Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/02/2008RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS -- _ _Dublin City Council - __ __ __- _- -_ Meeting-_ January 2, 2008 Held 20 1 1 Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher called the Wednesday, January 2, 2008 Organizational Meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 6:30 p.m.at the Dublin Municipal Building. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Col. Dana McDaniel led the Pledge of Allegiance in honor of the Ohio men and women who have departed this week for military duty in Kuwait and Afghanistan. OATHS OF OFFICE Newly re-elected Council Member at Large Marilee Chinnici-Zuercher took the oath of office, administered by former Mayor Joel Campbell. Council Member Chinnici- Zuercher was accompanied by friends and supporters, including David and Margery Amorose, Robin Campbell, A.C. Strip, Chris Amorose Groomes and Tyler Groomes, Joe and Joanne Holdrieth, Ken and Sandy Morckel, and AI and Anne Gleine. Newly re-elected Council Member at Large Michael Keenan took the oath of office, administered by Congressman Pat Tiberi. Council Member Keenan was accompanied by his wife, Jill, son, Ryan and daughter, Katelin. Newly elected Council Member at Large Richard Gerber took the oath of office, administered by State Representative Jim Hughes. Council Member Gerber was accompanied by his wife, Barbara. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher thanked Congressman Tiberi, State Representative Jim Hughes, and former Mayor Joel Campbell for their participation in tonight's ceremonies. ROLL CALL Present were Mrs. Boring, Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, Mr. Gerber, Mr. Keenan, Mr. Lecklider, Mr. Reiner and Ms. Salay. Staff members present were Ms. Brautigam, Mr. Smith, Ms. Grigsby, Chief Epperson, Mr. McDaniel, Mr. Harding, Ms. Puskarcik, Ms. Crandall, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Hahn, Ms. Ott, Ms. Husak, Ms. Martin, and Ms. Cox. compensation of a public employee or official. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes. ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Mr. Keenan moved to adjourn to executive session at 6:40 p.m. to consider the appointment, employment, dismissal, discipline, promotion, demotion, or The meeting was reconvened at 8:10 p.m. ELECTION OF MAYOR Mrs. Boring nominated Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher to a two-year term as Mayor. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, no; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, no; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, no. Mr. Keenan noted that he does not want his vote to reflect upon personalities or abilities, but he believes leadership should be rotated from time to time. Mr. Lecklider noted that Dublin employs aCouncil/Manager form of government, and the Mayor and Vice Mayor are selected by the members of Council every two years, with the Mayor to serve as the ceremonial head of Council. It is his philosophical view that these ceremonial positions should rotate amongst the Council, as they typically do among local school board, township trustees, and university boards of trustees. In no case do terms extend for six consecutive years. Such a regular rotation allows for a RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council January 2, 2008 Page 2 Held diversity of styles, benefiting the Council, City staff and, ultimately, the community. It is consistent with that philosophy that he is not asking to be considered for another term as Vice Mayor. He therefore respectively votes "no." Mr. Reiner nominated Mrs. Boring to a two-year term as Vice Mayor. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, no; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, no; Mr. Keenan, no; Mr. Gerber, yes. Mr. Lecklider explained that he believes leadership opportunities should be available, particularly where there is an interest expressed by others. As he has indicated previously, he is not interested in serving in this position. It has been his privilege to serve as Vice Mayor. Mrs. Boring has had the opportunity to serve as Vice Mayor on at least two occasions in the past. For that reason and others, he would like others to have the opportunity to serve in that capacity. Therefore, he respectfully votes "no." Ms. Salay commented that she is voting "no" for the same reasons articulated by Mr. Lecklider. Mr. Keenan noted that his vote is not a reflection of abilities, but strictly a matter of rotating leadership positions. OATH OF OFFICE Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher took the oath of office administered by former Mayor Joel Campbell. Vice Mayor Boring took the oath of office administered by former Mayor Joel Campbell. (At this time, a brief recess took place to allow for the official 2008 photo of City Council.) APPROVAL OF MINUTES • Regular Meeting of November 19, 2007 Mr. Reiner moved approval of the minutes of November 19, 2007. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, abstain; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Gerber, abstain. • Special Meeting of December 3, 2007 Mr. Lecklider moved approval of the minutes of December 3, 2007. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, abstain; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. • Regular Meeting of December 10, 2007 Approval of the minutes of the meeting of December 10, 2007 was postponed until the January 22, 2008 Council meeting. CORRESPONDENCE There was no correspondence requiring Council action. CITIZEN COMMENTS Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road noted that when he came to the Municipal Building today, he realized he could not do what he planned to do at the podium, as the issue involving him comes later in the meeting and cannot be discussed under the non agenda item portion of the meeting. Even if he could have done so, he would not have done so, as something has come up which would have prevented him from doing that substantively. He will therefore address the item when the ordinance comes up RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council January 2, 2008 Page 20 1 1 1 tonight. He noted that he had an encounter with Council Member McCash at the end of the last Council meeting. He believes there is a great future for both of them in a heated argument over an issue. The ideal setting would be in an informal setting with all of the Council and staff present who attend Council meetings, and they would witness the "thrashing out" of the issue. LEGISLATION SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 95-07 Modifying Portions of the Zoning Code PUD Regulations for Administrative Approvals. (Case No. 07-118ADM) Ms. Brautigam stated there have been no changes subsequent to the first reading. However, a redlined version has been provided, as requested by Council. Mr. Langworthy can respond to any questions. There were no questions. Vote on the Ordinance: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes. Ordinance 96-07 Modifying Portions of the Zoning Code Addressing Swimming Pool Fences, Fitness Uses, Pet Care Services, and Park and Rides. (Case No. 07-110ADM) Ms. Brautigam stated that a redlined version was provided to Council to show the changes since the first