HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/21/1992 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK F RM N .
December 21, 1992
Held 19
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Dublin City Council was called to order by Mayor
Jan Rozanski at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, December 21, 1992 and Mr. Amorose led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
Members of Council present for roll call were: Mr. Strip, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Amorose,
Mayor Rozanski and Mrs. King. Mr. Kranstuber arrived at 7:35 p.m. (excused). Mr.
Sutphen was absent (excused).
Mr. Hansley, City Manager, and Mr. Smith, Law Director, were also present.
Anoroval of Minutes of December 7. 1992 Meeting
Mr. Amorose moved to approve the minutes of the December 7 Council meeting.
Mrs. King seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion - Mr. Strip, yes; Mayor Rozanski, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes; Mr.
Amorose, yes; Mrs. King, yes.
Corresuondence
The clerk reported that there was no correspondence to Council.
Comments from Visitors
Neil Hahn. 5701 Brand Road, stated that he heads a coalition, "North Fork Indian Run
- Watershed Coalition", and members of the coalition are in attendance this evening to present
a petition to Council containing 87 names of people who live along the Indian Run and Bear
Run. They have concerns regarding the watershed, particularly in regard to flooding and
stream maintenance problems which have occurred as a result of development in this area.
1. He explained that his involvement began when a developer notified the residents of plans
to fill in the flood plain for a proposed condominium development just west of his property
on a 9-acre tract of land.
2. The large amount of development in the City of Dublin has contributed to additional run-
off and a reduction of rain percolating into the soil. Many Dublin developers choose to
channel storm water run-off to the Indian Run as it is the easiest to access and most
economical. This has resulted in flooding, and at the extreme, even over Brand Road.
3. Neighbors in the area believe water problems have escalated greatly over the past few
years. The group is requesting that the City prevent further encroachment upon the flood
plain. He gave several examples where flood plains have recently been filled in -Brandon,
Bristol Commons, Muirfield, and Asherton.
4. He noted that as a result of flood plain fill in the area, there is excess stream volume
which causes bank erosion and loss of trees. There is a lot of sediment and silt in the
streams which contribute to flooding.
5. The group is requesting that flood plain fill be stopped and that sediment control
measures be implemented in all construction areas. He is hopeful that the City will follow-
up with developers to ensure that silt does not enter the City's streams during the
development process.
6. The group is also requesting creation of a water shed authority in the City in which the
coalition will seek participation. He added that there are many experts available at ODNR,
Ohio State, and the Ohio EPA who are willing to provide free assistance in this endeavor.
7. He commented that the Public Service Committee addressed this problem at the
December 3 meeting where Mr. Kindra presented a storm water assessment for the City of
Dublin. Mr. Sutphen endorsed creation of a storm water authority at that meeting. The
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Page 2 Meeting
DAYTON LE AL B NK
December 21, 1992
Held 19
storm water management issue will also be addressed in the budget discussions.
8. He concluded by stating that the coalition is determined to bring back a balance between
future development and nature and presented the petition to Council for their review.
Mayor Rozanski stated that this issue will be addressed as part of the budget process.
Legislation
Ordinance No. 103-92 - An Ordinance Providing for a Change of Zoning of 7.218 Acres
of Land, Located on the South Side of Rings Road, Approximately 1,350 Feet to the
East of Wilcox Road, to be Rezoned from: R-1B, Restricted Suburban Residential
District to: PLR, Planned Low Density Residential District. (Tabled Ordinance)
Mr. Amorose moved to take this from the table.
Ms. Clarke stated that the applicant had submitted a revised plan at the time of third
reading. This was subsequently sent back to Planning & Zoning Commission for their
review. Planning & Zoning reviewed the amended plan on December 10 and have sent
their recommendations to Council. The changes have resulted in a decrease of overall units
from 53 to 47 and an increase in parkland from 0.8 acres to 1.6 acres. Following these
changes, the Commission approved the rezoning by a vote of 5 to 1. The only difference
in the amended plan is that a building in the extreme northeast corner of the site has been
removed; this .8 acre is now designated as parkland or open space. She added that the
minutes of the December 10 meeting have not yet been prepared.
Charles Ruma President of Davidson Phillips, applicant, then distributed the amended plan
~ to Council members. The amended plan incorporates the changes discussed at the last
Council review of the proposed plan -reducing the overall density from 53 to 47 units with
the remaining vacated property designated as parkland. The developer has agreed that the
parkland grass cutting will be taken care of by the condominium association. The plan also
shows street trees, curb areas, and the bikepath from Brighton Park extending to Rings
Road. The developer concurs with all of staff s recommendations for this rezoning. He
added that he has made a commitment to the Planning Commission to obtain their final
approval of building elevations even though this is not required under the PLR zoning
classification.
Mr. Kranstuber asked Ms. Clarke how this rezoning will come back before P & Z
procedurally.
Ms. Clarke responded that there are several issues which still need to be addressed, i.e. the
arrangement of the buildings and some concerns about the types of materials. The applicant
agreed that both his text and development plan would be approved by City Council prior to
applying for building permits. Mr. Ruma essentially told the Planning Commission that
their approval would antedate any building permit application, and that he was willing to
make the necessary appearances before the Planning Commission to obtain the approval.
Mr. Ruma stated that he believes Ms. Clarke meant approval of the text and development
plan by Planning Commission -not by City Council.
Ms. Clarke stated that the last condition was that the Commission and Council would have
approval of the governing text plan, and that these would be approved prior to building
permits. She had expected the developer to have this information for Council to review this
evening. Apparently there is a misunderstanding; staff reviewed the tape to affirm that
approval is required by both Planning Commission and by Council.
She further explained that this condition was added by Planning Commission to ensure that
the development would be of a high quality. Based on information received to date, there
were not adequate safeguards to ensure this.
Mr. Campbell stated that his impression after the Planning Commission meeting was that
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Page 3 Meeting
DA ON LE L
December 21, 1992
Hel 19
the developer would provide comprehensive plans detailing the appearance of the units to
Council at tonight's meeting. The layout of the buildings was not at issue as much as the
appearance of the units. There was another issue regarding the type of vegetation which
would screen the tennis courts from adjoining residents. He emphasized that the
~ Commission stipulated as a condition of the rezoning that plans or text be submitted to show
the appearance of the units.
Mr. Ruma stated that he has brought photos of the Northbridge Village condominium
project -the project he showed to Planning Commission as a comparable development.
Additionally, the developer has modified the plans from what is shown at Northbridge to
include 40 percent more brick. The issues were as follows: brick on the buildings, roof
pitches, whether or not there should be curbs in certain areas, street trees, and screening
on the tennis courts. There are two types of buildings -six-family and seven-family. The
seven-family includes a ranch style at one end. Both ends on both buildings are brick; both
fronts and sides are brick; and the rear of one unit which faces the street will be brick. In
addition, one garage which is more prominent will be all brick. They have also included
brick fronts on two or three additional units, depending on the elevation. All fireplaces are
brick. There will be no sides on the project which are not brick. In a case where the rear
of a building faces the street, the rear of the first unit will be brick. All units, with the
exception of two which have inside fireplaces, have chimneys and fireplaces. Every unit
has its own separate garage attached. Each unit has a full basement and a fireplace. The
garage doors will be wooden.
Mayor Rozanski asked Mr. Ruma for his interpretation of the direction given by Planning
Commission.
He responded that he had believed he was coming to Council tonight for rezoning. If the
3.. property is rezoned by Council, he then must return to Planning Commission for their
approval prior to applying for a building permit.
In response to Mr. Kranstuber's question, Mr. Ruma stated that these units would all be
sold to individuals, with a restriction in the bylaws prohibiting a first owner from buying
and renting out the unit. The price range will be $95,000 to $115,000.
Mr. Strip asked Mr. Ruma to elaborate on the tennis courts.
He responded that by building the tennis courts and donating the additional parkland, the
development exceeds the parkland requirements. It is his intention to build the tennis courts
and give the land to the City. He will buy the sign and donate it to Parks and Recreation
who will then install the sign designating this as a Dublin park. He will order the sign to
meet the City's specifications.
Ms. Jordan stated that the Parks and Recreation Committee's main concern was that the
tennis courts be clearly defined as a public park and that the courts meet the City's
specifications for courts. The City will review the specifications because it will be
responsible for maintenance.
r Mr. Strip voiced some concern about the ability of the City to provide adequate fire
protection for these additional southwest developments prior to the construction of the new
water tower.
