourn. No further action will be taken. The meeting was adjourned to executive session at 10:30 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:50 p.m. and formally adjourned. ~~ Mayor - Presiding Officer ~ C-~ Clerk of Council