Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/02/1987 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin Village Council Meeting ~ICS Ateeting National Graphics Corp., Cols., O. Form No. 1097 ~ 1I eld March 2, 1987 19 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Dublin Village Council was called to order by Mayor Michael L. Close at 7:30 P.M. on Monday, March 2, 1987. Mr. Thornton led the Pledge of Allegiance. Members of Council present were: Mr. Amorose, Mayor Close, Mr. Jankowski, Ms. Maurer, Mr. Rozanski, Mr. Sutphen, and Mr. Thornton. Mr. Stephen Smith, Law Director, and Ms. Prushing, Acting Village Manager were present as were Mr. Bowman, Mr. Harding, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Jordan, Chief Mayer, and Mr. Olausen of the Village Staff. Mr. Amorose moved to approve the minutes of the February 16 meeting of Council. Mr. Sutphen seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor. Mr. Amorose moved to approve payment of the bills. Mr. Rozanski seconded the motion. The vote was 7-0 in favor. Correspondence The Clerk read a letter from the Dublin Chamber of Colmmerce inviting the Dublin Village Council to the second annual Chamber/Council Bocce Ball Tournament on April 8, 1987. The Tournament will take place at LaScala Restaurant on that date. Mayor Close said that he had advised the Chamber of Commerce that Council will participate in the tournament on April 8, 1987. Ordinance No. 04-87 - Amend Section 1105.07 of Codified Ordinances. Tabled Ordinance. Ms. Prushing said that the ordinance grants to the Village Manager the right to grant exceptions. She recommended that the ordinance be amended to include review by the Village Engineer and a representative of the Public Service Committee. Mayor Close explained that this ordinance is essentially an ordinance that delegates to the Manager the authority to issue a building permit in the case that all public utilities to a site have not been completed. He noted that perogative has been exercised by Council only previously. Mayor Close said that the Village Manager is recommending that rather than that being a unilateral decision by the Manager that it require concurrence by the Village Engineer and the Chairman of the Public Service Comittee. Mayor Close commented that as regards the Engineer that that should be a nop-requirement since that person reports to the Manager; the real question is whether or not the Chairman of the Public Service Committee has to concur. He said that he felt that the real question was whether the Village needed the ordinance or not. Mr. Rozanski said that by allowing the Manager, Engineer, and a member of Council to be apprised of the situation, there would be no surprises, that at least one member of Council could report back to other members, and that staff as well as the administration would be aware of the situation. Mr. Rozanski moved to amend the ordinance to include review by the Village Manager and the Chairman of the Public Service Committee. Mr. Sutphen seconded the motion. Mayor Close said that he felt that the best way to keep Council advised is to let Council make the decision. Mr. Jankowski said that he felt that there should be a consensus of Counci before granting the variances from building permit regulations. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin Village Council Meeting ~ICS Meeting National Graphics Corp., Cols., O. Form No. 1097 ~ Held March 2, 1987 19 Page Two Mr. Rozanski reported that sometimes a certain project gets the utilities built, but cannot do certain things because of weather, such as seeding behind curbs, sealing blacktop, etc. The process at times, he noted, becomes quite cumbersome, and this procedure could expedite the situation. Mr. Rozanksi noted that being addressed are minor conditions. Mr. Jankowski said that he did not want to give the entire responsibility to the Manager; to something that, according to law, is Council's responsibility. The vote to amend was as follows: Mr. Amorose, no; Mr. Jankowski, no; Ms. Maurer, yes; Mr. Thornton, yes; Mr. Rozanski, yes; Mr. Sutphen, yes; Mayor Close, yes. The vote on the underlying ordinance was as follows: Mr. Amorose, no; Mr. Jankowski, no; Ms. Maurer, yes; Mr. Thornton, yes; Mr. Rozanski, yes; Mr. Sutphen, yes; Mayor Close, no. The vote was four yes; three no. Ordinance No. 76-86 - Rezoning of 103.5 Acre Tract, Post and Avery Roads (Orr). Third Reading. Mr. Bowman gave the following background information: 1. This is an 103.5 acre tract located between the developed portion of Hemingway West on the east and Indian Run Meadows on the west. 2. The property is proposed for 238 single family dwelling units. 