Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/20/2006RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS November 20, 2006 He 20 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the Monday, November 20, 2006 Regular Meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 5:00 p.m. at the Dublin Municipal Building. Present were: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, Vice Mayor Lecklider, Mrs. Boring, Mr. Keenan, Mr. McCash, Mr. Reiner and Ms. Salay. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to adjourn to executive session for personnel and land acquisition matters. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. The meeting was reconvened at 7 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Keenan led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present were: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, Vice Mayor Lecklider, Mrs. Boring, Mr. Keenan, Mr. McCash and Mr. Reiner. (Ms. Salay left the meeting and returned following a family commitment.) Staff members present were: Ms. Brautigam, Ms. Grigsby, Mr. Smith, Mr. Ciarochi, Chief Epperson, Ms. Puskarcik, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Harding, Mr. Earman, Ms. Ott, Mr. Gunderman, Ms. Adkins, Ms. Willis, Ms. Cox, Ms. Hoyle, Mr. Cullimore, Mr. Langworthy and Mr. Dunn. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vice Mayor Lecklider moved approval of the minutes of the November 6, 2006 Council meeting. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, abstain; Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. CORRESPONDENCE The Clerk reported there was no correspondence requiring action from Council. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS • National League of Cities - 20-Year Membership Recognition Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher presented a plaque to Ms. Brautigam in recognition of the City of Dublin's 20 years of membership in the National League of Cities. Ms. Brautigam briefly described the City's involvement with NLC over the years and the many programs and initiatives that have been brought to the City as a result of this engagement. CITIZEN COMMENTS Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road stated that at the last Council meeting, Ms. Puskarcik invited him to attend the site dedication for the Veterans Project. He did attend the dedication and had two overpowering experiences. First, the project is driven by countless deaths in the face of war and the necessity to cope with those deaths. The pain of such loss is endless and comes back unexpectedly. If this project in any way softens the pain, it is then worthwhile. Secondly, this experience moved him to a "towering rage" which has since been reduced to a "stinging irony." He served in the U.S. Army in World War II - a collection of 2 million members of this country's military who protected and preserved one of the most stunning historical collections of values ever, which in 1776 were carved into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The irony is that last month, Council deprived him of the cornerstone of those rights --- the right to free speech. He is crippled by this. Free speech is either free speech or it is not. It is neither spotty nor partial. It exists at times when circumstances are most annoying and obnoxious. But if it doesn't exist, nothing else good occurs. He cannot tell Council to undo their previous action. But, for what it is worth, he cannot do his best for the Council or the City unless that previous action disappears. In an organic way and a macro organic way, one thing is tied to another, and before long, he will be deprived of free speech about anything he wants to talks about. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS .Minutes. of - -Dublin-City Cotmcii DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 Hel 1 November 20, 2006 ___ _ Meeting 0 Page 2 Muriel Liddell, 3838 Summitview Road commented regarding the bikepaths added to their area. They have been without bikepaths for a long time. Many years ago, during a planning session with Dr. Jenkins, she served on a group that suggested bikepaths would be a good idea for Dublin. Council has done a good job for most of the City in terms of installing bikepaths. A few have recently been installed in her area and they appreciate them. However, there is an issue for those in the far corner of the quadrant where they can't access bikepaths due to a 100-foot gap that still exists. She had understood the bikepaths were to be for all residents, not just those living within new developments. She spoke to someone a year ago in the City office that oversees bikepaths, and she was told that a bikepath was planned around the church to provide access from the church parking lot to her area. She e-mailed the Mayor about this. Some of the improvements that were suggested have been completed. There remains an access problem to bikepaths for their area. There is a contaminated ditch between their homes and the bikepath, and the field cannot easily be crossed by those with disabilities. It has been a year since she spoke with the City staff about this, and no one has contacted the church. This would also allow people to park in the church parking lot and then use the bikepath to access the park. She urged Council to complete this 100- foot gap. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked Ms. Brautigam to have Mr. Hahn review the bikepath plan and communicate with Ms. Liddell and the East Dublin Civic Association about the plans for completing this portion of the system. LEGISLATION POSTPONED ITEM Ordinance 67-06 I Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Release Agreement with The Stonehenge Company Regarding 6055 Avery Road. (Avery Road widening project) Ms. Brautigam noted that staff is requesting this item be postponed until the December 11 Council meeting. Mr. Keenan moved to postpone Ordinance 67-06 to December 11. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. PUBLIC HEARING/SECOND READING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 64-06 Amending Chapter 35 of the Codified Ordinances to Revise the Fee and Service Charge Revenue/Cost Comparison System and Establishing a Schedule of Fees and Service Charges for City of Dublin Services. Ms. Brautigam noted that only a few changes were made to the fee schedule this year. Staff can respond to questions from Council. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked about the false alarm fees and how Dublin's fees compare to those of other municipalities. Ms. Grigsby responded that Dublin's fees are fairly similar. This is the first year an increase has been proposed since 2004. Vote on the Ordinance: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. Ordinance 72-06 Amending Ordinance 107-97 (Pizzuti TIF), Passed August 11, 1997, to Supplement the Public Improvements to be Made to Benefit the Parcels Identified in that Ordinance, Removing the Limit on the Amount De osited into the Fund p Established Pursuant to that Ordinance, and Authorizing Certain Amendments to the TIF Agreement Authorized by that Ordinance. Ms. Brautigam stated this TIF has been performing well and the City desires to add some public improvements to the description so that they can be funded in the future. Vote on the Ordinance: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of _ _ _- Dublin City CoA; rein _-_- - DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC.. FORM NO. 10148 He November 20, 2006 20 Page 3 Il 1 Ordinance 73-06 (Amended) Adopting a New Compensation Plan for the City of Dublin and Repealing Ordinance 98-96 ("Compensation Plan") and All Amendments Thereto (Ordinances 11-97, 43-97, 86-97, 100-97,134-97, 08-98, 20-99, 41-00, 77-00, 118-00, 128-00, 26-01, 01-02, 11-03, 43-03, 83-03, 01-04, 38-04, 78-04, 06-05, and 31-05). Ms. Brautigam stated that the project team working on the Class and Compensation Study has reviewed one of the positions proposed in the 2007 operating budget, determined where it would fit in the structure, and created a job title for this position. This amendment has been included in the ordinance before Council tonight. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road pointed out Sections 6, 7 and 8 on page 9 of the ordinance. Specifically, Section 6, the special provision regarding minimum pay increase; Section 7, Mayor/Vice Mayor/Council Member compensation; and Section 8, the instant bonus program. He noted that Section 6 makes reference to "2006 employees" and Section 8 makes reference to "all employees." He asked if the Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council Members are regarded as City employees. Ms. Brautigam responded they are not. They are viewed as the officers of the City, which is distinguished from employees of the City. Mr. Maurer asked who decides the compensation of the officers of the City. Ms. Brautigam responded these are set by ordinance and reviewed only by the members of Council. Mr. Maurer noted that Section 8 includes the language, "demonstrates innovative or creativity in government." It is applicable only to employees, not to elected officials, as he now understands. Mrs. Boring noted that Council had agreed upon an additional review for some aspects of the Plan at future dates. Is this reflected in the text of the ordinance? Ms. Brautigam responded that will be done as part of the City Manager's evaluation each year. Mr. Keenan asked about the length of the contract for services provided by the compensation consultant. Ms. Brautigam responded that the consultant will perform some additional services this year, including training for supervisors. She is not certain whether that will continue beyond 2006. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher recalled that during the budget hearings, it was stated that this consultant would assist with implementation of the Plan for a period of time. Vote on the Ordinance: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. Ordinance 74-06 Rezoning Approximately 61.35 Acres, Located on the Southwest Corner of Mitchell- Dewitt Road and Hyland-Croy Road From R, Rural District, To PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Oak Park Mixed-Use -Mitchell-Dewitt Road and Hyland-Croy Road -Case No. 06-064Z). Ms. Adkins stated this rezoning was approved by Planning & Zoning Commission at their meeting of September 21, 2006. The site is currently zoned Rural District, and the surrounding zonings are PUD and PLR. The proposal contains 108 housing units and 39,700 square feet of mixed use retail development. The site plan includes five subareas: subarea A is for single-family lots on the periphery of the site, adjacent to the Metro Park; subarea B includes smaller single-family lots clustered along the western edge of the site; subarea C is the neighborhood center, which will include a clubhouse and amenities; subarea D are townhouse units that flank the retail area; and subarea E is the retail area in frontage along Hyland-Croy Road. There are several kinds of residential lots proposed within subareas A and B, and the townhomes in subarea D are alley-loaded. The proposed neighborhood commercial area consists of two L-shaped areas totaling 39,700 square feet maximum. She shared the proposed residential architecture, noting the Planning Commission added a condition at the meeting requiring a comparable amount of brick and stone on all four sides of the building, unless otherwise approved. A theme for the development has been approved with the text. She shared the proposed architecture for the neighborhood center, for the townhomes and for the commercial area along Hyland-Croy Road. Staff is recommending approval RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of -_ _ _ - ~3ublin~ity-C~uncil- DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 H November 20, 2006 Meeting 20 Page 4 of the rezoning. She offered to respond to any questions. Mrs. Boring asked how many households are needed to support the 39,700 square feet ~~ of retail? Is there a study which can be cited? ~ Ms. Adkins responded that she does not know, but can check on this and report back. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited public testimony. Ralph Feasel, 8100 Hyland-Cron Road stated that as previously noted in public meetings, he and his wife they have no issues with the housing development, as they are surrounded by similar developments. They do have concerns, however, about the shopping center portion of the proposal. He was in the Muirfield area today and viewed a Center which included stores, restaurants and basic services for the area ten years ago. Today, the buildings are empty. In this development, a shopping center is proposed which will be located 2.4 miles from the Perimeter area. The Perimeter area has over 15 restaurants and many retail stores. He wonders if the proposed shopping center will eventually have empty buildings as well, similar to the Muirfield Center. Council needs to consider the direction they want to take in this regard. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that she will ask the developer's representatives to I ~ address this matter at the conclusion of the public testimony. Fred Blythe, 7765 Mitchell Dewitt noted his family owns the property adjacent to the west of the development. They had several issues within the greenspace along their property line, primarily at the road. He has talked with the developers and is confident that the minor details can be worked out. Overall, they believe it is a nice development. Ben Hale, Jr., 37 W. Broad Street, representing the applicant stated they have attended many meetings about this proposal and listened closely to input from the City officials. This is a neighborhood center of 39,700 square feet. It does not include big box retail. All of the architecture is highly integrated and of high quality. They have been working with Mr. Solove, who is going to be one of the developers of the shopping center, and also with Metropolitan - a compan which has done man innovative retail centers in Y Y other parts of the country. Metropolitan has built a similar center in New Jersey. They are very confident there is a appropriate place in town for a number of these small sho in centers. The Cit s consultants have a reed that th m II r t pp e s a e cen ers are 9 Y 9 beneficial from a traffic point of view, as they service people where they live. This is a growing area of Dublin, and the retailers believe there is sufficient demand to support the center. In terms of integrating the retail and the residential architecturally, this is a good chance for Dublin to do something innovative. Jeremy Halprin, Atlantic Realty Development Corporation of New Jersey stated that he represents the third generation of their family in this 50-year old business. They are very excited about working in Dublin. They have been flexible in identifying a new site for this concept, after their previous site was designated as part of the future tech center area in Dublin. Their company wants to become involved and become part of the Dublin family. Their high quality units are focused on the empty nester, as most have first floor master bedrooms. They have incorporated all suggestions they have received from the City and the Planning Commission. They are very flexible and willing to work with the City. He thanked the City for taking the time to review their project tonight. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that there has been discussion previously about the necessary critical mass within a certain distance to have a viable commercial neighborhood center such as this. She asked him to comment. Mr. Hale responded that the retailers do consider their customer base and demographics required within a certain distance of the center. There are a large number of houses in the area and a lot of traffic along Hyland-Croy. There has been good response from retailers, and the rents are set fairly high. They have also committed in the text that the first building built will be a main one at the entry. The plan is to file the final development plan for the residential portion at the first of the month, and the retail will lag by a month or two. There will be retail tenants committed at the tim e of the final develo ment Ian filing. p p RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of _ _- _ ~..~.~:.. amity C~,.:~ November 20, 2006 Held 20 Meeting Page 5 1 1 1 Mr. Reiner asked when this development will be concluded. He knows that there has been emphasis on the Franklin model in terms of quality. Council is expecting to see that. He was hopeful that this portion would be completed before embarking on some of the other portions of the plan. Mr. Hale responded a meeting took place today regarding the timeframe. Their engineer was present and the plan is to file the final development plan as quickly as possible. Atlantic believes that it is important to see the entire site. So they plan to develop the whole site in one phase, not separately. All of the residential will be built and all of the landscaping will be installed, all the ponds will be installed, and then they will build at least two townhouse buildings -- ten units in total -and the clubhouse. They believe it is important that enough of the plan be built so they can demonstrate to the public what this development will be. The entrances to Hyland-Croy and Brand Road will be built at the same time. Mr. Reiner asked if there is an actual timeline in months. Mr. Halprin responded that if they are able to start in June, it will take 4-6 months for the infrastructure, and they would then begin immediately with two townhouse buildings and five to ten of each type of single-family homes. He estimates this is a three to five-year type of project, depending upon the pace of sales in the market. Hopefully, the majority of what will be seen from the street will be built in 24 months. Mr. Hale added that part of this relates to the timing of the process. They have to file a final development plan and then hope to be on the Commission's February agenda with the final development plan for the entire residential site and some of the roads in the commercial site. Then the final plat will have to be processed, including final engineering. Construction would likely begin in June. Mr. Reiner asked if the elevations shown are what will be seen on the site. Mr. Hale responded that the same architect who designed the conceptuals is now doing the final drawings and they have promised to file architectural drawings for the Planning Commission, showing all sides of the buildings, with equal quality and materials. Mr. Keenan asked about the scale of the setback along Hyland-Croy. Mr. Hale responded the setback is 200 feet from the property line, and additional right of way is being provided on Hyland-Croy. Mrs. Boring stated she has heard Mr. Feasel's comments about the retail center. For future developments, she requested that staff provide figures on the population support needed for retail development. This would be useful in consideration of future rezonings. Vice Mayor Lecklider welcomed the development to the community. He is positively impressed by what he has seen. In some respects, this is a new concept. He is hopeful and confident it will meet Dublin's expectations. He asked if staff envisions any issue regarding patios with this development, and if so, how will this be addressed in the text. Mr. Smith stated that a meeting took place regarding patios and future issues. He does not have a response this evening and does not know if patios are planned for this development. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that this proposal can continue to move forward with the proviso that Council would want that aspect reviewed and the text changed accordingly - if determined to be necessary. Mr. Gunderman responded that staff has spoken to the developer about this and they believe the setbacks for the project are somewhat different than some previously reviewed. The applicant has expressed interest at the Commission meeting in having outdoor patio space. Mr. Hale responded that with the size of the houses being built and the size of the lots, they are confident that the patios can be accommodated within all setbacks. Vice Mayor Lecklider clarified that he would not want to foreclose that opportunity, as he believes patios would be appealing in terms of what they are trying to accomplish. He wants to make certain that they can be accommodated within the setbacks. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded to Mr. Feasel's comments about the Muirfield RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS -Minutes of __ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC.. FORM NO. 10148 Hel Oub{irfi£ity£oanei~ __ Meeting __ November 20, 2006 20 Page 6 Center. Council has discussed the issues about the Muirfield Center previously and why it has not succeeded. Council has learned that the residents prefer having retail centers nearby where they can walk or ride bicycles to access the services. It will be important to have the bikepath completed in this area to enhance the capacity of residents from all ~ directions to access the area safely. The architecture does lend itself to conversion if needed at some future point. Mr. McCash asked about the financial partners involved in this development. The application indicates HC & Associates and Atlantic Realty, and Jerome Solove has been mentioned. There have been other names mentioned tonight. I! Mr. Hale responded that a company associated with Jerry Solove owns the land today. ~ That company is in contract with Atlantic to purchase the residential portion. Jerome Solove, with a company named Metropolitan Partners, specifically Tim Rollins -who worked on the Easton project - is involved in this development. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, abstain; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Ordinance 75-06 (Amended) Authorizing the Provision of Economic Development Incentives to Butler Animal Health Supply to Induce the Expansion of the Butler Animal Health Supply ~ Workforce within the City of Dublin; Authorizing the Execution of an Economic ! Development Agreement. Ms. Gilger noted that Butler Animal Health Supply, located on Blazer Parkway is expanding and the City is offering them an incentive of five years, $27,155 - a performance incentive tied to Butler achieving pre-determined payroll growth associated with new job creation. This also serves as the local component for the Job Creation Tax Credit. Ms. Gilger pointed out that the ordinance has been amended subsequent to the first reading, with some recalculations to the withholdings. This has changed the numbers by $11,000. She introduced Eric Bosserman, Tax Manager, Butler Animal Health. Eric Bosserman, Butler Animal Health Supply thanked Ms. Gilger for her efforts in working on this agreement as well as the incentive with the State of Ohio. They are a distributor and have been looking at constant opportunities for growth. To that end, they have acquired a software subsidiary in Kentucky a number of years ago and have not been able to fully integrate their business. In order to do so, they need some assistance t from the Cit and the State to induce eo le to relocate and to ex and the Curren Y p P p facilities to accommodate growth. He thanked the City for their willingness to consider these incentives. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road noted that it strikes him that Butler Animal Health Supply is very generous in pointing out its interrelations with other companies. It is obviously a conglomerate. He doesn't know to what extent there is potential for "whistle blowing" of one company over another. He is not implying that is the case here. Is it safe and fair for Council to say that what transpires between the various companies in the conglomerate is not the City's business - as long as Butler Animal Health Supply makes its pa ments to the Cit ? Y Y Mr. Smith responded that there are laws in place that have to be followed. The City does not investigate the people doing business to ensure they are in conformity. Mr. Maurer stated he is not concerned with impropriety. He is concerned with decision- makin and the impacts on the company bein assisted b the Cit with the incentive. 9 9 Y Y Should he assume this is none of the City's business? Mr. Smith responded that is an accurate statement. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Ordinance 76-06 Authorizing the Provision of Economic Development Incentives to Saber Corporation to Induce the Location of the Saber Workforce within the City of Dublin; Authorizing the Execution of an Economic Development Agreement. Ms. Gilger stated that Saber is looking to locate at 5555 Glendon Court and the City is RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes ot:- --- __ -- - _ _ __ _ _Meetin ~3ublin City C~unc~- - _ -- DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC.. FORM NO. 10148 November 20, 2006 Page 7 Held 20 !~ proposing the provision of a $100,000 technology grant to assist them in having their data center operational by the end of 2006. In addition, Saber is committed to moving 125 of their corporate jobs into the building by this time next year, which will equate to a $9 million payroll once all have completed the move to Dublin. Charles Berry, Senior Director of National Operations is present tonight to address Council. Charles Berrv, Senior Director of National Operations thanked Ms. Gilger and staff for all of the work they have done in a short period of time. Saber Software is a company which strives to be the premier provider of software products and services that enable governments to better serve their citizenry. Their entire business consists of building software products for government. They are guided by three principles: customer welfare, employee welfare and community welfare. There was an exciting acquisition by Saber this year of Covansys, state and public sector. This provided an opportunity to radically expand the product lines offered to government entities across the country. He described their efforts toward consolidating and integrating the two companies. After reviewing various options across the country, they chose to locate in the City of Dublin due to the commitment the City makes to technology and to making Dublin a place where technology workers enjoy living. Vote on the Ordinance: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. i INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 77-06 Appropriating a 3.449 Acre, More or Less (Present Road Occupied), Fee Simple Interest From Lawrence Hall and His Unknown Heirs, Legatees and Devisees, Located West of U.S. Highway 33 and North of State Route 161 (Post Road), Township of Jerome, County of Union, State of Ohio, and Declaring an Emergency. (Request to dispense with public hearing) Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Mr. Smith stated that both Ordinances 77-06 and 78-06 relate to the resolutions of intent approved at the last meeting. He requests passage by emergency, as is the normal procedure for appropriations. Mrs. Boring asked about the reason for the emergency passage. Mr. Smith responded that in an appropriation case, there is an immediate filing with the court. Staff does not want to delay filing until January. 1 Vice Mayor Lecklider moved to dispense with the public hearing and treat this as emergency legislation. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. McCash, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, III yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. Ordinance 78-06 Appropriating a 0.893 Acre, More or Less (Present Road Occupied), Fee Simple Interest From Adria Laboratories, Inc., and Its Unknown Heirs Transferees and Devisees, Located East of Industrial Parkway and North of State Route 161, li Township of Jerome, County of Union, State of Ohio, and Declaring an Emergency. (Request to dispense with public hearing) Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the ordinance. I Vice Mayor Lecklider moved to dispense with the public hearing and treat this as emergency legislation. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. (At this point, Ms. Salay arrived) RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS _ _Minute~ of _~ublirt £ify CsanetF_ FORM NO. 10 [1 Hel Meeti n 20 Page 8 INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING -RESOLUTIONS Resolution 78-06 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Competitive Video Service Agreement with the Ohio Bell Telephone Company (also known as AT&T). Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the resolution. Ms. Brautigam stated this relates to Project Lightspeed. In order to move forward, this agreement is needed with AT&T. Mr. Dunn is present to respond to questions. David Kandel of AT&T is also present. Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road asked if the five percent of gross revenue for the franchise fee came about as a result of negotiations with the company and that it is not a "gold standard" number. Ms. Brautigam responded that five percent is industry practice in this area and would be the same across the board for all such providers. Mr. McCash noted he understands why this agreement is needed, based upon the information provided by staff. However, why would Dublin want to enter into new agreements with Time Warner, WOW and any other current providers of cable service? Mr. Dunn responded that the Time Warner agreement is expiring and is already in negotiation. There will be a new agreement with Time Warner, whether or not it addresses this new regulatory matter. The WOW agreement expires in 3-4 years, and the City will give them the option of entering the new regulatory arrangement or staying with their current agreement until it expires. i~ Mr. McCash asked about the impact of federal regulation on the agreement with AT&T. Will AT&T then drop this agreement with the City? Mr. Dunn responded that if AT&T does not achieve what they want at the federal level, it will fall back to local regulation. If they receive what they want at the federal level, they may be able to opt out of the agreement with Dublin. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked if there is a threshold level at which the City would request the other providers to accommodate the community bulletin board on their cable broadcast? If the City requires this as part of the agreements with cable providers, is the provision not enforced by the City? Mr. Dunn responded that staff has not pursued this with WOW due to a lack of interest. It could be pursued, if Council desires. Because of the Internet and the City's web site, the dissemination of public information via the scrolling bulletin board is much less useful. Citizens are more likely to use the Internet to obtain that information. But if Council believes there are residents interested in this service from WOW, staff will work with WOW to provide it. Ms. Brautigam added that it appears to be something that was overlooked, based on lack of input. Because Council has now raised the issue, staff will work with WOW to have this service in place. 1 Vice Mayor Lecklider asked what channel would be utilized to air the City Council meetings? Would it be the same as the cable bulletin board channel or another? Mr. Dunn responded it would likely be the same channel. Ms. Brautigam stated that in view of the more regular use of this channel anticipated in 2007, it would be important to address this so that all residents can view the Council meetings. Vice Mayor Lecklider noted this also would relate to the AT&T agreement now under discussion. Ms. Brautigam agreed. Vote on the Resolution: Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, no; Ms. Salay, yes. Mr. McCash noted that he does not support this resolution due to the language contained in the third "Whereas" clause of the video service agreement. It is not in keeping with the intent of this resolution. November 20, 2006 Resolution 79-06 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with the Delaware RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 Held f3ublit~-Ci#y C~an,Li; November 20, 2006 Meeting Page 9 1 1 Municipal Prosecutor in the Delaware Municipal Court. Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the resolution. Mr. Smith stated this is an annual agreement with the prosecutor, and the expense associated with the contract is less than $1,000. Vote on the Resolution: Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. Resolution 80-06 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Lease Amendment with GTN Corporation Dublin Village Tavern. Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the resolution. Ms. Brautigam stated this is an amendment to the lease to permit an expansion of the business premises. It also addresses the lease rate consistent with the market rate of $9 per square foot. Ms. Salay asked if that is a competitive rate in the Historic District. Ms. Brautigam responded affirmatively. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked for the current lease rate in the contract. Ms. Brautigam responded it is $9 at this time; this amendment merely increases the square footage to which the rate applies. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that Mr. Picciano had sent an a-mail to Council, indicating he could not attend tonight's meeting, but that he was pleased to be expanding in Historic Dublin. Mr. Keenan asked for the term of the new lease. Mr. Smith responded that it is an amendment to the existing lease, but cannot recall the term of the original lease at this time. Mr. Keenan asked about the tenant improvements and whether the real property comes back to the City at the end of the lease. Mr. Smith responded that the real property comes back to the City. He added that the Historic Dublin area was notified of the 90-100 day closing of the Village Tavern to allow for this expansion. The staging area will be behind the building. The renovations will increase the patio space in the front. They will stay open for a portion of the construction period. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted she would like information about the length of the lease. Mr. Smith will provide a memo to Council about the lease term. Vote on the Resolution: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. McCash, abstain; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road noted there is a typographical error in the title of the resolution, which should be corrected. OTHER • Post Preserve Access Modification Ms. Cox stated that the development of the Post Preserve subdivision and the improvements to the US 33/SR 161/Post Road interchange have been interwoven from the beginning. In 1999 and 2000, the City began discussions with a couple of developers about the annexation and subsequent rezoning of the properties that are now known as the Post Preserve subdivision. In early 2001, the City approved the Post Preserve preliminary plat, which created the base roadway and lot layout for the subdivision. Simultaneous with the preliminary plat review process, the City conducted a study of the Post Road/US 33 interchange to determine the best interchange configuration to improve the level of service and accommodate future traffic volumes. The study identified feasible alternatives and recommended a preferred configuration. It did not address the right-of-way that would be required or the specific geometry requirements, including the intersection spacing along the local roadway network connecting to the freeway system. A detailed timeline of the Post Preserve subdivision and interchange projects has been provided in Council's packet materials. The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) approved the recommended configuration for the interchange in December 2001; that configuration has also been RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes_of ~~}~~y-~~eif BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 101 h8 November 20, 2006 20 Meeting Page 10 1 ii ~ ~, provided. In February 2002, Council approved the recommended configuration for the interchange. At that time, the recommendation was that the SR 33 off ramp would be located at Hyland-Croy Road and connect with Industrial Parkway. The study did not address the areas beyond Industrial Parkway or Hyland-Croy Road. With the development of the Dublin Methodist Hospital and other economic development opportunities, including the Central Ohio Innovation Center, the need of improving the US 33/SR 161/Post Road interchange much earlier than anticipated became apparent. In September 2005, the City decided to move forward with improvements. To do so, ODOT required an update to the interchange study with revised traffic projections to year 2030. An interchange modification study addendum was approved by ODOT on April 4, 2006, which provides that Industrial Parkway would be relocated to the west. The northbound US 33 ramp would remain at the Hyland-Croy Road location. Discussions with ODOT regarding limited access right-of-way also occurred. ODOT prohibits limited access for 600 feet from the ramp curvature east and west of the interchange. Therefore, no access is permitted on Post Road west of the interchange to the approximate location of the Buckeye Check Cashing site at 7001-7003 Post Road. To the east, access is restricted to just past the Post Preserve Boulevard in the Post Preserve subdivision. Consequently, ODOT has indicated that the current Post Preserve Boulevard/Post Road intersection must be eliminated before the interchange becomes operational. ODOT will also retain control of the immediate area of influence at the off ramp at Hyland-Croy Road. In an undeveloped area, that is an area of approximately %2 mile, or 2,640 feet. In this case where there is already development, ODOT will reduce the requirement to'/4 mile or 1,320 feet. However, the distance between the ramp terminal intersection at Hyland-Croy Road to the existing Post Road/Perimeter intersection is 1,000 feet; therefore, ODOT will not permit the relocation of the Post Preserve Boulevard access to the east. A second addendum was approved by ODOT on September 12, 2006 revising the use of traffic signals at the ramp terminals to modern roundabouts to accommodate the anticipated traffic volume. Although Post Preserve has two connections to the surrounding neighborhoods, Post Preserve Boulevard is the main entrance into the subdivision. Staff recognized that the removal of the intersection of Post Preserve Boulevard with Post Road would have significant impact on this neighborhood. Therefore, an extensive public involvement process was initiated. A public meeting was held on January 5, 2006 to educate the residents on the road changes. Following input received at that meeting, five alternatives were developed for access into the neighborhood: • Alternative 1 - Stillhouse Lane extension to Hyland-Croy Road • Alternative 2 - Holbein Drive extension to Hyland-Croy Road • Alternative 3 -Roundabout at Post Road and Perimeter Drive with Post Lake Court extended • Alternative 4 -Roundabout on Perimeter Drive with Post Lake Court extended and Post Road realigned • Alternative 5 -New public road from Post Preserve Boulevard through the church property to Post Road. Those alternatives were discussed at a second public meeting on February 16, 2006. ODOT representatives attended the meeting and provided explanations. Staff provided an update to Council on March 29, 2006. The residents indicated: • A preference for Alternative 3 as first choice • A preference for Alternative 1 as second choice • An interest in maintaining the aesthetic appeal of the current Post Preserve Boulevard entrance and re-creation of a main entrance feeling • Concerns regarding the use of the Post Preserve subdivision road by neighboring developments to access Hyland-Croy and Post Roads, resulting in safety and traffic volume issues • Concerns regarding decreased property values • Belief that they are "paying a price" for poor planning by the City. A third public meeting was held on April 12, 2006, at which three alternatives were RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of DAVTON LEGAL BLANK. INC.. FORM NO. 10148 Hel - ~ublin~ity Council-- November 20, 2006 Mcetin~ Page 11 20 1 discussed: • Alternative 1A -Extension of Stillhouse Lane to Hyland-Croy Road • Alternative 1 B -Extension of Stillhouse Lane and Springview Lane to Hyland- Croy Road • Alternative 3 -Roundabout at Post Road and Perimeter Drive with Post Lake Court extended. After extensive consideration, staff's recommendation is Alternative 1 B on the basis that it best addresses traffic safety and volume issues on Post Road and Hyland-Croy Roads. While construction of this alternative would occur in one phase, the cost of future improvements to the intersection would be programmed in the CIP process. It is anticipated that at a minimum, a southbound left turn lane will be necessary the year after the construction of Alternative 1 B. A modern roundabout will be evaluated as an alternative intersection control. The proposed size (250-foot diameter) is substantially larger than the one at Muirfield Drive and Brand Road (180 feet). The current estimate is $1.3 million. Total current estimate for Alternative 3 is $2.75 million. Ms. Cox noted that there is undeveloped property between the Post Preserve subdivision and Hyland-Croy Road that is owned by Roger Gorden, and between US 33 and Hyland-Croy Road, which is owned by the Wirchanski's. These properties are potentially developable. Three alternative land use scenarios for the Gorden property have been included in the packet materials. In summary, staff's recommendation is for the construction of Alternative 1 B along with the development of the Gorden property. Mrs. Boring inquired how an alternative can be modified to achieve more creativity. Ms. Cox stated that, fortunately, there is time with this project to work out the details with the developer. The most critical need is to receive direction from Council regarding which alternative to ursue. p Mrs. Boring inquired if the recommendation is to extend the two lanes into one lane on Hyland-Croy. Ms. Cox confirmed that is the recommendation. Mr. Keenan inquired if the small amount of land adjacent to either side of the single entry point to Hyland-Croy Road would be taken by the City. Mr. Smith indicated that the land could be setback. Legal staff and Engineering staff have met with the property owner and his counsel regarding potential use of that land, depending on alternative road cuts. Mr. Hammersmith noted that Alternative 1 B provides fora 100-foot setback versus 200 feet, which is currently used on Park Place. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired why a larger setback than 100 feet could not occur. Mr. Smith responded that if the City took more than 100 feet for setback, the property owner would perceive that the City had effectively taken half of his property. After the road is constructed, there would be very little left to develop. Vice Mayor Lecklider referred to the land use scenarios of 1A and 1 B. Is scenario 1 B feasible? Mr. Combs responded that with scenario 1 B, staff was attempting to show that there are other wa s to i y des gn the property than with the standard grid pattern. Other designs could address Council's concerns expressed at the last work session, providing somethin more Dublin-like in character. 9 Vice Mayor Lecklider noted that all the options are residential. Mr. Combs responded that at the last work session, a third option was provided for one- story office condominiums that were residential in appearance. Examples of alternative housing types were included, using some examples from Franklin, Tennessee. Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired if something similar to the Oak Park multi-family develo ment would be ossible. I I p P Mr. Combs confirmed that was the intent - to show that something other than single i family could be used to provide a transition from the existing single-family development. Ms. Salay inquired which existing residential development Mr. Combs refers to -the development between the freeway and Hyland-Croy Road? RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minute~of _ _£ __ _ __ ___ _ Meeting DAYTON He November 20, 2006 20 Page 12 Mr. Combs responded that he refers to the existing Post Preserve lots. The attempt was to suggest a "like use" on the Gorden property that could back up to those lots. Ms. Salay inquired what might be suggested for a westerly transition. Mr. Combs responded that staff is working on a concept for office research use that could include other types of services. Ms. Salay noted that the City does not have full control over that property for development. Mr. Combs responded that staff is attempting to achieve a concept that would effectively allow the City to coordinate development on both sides of the street. Ms. Salay responded that she believed the attempt was to be made to protect Post Preserve from future development across the road, in the event the City could not control or influence the zoning as desired. Mr. Combs responded that is the objective of the transitional use. There are site constraints. The narrow width of the property and length of frontage can result in a taking issue, depending on the required setbacks. The attempt would be made to work with a developer who would develop the property to design a layout with less than 200- foot setbacks, in some areas pushing the architecture close to the street and in others pulling it back to provide views of the site. Ms. Salay stated that she is pleased to learn there was discussion about multi-type housing, as opposed to multi-family. She recently read an email in which the suggestion was made to curve Post Preserve Boulevard around and "t" it into Post Road, making it a simple intersection. Couldn't that be an alternative - a simple intersection -- instead of a roundabout? Ms. Cox responded that this falls within the area of influence of a ramp terminal. ODOT ~ controls the way in which access occurs east of the ramp terminal. Staff has discussed j the possibility of moving Post Preserve Boulevard just east of that line with a right in/right , ~ out, but it did not receive ODOT approval. Mr. McCash inquired if Alternative 3, a five-star roundabout, would meet ODOT's standards. Mr. Hammersmith responded this is considered an adaptation of the existing intersection with Post Road. They can accept the Post-Perimeter intersection's 1,000-foot spacing, although it is not ideal. It works with the travel model. Mr. McCash inquired if ODOT would have permitted a roundabout at this location if the Post Road intersection did not exist. Mr. Hammersmith confirmed that if it did not already exist, creating one at 1,000 feet i would not have been approved, Ms. Cox stated that the other issue was related to moving Post Preserve Boulevard to just east of the limited access line, because the spacing between it and the current Post Road intersection would be reduced to approximately 300 feet. With the traffic volume i ~ level, the interaction between those two intersections would not be acceptable. Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired about the need to modify Liggett Road. Ms. Cox responded that public road access is necessary for the businesses located in ~ ~ the large building in that area, and further down, there is a fiberglass boat business. Liggett Road will be altered to bend around the north side of that building over to the intersection of Post and Perimeter, making it afour-legged intersection. Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired if there are any other access alternatives for Liggett Road. I Ms. Cox res onded that it could i I oss b be run to the south. How v r th int nt i t e e e e s o P p Y , impact as few properties as possible. Mr. Hammersmith noted that the expectation is that with the redevelopment of that area within 10 to 15 years, the public road system will be reconfigured, including Liggett Road. This will likely be a short-term solution. Ms. Cox stated that when Perimeter Drive was constructed to the west, the intent was to provide access for those properties. The curb cut was already in place. If it does redevelop, that access will remain. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minut~,s ~fi Meeting - _ --- - Dublin-City Couner~ -- -- DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC.. FORM NO. 1014A November 20, 2006 Page 13 Held ?~ - - -- Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired if that lies outside the area of influence. Mr. Hammersmith confirmed it is outside the 1,320-foot limitation. 1 Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired if that would impact the decision regarding the roundabout. Ms. Cox stated it would not. The geometry of this roundabout would not be typical with all of the accesses "squared in." This one would have sharp angles, but the concerns are not related to the Liggett Road access. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that the Gorden property is not currently within the City limits, and an annexation would have to be initiated by the property owner. Mr. Hammersmith responded that is correct. The property is within Dublin's exclusive water and sewer service area, and discussions have occurred with the property owner. Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired about the width of Stillhouse and Springview. Ms. Cox responded that they are currently local streets, which are built with a 28-foot width. 1 Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that the concern is that those streets do not have the width to carry increased traffic. Mr. Hammersmith stated they would have adequate width. During the recent Community Plan update process, a need to eliminate construction of 36-foot collector streets has been identified. In the future, streets of that width will not be constructed, as wider roads encourage traffic to move at higher speeds. A 28-foot street allows parking on one side only, typically restricted on the side containing fire hydrants. A 28-foot street can handle 1,500 cars/day without difficulty, although Dublin tries to limit that to 1,000- 1,300 vehicles/day, Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired about the existing width of Post Preserve Boulevard. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the lane width is 16 feet, not including the median. A lane width of 12 feet presents a safety concern, in that a delivery truck or wide vehicle parked on the street could block emergency vehicle access. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited public comment. ~II Suresh Kumar. 6730 Stillhouse Lane stated that he and his family moved from Dallas, Texas to Dublin over a year ago. He works at Limited Brands, so the first location considered for their move was New Albany. He selected Dublin because of its reputation, and initially, was not disappointed. Within a month of moving to Dublin, it was necessa for him to contact the Cit re ardin a and issue. Within three hours rY Y g 9 p , ', the City responded to the situation and addressed the problem. In his 25 years in the United States, living in six different states, he had never experienced that level of responsiveness. Unfortunately, not long thereafter, he and his neighbors learned that ~~, the current, beautiful entrance to Post Preserve Boulevard would be eliminated. Had he known on October 13, 2005 that this entrance would not be his primary entrance, he would not have purchased this home. Last Wednesday, a neighborhood petition was initiated. (He distributed copies to Council members.) Within three days, 57 ~~~~ homeowners had requested the City retain a primary entrance to the Post Preserve Boulevard from Perimeter/Post Road, not Hyland-Croy Road. The primary entrance should be through asingle-family neighborhood, not condominiums, commercial or other types of development. They further request that the land between the Post Preserve neighborhood and Hyland-Croy should be restricted to single-family development. The ~ residents are relying upon their Council representatives to listen to them and do something about this situation. The question arises of why the City did not know in 2000 ~ that this entrance should not be built. He, along with other residents, has waited two hours tonight to address Council about this matter. Mike Pugh, 7183 Sprinaview Lane stated he moved to Dublin five years ago because of: (1) how residents are treated and community issues are handled; (2) safety, security and standards; (3) quality of people, neighborhoods and resources provided; (4) good investment; and (5) his wife is a teacher in the Dublin school district. His brother lives in Ballantrae, but he and his wife chose Post Preserve due to its appearance and its proximity to the new hospital and retail. Similar to Mr. Kumar, shortly after moving into RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS _- Min«t~:5 of flubtimEity Eounci~- ---- DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC.. FORM NO. 70148 November 20, 2006 Held i] i Meeti~ __ Page 14 the neighborhood, he had an experience with City responsiveness that impressed him. Later, his impressions regarding the City's responsiveness to the residents has been altered. One observation he has made concerning the process is that nothing has changed since January. The fact is, Option 1A and Option 1 B are all conjecture - ~' dependent upon what Mr. Gorden decides to do. The existing Gorden Farms is an ~~ apartment complex. Options 1A and 1B range from apartments to condominiums, commercial, and professional offices. That was not his expectation for this neighborhood, and if he had been aware of this potential, he would have moved to ~' Ballantrae. They purchased a home in an upscale, single-family neighborhood never anticipating that in the immediate future they would be required to drive through a j business area and apartment development to reach their neighborhood. He is surprised this discussion is even occurring. He would have expected that annexation of the area would have occurred first so that control of the area is assured before considering a decision to alter the primary entrance of a neighborhood of $350,000 - $450,000 homes. A couple of months ago, he attended a City meeting at which the proposal to remove some trees at the entrance to the Tartan West development was reviewed. This is not a few trees. It is an entire entrance of some significance. Again, until annexation occurs, there is no control -there is only conjecture. Until something is seen from Mr. Gorden, it is not fair to make a decision on this. He trusts Council will not make a decision based upon a hope that Mr. Gorden will decide upon a use that is not objectionable. It is important to ensure that the community has what it wants before a decision is made. Matthew Peacham, 6916 Post Preserve Boulevard stated that he agrees with all the sentiments already offered. None of the homeowners in the neighborhood anticipated the current entrance being closed when they purchased their homes. He understands the desire to maintain the southern entrance. Although the roundabout was his idea at ~, an earlier meeting, he now has concerns regarding safety. He also is concerned about the use of the Gorden ro ert . He believes that extendin stub streets as on inall P P Y g 9 Y intended would give the neighborhood more control over the property use. The expectation of those who purchased homes in this neighborhood was for asingle-family I nei hborhood. It is not fair to Chan a the entrance of this nei hborhood to office or 9 9 g multi-use. It will impact the property value of the neighborhood. He would be interested in hearing the Council members' preferences for use of that land if it were annexed. Raii Subramaian, 7225 Springview Lane stated that the road is not wide enough for two- , way traffic. For ten years, he and his wife saved money to permit them to move to ', Dublin. He works for BMW, which recently relocated to Hilliard. Although they could have enjoyed the tax benefit of also locating in Hilliard, they purchased a home in Dublin. He loves Dublin and anticipated the benefits of having his children grow up here in a beautiful, green area. This has become an emotional issue for him -their dreams have been shattered. He wants to have faith in the City leadership. He urges Council to consider preserving the present entrance and the single-family zonin of this area. ~ 9 Ken Oshida, 7067 Blakemore Lane stated that during the first meeting in January, City staff indicated the intent was to find a solution that would affect the least number of residents. Now, after receiving 57-58 resident petitions, the City has come up with a proposal that affects a great number of residents. Although his preference is that the current entrance be maintained, that is not possible due to roadway limitations. However, the southern entrance to Post Preserve should be maintained, as only a cou le of residen ces would be im acted. At P t os Lake th r P p e e are current) no residents Y - only a model home and home for sale. Regarding the suggestion to make Stillhouse the entr n a ce street, the street is too narrow. He lives at the corner of Blakemore and Stillhouse. He and his nei hbors have weekend visitors who ark on that street and two 9 P I vehicles cannot pass through at the same point. On the other hand, Post Preserve Boulevard was designed to be the entrance to the neighborhood. Bill Razor. 