Chief Bostic stated that developers are being asked to provide calculations for available
water in this area. However, this developer has not been requested to do so. The fire
department is in the process of putting together recommendations on this issue for discussion
and review by Council Committees and Planning & Zoning Commission.
Mr. Ruma stated that he was involved with the Edwards Company in extending the
waterline down Wilcox Road and between Brighton Park and Summit Properties. There is
an adequate amount of water for both residential use and fire protection. Regarding the
Ruscilli property on the other side of Rings Road, there is a major concern with respect to
water. That development is dependent on the extension of the waterline on Rings Road and
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Page 4 Meeting
N
December 21, 1992
Hel 19
the building of the water tower.
Mr. Strip emphasized that the problem is not water supply, but rather water pressure.
Chief Bostic added that he will be recommending that the project at Wilcox and Tuttle Road
be put on hold until water calculations are obtained. There is a growing concern about
~ adequate water pressure in the area.
Mayor Rozanski asked Chief Bostic if the valve at Tuttle Crossing and Britton Parkway is
still closed off from Columbus.
Chief Bostic stated that it was closed at one time, but he does not know if it is closed now.
Mr. Kranstuber asked for a report from staff on this issue.
Mr. Hansley responded that it was still closed as of two weeks ago.
Mrs. King stated that there is a Public Safety Committee meeting scheduled for Thursday,
January 14 at 8:00 a.m.. An agenda item for this meeting will be adequate fireflows for the
Southwest area.
Mr. Hansley stated that Dan Boothe, water consultant for the City, could be invited to give
an update at either the Safety Committee meeting or at a later Council meeting. Staff is
close to bringing the specifications to Council -perhaps at the second January meeting - to
go to bid to build the water tower within the Blazer Parkway area. Staff is hopeful that
construction of this tower will begin late in 1993.
Mr. Campbell commented that it is important to come to some resolution on the rezoning
before Council tonight. The final development plan still will need to come before Planning
Commission. If a water shortage is determined to exist, the developer will not be able to
obtain building permits and the entire process will then stop. The issue before Council
tonight is the land use and whether the multi-family use is appropriate. In the present
Southwest Community Plan, this property was designated as office use. The adjoining
residents would like this to be single-family. The subject property is a site between single-
family units to the west and a proposed rehabilitation facility.
Mr. Campbell asked for clarification of whether Council can legally not impose the
condition set by Planning Commission wherein the applicant must obtain additional approval
of governing text and plan prior to the issuance of building permits. He assumes, and
Mayor Rozanski confirmed, that it will take atwo-thirds or 5 out of 7 vote to override the
recommendations of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Ruma stated that, if Council desires, he is willing to come back to both Planning
Commission and Council with the plans.
Mayor Rozanski asked about the south side of the project along the proposed relocation of
Wilcox Road and whether the brick pillar/wood/landscaping fence planned for the single-
family development would be continued along this project.
Mr. Ruma stated that the subject property has an outstanding tree line along the property
line. Installing any other type of fencing on Wilcox Road would destroy this tree line.
In response to Mr. Kranstuber's comment, Mr. Ruma provided rationale for the tennis
courts in lieu of parkland. He stated that the condominium development will house very
few children, based on similar projects they have previously built. There will be no need
for a tot lot facility at this location. There are also additional parklands designated in
proposed developments in the area, i.e. 13 acres in the Ruscilli project, and the southwest
corner of the Remarks piece will be parkland.
Bill Yoder~Southwest Area Residents Association, read asix-page prepared statement,
attached and incorporated herein by reference, to Council regarding the association's
RECORD OF PROCEED[NGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Page 5 Meeting
YfON L AL
December 21, 1992
Held 19
concerns about this rezoning. (Also sent to Council prior to meeting.)
Mr. Kranstuber asked for clarification from legal counsel about whether Council was
approving a development plan this evening or a rezoning.
Mr. Smith responded that Council is simply approving a rezoning. It would be very
impractical to require a developer to expend monies to submit detailed development plans
prior to obtaining the rezoning for the property.
Discussion followed about the submission requirements for a rezoning and the process
currently in place.
Mr. Campbell suggested that Council bring this discussion to closure by proceeding to vote.
Mr. Kranstuber stated that he is basically supportive of this application in consideration of
the changed road network. He does have concerns, as raised by Mr. Yoder, regazding the
Code requirements for arrangement for areas; the private roads issue; and residential density
higher than adjacent land within 100 feet. He asked Mr. Smith to comment.
Mr. Strip asked for clarification of the requirement in the Planning & Zoning Code on page
147 that the developer submit three copies of a development plan with an application to
amend the Zoning District Map.
Mr. Campbell responded that the map submitted does conform to all of Items A through G
listed on Page 147. He offered to brief Council on the discussion which took place at
Planning & Zoning. He expressed concern that the Planning & Zoning Commission has
.W already reviewed this application at length and questioned the need for further discussion
by Council of the same issues. He further noted that the Committee structure does not seem
to be functioning in the manner in which it was intended. The Commission, the staff, and
the Law Department all have approved this application and recommend approval by
Council.
He stated that the issue to be decided this evening is whether multi-family is appropriate on
this site. If it is judged an appropriate use by Council, the next issue becomes whether
there is sufficient information to ensure that the development plan submission requirements
have been met. Many of the issues raised tonight will be addressed at the platting stage.
Mr. Smith responded that the criteria as set forth in the Code have been met per review by
staff. Council will decide if the use is appropriate under the proposed zoning. Staff will
do further detail review at the final development plan stage.
Mr. Kranstuber stated that Mr. Yoder has raised issues which point out some of the
inconsistencies in the Code. The Code is somewhat outdated and azchaic. If Council
cannot rely on the Code, it may lead to arbitrary decision-making on the basis of what
works instead of what the law requires.
Mrs. King expressed concern about Council disregarding the law because it is out of date
and unworkable. More importantly, she is concerned that Council does not have enough
information tonight to determine if this zoning density meets the requirements of the Code
on this particular parcel of property.
Mr. Ruma responded that he is prepared to demonstrate that his plan meets each and every
requirement of the Code. Mr. Yoder has taken things out of context.
Mayor Rozanski stated that there will be more information presented to staff, P&Z, and
Council prior to the issuance of any building permits.
Mr. Ruma confirmed that if the rezoning is approved, he will return to P&Z with
preliminazy building and engineering plans; after their approval, he will bring the plans to
Council for approval.
Ms. Clazke added clarification regazding some issues raised eazlier tonight:
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Page 6 Meeting
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK O., F R N .
December 21, 1992
Held 19
1. On a rezoning application, the applicant specifically signs a disclaimer form on
utility availability. It states that the City will make its best effort to have services,
including water and sewer, available to the site, but the City does not in any way
guarantee that the utilities will be available at the time the applicant wishes to
' develop.
2. Regarding the open space provision on this site, it remains .2 acre less than the
~ requirement of 1.8 acres. The Parks & Recreation Committee has not reviewed this
plan due to problems with their recent meeting schedule. During staff discussions,
it was suggested that the corner piece would be better utilized as open space to
provide a more spacious site plan than to provide .8 acre parkland. This issue was
resolved by assuring that the City would not incur additional maintenance costs for
this piece, as the developer or homeowners' association is required to mow the
piece. This is a condition contained in the Planning Commission's Record of
Action.
3. The Planning Commission also voted to recommend an update of the adopted
Southwest Area Plan which would re-designate this site from office to multi-family.
Mr. Kranstuber commented in regard to the earlier discussion regarding the current Code.
He believes the law is somewhat confusing and should be cleaned up; he did not mean to
infer that what Council is doing is not in accordance with the law. He also noted that this
entire two-hour discussion involves only 47 units to be built on 6.5 acres; he does not
believe this development will have a major impact on water supply in the Southwest area.
Mr. Campbell noted that an approval of this rezoning by Council will include all of the
conditions imposed by Planning Commission.
Vote on the Ordinance - Mr. Strip, yes; Mr. Amorose, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr.
Campbell, yes; Mrs. King, yes; Mayor Rozanski, yes.