reading. Ms. Husak is present to respond to questions. Mr. Lecklider asked about pet sitting and training services. There was apparently some discussion at P&Z in regard to extending the 250 feet to 500 feet for outdoor pet care services. Were there similar concerns expressed with respect to pet sitting and training services? It seems that training services would result in some of the same concerns as the grooming services. Ms. Husak responded that for the most part, the 500 feet versus 250 feet was geared toward the outdoor pet care versus pet training or pet services. It was felt that pet training and sitting would result in pets being indoors the majority of the time. The P&Z discussion related to the outdoor 500 foot restriction. Mr. Lecklider asked if there are currently any training and pet care facilities in Dublin. His experience with pet training facilities is that they result in a lot of barking dogs outside the structure. Mr. Gerber responded that the Commission was very concerned with the noise impact on surrounding areas as well. They tried to propose some sort of setback requirement, and felt that 250 feet could be reasonable. At the conclusion of the discussion, it was felt that the conditional use criteria, if applied, would balance these concerns. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that on the cover page, under the P&Z recommendation, it indicates that the Commission modified the proposed language to require outdoor pet care services to be located at least 500 feet from a residential district or use unless a lesser distance was approved by the Commission. Two paragraphs below, under "Pet Care Services," it indicates 250 feet from a residential zoning district. Mr. Lecklider clarified that these are actually two separate categories. Ms. Husak explained that for outdoor services, the requirement is 500 feet. It would also require a conditional use approval. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if there are any such facilities in Dublin presently. Ms. Husak responded that there are dog grooming facilities in Dublin, but she is not aware of any pet sitting or day care facilities. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that her concern is that a grooming business could become a provider of the other services in the future. If the requirement is only 250 feet, and they later decide to expand their services, there will be an issue. Why not make both be 500 feet so that there would not be a future problem? RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council January 2, 2008 Page Held 20 Ms. Husak responded that this change can certainly be made. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher recommended this change be made. Mr. Lecklider noted that there was much debate at P&Z about extending it from 250 to 500 feet in the one category. From the Commission's view, they felt it was addressed by virtue of the conditional use. However, he would not be opposed to expanding it to 500 feet. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that by not requiring 500 feet, a business with 250 feet would be precluded from changing their business uses and would be forced to move. Vice Mayor Boring stated that she supports the 500 feet of separation for the reasons the Mayor has stated, but perhaps there is a compromise between 250 and 500 feet. Mr. Gerber noted that P&Z discussed this matter in November. For the 500 feet requirement, that related to residential districts. The 250 feet was for properties abutting an industrial district, correct? Ms. Husak responded the 250 feet is geared for the interior pet care uses, not the outdoor ones. For outdoor, there is a 500 feet separation from any residential district. Mr. Gerber noted that the discussion at P&Z related to the outside noise and activity and its impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher reiterated that she would support 500 feet for all of these for that reason. Mr. Gerber stated that the Commission did believe that 250 feet was more reasonable for a facility where most activities take place indoors. Ms. Salay stated that rather than tying this to a certain use, such as grooming, sitting or training, it could state that if there are outside facilities, they must have 500 feet of separation from adjacent neighborhoods. If the services are completely indoor, it could be 250 feet. Ms. Husak responded that is the language in the current draft of the ordinance. Ms. Salay stated that it is somewhat confusing. In any grooming, sitting, training or boarding facilities, there could be a situation where everything is contained inside and the pets never leave the building. But in a training or sitting facility, it could include an area where the dogs exercise outside. For her, if it is completely contained and will always be completely contained, 250 feet would be adequate. But if there is any outdoor aspect, she would have concern. Ms. Husak stated that on page 11 of 29 in the proposed Code changes, under "D," the language currently indicates "pet care services, to include pet grooming services, pet sitting services, and pet training services, the facility providing pet care services shall not include any outdoor recreation area and shall not be located less than 250 feet from any residential area." Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if outdoor recreation area in this context, likely related to a pet sitting service, would include taking the dogs out during the day for bathroom purposes. Ms. Husak responded that is true, however, outdoor service area is considered more of a formalized, fenced-in area where the dogs would recreate. Mrs. Boring noted that she would prefer the language address "self contained facility" versus "outdoor recreation area" because people walking their dogs may actually use it as a bathroom relief area. The wording needs to be changed to "completely contained indoor" or outdoor instead of defining an outdoor recreation area. Ms. Salay summarized it should include language such as "completely contained within a structure." RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council January 2, 2008 Page Mrs. Boring asked about the park and ride portion of the amendments. She is not certain why this is being pulled out instead of handling it under the auto-oriented use. She is wary of why it is not a conditional use. What is proposed currently is not a conditional use. Her belief is it is an auto-oriented facility, and should therefore be addressed in that portion of the Code. Ms. Husak responded that staff has not viewed this as something to be included in auto-oriented use because parking by itself is currently not a permitted use in the zoning code. Even as a conditional use, it would not be possible to have parking by itself as a use. Therefore, it has been pulled out so that a park and ride is a use in itself. Mrs. Boring responded that she is very concerned with this interpretation. People park in parking lots and it is acceptable. If it is a park and ride, it provides a service and it is not just parking. Similar to a retail use, there is a service being provided. The parking exists for this service. Why not include it automatically as an auto-oriented use? Ms. Husak responded that she believes the parking code includes language that would preclude park and rides from being a permitted use. There is some clarification needed to have a park and ride be a permitted use. Mrs. Boring responded that she would prefer to review the parking code for potential changes to accommodate this service. Mrs. Boring noted that on page 12 of 29, it mentions accessory structures, and indicates it includes accessory structures such as bus passenger shelters. The way this is stated implies that other things are possible, aside from bus passenger shelters. She does not favor this language. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if she has a recommendation on this language. Mrs. Boring asked staff for suggested language to accommodate her intention. Ms. Husak asked if Council would be more comfortable if the language were amended to eliminate the term "accessory structures." It would include bus passenger shelters only. Mrs. Boring asked what the size limitations would be for such shelters. She would prefer this be delineated in some manner. Mr. Keenan noted there is an existing shelter off of Dale Drive which would be an acceptable size. Mr. Lecklider stated that he is reluctant to do this without some consultation with COTA. He does not know what their future needs would be, nor does he know the average dimensions of such shelters. Ms. Brautigam stated that it is not critical that this ordinance be adopted tonight. It can be postponed until a later date to make the changes. Ms. Salay asked about the park and ride issue. Is there a need for a structure when there is a park and ride facility? A neighborhood had a concern with a park and ride, and she recalls that the debate was with the structure or the parked cars. She would want the option to have a park and ride without a structure, if that would be possible. There is an existing park and ride on Eiterman Road. In the case of the church parking lot, she cannot imagine why some additional cars parked during the day would be difficult for the neighborhood to bear. Mr. Keenan responded that there is discussion of 80 to 100 cars parking in the church lot, and there are not that many spots available. Mr. Lecklider noted that he does not believe the shelter was the issue with this example. Mrs. Boring stated that the language does not restrict that, however. When the park and ride was built on Dale Drive, if it did not meet Code how was it approved? There RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council January 2, 2008 Page 6 i~ 1 Held are existing park and rides, so do they all not meet Code, or is the City changing the way the Code is interpreted? Ms. Husak responded that the Eiterman Road facility was never formally permitted - it is more of an informal area for carpooling. For the Dale Drive park and ride, it did receive a conditional use, but she is not sure if the Code at that time included auto- oriented uses. Mrs. Boring stated that staff has indicated that this use cannot be included in auto- oriented because the parking use is not legal under another part of the Code. So how did the Dale Drive park and ride secure approval as a parking area if it is not consistent with the Code? Ms. Brautigam responded that staff will report back on the history of the Dale Drive situation and what constitutes an auto-oriented use. Mrs. Boring noted that the report should also include why the City does not move this down to a conditional use -- not a permitted use automatically. Mrs. Boring moved to postpone the ordinance to the January 22, 2008 Council meeting. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 01-08 Authorizing the Purchase of a Permanent Easement in a 0.187 Acre Tract, More or Less, and Two Temporary Construction Easements in a 0.155 Acre Tract, More or Less, Located on Shamrock Boulevard, from Continental Sawmill LP aka DDR Continental, in the City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio, and Declaring an Emergency. Mr. Keenan introduced the ordinance. Mr. Smith stated this legislation is required to obtain easements from Continental Sawmill LP. They have accepted the City's appraisal and the project is complete. Mr. Reiner moved to dispense with the public hearing and treat this as emergency legislation. Mr. Gerber seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Ordinance 02-08 Authorizing the Purchase of a Permanent Sewer Easement in a 0.087 Acre Tract, More or Less, and a Temporary Construction Easement in a 0.260 Acre Tract, More or Less, Located East of Dublin Road, From A.E. Wallace Maurer, in the City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio, and Declaring an Emergency. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Mr. Smith stated that the City is preparing to construct an extension of the sanitary sewer system along Dublin Road and Brand Road. In order to service those properties, it required obtaining both a permanent and temporary easement across Mr. Maurer's property. A title search was done, an appraisal was done, and an offer was presented to Mr. Maurer of $12,470. It is his understanding that Mr. Maurer has accepted this offer. The purchase price is the appraised value. Mr. Hammersmith noted that staff is appreciative of Mr. Maurer's cooperation in the purchase of the easement for the sanitary sewer service. Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road noted that there have been negotiations regarding this matter since last February. He has concerns with the wording of the ordinance. In the opening clause, it states, "Whereas, the City of Dublin is preparing to extend the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 2, 2008 Page 7 sewer line along Dublin and Brand Roads." What he envisions is that the line would be placed in the right-of-way, and everyone along Dublin Road involved would tap into that line. Installing it on Brand Road would presumably be in the right-of-way, and everyone on Brand Road would tap into it as well. He asked for clarification about the actual anticipated location of the line. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the actual location of the line is for sanitary sewer service to the Thomas property. The intent is not to extend the line along the right-of- way of the two roads. This clarification can be made by stating, "in the vicinity of Dublin and Brand Roads." Mrs. Boring asked if the easement document is part of the legal document. Mr. Smith responded that it is an exhibit and part of the legal document. Mr. Smith stated that staff can clarify the language as Mr. Maurer has suggested, if that gives him more comfort. ~ Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that the clause would then read, "That the City of Dublin is preparing to extend the sewer line in the vicinity of Dublin and Brand I Roads." Mr. Maurer responded that does not make sense to him. Some background information is necessary to help Council understand the massive misunderstanding from start to finish. Mr. Thomas asked Mr. Maurer if he would assist him. Mr. Thomas told him that the City had wrecked his septic system and he needed to have it ~ repaired. However, the septic system could not be fixed, as it is being phased out. Therefore, an easement was needed to bring the sewer line to the Thomas property. Mr. Maurer responded to Mr. Thomas that he was inclined to say "no" -that he could not permit a line across his property for this, but instead sought to found out what would be involved. Mr. Thomas also told him that he had requested permission from another property owner to run the sewer line through and was told "no." The contractor for this project came to him with a City representative and described exactly what would be done. He heard nothing after that time. Suddenly, he received letters from the City attorneys with the project set to move forward, and he requested a meeting. Finally, he decided to provide the easements. In Section 2, it indicates an emergency is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety and welfare. The next sentence troubles him, as it cites the reason for such necessity that it is essential to begin construction of the sewer extension so that the surrounding landowners can begin use of the system. The necessity of the easement in this location is related to the septic system damage to Mr. Thomas' property. Who are the surrounding landowners on Dublin Road and Brand Road who will benefit? This was devised as a bailout for the Thomas property septic system. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the first landowner to benefit would be the Thomas property, but this easement would also make the line available to Dr. Sommer, should she ever have the need for public sanitary sewer service. Those are the two potential landowners who would benefit, although she has indicated no interest. Mr. Maurer asked who the landowners are along Dublin Road who this would serve. Mr. Hammersmith responded that Dublin and Brand is a general location of this easement. The governing document is Exhibit A. If the desire is to provide further clarification to increase Mr. Maurer's comfort level and Council's, the language can be modified to indicate properties along the north side of Brand Road, with a more specific location. Mr. Maurer asked how landowners along Brand Road would benefit from this construction. Mr. Hammersmith reiterated that only two properties would benefit -the Thomas property and the Sommer property. Mr. Maurer's property could potentially benefit as well, but an easement would not be necessary for him to obtain service. Mr. Maurer responded that with respect to his property, connection would be very expensive and difficult. Mr. Hammersmith reiterated that this project does not involve an extension of a line along the right-of-way of Dublin Road. It is only a service extension to the Thomas RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council January 2, 2008 Page 8 Held 20 property. Mr. Maurer asked if Council would consider postponing this to allow him to have another meeting with staff. He had worked this matter out to his satisfaction with Mr. Hammersmith, but was surprised with the language in the ordinance presented tonight. Mr. Gerber moved to postpone the ordinance to the January 22, 2008 Council 1 L meeting. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Ordinance 03-08 Authorizing the Provision of Certain Incentives for Purposes of Retaining CBIZ, Inc. and Its Operations and Workforce within the City of Dublin and Authorizing the Execution of an Economic Development Agreement. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Mr. McDaniel stated that staff has been in discussion with CBIZ, Inc. regarding retention of their workforce and operations in the City of Dublin. CBIZ, Inc. is a leading professional support, consulting and services provider for business and has operated in Dublin since 1998. They currently have 20 full-time and 2 part-time employees and will add 2 additional full-time employees in 2008. There is competition with another municipality for this business. In recognition of CBIZ agreeing to renew its lease for 7 years, staff recommends passage of the ordinance authorizing an economic development agreement. The agreement proposed is fora $55,000 retention grant from non-tax revenues to CBIZ, paid in two payments of $30,000 in 2008 and $25,000 in 2009. As part of the agreement, CBIZ is required to meet certain withholding targets for each of the 7 years of its lease. If targets are not met, CBIZ will either not be paid a retention grant or will repay the City a portion of the grant it received for any year it does not meet these targets. Over the term of the agreement, the City anticipates collecting $290,000 in income tax. The $55,000 retention grant is equal to 18 percent of the anticipated total withholdings. This is consistent with other economic development agreements done for similarly sized businesses. Ms. Salay asked if the $11,000 repayment is typical of Dublin's agreements. Mr. McDaniel responded this is relatively new. In the current competitive environment, the edge Dublin has with use of its non-tax revenues is providing more money up front in an economic development agreement such as this one, versus spreading payments out over a number of years. However, there is a desire for accountability if the commitments are not met. Ms. Salay stated that she is not totally comfortable with the concept, but is very comfortable with efforts to retain CBIZ in Dublin. There will be a second reading/public hearing of the ordinance at the January 22, 2008 Council meeting. INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING -RESOLUTIONS Resolution 01-08 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Contract with the Franklin County Public Defender Commission for the Defense of Indigent Defendants. Mr. Lecklider introduced the resolution. Mr. Smith stated this is an annual resolution, which provides that the Franklin County public defender will represent these individuals. There are few cases of this type each year. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked why the rate has decreased since 2007. Mr. Smith responded he does not know, but offered that it is probably based on the volume of total cases of this type in Franklin County. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road asked what conditions determine the definition of a defendant who is indigent. RECORD OF PROCEED[NGS Dublin City Council January 2, 2008 Page 9 He Mr. Smit es nded that, as he indicated in previous years, he will provide this informati n . T ere are standards established, based on income and dependants. Vote on the Resolution: Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Resolution 02-08 Intent to Appropriate a 3.654 Acres, More or Less, (with 0.112 Acres Present Road Occupied), Fee Simple Interest, From BP Exploration & Oil Inc., Located on the Southeast Corner of Post Road (S.R. 161) and Liggett Road, County of Union, State of Ohio. Mr. Lecklider introduced the resolution. Mr. Smith stated this authorizes the commencement of appropriation proceedings with respect to the property owned by BP on Liggett Road. It is part of the US 33/161/Post Road interchange project. Staff has attempted to work with BP for over 1-1/2 years. This is a very expensive piece of property with an appraisal value of $1.1 million. BP's compensation desires are considerably higher than the appraisal, so it is necessary to file this appropriation case. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if there are other properties needed for this interchange where this situation can be expected. Mr. Smith responded that this is the first of many properties needed for the interchange. Staff is waiting for appraisals to be finalized. There will be a number of such actions needed over the next several months. As Council is aware, the Wirchanski property is part of the land needed for the interchange. Mr. Keenan noted that it is important to challenge this, as what is established as the value of the BP property will be used as comparables for the other properties. Mr. Smith agreed. He requested approval of this resolution in order to begin the process. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road stated that he assumes the City of Dublin extends into Union County as it extends into Delaware County. Do counties have any jurisdictional restrictions that they might impose for the project? Mr. Smith responded that there will not be restrictions for this project. Dublin has the right to build this interchange and to acquire the property necessary to build the interchange and the appropriate supporting road network. Dublin works with all jurisdictions on the process to build such an interchange. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Resolution 03-08 Authorizing the City Manger to Enter into a Supplement to the Water Service Agreement with the City of Columbus for the Purpose of Providing Public Water to the Glacier Ridge Metro Park. Mr. Keenan introduced the resolution. Ms. Cox stated that in the summer of 2007, Engineering received a request from Metro Parks for public water service to serve the Glacier Ridge Metro Park on Hyland- Croy Road. When the elementary school was built in that area, a water tank was constructed and the line was extended along Hyland-Croy Road to this location. At the time of the roundabout project, a line was installed under the road so that it could accommodate future needs across the road. A complication relates to the Memorandum of Understanding with the Metro Parks that the property would never be annexed to Dublin. The existing water and sewer contract with the City of Columbus indicates that water service cannot be provided by the City of Dublin unless the land is annexed to the City of Dublin. Therefore, the issue had to be resolved with the various jurisdictions involved. In addition, this property is located within the negotiated expansion area for Dublin within the current water and sewer agreement, and ~ permission is needed from Columbus for Dublin to provide water service to the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council January 2, 2008 Page 10 Held 20 property. Staff has worked with the various entities to secure approvals. The City of Columbus requested that two documents be created to solidify this water service: first, a supplement to the existing water service agreement with Columbus will be needed to stipulate that this particular property can have the service without annexation due to the special circumstances. This agreement is before Council tonight for approval. Secondly, Columbus will have their own agreement with the Metro Park District regarding the water service itself. Within that agreement, Dublin has requested reviewing rights for the plans and that tap fees will be paid to Dublin. Columbus City Council reviewed the supplement and has approved it with Ordinance 1752-2007. This area is also covered in the water and sewer district defined by the Union County Commissioners, and Dublin staff spoke with the Union County Engineer about this. The Union County Commissioners voted in November to allow this property to be served by Dublin with public water. Therefore, staff requests approval of this resolution. Mr. Keenan asked why there is a need for an 8-inch water line. Ms. Cox responded that the 8-inch line under the existing roadway was installed without knowing what it would be connected to in the future. Mr. Keenan noted that the capacity charges are substantial for a line of this size. Ms. Cox responded that they will not have an 8-inch tap charge if they tap cone-inch line to take it back to their facility. The cost is dependent upon the meter size. Ms. Salay asked if this can be done without impacting the surrounding area. There have been issues in the past with water pressures. Ms. Cox responded that this is within the Tartan pressure district and is served by the new tank. Dublin will review the plans to ensure awareness of what is being connected with this line. Ms. Salay asked if Dublin has ultimate "veto power" if Dublin is not comfortable that the needs are met. Ms. Cox stated that staff can check on this and make sure such language is included. Ms. Salay responded that she assumes the Metro Parks would not construct anything which would take capacity away from the system, but she wants to ensure there is an ability to control this. Mr. Hammersmith added that it is not the Metro Parks' intent to sell water, but rather to serve their facility. This issue is being driven by the quality of the well water on the site. Ms. Brautigam added that this is a water service agreement, not a sewer service agreement. The issues in the past have been related to sewer capacity, not necessarily with water capacity. The Tartan tank has helped with the pressures in this location. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes. OTHER • Preliminary and Final Plat -Duke Parkwood (5900 Parkwood Place -Case No. 07-113PP/FP) Ms. Martin stated this request is for approval of a combined preliminary and final plat for 5900 Parkwood Place, which includes the creation of two lots. It was approved by P&Z on December 6, 2007. She shared visuals of the site and the surrounding properties. The site and adjacent property to the north, south, and west are zoned PCD, Planned Commerce District as a part of the Thomas Kohler PCD. Planning & Zoning Commission approved a final development plan for two five-story buildings in November of 1998. Only one of the two office buildings and associated parking for the building, with a retention pond have been constructed. She described the topography. Lot 1 is 12.211 acres in size and is on the north end of the site. This lot contains all the existing development on the site and is currently occupied by Nationwide. Lot 2 is 16.594 acres in size and is located immediately to the south of Lot 1. This lot is RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin Citv Council January 2, 2008 Page 11 20 1 1 1 vacant, and an amended final development plan will be required for the development of this lot. Access for Lot 2 will be restricted to Parkwood Place in the location noted on the plat. A proposed 60-foot access easement is located along the southern boundary of Lot 1 to provide an additional ingress/egress location from Parkwood Place. No additional access for Lot 2 will be permitted onto Woerner-Temple. The existing retention pond provides stormwater management for both sites and is located in a drainage easement along the eastern property line. This proposal complies with the preliminary and final plat review criteria and was approved by P&Z with one condition. The condition has now been met, and Planning staff therefore recommends approval with no conditions. Mr. Lecklider asked where the lot split will take place within Lot 2. Ms. Martin demonstrated the approximate location. The proposed property line is approximately 15 feet off of that edge of pavement. The entire 28-acre site is