6857 Holbein Drive stated that although he also prefers the current entrance, that does not seem an option, given the factors. His issue now is with who has control of the land. The intended use of the land must be known before the Cit can make an Y educated decision. At a minimum, only conditional a royal should be iven -that onl i PP 9 Y single-family development can occur there, or somethin similar. This is the least that 9 should be done for the Post Preserve residents. Adjacent single-family development could maintain an equivalent neighborhood for Post Preserve. Development as RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS _ _ Minutes. of _ _ __ - - _ -__ Meeting Dubfin~ity £-ovnei~- DAVTON LEGAL BLANK. INC.. FORM NO. 10148 November 20, 2006 Page 15 I Held 20 condominiums, multi-family or offices would not continue an equivalent neighborhood. i Another issue is that Post Preserve has to maintain all the land around its entrance. That is fair when the land is an asset to the community. However, Post Preserve should not be responsible for maintaining adead-end street. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that various ideas have been presented by staff regarding the Gorden property -- commercial, residential and a combination of both. Currently, the City is in the process of updating its Community Plan, and during that process the City looks at development scenarios for all properties currently undeveloped. To the west of this area is Hyland-Croy. This property has recently been rezoned to permit the construction of big box retail. The City now has to look at I transitional uses in this location. Ms Salay agreed. The issue is how best to transition from the land use that is likely to be approved between the freeway and Hyland-Croy, moving eastward toward Post Preserve. Mrs. Boring noted the question is how best to buffer the neighborhood. Because that parcel of land is narrow, the issue is achieving a reasonable setback, while leaving sufficient land to be developed. Staff has indicated that it would not be economically feasible to have all single-family development on that parcel. Mr. Hammersmith agreed. The need is for a transitional use. It would be difficult to place single family in that location and have all office, retail and commercial uses to the west. The second issue is that asingle-family lot layout would not be possible with 200- ! foot setbacks. Mr. Combs agreed. Given the configuration of this property and the setbacks required b Cit zonin laws the cost to develo a sin le-famil subdivision on that ro ert Y Y 9 , P 9 Y P P Y would not make it economically feasible. ' Mr. McCash inquired if consideration has been given to the market value of those homes, in view of the fact that in all probability there will be a large format retail center across the street. Mr. Combs stated that iven the ossibilit of what could be develo ed across the street 9 P Y P , the anticipated traffic volume and the roximit to the interchan a it is unlike) a I P Y 9, Y develo r e would be able to lace a hi her-end sin le-famil develo ment on that site. P P 9 9 Y P III Perhaps a higher price point of multi-type housing -townhouses, row houses, or condominiums would be more likely. There would be no market for asingle-family subdivision adjacent to a major arterial and interchange. I Mr. Keenan stated that over the past two years, there have been many meetings ' concerning the development of the properties across the street, in particular the possibility of big box retail on the Wirchanski property. The City is trying to be proactive, but it has no control over the transitional use in Jerome Township or on the Gorden property. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher requested clarification of the width of the road and staff's recommendations. Mr. Hammersmith responded that in residential areas, two road widths can occur: (1) a 36-foot, back-to-back curb, on which parking is permitted on both sides, and (2) a 28- foot, back-to-back curb, on which parking is permitted on one side only. It is doubtful that Stillhouse n " a d S rin view are osted as no arkin on the side with h drants P 9 P P , g Y because the City generally waits to observe the interaction of the neighborhood. If the need is evident "no arkin " si ns are osted on that i p g g p s de of the street. The Post Preserve plat does reflect that there is no parking on the side of the street having fire h drants. Y Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired about the homeowners association's responsibility to maintain the entrance to the subdivision. How would this issue be handled? Ms. Brautigam responded that issue has not been discussed. Tonight was the first she heard of this, and it is a valid question. She will contact the Parks Division to determine RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS -_ Minut~;s of- _- - _ - -0ublfn~ity-Caun~- LEGAL BLANK. INC.. FORM NO. 10148 Held November 20, 2006 Meeting Page 16 whether the City has the ability to maintain that area, and she will report back to Council. Mrs. Boring stated that if a new neighborhood were to be developed in that location, it would be that neighborhood's responsibility. Mr. Hammersmith responded that has been part of staff's discussion with Mr. Gorden. He summarized that staff's recommendation is to pursue the extension of Stillhouse and Springview in conjunction with the development of the Gorden property. If that were to develop as single-family or mixed use, it would be the City's intent to have them maintain the entrance. Ms. Brautigam stated that the new entrance to Post Preserve would be the responsibility of the homeowners association. Perhaps the closed entrance would become the City's responsibility. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that the issue is what is developable on this property and the Gorden property. He emphasized that an annexation process is not initiated by the City; but by the property owner. Although the City works cooperatively with developers, the intent is not to base decisions upon whether or not they benefit the developer. The alternativ i e s to im ose a use that could result in a lawsuit to the Cit . There are man P Y Y considerations in trying to achieve the best possible result, and the City has tried to protect the residents' interests. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that this decision is not exclusively Dublin's. She requested clarification of ODOT's role in this decision. Mr. Hammersmith stated that although the proposal is that Dublin would fund the project at 100 percent, the ultimate approval of the project is ODOT's. This is an ODOT interchange on a U.S. highway involving a state route. It is ODOT who determines how the interchange is improved, according to their standards in regard to limited access ri ht-of-wa , interchan a and ram confi uration. The Cit is involved in the rocess 9 Y 9 P 9 Y , P but the project is approved by ODOT. In summary, the City must abide by ODOT's guidelines, even though the City is paying for the project. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that he assumes the realignment of Industrial Parkway to the west, which is included in the improvements, is also an ODOT requirement. Mr. Hammersmith confirmed that is correct. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that ODOT has standards in place to ensure the safety of the state's transportation system. Mr. Hammersmith agreed. Due to their experience, they look at projects in view of the long-term operational efficiency. Mr. McCash stated Hyland-Croy is the western boundary of the City's exclusive water and sewer agreement area. Has that been explained in the public meetings? In order for the Gorden property to be developed by another jurisdiction, the City of Dublin would need to grant approval. Mr. Smith stated that the only exception would be if the development remained within the township and secured approval of an on-site system. However, that is unlikely to occur. Mr. McCash stated that the City is likely to have more control over this site in the future. Mr. Smith stated that the City is trying to find a reasonable alternative to a City taking of the land. Mr. McCash stated that a resident suggested that the City impose a condition on the approval of this property, but the City cannot do so, as there is no pending application. Mr. Smith stated that an landowner has the ri ht to seek annexation if th Y e meet all the 9 Y ~~ tests for property contiguity. The roadway issue cannot be tied to the zoning issue. However the Cit does control the wat r y e and sewer access to this property, which will influence the development. For instance, the City could say it does not want to provide water and sewer to a large format retail development. Ms. Salay inquired about the cost difference between a roundabout and staff's recommendation - is it approximately $500,000? RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS November 20, 2006 Page 17 1 u 1 Mr. Hammersmith indicated that is correct, if the City funds the project 100 percent. However, with Alternative 1 B, the City anticipates financial participation from the developer of the Gorden property. For the intersection improvement at Hyland-Croy Road, the City anticipates working with the owner of the Wlrchanski property. There is no means available to reduce the cost of Alternative 3; in fact, the cost may be higher. Ms. Salay inquired if staff's assessment is that the roundabout would not be the safest option. Mr. Hammersmith responded that it is a feasible option. Staff's concerns are that: (1) the design of that roundabout would not meet driver expectations; (2) the roundabout would not ensure the long-term balance of traffic on Perimeter Drive; and (3) it may become difficult for Post Preserve residents to easily enter the arterial system. In summary, staff has concerns about the ability for residents in the future to navigate this road system. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that the Community Plan update has not yet been approved, but hasn't the use of this property been determined as residential? Mr. Combs responded that has not yet been determined. Discussion occurred in a work session a few months ago, and there was resident consensus on residential use only. During a more recent work session with Planning Commission, questions were raised that resulted in staff looking at the three alternatives in the meeting materials. However, due to public comments, staff will bring back revised area plans to a future work session. Staff has noted the residents' concerns, including the desire to maintain asingle-family entrance to their subdivision, and will try to develop a plan that will achieve as many of those objectives as possible. At this time, there is not a plan that has been approved by consensus. Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired if it is staff's intention to bring back a proposal that is residential only. Mr. Combs responded that will be one of the options. Multiple options will be looked at. Council will also be provided a report that contains the resident comments staff has received. At this time, there is not a clear consensus on what the land use should be. Mr. Keenan stated it was his understanding from the previous work session that there was a clear consensus that the use be residential. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted the direction given was that Council wanted more input from the residents. Ms. Salay stated it was her understanding that the residents were interested in residential use, although perhaps some office could be mixed in. Mr. Keenan suggested that the office use could occur within a transitional use in the front of the property. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the issue is with the type of residential, and staff has indicated that high end, single-family is not economically feasible. Mr. Keenan stated that there are clearly two issues: (1) the use of the Gorden property and (2) the access modification. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher requested a motion. Ms. Salay moved to approve staff's recommendation of Alternative 1 B for the property. She noted that Council understands the residents' disappointment with the proposed changes to their neighborhood and has tried to be responsive to them. She has faith that whatever develops on this site will be the best plan. The neighborhood entrance may be different from what it was when their homes were originally purchased, but it will reflect the same quality. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. • Water and Sewer Report Ms. Hoyle noted that Desmond Cullimore, Utility Engineer accompanies her this RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS November 20, 2006 Page 18 20 1 1 U evening. He has prepared the preliminary estimates and some of the information. She proceeded with a brief presentation of the findings and alternatives. Ms. Hoyle provided estimates for the two highest interest areas for water extensions. One area is 22-1/2 acres and one is 7.9 acres. The cost of these projects is $512,000 and $176,000, with an average cost per acre of $22,000. None of the estimates include any possible costs of bonds or notes, nor is right-of-way acquisition or permanent construction easement cost included. The expectation is that the owners would provide these at no cost to the City as part of the project, should the project go forward at a future date. The next slide summarizes the sewer projects. These are significantly higher in cost. The costs are provided for the smaller Sawmill/Summitview area as well as the larger area, one of which is 28 acres and the other is 96 acres. For the revised areas, the average cost per acre is $44,000; for the larger area, the cost is $25,000 per acre. Ms. Hoyle noted that there is no funding proposed in the current 5-year CIP for any of these projects. One alternative available to Council is a special assessment process. A special assessment assumes that the properties which benefit will invest in the improvement. This process has been used in the past for water and sewer projects in Dublin. The cost of the project would be extended over the life of the project, which is generally about 20 years. A special assessment can include any of the costs associated with the improvement, such as design, bond interest, etc. Mrs. Boring asked if she could provide information on the monies available in the City's water and sewer funds. Even though these projects are not in the current CIP, the other projects Council has funded were not included in the CIP at the time. Ms. Hoyle responded this information was outlined in the memo, but she can review this. Historically, the main line extensions for water and sewer have been funded using water or sewer funds as the resources have been available. The sewer fund has limited flexibility because the system is aging and there are significant requirements for maintenance of that system. The water fund has more flexibility, but in 2007, a significant project is funded -anew water tower. Because of the unknown costs of the steel for that project, staff will not know the costs of that project until the bids are received. She summarized that the water fund could potentially support a project, but that is not the case with the sewer fund. If Council chose the special assessment method of funding, the next step would be to proceed with detailed preliminary design. This would be necessary to have an accurate estimate of the project costs for financing purposes. If the City would choose to move forward with design, designs costs are not included in the operating budget for 2007. Ms. Salay asked if a certain level of interest of the residents would be required before the City would consider a special assessment process. Can the City assess property owners in an area without their desire or permission? Ms. Hoyle responded that there are two methods of special assessment. First, by petition of the residents, which would require a certain number to express interest. Second, a resolution of necessity would be required from Council, which would require three-fourths of Council Members to approve the resolution. She offered to respond to questions. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited public testimony. Muriel Liddell, 3838 Summitview Road stated that many residents are leery of assessments because they are not certain of the costs. Secondly, people in other areas were given extensions without paying for them. In Indian Hill, water and sewer extensions were provided to them at no cost although their properties had been annexed to the City only two years prior. The Indian Hill residents have not paid into the system, while some other residents have paid into the water system for several years. Residents in her area have been begging for the services for several years and have paid City taxes since they were annexed to the City 30 years ago. There is an issue of fairness involved --- why should they pay an assessment when others did not? It was stated that all of the residents of Indian Hill desired the services. That was only true after some "arm twisting.," Her review of the original survey did not indicate complete support. At the time of those surveys, Council decided to "flip" the areas and not do the Sawmill/Summitview area but to instead provide water and sewer line extensions to Indian Hill. In any survey, it is not possible to have all indicate they desire both sewer RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS November 20, 2006 Page 19 1 1 1 and water. In some cases, people have invested in an expensive aeration system and don't want to invest in a sewer connection. At the point a system fails, those residents will want sewer services in lieu of investing a large sum into a new septic system. In the most recent survey, there was no mention of a health factor. The 2004 survey took this into consideration. Council should review the 2004 survey and the minutes from May 17, 2004 and consider factoring in the health issue. Bad water and bad sewer are both health factors and were a primary concern. In terms of assessments, she asked that Council consider the health factor and work out a fair arrangement with the residents - perhaps something that would waive fees for a residential use, with a provision regarding a future commercial use where the full assessment amount would be triggered. Something fair can be worked out with the residents. It is also important to clarify the amount of percentage of interest needed before the City would proceed. The Engineer was quoted in the newspaper with 50 percent, and 60 through 90 percent has been discussed. She asked that staff work with the residents so that any proposed assessment program is fair and reasonable for the current residents. She is not speaking of future development, but of current residents in their homes. Sherman Liddell. 3838 Summitview Road noted that in listening tonight to the Post Preserve issues, he asks that Council seriously consider this more deeply than any decision made before. The City has the "ghost of 1972-73" from the eastern entrance to where they are located in the City of Dublin. The Post Preserve residents may end up with the "ghost of 2002" on the western boundary. A ghost does not need to exist. He is certain that their situation can be solved by sitting down with calm and reasonable discussion. He does not believe that any Council Members have a vicious agenda of trying to hurt the City or other people -only Council Members know in their heart and he will not judge. His point is if this had been handled in 1972 and 1973 when the promises were made in conjunction with annexation, they would not be here tonight. If Council can work on this program with the Post Preserve residents, the Council Members' successors will not be here 30 years from now fighting the same battle. Joe Ryan, 8267 Riverside Drive, Dublin stated he was not present at the last meeting on this topic and was interested in the status. He still does not understand the current status -the time period in which his area will receive water. Is there anything definite at this point? Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that nothing has been decided; Council is having the discussion tonight about the next step. Mr. Ryan asked for clarification. Are capital improvement funds City income tax revenues? Ms. Hoyle responded some of those funds are income tax dollars. Ms. Grigsby noted that the majority of the transportation and park development funding comes from income tax revenues. There are some other funding sources for these items, based on commercial development. The water and sewer system improvements are paid for from the water and sewer funds, not from income tax funds. Since 1992, the water and sewer system improvements have been funded strictly from the user and capacity charges of those systems. Prior to that time, there were some system improvements on the water side -specifically water towers and booster stations that serve the overall system -- that utilized income tax revenues. There have been special assessments in the past for water and sewer improvements. In the 70's, there were some property tax measures voted upon and debt was issued to extend sewer lines. Mr. Ryan read from the staff report: "In addition to the income tax revenues, the projects that are associated with the water and sewer systems will be funded in whole or in part by revenues from those systems -user charges and tap permit fees." Does that mean that City income taxes are used to fund these? Ms. Grigsby responded that user fees are based upon those who are currently connected to the water and sewer systems, and are based on consumption. A capacity fee is the tap-in fee or the charge to connect to the system. Mr. Ryan asked why it states, "in addition to the income tax revenues." Ms. Grigsby clarified that in the overall capital improvements program, a significant portion of projects outside of water and sewer are funded by income tax revenues. Mr. Ryan asked about Tartan West, which is allocated $2.8 million from the water and sewer fund. Ms. Grigsby responded that those funds were advanced to those improvements and will RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS November 20, 2006 Held Page 20 be repaid. In regard to the Tartan West water tower, it is a tower the system would have had to fund in the future. The Tartan West TIF provides a separate funding source that relieves the water fund. It is essentially a loan to that program. Mr. Ryan responded that because of this "loan" there are apparently no funds available to provide the water line extension to serve his area, even though the balance is $10 million. Ms. Grigsby stated that a consideration is the cost of steel for the water tower in 2007, and there is another water tower identified beyond 2007 as needed, but it has not been programmed in the CIP. The water fund does have additional flexibility compared with the sewer fund, but at this time, there are no funds programmed for main line extensions. Mr. Ryan stated that he has been waiting 53 years to obtain water service. Vice Mayor Lecklider noted that the decision to extend the utilities to serve his property is Council's to make, not staff. Mr. Ryan noted that he has been at Council countless times since 1996 and has never received any response except "no." The only discussion he has had with Council is during the Council meetings, where the discussion is limited to five minutes. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that staff and Council Members have spent much time meeting with Mr. Ryan over the past years about this issue. The fact that he has not received the response he wants is a separate matter. Mr. Ryan responded that there was one meeting at his house, and he met with Mr. Hammersmith about the errors in the water survey results in 2004. There are only 15 property owners in his area, not 22. He still does not have an answer about obtaining water. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that Council will be making a decision about these matters in the near future. Randy Roth, 6987 Grandee Cliffs Drive, President. East Dublin Civic Association noted that he sent an a-mail to Council from the officers and trustees of the Association regarding these matters. Tonight, he is addressing the issue of the properties north of Summitview, between Sawmill and the power lines. He discussed this at length with Ms. Brautigam, and there was a long discussion at the last Association meeting. The Association concluded that they would like the City staff to explore all of the various options. He will provide a memo to staff very soon about this desire. Their big issue is not the sewer issue, but the fact that there are four single-family homes stranded in an area where redevelopment is needed along Sawmill Road. Similar situations have occurred previously in East Dublin and good solutions have been found. These situations included houses at the east end of Martin Road and on Dale Drive. In the case of Jenmar Court, Council also found a solution to the problem. At this time, the residents in the Sawmill/Summitview area would like to sell their homes, not stay in them. The Association suggests that the City work on the Community Plan to devise another scenario to make this area more attractive to development. Widening Sawmill Road devalued these properties as single-family homes. However, the market has not generated enough value for them to have a return on their investment. There are a number of scenarios being considered. Mr. Hammersmith is looking at some options that must be studied. Over the next three months, he is hopeful that some options can be identified to resolve these issues in a different way. He does believe that Council has been very consistent in their policies. Whenever there has been a water emergency, such as in Ballantrae, Indian Run or Hanna Hills, Council has taken action. In this case, there is not a water quality or water quantity emergency. Council has been patient and very consistent. Mrs. Boring stated that in reviewing past minutes, there was a lengthy Public Services Committee meeting about the water and sewer line extensions. Council approved a resolution that the City would extend lines to unserved areas, but Mr. Kranstuber emphasized that the extensions may take 30 years to complete, based on available funding. However, she has consistently supported providing safe drinking water for residents and because of the very strong response of interest from the Riverside Drive area, she would propose that Council seriously consider funding the waterline to provide safe drinking water. If Council decided to extend this line, she requested that Legal staff draft some type of agreement prior to the design phase that the residents would agree to RECORD OF PROCEED[NGS November 20, 2006 Page 21 Held 20 tap in to the line. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she agrees with Ms. Liddell that a policy should be drafted about the required percentage of interest in water or sewer services prior to the City considering any such extension. She asked that if there are things that should be taken under consideration in that decision-making that Ms. Hoyle and Mr. Smith work together and bring something back to Council in 2007 on this. This will provide policy direction for the future. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that there was some previous discussion about the percentage, and he recalls it being a fairly high percentage of interest. For him to consider these requests favorably, he would want a high percentage of interest. He recalls that Indian Hill had 90 percent or more interest in services. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that she agrees, adding that she recalls most of Council supporting 85 to 90 percent interest in services before considering such an extension. She does not know where the 50 percent figure originated that has been mentioned in the reports. In addition, where there are a very small number of households involved, the policy needs to take into consideration that factor, as the numbers could be skewed. She asked staff about the next step needed to support Mrs. Boring's suggestion of funding the waterline for the Riverside Drive -Area 3 in view of the strong interest in service. Ms. Hoyle responded that the next step would be to direct staff to provide funding for Engineering to proceed with detailed plan design. Mr. Cullimore added that once a threshold percentage is set for a project and the interest level is at or above the threshold, Engineering would need funding to perform some preliminary engineering to validate the planning costs. Staff is aware that there are some bedrock issues and shallow depths, which could have substantial impacts on overall costs. Staff would recommend doing some borings, determining rock elevations, and doing some detailed engineering. Mrs. Boring stated that the residents would need to be aware that the rock conditions may impact their connection costs as well. The per footage figures may not have included potential rock conditions. Mr. Cullimore responded that some assumptions were made with these projects. Along Riverside Drive, the costs reflected the rock conditions. There are additional considerations, such as a gravity sanitary sewer option at $3-4 million. A force main at a third of that cost would be more feasible. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that the first step would be for a policy regarding the threshold of interest required. What is a realistic timeframe to have a recommended policy for Council? Ms. Hoyle agreed this could be done in the first quarter of 2007. It was the consensus of Council to have staff proceed with developing this policy for submission to Council in the first quarter of 2007. Ms. Hoyle added that Mr. Cullimore does have the maps available tonight with the estimated costs for each area. STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Brautigam introduced new Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning, Steve Langworthy who begins work tomorrow. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher welcomed him on behalf of Council. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Mr. Keenan: 1. Attended a Dublin Arts Council Board meeting on November 14. 2. Noted that he, Ms. Salay and Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher attended the Leadership Dublin session on November 15, prior to the budget hearing. 3. Participated in aLogan-Union-Champion Regional Planning Commission dinner meeting where Mr. Hammersmith received recognition for his efforts. 4. Welcomed Mr. Langworthy to Dublin, adding that a nice reception was held for him at Ms. Brautigam's home over the weekend. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS November 20, 2006 Page 22 Held Vice Mayor Lecklider: 1. Welcomed Mr. Langworthy to Dublin. 2. Reported he represented the Mayor at the Veterans Day event, which was well attended and well organized. Mrs. Boring, Mr. Reiner and Ms. Salay also were in attendance. Thanks to Community Relations for organizing the celebration, which included the Sells Middle School choir, their band, a color guard from the local VFW, a bagpiper, and many local veterans. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher reported that she recently attended the MORPC Board meeting, along with Ms. Brautigam, where the new MORPC Director was introduced. He begins working on December 18, after relocating to Central Ohio from Texas. He will bring a new direction and vision to the group and has an extensive background to draw upon. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to adjourn to executive session at 10:15 p.m. for legal and personnel matters. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher announced that the meeting will be reconvened following the executive session only for the purpose of formally adjourning. The meeting was reconvened and formally adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Mayor - Pr si ing Officer Clerk of Council 7