Ordinance No. 119-92 - An Ordinance Adopting aFive-Year Capital Improvements
Program for 1992 to 1996. (Tabled Ordinance)
Mr. Strip, Finance Committee Chairperson, stated that Council must come back into session
this year to adopt a temporary budget if the budget is not passed tonight. He proposes that
the CIP program be taken off the table, along with the operating budget, and that both be
adopted tonight as temporary and interim until next month, with the following
understandings: a) that it is temporary and that funds are not encumbered which are not
consistent with prior actions of Council; b) no hiring implementations or any staffing
changes/department changes until the final budget is approved. He anticipates final budget
approval next month. The Finance Committee has completed its review, and the
recommendations of Council now must be collated, presented, discussed, and adjustments
then made for final budget adoption.
Mr. Hansley recommended that the CIP Ordinance be adopted this evening as written. He
added that this CIP is basically the same document passed last year, with the addition of the
Justice Center and the Recreation Center -projects either underway or soon to be underway.
, Regarding Ordinance No. 120-92, staff recommends that it be adopted as emergency
legislation to avoid having a special meeting of Council late this year. Staff is in agreement
with following the directive of Council in recognizing that the 1992 budget will be
maintained and that no commitments be made for new staffing or programs unless requested
of Council in January.
Mayor Rozanski pointed out that there is a big difference in the cash portion of the CIP this
year.
Mr. Hansley responded that the cash portion, technically, is part of both documents and
staff would not make any commitments involving these funds pending approval from
Council. He added that the dollar amount will not change as it was calculated per the
formula established in the five-year CIP process last year. The project mix may still be
debated in the next budget session.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Page 7 Meeting
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK
December 21, 1992
Held - -19
Mrs. King asked about the capital portion of the operating budget, and suggested that the
ordinance be amended to specify that funds on page 88 should remain unspent until the
adoption of the final budget. This would enable adoption of the amount without specifying
the items included.
Mr. Hansley responded that this could be made part of a motion of adoption. He suggested
~ leaving in the caveat of "unless previously, specifically approved by Council." He gave the
example of the funding for acquisition of the land for the Chill agreement to allow for a
closing date prior to the next budget meeting in January. He stated that staff clearly
understands the intention of Council in the discussion tonight.
Mr. Strip moved to take from the table Ordinance 119-92 and adopt it as an interim,
temporary document pending further review by Council.
Mr. Amorose seconded the motion.
Vote on Ordinance 119-92 - Mrs. King, yes; Mr. Amorose, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes; Mr.
Kranstuber, yes; Mayor Rozanski, yes; Mr. Strip, yes.
Ordinance No. 120-92 - An Ordinance to Adopt the Proposed Operating Budget and
Cash Capital Budget for the 1993 Fiscal Year. (Tabled Ordinance)
Mr. Strip moved to take from the table Ordinance 120-92, the annual operating budget as
presented in its last amended form; that it be adopted as an interim, temporary measure,
pending final approval by Council with stipulations that no expenditures or staffing be made
in reliance on this budget unless previously approved by Council or approved by specific
ordinance by Council.
Mr. Amorose seconded the motion.
Mr. Strip moved to adopt this as emergency legislation.
Mr. Kranstuber seconded the motion.
Vote on the Emergency legislation motion - Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Strip, yes; Mrs.
King, yes; Mr. Amorose, yes; Mayor Rozanski, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes.
Vote on Ordinance No. 120-92 - Mr. Campbell, yes; Mr. Amorose, yes; Mrs. King, yes;
Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Strip, yes; Mayor Rozanski, yes.
Resolution No. 45-92 (Amended) - A Resolution Amending Resolutions 26-89 and 19-90
Establishing a Community Reinvestment Area Within the City of Dublin and Declaring
an Emergency. (Tabled Resolution)
Mr. Amorose moved to take this from the table.
Mrs. King seconded the motion.
Vote on the Motion - Mr. Strip, yes; Mayor Rozanski, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes; Mr.
Amorose, yes; Mrs. King, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes.
Mr. Smith stated that staff is recommending that Council strike the emergency language in
Section 7 and in the title. The change in this amended version is that the two residential
units previously approved for abatement, Lots 82 and 144, stand approved. The remainder
of applications for abatement are denied in this version. The property owners who have
been denied have obtained legal counsel who have met with Mr. Smith. They intend to
challenge this in a declaratory judgment action which will be filed within 30 days. For this
reason, staff is recommending that the resolution not be passed by emergency. The Dublin
School Board will be involved and defend this on behalf of the City. He explained that this
abatement district was originally drawn too large in error by staff. This resolution will
correct the error and will not affect the two abatements already granted.
He added hat he is requesting that the emergency language be removed in order to
accommod~l~ the applicants who wish to seek appropriate remedies in the courts.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Page 8 Meeting
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK F RM N 1
December 21, 1992
Hela 19
Mr. Kranstuber moved to amend the Resolution to strike the emergency language in the title
and to strike Section 7 containing emergency language.
Mr. Amorose seconded the motion.
Vote on the Motion - Mr. Stri es• Ma or Rozanski es• Mr. Cam bell es• Mr.
P~ Y~ Y ~ Y ~ P ~ Y
Amorose, yes; Mrs. King, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes.
Bob Stasia, 5858 Chatterfield Drive, Llewellyn resident, stated he is representing individual,
personal residences within the Tuttle Road Community Reinvestment Area who currently
have pending applications for property tax abatement, per Resolutions 26-89 and 19-90.
1. According to language in the original resolution, the Tuttle Road C.R.A. was established
only after Council had "conducted various surveys of this and other areas of the City,
including but not limited to, traffic and master planning activities. " The resolution further
pointed out that the Tuttle Road area had been reviewed to ensure that this area "included
housing facilities." In essence, in 1989 when Council approved the CRA, much discussion
took place among all entities involved.
2. Six months later, in May of 1990, the City had another opportunity to evaluate and
clarify the Tuttle Road C.R.A. whereupon Council proceeded to place various time
limitations for abatement as well as restate the proposition that the resolution shall be
applicable to 100 percent of the value of all improvements constructed on such parcels. In
other words, Council was aware of not only what the area of the map was, but what the
ramifications of what was being developed in that area.
3. The May amendment was prompted because the abatement application for Information
Dimensions, Inc. was pending and could not be passed without Council evaluating and
clarifying the original Tuttle Road C.R.A. resolution. Subsequently, this application was
approved despite the fact that the new IDI building was neither of any historical significance
nor involved in the rehabilitation of any economically disadvantaged area.
4. One year later, in mid-1991, an application for abatement for a new residence in
Llewellyn Farms was granted to be effective for the 1992 tax year.
5. As recently as 1991, this year, the City had a fourth opportunity to evaluate the map as
originally proposed for the Tuttle C.R.A. when a second Llewellyn Farms resident was
granted an abatement to be effective for the 1993 tax year. These two residences have the
abatements which will remain in effect after passage of the amended resolution.
6. It is the residents' position that the pending applications for abatement meet the statutory
requirements of the Ohio Revised Code, Section 3735.67 in that they all involve "new
structures or remodeling completed after the effective date of the resolution authorizing the
Tuttle Road C.R.A." This means that all applications pending had a Certificate of
Occupancy after November of 1989. Under this same statute in the ORC, the Housing
Officer or, in this case, an acting Housing Officer or the Mayor, since Mr. Bowman is no
longer working for the City, had no alternative but to forward any such applications to the
Franklin County Auditor once it was determined that the construction was in the area as
drawn and completed after the effective date of the C.R.A. resolution. It is not the fault
of the residents that the City of Dublin does not have a Housing Officer to review the
applications; it is the City's responsibility to fill this vacancy or appoint an acting person
or the Mayor to review the applications. In addition, even if the applications were denied
administratively by the Housing Officer, an appeal would lie in the Housing Counsel,
mandated by the Ohio Revised Code. The residents are unaware of any denial of their
applications or any appeal procedure presently established in Dublin. He stated that, under
the statute, the Housing Officer is to certify qualified applications to the county auditor for
the abatement; there is no discretion allowed by the Housing Officer.
7. Now that a significant number of applications have been filed,the City wants to redraw
the Tuttle Road C.R.A. map to greatly reduce the number. of residential abatement
applications. If granted, the sum total of all residential applications would only amount to
less than one-fourth of the abatement granted to IDI. Certainly, the Llewellyn Farms
residents weren't any less contemplated than the IDI building by the original resolution.