being subdivided into two lots. Lot 2 has not been developed and will require an amended final development plan. Mr. Keenan recalled dicussion that there was to be another building on Lot 2 to mirror what is on Lot 1. Ms. Martin responded that the original final development plan approved in 1998 showed two five-story buildings, and the buildings mirrored each other. Nationwide currently occupies the first building and has decided not to proceed with developing a second building. Therefore, the subdivision of the lot will enable Lot 2 to be marketable for future development. Ms. Salay stated that the existing building was constructed with the express intent that a mirroring building would be constructed to the south of it. In her view, a condition for this would be that a second building would be architecturally identical as was intended. She attended the hearings when it was approved by P&Z, and Duke's commitment was to eventually build a second building. The existing building is in essence missing its other half. Ms. Martin summarized that what is presented tonight is a preliminary and final plat. In terms of a future final development plan, at that time the location of the buildings could be discussed in terms of mirroring the building on Lot 1. However, it will be dependent upon the developer. Mr. Lecklider stated that he served on P&Z at the time this was approved, but he voted against the plan based on his concern about the future potential of not completing a mirror image building on the remainder of the site. Vice Mayor Boring asked why it is written in the staff report that there are concerns that dividing this parcel may reduce the opportunities for accommodating larger corporate users. Ms. Martin responded that the comment was inserted into the report so that the community would be aware of the potential impact. However, this lot split is well within the property owner's rights to request. Mr. Gerber noted that P&Z reviewed this matter a few weeks ago, and this comment was not brought to their attention. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the acreage in the proposed Lot 2 is actually larger than that in Lot 1. The statement about reduced opportunities may be applicable to the next case on the agenda, but not to this one. Mr. Langworthy noted that this comment was included, as the intent of the original final development plan was that the two buildings would operate as a single building envelope. That was the intent of his comments. This proposal may not carry forward that single large corporate presence. Ms. Salay stated she understands why the property owner would want to split this, but why is this good for Dublin? Wouldn't it be preferable to wait until there is the ability to build that second building? Nationwide is currently leasing the other building, correct? Mr. Langworthy suggested that this could be better addressed by the applicant than by staff. Mr. Lecklider pointed out that Lot 2 is significantly larger in acreage, but not all of the lot is buildable due to the floodway and easement. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council January 2, 2008 Page 12 -, i Jim Clark, Duke Realty, 5945 Whittingham stated that they would like to build the next building. However, it has been 10 years and Nationwide's lease is coming up for renewal in the first building. It has not been determined if they will remain. Duke wanted to work with staff on devising an alternative plan as opposed to the plan for two buildings approved ten years ago. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked how they envision that the buildings would relate to each other. Mr. Clark responded that is what they intend to work on with staff. They don't have a concept today, but are asking for the plat revision. Mr. Reiner asked him to outline the benefits of the plat revision. Mr. Clark responded that it would speed up the market issue by having the plat redone. Perhaps a third party would want to purchase the lot and work with staff on a plan. It would save time in the process of 60-90 days by having this done now. They will engage staff on devising an alternative plan for the south side. They have not built anything in Dublin for eight years, and they are looking at alternatives for the 60 acres they own in Dublin. The demand simply does not exist today. Mr. Reiner summarized that he has indicated that Duke may decide not to build the second building and want to set this up for a possible sale. Mr. Clark responded that the original deal with Nationwide included expansion options which they chose not to exercise. The market does not now support development of this land. They do not envision when they can justify building another building on the site, as it would be a $22 million investment which would not be supported in today's market. They would like to work with staff on alternative plans. They never projected that the second building would not someday be built. The process of platting is something they want to take care of in case a user comes along who wants to own the site. They would then sell the site outright to them. Mr. Reiner asked how they would address the architectural issues Ms. Salay has brought up. Mr. Clark responded they are not asking to circumvent those issues. This is simply a replatting. They are not prepared to respond to that question today. Mrs. Boring asked if the plat is subdivided, do the original conditions appended disappear automatically? Mr. Smith responded he does not believe they do. Mr. Clark has indicated they recognize the original conditions, and they would try to come up with an alternative solution. He cannot recall the conditions from 10 years ago. In view of Council's concerns, he suggested Council postpone this while Duke provides some options for how the building issues would be addressed. The applicant has completed much of the work necessary for the replatting. The architectural issues from the original approval are the remaining item to be addressed. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that if one of the options is to sell the property, Duke would not be in a position to do that. She would want to know definitively the answer to Vice Mayor Boring's question about the original conditions. Mr. Smith suggested that this item be postponed to provide this information. It may be difficult to connect the two buildings, depending upon the users identified. Ms. Salay stated that it would be important to have the buildings appear that they belong together, even if they are not connected. Mr. Clark added that they did have a user interested in the site, but the 90-day time period required to obtain this approval drove them to another location. Ms. Salay stated that if there is an interested user for the land, they will likely be working with the economic development staff. The City will work with them to meet their needs. Mr. Clark responded that, fortunately, there was a site available in Dublin to the north that they could accommodate the user on. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that this be postponed until January 22 to address the issues. Ms. Salay moved to postpone this until the January 22, 2008 Council meeting. Vice Mayor Boring seconded the motion. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council January 2, 2008 Page 13 L 1 L Vote on the motion: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. • Preliminary and Final Plat -Dublin Commerce Park (6190 Enterprise Court - Case No. 07-113PP/FP) Ms. Martin stated this is a request for approval of a combined preliminary and final plat of Lot 4 of the Duke Commerce Park plat on Enterprise Court, which includes the creation of two lots. This was approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission on December 6, 2007. She provided information regarding the zonings of the surrounding area. The site is developed and relatively flat. Cosgray Ditch and its associated floodway define the northern property line. Proposed Lot 4A contains an 8,000 square foot building and associated parking. Proposed Lot 4B contains two buildings and associated parking, both occupied. A shared internal access drive is located along the proposed southeast boundary of Lot 4A and would require an easement as identified on the proposed plat. There are no new points of ingress or egress proposed. This proposal complies with the preliminary plat and final plat review criteria and was approved by the Planning Commission with one condition. The condition has been met, and Planning staff recommends approval with no conditions. Mrs. Boring asked if this in any way conflicts with the updated Community Plan. Ms. Martin responded that it does not. Ms. Salay moved approval of the preliminary and final plat. Vice Mayor Boring seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. • Final Plat -Paul Blazer Parkway - (5151 Paul G. Blazer Memorial Parkway- Case No. 07-117FP) Ms. Martin stated that this is a request for approval of a final plat at 5151 Blazer Parkway, which includes the creation of three lots. The lots can be developed as Office, Research and Laboratory facilities. This was approved by Planning & Zoning Commission on December 6, 2007. The 14.383-acre site is located on the east side of Blazer, north of the intersection with Rings Road. The site was annexed in 1969 and area rezoned in 2004 to establish Dublin zoning. The site and surrounding properties are zoned "OLR." She described the surrounding users. The preliminary plat was reviewed and approved by Planning Commission on September 20, 2007 and approved by Council on November 5, 2007. A condition of the preliminary plat approval was the identification of access points. The applicant has worked with Engineering to identify appropriate points of ingress and egress as shown on the plat. The final location of the access points will be aligned with the existing drives. This proposal complies with the final plat review criteria and was approved by the Planning Commission with one condition, which has been met. Planning staff recommends approval with no conditions. Vice Mayor Boring asked what size of buildings can be placed on these lots of less than five acres, and how these buildings will blend into the character of the surrounding area. Ms. Martin suggested that the applicant respond. Jim Clark, Duke Realty stated that "OLR" is a dated zoning classification, and they have not done any plans. In creating the lots, they would simply market and sell them. This is an avenue to have another size lot in their inventory. It is a speed to market issue on the platting process. They would need to come up with actual building plans to determine what the density could be on the site. Vice Mayor Boring commented she is concerned with the existing character of the area, the setbacks required, and what type of building could be placed on this size of lot in view of the required setbacks. Ms. Martin responded that the required setbacks are based upon the size of the building -the width and height. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council January 2, 2008 Page 14 Vice Mayor Boring stated that she is not comfortable with dividing this into three smaller lots. She could potentially support two lots, but not three. What the potential future user could be has not been addressed to her satisfaction. Mr. Lecklider stated that he has similar concerns. He needs more information about the square footage of the buildings surrounding it and internal to the site. He is concerned with the average lot size of 4.5 acres. He appreciates why the owner wants to split these, but he needs more information before supporting this. Ms. Salay noted she agrees with Mr. Lecklider and Vice Mayor Boring and shares their concerns. This does not seem to be in Dublin's best interests. She understands the property owner's desire, but in the speed to market issue, Dublin will have three small buildings. She is not certain this is the right thing to do. Mr. Clark responded that with the OLR zoning classification, it is difficult to determine what could be built. That is part of the challenge. They are only trying to speed up the timeframe required for platting. Vice Mayor Boring commented that the development would not need to abide by the existing zoning. A zoning change can be requested. Ms. Salay stated that a planned district could be proposed where the outcome will be predictable. Mr. Gerber stated that there would be an approval process necessary for any future development proposed, and Council has the discretion of approval. Vice Mayor Boring stated that she would like more information before approving this lot split. Mr. Lecklider noted that any future development would be limited to sites of 4.5 acres in size as opposed to the current 13 acres. Mr. Gerber noted that it appears there is a market trend, based on tonight's testimony. Mr. Lecklider responded that the Thomas Kohler PCD has been in existence for over a decade, and yet it is not yet completely developed. Planning is not undertaken with only with the immediate market in mind. Ms. Salay commented that is her point as well -namely, long term, what is best for Dublin. Council needs to be cognizant of that. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked staff if there was discussion of having this brought in as a planned district. Ms. Martin responded she is not aware such discussion took place. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Council may be more comfortable with this alternative. Mr. Lecklider commented that it is one option, although he has not ruled out splitting this into three lots. He simply requires more information. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked staff if they are clear about the additional information Council is requesting. Ms. Martin summarized that what has been requested is the square footage of the buildings in the immediate area, addressing the concerns of splitting it into three lots and the possibility of two lots, concern with setbacks and size of buildings due to the algorithm in conjunction with the zoning code, and consideration of a planned district. Vice Mayor Boring added that if it comes back as a planned district, she would like an estimate of the size of building possible, in view of the parking requirements. Ms. Salay stated that with a planned district, there is flexibility and Council can work RECORD OF PROCEED[NGS Dublin City Council January 2, 2008 Page 15 Held with the applicant. She is also interested in what sort of situation could result in terms of lot coverage if this is in the OLR district, and what the final development plan may look like. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if staff can be prepared to bring this back at the January 22 Council meeting. Ms. Martin responded affirmatively. Vice Mayor Boring moved to postpone this until the January 22, 2008 Council meeting. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. STAFF COMMENTS There were no additional staff reports. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Standing Committees of Council Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher announced the Council Committee assignments. As has been the practice, the Vice Mayor will chair the Administrative Committee. Mr. Lecklider and Ms. Salay have agreed to serve on the Committee. Ms. Salay will continue to chair the Community Development Committee. Members will be Mr. Reiner and Mr. Lecklider. Mr. Keenan will continue to chair the Finance Committee. Members will be Mr. Gerber and Vice Mayor Boring. Mr. Reiner will continue to chair Public Services Committee. Members will be Mr. Gerber and Mr. Keenan. Council Representative to Planning & Zoning Commission Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that Council has previously expressed a desire to explore whether or not to continue to have a Council Member as a Planning & Zoning Commission representative, and whether it should be a permanent appointment or a rotating position. Council recommends that during January, February and March, there would not be a Council representative to replace Mr. McCash. During this time, the dialogue will take place and a decision will then be made about how to proceed. By the time appointments are made in March, this dialogue will be concluded. Vice Mayor Boring noted that in order to have this discussion, information is needed regarding other communities -how they handle this situation, how often their Planning Commissions meet, and what type of authority/responsibility their Planning Commissions have. She asked that staff research this matter. Representative to the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher will continue to serve in this role. Representative to the Board of the Dublin Arts Council Ms. Salay will serve as Council representative to the Board of the DAC. Representative to the Logan-Union-Champaign Regional Planning Commission Mr. Keenan will continue to serve as representative to the LUC RPC. Liaison to the Dublin Board of Education Mr. Lecklider will serve as the liaison to the Dublin Board of Education. Interview Dates for P&Z Commission Following discussion, it was the consensus of Council to meet on Monday, January 14 at 5:30 p.m. to conduct the interviews of candidates to serve in the unexpired P&Z RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council January 2, 2008 Page 16 1 1 1 Held 20 term of Council Member Gerber. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher commented: 1. A dinner and reception are planned for Thursday, January 10 with the DCVB representatives and representatives of the Can-Am Games. Council Members are invited to the event. Ms. Puskarcik noted that the dinner will take place at 6:30 p.m. at Oscar's and a reception will follow at the Brazenhead. They are hoping that the Mayor and another member of Council can attend the dinner. Staff will provide detailed information to Council Members. 2. The Martin Luther King, Jr. Day community observance is scheduled at Dublin Jerome High School on Monday, January 21 from 11 a.m. to noon. Everyone is welcome to attend. Mr. Reiner commented in regard to the particle therapy news. He is certain that people wonder how a City of 39,000 could bring this new technology to the country. Staff has done a great job in working on this project. This project could potentially provide a tax base for the schools for the next 25 years. This could stimulate the entire state of Ohio in terms of economic development, and the humanitarian aspects are phenomenal with the opportunity to save lives. It is something Dublin can be very proud of, and he is hopeful that the agreement can be finalized. He was concerned that the information became public before negotiations were concluded, but he acknowledged there was no way to prevent this. Congratulations to everyone who is helping to make this happen! Mr. Keenan reported that: 1. He received a call from a resident regarding a situation where a dog became tangled in a fence and when the dog was found, it was surrounded by a pack of coyotes. He believes someone lost a dog recently to coyotes. He asked that staff investigate this, due to potential impact on small children and other wildlife. Ms. Salay responded that there were issues with coyotes in their neighborhood, and information about this topic is available from the Ohio Wildlife Center. That would be a useful first step in researching this. Ms. Brautigam responded that staff will follow up. 2. There are some existing posts on Dublin Road, just north of Emerald Parkway. Some brush has been cleared in this area, making the markers visible. The history of the markers would be very interesting to learn about. There is some deterioration of the markers, and he suggested some preservation efforts be undertaken. Mr. Hahn responded that he is not aware of the history, and encouraged Council Members to talk to community members in an effort to learn about it. Staff will clear the brush in the spring, and will consider installation of a bench as a resting place along the bikepath in this location. Vice Mayor Boring: 1. Commented that the packet included the new Community Survey. She was astounded by the length of the survey. Will the survey response be impacted by having a survey that requires a great deal of time in order to provide a thoughtful response? Ms. Puskarcik responded that there may be some additions, but she will compare it with previous surveys. Dublin's response rate for surveys over the years has been extraordinary. 2. Asked if the Community Plan draft provided to Council in November is the final draft? The P&Z members have not been provided with a copy of the final plan. Ms. Brautigam responded that the final plan is at the printer. The final printed copy will look more traditional and will be bound. 3. Noted that she contacted Ms. Brautigam today about her concerns with not involving Council in procedural changes by the Planning Commission. Their RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council January 2, 2008 Page 17 Held rules are brought to Council for approval. But when other changes are made, how is Council made aware of them? Ms. Brautigam responded that staff has provided such information in the packets, and the information is included in the P&Z minutes. She has asked Mr. Langworthy to send a memo to Council in regard to the proposed changes to the Planning Commission meeting format. It will be discussed at the Commission meeting tomorrow evening. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher welcomed Mr. Gerber to City Council, noting that Council is looking forward to working with him on Council. He will likely find that Council requires as much or more work and time as Planning & Zoning Commission service! She thanked staff for being present and wished everyone a Happy New Year! OURNMENT meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. ~' n ~.. ~ Mayor -Presiding Officer ~~_ Clerk of Council