8. He concluded by stating that the City should not pass this resolution which redraws the
Tuttle Road C.R.A., and should exempt from such legislation any pending applications for
abatement which have been unduly delayed without justification.
Mr. Smith responded that Council had relied upon staff in the original action and there had
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Page 9 Meeting
DAYTON LE AL BLANK O., N
December 21, 1992
Held 19
been an error made in the drawing of the district. The residents will have an opportunity
to appeal to the court on this issue.
Mr. Campbell asked for clarification about counsel representing the residents.
Mr. Stasia stated that Bruce Heine and Mike Gunner will represent the 8 residents who will
° pursue the litigation. He is simply one of the residents involved.
Mr. Campbell asked how many applications were pending at the time this reconsideration
process began.
Mr. Stasia stated that there were 11 at that time on file. He further commented that two
of the pending applicants have now sold their homes and thus would not be involved in
litigation. In negotiations between Mr. Smith and Mr. Heine, the residents are willing to
negotiate by making the abatements to the owners and not the property; the abatements
would end with the sale of the home. One of the 11 has decided not to be included in
litigation. Thus there are 8 involved in this action.
Mr. Campbell commented that Council and the City are in an awkward position, and the
schools receive the taxes which would be abated -not the City. Council made an error in
previously approving this district, and sympathizes with the residents. In earlier
discussions, Council members clearly agreed that the two applicants who had investigated
the abatements prior to the purchase of their property, and who subsequently applied and
received abatements, are entitled to retain the abatements. An issue remains regarding the
potential retroactive effective date which is why he asked how many applications had been
- submitted prior to the introduction of Resolution 45-92.
Mr. Stasia confirmed that the 11 applicants had all submitted applications prior to the
introduction of Resolution 45-92. He also confirmed that all residents had learned of the
available abatement and had applied for such prior to the time the City decided to redraw
the district.
Mayor Rozanski stated that he had served on Council at the time the Tuttle Road C.R.A.
was established. Each individual case was to be brought to Council for review. Council
members were surprised to learn that two residential homes were granted tax abatements.
Mr. Campbell stated that he understands that to have a community reinvestment area, some
residential property must be included. Therefore, there must have been some contemplation
at the time it was originally passed that the residential properties could be granted
abatement. But by voting as Mr. Smith has recommended, Council will give the residents
and the school board an opportunity to resolve the issue.
Vote on the Amended Resolution - Mr. Strip, yes; Mayor Rozanski, yes; Mr. Campbell,
yes; Mr. Amorose, yes; Mrs. King, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes.
Ordinance No. 122-92 -Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a
Contract for Residential Solid Waste Management Services. (Third Reading)
Mr. Smith stated that he had provided a legal opinion to Council on December 17 regarding
this contract award. Counsel for the second low bidder, Johnson Disposal, had raised
several issues which they believed would invalidate the Rumpke bid. It is his opinion that
any such deficiencies could well be characterized as non-material, waivable irregularities
which would not prohibit the City from awarded the contract to Rumpke -the low bidder.
He conveyed this information to Mr. Dolan, counsel for Johnson, on Thursday of last week.
Mr. McDaniel reviewed with Council the three decisions from Council to be made this
evening in regard to the legislation:
1. Choosing the pay-per-bag program for yard waste or the flat rate per household for
yard waste collection. The Service Committee, Solid Waste Advisory Committee,
and staff all have recommended continuation of the pay-per-bag program.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Page 10 Meeting
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO.. F RM N
December 21, 1992
Hela 19
2. Passage of the ordinance itself with the bid award.
3. Adding emergency language, as requested by staff, in order to waive the 30-day
waiting period so that the new contract will be in effect on January 1, 1993.
' Mr. Amorose asked about the accuracy of the $32,000 figure for leaf collection.
~ Mr. McDaniel responded that the records are still being compiled, but he believes the final
figure may be closer to $40,000.
Mr. Amorose stated that since the City already owns the equipment for leaf collection, the
only additional cost in continuation would be some maintenance, labor, and operating
expenses. He is concerned about some of the older residents who reside on large lots and
the difficulty of bagging all of the debris which accumulates on properties of this size. He
encourages maintaining some type of option for these residents.
Mr. McDaniel responded that staff, Service Committee and the Solid Waste Advisory
Committee have all expressed the same concerns. He has discussed with the City Manager
the possibility of providing this service at an hourly rate or on a call-in basis as is done with
the chipper service.
Mrs. King stated that the Service Committee did not resolve this issue. She offered that
there are commercial services available to provide this service. She suggested providing
a call-in service which could be evaluated after a year for residents over age 65.
Discussion followed about the various options for leaf collection which could be
m implemented.
a Mr. Campbell moved to have the City continue to pick up leaves at least once a year, in the
fall.
Mr. Amorose seconded the motion.
Mr. Hansley asked for clarification.
Mr. Campbell moved to amend his motion that the City continue to do leaf pick-up three
times in the fall.
Mr. Amorose seconded the amended motion.
Vote on the Motion - Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes; Mrs. King, yes; Mayor
Rozanski,yes; Mr. Strip, yes; Mr. Amorose.
Mr. Campbell then moved to continue the pay-per-bag program for yard waste.
Mr. Amorose seconded the motion.
Vote on the Motion - Mr. Strip, yes; Mayor Rozanski, yes; Mrs. King, yes; Mr. Amorose,
yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes.
, Mr. McDaniel stated that the recommendation to award the bid to Rumpke would still stand,
as they were lower on the pay-per-bag program at 84 cents per bag for Monday collection
as opposed to $2.00 per bag for Johnson. Overall on the contract, there is a difference for
refuse and recycling: Rumpke was $6.25 per household while Johnson was $6.23 per
household. While Johnson appears to be the lower bid, the City is also responsible for the
bag which makes Rumpke the lower bid. In other words, the residents must purchase bags
at $2 with the Johnson contract, whereas with the Rumpke contract, the bag cost for
residents is $.84 -lower than last year's cost of $1.00.
Mr. Campbell stated that by approving the Rumpke bid, the residents will be committed to
$.84 per bag versus the Johnson bid where the bag would be $2.00.
Mr. Hansley stated that staff is also requesting that the ordinance be amended to include
emergency language.
RECORD OF PROCEED[NGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Page 11 Meeting
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK F R
December 21, 1992
Held 19
Mr. Campbell moved to amend the ordinance by inserting Rumpke in the title as the
company, and that the legislation be passed as an emergency on the basis that the contract
will expire, the bidding process has been completed, the contract must be in place by
January 1, 1993, and this is the last Council meeting of December.
Mr. Strip seconded the motion.
~ Vote on the Motion - Mr. Amorose, yes; Mayor Rozanski, yes; Mrs. King, yes; Mr.
Campbell, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Strip, yes.
Mr. Campbell requested that staff express appreciation to 7ohnson Disposal for their
excellent service over the past years, a time in which the pay-per-bag program was
implemented and recycling was introduced.
Mr. McDaniel commented that Johnson has been great to work with and has helped Dublin
to become progressive in waste management. Rumpke has assured staff that recycling bins
will be available, but he is hopeful that Johnson and Rumpke will work cooperatively on an
exchange of bins in the interim period. He added that the new contract calls for the bins
to become the property of the City of Dublin at the termination of the contract.
Vote on the Amended Ordinance - Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes; Mrs. King,
yes; Mayor Rozanski, yes; Mr. Strip, yes; Mr. Amorose, yes.
Mr. McDaniel introduced Bill Rumpke, Jr. and Shawn Meadows of Rumpke who will
coordinate operations with the City.
Ordinance 123-92 - An Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a New
Contract with the Law Director. (Third Reading)
Mr. Hansley stated that a survey has been provided to Council in response to their concerns
about this contract as expressed at the last readings. Staff continues to recommend that Mr.
Smith be re-appointed as Law Director.
Mr. Strip commented that he has done some review of the monies spent on legal fees by the
City. Based on the projected budget figures, he would have preferred to set fees for
Mayor's Court, Planning & Zoning, and other standard meetings on a fixed, annual basis,
but this cannot be done for the coming year at this point. The fees charged by the Law
Director for these standard meetings are very reasonable, and could not be duplicated in-
house at the same cost. Because the City of Dublin is such a dynamic, growing city, there
are many legal issues facing it as demonstrated this evening. While not completely satisfied
with the procedures used by staff, overall he recommends very strongly that the current
program be continued.
Mr. Hansley stated that a bidding process would be difficult for these services in view of
the Charter provision calling for aone-year contract for the Law Director. Staff will be
looking at the procedure for modifying the Charter in 1993. Council will be asked by staff
to consider a number of housekeeping type changes to the Charter.
w ~ Mr. Campbell commented that he agrees with Mr. Strip that the per hour rate being paid
R by the City at this time is a very competitive rate. The contract does include a rate
increase for 1993. He is very satisfied with the services and prepared to vote for the
contract.
Mayor Rozanski stated that the quality of service received by the Mayor's Court is
excellent. The success record speaks for itself.
Mr. Strip moved to treat this as emergency legislation.
Mr. Amorose seconded the motion.
Vote on the Motion - Mr. Campbell, yes; Mrs. King, yes; Mayor Rozanski, yes; Mr. Strip,
yes; Mr. Amorose, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Page 12 Meeting
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK F R
December 21, 1992
Held 19
Vote on the Ordinance - Mr. Strip, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Amorose, yes; Mrs.
King, yes; Mayor Rozanski, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes.
Ordinance No. 12492 - An Ordinance to Enter into a Health Services Contract with
the Franklin County Board of Health, and Declaring an Emergency. (Second Reading)
Mr. Hansley stated that staff s concern regarding the plumbing fees has been resolved.
Staff is recommending passage at this time.
Mr. Strip moved to waive the three-time reading rule and treat as emergency legislation.
Mr. Kranstuber seconded the motion.
Vote on the Motion -Mayor Rozanski, yes; Mr. Strip, yes; Mr. Amorose, yes; Mr.
Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes; Mrs. King (absent).
Vote on the Ordinance - Mr. Amorose, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes;
Mayor Rozanski, yes; Mr. Strip, yes; Mrs. King (absent).
Ordinance No. 128-92 - An Ordinance to Establish Fees for Shelter House Reservations
in Parks. (Second Reading)
Mr. Hansley stated that the language has been revised to clarify that these fees are not for
general public usage of the facilities, but are instead fees for a special reserved use. Staff
recommends holding this over for a third reading.
David Allen, intern, stated that he did the research as part of his internship with the Parks
Department last summer. He offered to answer any questions Council may have.
Mr. Kranstuber commented that Mr. Allen had given a lengthy presentation to the Parks &
Recreation Committee on this subject, and he thanked him for his assistance.
There will be a third reading of the Ordinance at the January 4, 1993 Council meeting.
Resolution No. 47-92 - A Resolution Requesting the Delaware and Franklin County
Auditors to Draw and the Delaware and Franklin County Treasurers to Issue a Draft
to the Director of Finance of the City of Dublin for Any Money That May Be in the
County Treasury to the Account of the City of Dublin. (Second Reading)
Staff recommends that this be held over for a third reading.
There will be a third reading of the Resolution at the January 4, 1993 Council meeting.
Resolution No. 48-92 - A Resolution Adopting the ICMA (International City
Management Association) Retirement Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan and
Authorizing the City Manager to Execute All Necessary Agreements Incidental to the
Administration of Said Plan. (Second Reading)
Mr. Hansley reminded Council that there is no cost to the City involved with this - it is
merely a mechanism for an individual to contract with ICMA for this service.
There will be a third reading of the Resolution at the January 4, 1993 Council meeting.
Ordinance No. 132-92 - An Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an
Amended Inducement Agreement with Central Ohio Ice Rinks, Inc. to Assist in the
Construction of Outdoor Ice Facilities, and Declaring an Emergency.
Mr. Strip introduced the Ordinance.
Mr. Hansley stated that Central Ohio Ice Rinks, Inc. or "COIR" is the successor to the
Columbus Chill who will obtain the financing and do the project on behalf of the Columbus
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Page 13 Meeting
DAYTON LE AL BLANK
December 21, 1992
Held 19
Chill. Staff is confident that this agreement will lead to the building of two ice rinks instead
of the previously agreed one rink. He highlighted the agreement:
1. It continues the provision that at the end of 25 years the City will own whatever
facilities are located on the land the City is bringing to the project.
" 2. Under this new agreement, the City will waive its portion of the utility tap fees and
any inspection fees since the City is a co-partner in the project. The City has
specifically not waived the Columbus portion of fees which would have required a
cash payment from the City. The total package of fees waived depends on the size
of the facility, but it will be under $50,000.
3. A provision is included agreeing that the facility will be alcohol-free, except by
mutual agreement of the parties, i.e. for special events approved separately and
specifically by City Council. This is necessary because of a City ordinance
prohibiting alcohol sales on City-owned land.
4. Another provision calls for the City to act as consultant to the facility for some
operating concerns. These will be identified specifically in the operating agreement.
5. Subject to further negotiation will be a City commitment not to build a competing
facility.
6. The public skating and programs will be defined in the operating agreement.
7. There was concern that the City would require additional parking to meet Code for
the facility over and above that recommended by the design team. The City has
committed to pay for any additional land needed to provide parking. The Planning
staff has confirmed that no additional land will be needed for parking to meet Code.
However, if the applicant decides to include additional parking beyond what is
required by Code, this land will be at their expense.
- Staff is recommending adoption of this agreement by emergency legislation tonight. The
next step will be to establish an operating agreement within the next week. Groundbreaking
is still scheduled for early February.
Mr. Smith stated that the projection is to have the operational agreement and the lease in
place in 45 days to accommodate a closing at the end of January. Projected grand opening
is September.
Mr. Hansley added that the Chill will return to town for practices beginning in September.
He added that the purchase of the ground will not be consummated until all other
agreements are in order.
Mr. Smith stated that there is a clause which allows one extension of time for the land
purchase.
Mr. Hansley mentioned that the investors for the project have approached some banks
regarding financing, and are confident that it will be obtained.
Mayor Rozanski added that the bankers were very interested in providing financing for the
project in view of the partnership with the City of Dublin.
Mr. Kranstuber moved to waive the three-time reading rule and pass as emergency
legislation.
to Mrs. King seconded the motion.
Vote on the Motion - Mr. Strip, yes; Mrs. King, yes; Mayor Rozanski, yes; Mr. Campbell,
yes; Mr. Amorose, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes.
Vote on the Ordinance - Mr. Amorose, yes; Mayor Rozanski, yes; Mr. Strip, yes; Mrs.
King, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes.
Ordinance No.133-92 - An Ordinance Amending the Annual Appropriations Ordinance
for the Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 1992, and Declaring an Emergency. (First
Reading)
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Page 14 Meeting
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK R
December 21, 1992
Held 19
Mr. Amorose introduced the Ordinance.
Mr. Hansley commented that this is the year's final appropriating ordinance and pertains
to the street lighting project and the Tuller Road project. Ms. Grigsby's memorandum
" provides more information.
Mr. Amorose moved to waive the three-time reading rule and treat as emergency legislation.
Mr. Strip seconded the motion.
Vote on the Motion - Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes; Mrs. King, yes; Mayor
Rozanski, yes; Mr. Strip, yes; Mr. Amorose, yes.
Vote on the Ordinance - Mr. Campbell, yes; Mr. Strip, yes; Mr. Amorose, yes; Mr.
Kranstuber, yes; Mrs. King, yes; Mayor Rozanski, yes.
At this point, Mr. Sutphen arrived at the meeting (10:45 p.m.).
Ordinance No. 13492 - An Ordinance to Establish Appropriations for Current
Expenses and Other Expenditures of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, During the
Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 1993, and Declaring an Emergency. (First Reading)
Mr. Strip introduced the Ordinance and moved to waive the three-time reading rule and pass
as emergency legislation.
Mr. Amorose seconded the motion.
Mr. Hansley stated that this is a companion ordinance to the budget ordinance adopted
earlier this evening. Staff understands that the same restrictions would apply to this
ordinance as to the budget ordinance.
Vote on the Motion - Mr. Campbell, yes; Mrs. King, yes; Mayor Rozanski, yes; Mr. Strip,
yes; Mr. Sutphen, yes; Mr. Amorose, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes.
Vote on the Ordinance -Mayor Rozanski, yes; Mr. Sutphen, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr.
Campbell, yes; Mrs. King, yes; Mr. Strip, yes; Mr. Amorose, yes.
Ordinance No. 135-92 - An Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a
Contract on Behalf of the City of Dublin, Ohio, with the City of Columbus, Ohio
Whereby Columbus Will Provide Water Services to the City of Dublin, and Declaring
an Emergency. (First Reading)
Mr. Strip introduced the Ordinance.
He then moved to waive the three-time reading rule and treat as emergency legislation.
Mr. Hansley commented that staff has just received the proposed water contract and
following further review, will likely recommend adoption at the second reading as
emergency legislation.
Mr. Strip withdrew his motion.
.
Mr. Hansley further commented that this 50-year contract with Columbus has been in
negotiation for over four years. It was one of four issues identified by Council in January
to be addressed during 1992. The City of Columbus has passed both the sewer and water
contracts and they will be effective in 30 days.
Mr. Campbell commented that in Section 4, where the contract states that the water supply
shall be restricted for usage within the corporate limits and those areas designated by the
new water contract boundary and the Dublin exclusive expansion area, he wants to be sure
that Dublin will have the right to obtain water in the negotiated expansion area. He also
pointed out a typographical error on page 8, where it states "for non-payment off bills", it
should state "of" bills.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Page 15 Meeting
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO.. FORM N
December 21, 1992
Held 19
Mrs. King asked about page 3 of the water contract, where it states that, "the City of
Columbus may construct and maintain such elevated storage facilities as it deems necessary
in the City of Dublin," and if Columbus intends to do so.
~ Mr. Hansley responded that this language is a carryover from the present contract and is
included in all suburban contracts. As far as staff knows, Columbus has no intention of
" building a tower within the City of Dublin limits.
Mrs. King is hopeful that this contract heralds a new era of regional cooperation and
movement toward shared costs for shared benefits.
There will be a second reading of the Ordinance at the January 4, 1993 Council meeting.
Ordinance No. 136-92 - An Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a
Contract on Behalf of the City of Dublin, Ohio, with the City of Columbus, Ohio
Whereby Columbus Will Provide Sewer Services to the City of Dublin, and Declaring
an Emergency. (First Reading)
Mrs. King introduced the Ordinance.
Mr. Hansley recommended that Council strike the emergency language. He also suggests
they waive the three readings which would allow execution of the contract around the time
that the Columbus ordinance is effective. The timeframe is important so that engineering
and construction of the West Bank sewer can begin as soon as possible.
Mr. Smith commented that an actual signing will be scheduled in January, and both
Councils and Administration members will be present.
Mr. Hansley added that the framework established by Council in January enabled staff to
negotiate the water and sewer contracts. He acknowledged Mr. Foegler's and Mr. Smith's
efforts in resolving the issues which had precluded the establishment of new contracts.
Mr. Campbell pointed out on page 4, paragraph "j", where Columbus agrees to forthwith
proceed with the completion of the engineering and design of Dublin's portion of the sewer,
and asked if they will also proceed with construction.
Mr. Foegler responded that the intent is that Columbus will proceed with engineering and
design even though the West Branch agreement is not yet executed.
Mr. Campbell also pointed out a typo in Section 8, Page 10 where it says the agreement
shall remain in effect for "any" additional three-year period.
Mr. Smith confirmed that this should state "an" additional three-year period and this
correction will be made.
Mr. Strip moved to strike the emergency language and waive the three-time reading rule.
Mrs. King seconded the motion.
, Vote on the Motion -Mayor Rozanski, yes; Mr. Strip, yes; Mr. Sutphen, yes; Mr.
Amorose, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes; Mrs. King, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes.
Vote on the Ordinance - Mr. Sutphen, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes; Mrs. King, yes; Mayor
Rozanski, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Amorose, yes; Mr. Strip, yes.
Other
Discussion regarding Possible Signa~e on Dublinshire Extension
Mr. Foegler stated that the City Engineer has submitted a report for Council consideration
addressing the impact of the proposed flashers. If Council chooses to proceed with
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Page 16 Meeting
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK F RM N .
December 21, 1992
Held 19
standard, side-mounted flashers in the area, staff is in a position to do so.
Mr. Sutphen commented that he believes school flashers should be installed which would
flash during restricted hours.
Mayor Rozanski noted that he had originally requested that staff investigate the need for this
~ signage. He has never had a case before him in Mayor's Court for school zone speeders
except in the areas where flashers are located. Officers are reluctant to write speeding
tickets in school zones due to confusion over restricted hours.
Mrs. King asked about the cost of flashers on Muirfield Drive near Scottish Corners school.
Mr. Kindra reported that the cost was approximately $14,000. His estimate for the
Dublinshire signage is less because mast arms would not be used for this installation. The
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices recommends a flasher which accompanies the
speed limit sign in two-lane urban areas.
Mr. Kindra recommends that the crosswalk be repainted and that school signage be installed
in front of the school. He also recommends that no parking be permitted in front of the
school to aid in visibility. This situation can be re-evaluated at a later date and flashers
added if necessary.
Mr. Hansley added that if Council believes that flashers should be added, this can be done.
Mrs. King asked if these improvements could be constructed within the public right-of--way.
Mr. Kindra stated that this is possible, as there is a bikepath in front of the school and a
sidewalk on the other side of Dublinshire.
Chief Ferrell commented that there are many dissimilarities between the Phoenix area
described in Mr. Kindra's report and the Dublin area. The police division favors the
installation of flashing lights for enforcement purposes.
Mayor Rozanski personally believes Council should follow the recommendations of the City
Engineer.
Mr. Sutphen moved to install all of the recommended signage for street markings and
signage, including two school zone signs to blink during the restricted hours.
Mr. Campbell seconded the motion.
Mrs. King proposed an amendment to the motion. In addition to painting the crosswalk,
parking would also be restricted in front of the school as recommended by the City
Engineer.
Mr. Sutphen and Mr. Campbell accepted the amendment.
Vote on the Amended Motion - Mr. Strip, yes; Mr. Sutphen, yes; Mr. Amorose, yes; Mr.
Campbell, yes; Mrs. King, yes; Mayor Rozanski, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes.
Proposed Dates for 1993 Council Meetings
Mayor Rozanski asked for discussion from Council regarding meetings dates which fall on
City and federal holidays -July 5 and September 6. He recommended moving the July 5
date to July 12, and moving the September 6 meeting to September 13.
Discussion followed.
Mrs. King moved to eliminate the July 5 meeting.
Mr. Sutphen seconded the motion.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Page 17 Meeting
A N L L
December 21, 1992
Held 19
Vote on the Motion - Mr. Amorose, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes; Mrs.
King, yes; Mayor Rozanski, yes; Mr. Strip, yes; Mr. Sutphen, yes.
Mr. Sutphen moved to change the September 6 meeting to September 13.
" Mr. Kranstuber seconded the motion.
Vote on the Motion - Mr. Amorose, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes; Mrs. King, yes; Mayor
Rozanski, yes; Mr. Strip, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Sutphen, yes.
Board and Commission Candidate Interview Dates
Mayor Rozanski commented that there are just a few openings to be filled this year, and
copies of applications have been forwarded to Council members.
Following discussion, it was the consensus of Council to meet on Saturday, December 26
at 9 a.m. for preliminary review, and Saturday, January 2 beginning at 9 a.m. to interview
candidates.
Reports from Council Committees
Mr. Strip, Finance Committee, suggested that the Committee meet on Monday, January 11
at 7 p. m. for final review of the budget. He added that the changes suggested by Council
will be compiled and sent out within the next few days.
Mr. Kranstuber, Land Use Committee, stated that a letter has been sent out to Council
regarding the Economic Development plan. It was the consensus of Council to discuss this
on December 26 after the Board and Commission preliminary review.
Regarding the Community Recreation Center Committee, Mr. Kranstuber stated that he has
a videotape of the Community Center in Brecksville which is available for anyone who is
interested. He added that Moody-Nolan was selected as the architect for the Community
Recreation Center.
Mr. Strip, Finance Committee, stated that the Committee will meet sometime in January to
review bed tax applications.
Comments from Staff
Mr. Hanslev stated that some confusion remains about the Economic Development Plan, the
marketing plan, and related committees. He has given Mr. Campbell and Mr. Kranstuber
copies of a memorandum from Mr. Foegler which attempts to clarify the programs. Mr.
Hansley gave copies to the rest of Council, and suggested that if they have questions or
concerns to contact him. He also suggested that this program be discussed at the January
11 budget meeting.
Mr. Foegler stated that the results have been compiled for the Issue 2 applications, and the
Coffman Road bridge project was the highest rated project, resulting in the maximum
eligible amount under this program as well as a $350,000 contribution from the County
Engineer. The Dublin portion of this project is included within the capital budget.
The results also indicate that if additional monies become available or if projects rated above
it do not take place, the Billingsley Ditch detention basin would likely be funded.
Mr. Hansley added that these projects were both looked upon favorably as they are joint
projects with other government jurisdictions: with the county on the Coffman Road bridge
project and with the City of Columbus on the Billingsley Ditch project.
Mr. Coleman thanked Council for passing the budget on a temporary basis, as it will require
less additional work for the department. The actual operating document, after final changes,
will be distributed to Council.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Page 18 Meeting
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK R
December 21, 1992
Held 19
Mayor Rozanski congratulated Bobbie Clarke who was officially named Planning Director
last week.
Mr. Kindra stated that the traffic control box in front of the Dublin Village Center sign has
' been relocated. The second lane on Tuller Road has now been paved, and two-way traffic
will begin this week. In early January, the street lights on 161 will be turned on.
Ms. Puskarcik pointed out the recent articles in Business First featuring Mr. Foegler and
the City's efforts in economic development and Jon Nelms with the City's mapping system.
Mr. Lenz announced that the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio has voted in favor of
charter cities in the Middleburg Heights issue by a vote of 4-3. This will allow cities to
adopt regulations in excess of those established by the State Board of Building Standards.
Secondly, after months of review and with the assistance of Joe Reidel and Carol
Olshavsky, the Committee has selected the firm of Moody-Nolan for the Community
Center. He passed information out to Council about the Moody-Nolan firm.
Chief Bostic reported that the Toys for Tots collection is going very well. They will be
taking donations until 5 or 6 p. m on Christmas eve.
Council Roundtable
Mr. Campbell expressed concern that the Council Committee system is theoretically set up
to provide better allocation of all Council members' time. The committee system calls for
members to conduct hearings, take testimony, and make recommendation to Council. This
would avoid re-hashing all of the evidence and would greatly streamline the process. He
suggests that Council: 1) more closely monitor time by referring appropriate issues to
Committee instead of dealing with issues as full Council; 2) restructure Committee
allocations to better define function and members for committees, possibly adding a member
to Committees which are tackling numerous issues.
He commented on the tremendous progress made in the downtown Dublin area over the past
few months. The traffic flows better and the appearance is much improved. He
commended staff for maintaining the timetables set for the projects.
Mr. Sutphen commented that although traffic in downtown Dublin is improved, the back-up
going east on 161 to Sawmill has been considerable. He suggested that this situation be
investigated for possible coordination of signals.
Mr. Amorose stated that he has heard many positive comments about the downtown
improvements. He mentioned that the City needs to continue to push for improvements to
the Sawmill/270 intersection where a cloverleaf design intersection is needed. He wished
everyone a happy holiday season.
Mr. Strip noted that the architects chosen for the Community Center also worked on the
Columbus Airport and Convention Center. He reported that he will be away on vacation
for the first January meeting and wished everyone happy holidays. He believes 1993 will
be a banner year for the City of Dublin.
~ Mr. Kranstuber stated that the architects chosen for the Community Center project have
stated that they can tighten down the timeframe. He commented that Council seems to
spend inordinate amounts of time on small issues and then neglects major issues due to time
constraints. He expressed concern with the structure of the Committees and the need for
better communication about to the rest of Council about their functions and workings.
Mayor Rozanski responded that the Public Service and Safety Committees seem to function
as designed. There is no mandatory involvement in the budget hearings, but everyone
seems to be interested.
Mr. Campbell responded that the Service and Safety Committees do function as intended.
Council generally adopts their recommendations following brief discussions.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Page 19 Meeting
N
December 21, 1992
Held 19
Mr. Strip concurred with Mr. Campbell. He recommended that Council implement time
constraints of 3 to 5 minutes for speakers.
Mr. Campbell stated that having visitors speak at the beginning of a meeting as he had
suggested is a great idea, but limits must be imposed to ensure that agenda items are
addressed.
Mr. Smith thanked Council for renewing the firm's contract. They will continue to try and
do a good job.
Mayor Rozanski thanked Mr. Smith and staff for completing the negotiations on the water
and sewer contracts. He also acknowledged Mayor Lashutka and his staff s efforts.
He wished everyone a Merry Christmas.
Mr. Hanslev updated Council on the other three "hot" spots (in addition to the water/sewer
contracts) identified by Council for 1992: an architect has been selected for the Community
Recreation Center and groundbreaking is still on track for March, 1994; the Southwest
quadrant plan update is proceeding as part of the update of the Community Plan; the
Economic Development Plan is well underway as reported in a memorandum by Council
Members Campbell and Kranstuber. All four of these have had major staff and Council
commitments during 1992.
Mayor Rozanski adjourned the meeting at 12:05 a.m.
May residing Offi
Clerk of Council
Southwest Area Residents Association
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE SWANSON REZONING
Presented to Dublin City Council
December 21,1992
My name is Bill Yoder and I represent the Southwest Area
residents Association. During the past presentations to P&Z
on this issue, we have discussed concerns as to the proper
zoning use of this parcel, how it relates to our
neighborhood and how it could serve its future residents.
I have furnished each of you with a copy of these concerns
and comments. Most of these concerns have been addressed
only by the developers verbal promises at the last P&Z
meeting. Promises were made that the concerns raised would
be addressed before building permits are issued. The fact
that this sort of maneuver was necessary points to the
truth; The proposal you have before you tonight has never
been developed and in fact, remains a conceptual plan.
Tonight I will not center comments on the list of
neighborhood concerns furnished to you. Instead I wish to
focus our attention on the City of Dublins Planning and
Zoning Code Text for Planned Low Density Districts on which
this Developer's Proposal is to be based. I will show how
most of the concerns identified by neighbors are actually
areas of the developer's proposal which do not meet even the
barest minimum standards required by the ordinances of the
City of Dublin. I have copied certain sections of the code
text for P.L.R. which I wish to furnish to you for
reference.
Please refer to item #2 page 147. This identifies the
development plan or text which is required for .application
and submission for tonights proposal. It outlines, in items
A though G, the items which must be addressed in the
information submitted. This evening I will discuss how this
information is totally missing or incomplete in some cases,
and in other cases is not up to the standard required by the
city planing and zoning code. Again I want to emphasize
that these are items required to be on the maps or text of
the submission and not just vague verbal promises at a
planning meeting which could be forgotten or misinterpreted.
This morning I requested the packet of information
submitted by the developer for this proposal. The maps
included the single sheet date received by Dublin on
November 16, 1992. The text consisted of 1/2 page marked
exhibit "A", which seemed to be out of date with the current
map. This is the sum total of this proposal. Let us now
focus on the PLR zoning code and the actual requirements for
this projects. Item "A" of the development plan
requirements found on page 147 requires the total number of
dwelling unit types be identified for each density area of
the project. The plan provided shows no breakdown of
density areas, although it is required in the PLR code.
Please refer to item 4 on page 151 labeled,"arrangement of
areas." This section states, quote "Residential development
I
at a density higher than that permitted on land in adjacent
residential zoning districts shall not be located nearer
than 100 feet to such zoning district boundary." end quote.
This means that the density of the 100 foot strip of land
next to the existing residential area must have a unit
density which does not exceed the density of the residentual
development immediately next to it. If my memory serves me
correctly the density of the Brighton ParK residential area
is approximately 4.3 units per acre. The overall net
density for this development is stated to be 6.53 units per
acre. However, according to the definition of net density
found on page 150 item 2 of the PLR text, actual density for
this project is 8 to 9.6 units per acre. Either figure
exceeds the 4.3 density of Brighton Park which is the
allowable density in the 100 foot wide strip which is
controlled by this PLR zoning code requirement. Clearly
then density areas must be addressed on the development plan
prepared by the developer. Density areas are not called
out. The area of ground within 100 foot of the adjacent
single family is approximately one acre in size and should
therefore contain no more than 4.3 multi-family units.. The
development plan submitted contains ten units', more than
double the allowable in the 100~controlled strip. This
discrepancy, if viewed from the perspective of future
residents who will have their homes directly to the west of
this intense multi-family usage, would be reason enough to
reject this proposal. It is also a direct violation of the
code requirements of the PLR classification, it makes it
even more logical for the city to question this proposal.
Lets return to the-~Development Plan Requirements item D
on page 147. It states that traffic circulation patterns
like public and private streets, parking areas, walks and so
on are to be indicated on the plan. A private road is shown
on the plan to serve the entire 7.2 acre site. The minimum
standards for roads and parking for PLR developments are on
page 151 item #6. It states that private roads are
acceptable only if the area served does not contain more
that two acres of area or less that-six dwelling units. .The
7.2 acres and 47 units contained on this site is clearly
well over those maximum allowed to be served by a private
road.
We believe the code makes sense. The amount of
automobile and pedestrian traffic generated warrant a good
road with sidewalks, adequate road beds, setbacks and so on.
The development road system is clearly inadequate as
required by the code text. To comply with the code, 30 foot
setbacks, sidewalks, curbs, dedicated right of ways, trees
and other details must be added.
Parking provisions. Look back to item D of the
Development Plan Requirements on page 147. It says that
parking provisions are to be included on the development
plan text. It requires 2.5 parking spaces per dwelling
space see page 210 LL. Niether one of these requirements
have been fulfilled by the proposed plan. The plan notes
Z
the number of parking spaces, but not all of them are shown
on the map. There are 47 enclosed parking spaces, and
street parking provides another 31 spaces giving a grand
total of 78 spaces. To comply with the code requirements
there must be 115 spaces. The only way this number could be
achieved is if the driveway in front of the garage was
utilized. However, it is in the maneuvering area of the
interior parking space, and paragraph "A" on page 210 JJ
states this is not allowed. The amount of parking is clearly
inadequate especially in view of the proposed typical 1300
sq. ft. size of the proposed units.
Returning to the Development Plan Requirements, page
_ 147 item E indicates that the details of development should
be included on the development plan or text. These are to
include the construction, landscaping, structures, site
development, and also include sketches and other materials
indicating design principles and design concepts.
Where is all this detail? I have not seen anything
which approaches what is required. All we have is 1/2 page
of text and a largely schematic plan. Yardspace has not
been addressed as specified by paragraph 5 on page 151.
Maintenance schedules, and landscape provisions all have
been overlooked.
Let us closely consider one area for a moment. The
minimum landscape requirements of chapter 1187, page 210 B
have not been addressed. The perimeter landscape
requirements of section A 1 on page 210 B and appendix A,
page 211 have not been shown along the eastern property line
as required by the code.. Screening between differing uses
is an important zoning requirement which is the
responsibility of the developer. It is not fair to future
citizens to overlook this zoning requirement. Landscaping
requirements and identification of service areas have not
been addressed. Preservation of existing landscape
materials as per paragraph D 1 on page 210 E have not been
addressed. The list goes on and on as the studies, text
preperation, sketches, and other materials needed to explain
the development issues of this proposal simply have not been
included in the development information provided. Perhaps
they have never been done. Again I submit that the proposal
before us tonight has never progressed beyond the conceptual
stage. As to the consideration for approval of this zoning
request, it would be very difficult for me to understand how
an objective decision could be reached with so much
information missing. The opportunity for omitting important
details, which could cost future residents, neighbors, and
the city, a very dear price, would seem to me to be very
likely. The misunderstandings between the city, the
developer, and the neighbors seems built in if the details
are not put down on paper as the requirements for this
zoning instruct.
Fortunately you do not have to approve this proposed
zoning. You have the opportunity to avoid the very great
error of approving a zoning which does not fulfill the
3
requirements of the planning and zoning code of the City of
Dublin.
The zoning text is very specific with regards to
approving a Planned Low Density Residential District
Application, as discussed on page 147 paragraph 3. The
first criteria listed is paragraph "A": quote That the
proposed development is consistent in all respects with the
purpose, intent and applicable standards of the Zoning
Ordinance." end quote. With so much information missing or
in disagreement with the regulations it would seem to me
that a "no" vote must be registered.
The second criteria required for approval is found in
_ paragraph B page 147: quote "That the proposed development
is in conformity with a comprehensive plan or potion there
of as it may apply." end quote. The current southwest area
master plan does not provide for multi-family uses on this
site. No matter what the developer has said here tonight
about the road relocation effect on this property. The fact
is that the road system on the master plan and the zoning
classifications have not been changed. A current study, of
course, is considering such a change and the planning
process is scheduled to resolve this issue in two months.
Whether it is beneficial to the city to lose a future office
tax base to multi-family zoning, which requires a high level
of city services is a question which should be carefully
considered. It makes sense to wait for a definitive answer.
Currently, however, the PLR criteria is quite specific that
the PLR zoning must comply with the comprehensive plan.
This proposed zoning does not comply with the current plan.
It follows that a no vote should be registered based on the
existing plan information.
The third criteria is listed in paragraph C, page 147
that "the proposed development advances the general welfare
of the municipality and the immediate vicinity." The lack
of compliance with PLR development standards including
screening, density next to existing single-family, lack of
compliance with minimum landscape requirements, inadequate
roads and so on have been demonstrated in previous
discussions. According to paragraph 4, page 146 of the
code, these standards are minimum stadards. It would be
very difficult to argue that a project which in many
respects does not meet even minimum standards "advances the
general welfare." A "no" vote on criteria three then seems
warranted.
The fourth criteria listed for consideration for
approval is found in paragraph D on page 148 as follows:
"That the benefits, improved arrangement, and the design of
the proposed development justify the deviation from standard
residential development requirements, included in the Zoning
Ordinance." This question, to my knowledge, has never been
demonstrated by the developer, probably because the proposed
PLR has never been outlined with sufficient detail to fully
understand what is actually being proposed. Responsibility
for proof of this fourth criteria should be with the
applicant and included in the information submitted. With
out this proof, a "no" vote on criteria four also seems
warranted.
A "no" vote is then recorded in every criteria category
as the basis of approval as suggested by the PLR code text.
Additionally, when other criteria found on page 148 of
the zoning text is compared with the applicant's submission,
more incomplete information and unanswered questions come to
the surface. These topics or questions, which should be
answered by the development plan, are items E through R on
page 148. I will briefly comment on each.
E. Use or uses- the indicated use, miltifamily, does not
comply with the current master or roadway plan.
F. Intensity of use- does not comply with the PLR density
requirement next to the existing single-family as discussed.
G. Traffic and circulation- does not comply with the
limitation of a two acre maximum on private drives as
discussed.
H. Building heights- they are not indicated on the
development plan or in the developer text..
I. Front, side and rear yard definitions and use where they
occur at the development periphery- detail, dimensions and
other requirements are not outlined in the text or on the
plan sheets.
J. Gross commercial building area- no text is included
which defines or limits this usage.
K. Area ratios and the designation of land surfaces to
which the apply- the net density numbers supplied by the
developer seem to be incorrect. Clearly the true density
figures as defined by the PLR text have never been used to
calculate other PLR requirements.
L. Spaces between buildings and open areas- the dimensions
of the spaces between the buildings, the uses for open area
and the character of the spaces have not been defined.
M. The width of streets in the development- the whole
street circulation system seems in question as the street
may be required to be dedicated as it serves in excess of
two acres as indicated on page 151 item 6.
N. Setbacks from such streets- the setbacks are not
defined, but scale approximately 20'. This is less that the
30' code minimum. A 50' right-of-way for public streets is
also not included.
0. Off-street parking and loading standard- the parking
S
requirement has been demonstrated to be short by 40 spaces.
Additional spaces may be needed for park area.
P. The order in which development will likely proceed- was
not discussed in any text found.
R. List of street, lighting, parking or other improvements
by the Municipality, wich in any way affect the development.
This issue was not discussed in any text we are aware of
other than staff conditions.
In conclusion, this development proposal has many
shortcomings. The developer has made little effort to
resolve neighborhood concerns. As noted in the above
comments, neighborhood concerns are also requirements of the
city code planning and zoning text. These issues have never
been addressed by the developer. In general the developer's
proposal lacks the necessary detail to resolve the concerns
of the neighbors or code requirements. We believe that this
proposal does little to contribute to the needs of our
neighborhood or the community. The zoning request is not in
compliance with the area master plan which is a specific
requirement included in the PLR text. As a neighborhood, we
strongly urge you to vote "no" on this change of zoning
request. Thank you for this opportunity to express the
views of the Southwest Area Residents Association.
~O