3. The rezoning request is from R-l to PUD. 4. The Planning Commission has approved the rezoning with the following conditions: A. Incorporation of a timetable for Sells Mill Drive. B. A commitment to work with staff on defining no build zones. C. Providing for adequate park access in the Final Development Plan. D. Adequate handling of storm water and provision for other services to satisfy the Village Engineer, and especially that the storm drainage conform to the Village's storm water ordinance. E. That all park land that is disturbed due to any construction activity of the builder or developer be fine graded and seeded with a blend of Kentucky Blue Grass. F. The developer construct an eight foot bike path the entire length of the south park similar to that being constructed in Indian Run Meadows. Mr. Jim Olausen said that he had examined the storm water drainage and had found it to be consistent with the planning attempts that had been done in Hemingway West, and Hemingway as well as the implications for Indian Run Meadows. Mr. Olausen also said that he has met with the developer, Republic Development Corporation, as well as Mr. Ralph Halloran a resident of Post Road, and that a solution has been worked out to take care of Mr. Halloran's problems in terms of the drainage that is coming onto his property; that being done by revising the retention that is being done in the park as well as a solution with regard to terms for the repair to his property. He said that they have taken the water that was diverted to the south, and rather than going to the east that water will be going to the east through the Hemingway West subdivision. He said that the pipe there is sized to handle that water. All that is required is the piping across the Orr property, and the developer has committed to doing that. The timing of that project is being developed at the present time. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin Village Council Meeting ~~ICS I\:1eetillg National Graphics Corp., Cols., O. Form No. 1097 ~ Held March 2, 1987 19 Page Three Mr. Olausen said that ther.e are some minor "housecleaning-type" items that need to be taken care of, but the commitments have been made; that everyone will be working together and the situation appears to be developing to the satisfaction of Mr. Halloran. Mr. Weiler said that this will be done at the beginning of the development of the site. Mr. Amorose expressed a concern about the limited access to the park grourd and the fact that there was only one window shown on the drawing. He also commented that this plan had not changed much from the original application. He noted that there is a 70' lot opening onto the park, and of that 3.98 acre park there is a narrow band which makes up about 1.5 acres of the 3.98 acres. Therefore what is left is approximately a 2.0 acre strip along the creek that has one window that is 70' wide, and in some parts that park is only 50' wide. Ms. Jordan said that it should probably be called a green belt; that it iE the continuation of a concept. that was started on Indian Run Meadows in order to continue the bike path on a southern route north of Post Road - to run along the waterways to connect the bike path ultimately up to Coffman Park. The window location was requested by the Parks and Recreation Department and has also been discussed with the Parks and Recreation Committee. There would be limited parking for five or six cars. The Department, Ms. Jordan said, would hope to turn the retention basin in Indian Run Meadows into a wet pond which would require police surveillance, parental surveillance, etc. Mr. Amorose mentioned the fact that there will be $200,000.00 to $250,000. worth of improvements on a very narrow band of green space with very little access to it. He said that he has a hard time justifying $250,000.00 worth of improvements with parking for only five or six cars. Ms. Jordan said that ultimately it will connect the bike path, if ever a road is built that goes between S.R. 161 and Post Road. Ms. Maurer pointed out that the Village has a number of different kinds of parks, that the purpose of this park is quite clear. It is to preserve the natural area along the creek and to provide a place for people to bicycle, as well as providing an access in and out of the development by bicycle to the bicycle path. She noted that this is an attempt to preserve the area along the stream. Ms. Jordan noted that the stream is on private property there, and that one of the concepts was was to get the majority of the park land in the woods. She also noted that the park will be primarily for the people that live in the area. Mr. Rozanski said that he thought that the fact that this is a continuation of the bike plan is a very important issue. Mr. Thornton moved to amend the ordinance to include the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendations and the Engineer's approval of the storm water drainage. Mr. Rozanski seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was as follows: Mr. Rozanski, yes; Mr. Sutphen, yes; Mayor Close, yes; Mr. Amorose, no; Mr. Thornton, yes; Ms. Maurer, yes; Mr. Jankowski, yes. The vote on the ordinance was as follows: Mr. Thornton, yes; Mr. Rozanski, yes; Mr. Jankowski, yes; Ms. Maurer, yes; Mr. Sutphen, yes; Mayor Close, yes; Mr. Amorose, no. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin Village Council Meeting ~ICS Meeting National Graphics Corp., Cols., O. Form No. 1097 ~ Held March 2, 1987 19 Page Four Ordinance No. 15-87 - Adopt in Principle 1987 Capital Improvements. Third Reading. Mr. Jankowski asked Mr. Bowman for a proposed cost to extend Muirfield Boulevard. Mr. Bowman said that it would be approximately a million to a million four dollars and that the Village would probably be responsible for a share of that cost. Mr. Jankowski moved to amend the ordinance to add the completion of Muirfield Drive to Brand Road for an approximate cost of one million dollars. Mr. Thornton seconded the motion. Mayor Close asked Mr. Bowman how close the Village is with options for the developers to develop that road and pay for it. Mr. Bowman said that his feeling was that the Village would probably be able to secure some type of agreements this year, with construction next year, if it was bound to happen. Mr. Rozanski asked how long it would take the Village to obtain the rights-of-way if the Village were to build the road. Mr. Bowman said that that would involve actual uses and that the uses have not really been determined; that the Village has only been approached as to what they would feel would be appropriate uses along the boulevard. He said that staff has said that they are very concerned about the aesthetics; that it is not going to be so much the uses. Mr. Bowman said that he wanted to know what kind of posture Council wanted him to take in pursuing the completion of that road. Mr. Jankowski said that he felt that the Village should pursue the project agressively, and that the Village do whatever it can to secure whatever cooperation from developers it can, but that if that is not successful then the Village should go ahead and do it themselves. Mayor Close noted that putting the project in the capital improvement budget for 1987 is a commitment that the Village is going to aggressively seek to complete the road as soon as possible. Mr. Bowman said that staff would present a status report to Council within a month or two on how the intend to move on each of the items. On the motion to amend the ordinance the vote was unanimous in favor. The vote on the ordinance was 7-0 in favor. Ordinance No. 16-87 - Amend Ordinance No. 52-81 Third Reading. Ms. Jordan said that the employee would be on exempt status. Compensation Plan. The vote on the ordinance was unanimous in favor. Ordinance No. 20-87 - Ordinance to Amend Section 1305.2 of Dublin Codified Ordinances - CABO One and Two Dwelling Code. Second Reading. Mr. Mr. Darryl Hughes, building inspector, explained that what was being requested was to prohibit the use of the double key dead bolt cylinders in residential homes (one and two families). The reason being that it was felt that it was not safe, because one has to have a key to open the door from the interior and if the key is not at that dorr children might not be able to find the key to get out of the house. It was noted that there would be no objection to the dead bolt with the key for the outside and the finger switch for the inside so that one can leave the house without a key. Mr. Rozanski said that in commercial development there is use of double key dead bolt locks so that persons cannot open the door and take out large items from within. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin Village Council Meeting ~ICS A:1eeting National Graphics Corp., Cols., O. Form No. 1097 ~ 11 eld March 2, 1987 19 Page Five Mr. Hughes said that this requirement would be on new construction only. If, however, it were an addition or a total re-model or the replacement of that door the code would need to be followed. If someone were to sell their home the Village could not require them to replace the dead bolts. Mayor Close requested that Mr. Hughes, Chief Mayer, and personnel of the Fire Department study the ordinance and report their reactions to Council. The ordinance will be held over for a third reading on March 16, 1987. Ordinance No. 25-87 - Ordinance of Appropriation for Purposes of Conduct- ing Search Process for Village Manager. First Reading. Mr. Amorose introduced the ordinance. Mr. Amorose moved to do away with the three time reading rule and treat as an emergency. Mr. Jankowski seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor of the motion. Ms. Maurer reported that the underlying ordinance is a contract with Organizational Resources Company, Inc. to aid the Village in conducting a search for a Village Manager. She noted that the search committee would be broad based and have members of Council, staff, and the community on it so that the Council can have a great deal of input from the community as to the new manager's qualifications. The vote was unanimous in favor of the ordinance. Ordinance No. 26-87 - To Vacate a .997 Acre Portion of Tuller Road. First Reading. Mayor Close announced that it would not be his intention to refer the ordinance to Planning and Zoning as this is in effect an ordinance to clarify an error that was made on a previous zoning, and the Village thought that they had already done the vacation. Mr. Amorose introduced the ordinance. Mr. Amorose moved to do away with the three time reading rule and treat as an emergency. Mr. Sutphen seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was 7-0 in favor. The vote on the ordinance was unanimous in favor. Ordinance No. 27-87 - Accept Bid for Traffic Signals and Roadway Improve- ments. First Reading. Mr. Sutphen introduced the ordinance. Mr. Olausen said that the Village received four bids for traffic improve- ments on Frantz Road at Metro Place North and Blazer Parkway. The traffic improvements include signalization of the intersections and providing turn lanes. The low bidder was Jess Howard Electric Company at $103,000.00; the Engineer's estimate was $119,628.00. He said that the low bidder has plenty of experience in this type of work; that it is primarily a traffic-type job, and therefore his recommendation was that the contract be awarded to the low bidder, Jess Howard Electric Company. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin Village Council Meeting ~ M eetillg National Graphics Corp., Cols., O. Form No. 1097 ~ 11 eld March 2, 1987 19 Page Six Mr. Olausen said that there would be no turn lanes provided on the cross streets; that the turn lanes would be on Frantz Road. He said that a road should be 33' wide in order to provide for three lanes; one left turn lane coming out and one lane in each direction (at a minimum) . He noted that Blazer Parkway would not be wide enough. Ms. Prushing said that she and Mr. Bowman had met with representatives of Ashland Chemical to discuss some improvements to Blazer Parkway. As a result, she said, staff's feeling at this time that all that is necessary in this particular contract is to move the location of one of the traffic lights back. Being proposed is that Blazer Parkway be made three lanes, probably back to the second driveway of TechMart. It was said that the signals would not have to be moved. Mr. Olausen said that a signal head may have to be added or some re-timing might be required on the controllers which would be fairly incidental in terms of cost. Mr. Sutphen moved to do away with the three time reading rule and treat as an emergency. Mr. Rozanski seconded the motion. Mr. Rozanski said that this would be an arm and mast type situation, similar to those on Wilson Bridge Road in Worthington; there will be no overhead cables. The vote was unanimous in favor of the motion. The vote on the ordinance was 7-0 in favor. Resolution No. 05-87 - Resolution Designating Financial Institutions as Public Depository(s). First Reading. Ms. Maurer introduced the resolution. Ms. Maurer moved to do away with the three time reading rule and treat as an emergency. Mr. Jankowski seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor of the motion. The vote on the ordinance was 7-0 in favor. Request for Approval of Concept Plan - Quarry Place. Mr. Bowman said that this is a requested for a Planned Unit Development rezoning. The first stage is a concept submittal and approval. The concept is reviewed by both the Planning and Zoning Commission and Council. Council can either approve, approve with modifications, or deny. The decision is not binding on either the applicant or Councilor the Planning and Zoning Commission. It is simply a means by which the applicant can present the plan and assess the community desires as to whether he should go forward, spend the money for the preliminary plan or rearrange it or simply change the request all together. Mr. Bowman had the following comments regarding the proposed plan: 1. This concept plan is a very intricate proposal. 2. The site consists of two parcels as well as land now owned by the City of Columbus which has been leased by Dublin for park purposes. 3. One of the parcels is a long narrow band of developable land south of S.R. 161. 4. It is immediately south of the Waterwell Association building on the west side of Riverside Drive south of S.R. 161 and U.S. 33. 5. The other parcel is a lot located on the southeast corner of Martin Road and U.S. 33. This lot is now developed with some structures; those structures have been issued a citation by the Village (that they be torn down). RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin Village Council Meeting ~M1 9 RQ!.CS M eetillg National Graphics Corp., Cols., O. Form No. 1097 ~ II eld March 2, 1987 19 Page Seven 6. The applicant is interested in building a series of small office buildings most of which are 7,000 square feet. 7. The applicant is requesting a change from R-2 zoning south of Martin Road and R-4 which is north of Martin Road to the PUD classification. 8. The applicant has had a traffic study done. The plans articulate where the curb cuts are. 9. The site plan does have parking within the Riverside Drive setback. 10. Many of the buildings are located on land presently owned by the City of Columbus. 11. This may afford an extension of the Kiwanis plan that was done along the river. 12. Land along the river is marshy; a large number of water fowl use the area; the development could represent an opportunity to provide bird observation areas or some other type of wildlife refuge area. 13. Acre for acre it is a low density proposal. 14. It may create a green belt along the river corridor, however the land is going to require significant manipulation both in land transfer as well as some of the development techniques. Ms. Jordan presented the comments of the Parks and Recreation Committee: 1. Initially the Parks and Recreation Committee approved this in concept with quite a few questions to be answered - who was going to provide the public improvements; who was going to own the land; would it belong to the developer; would the developer only purchase the portion that he needed for his buildings; what the easements and what the rights of the public would be in that area. 2. Had two planners and a botanist from the City of Columbus Parks and Recreation Department walk the site. It was our opinion that the development is probably going to impact this area substantially. It is going to upset the delicate balance that is that creates this natural wetlands for water fowl to collect. 3. There is an abundance of natural springs in the area and from observation these springs start above the flood plain which would be their build line. 4. Have an appointment with a naturalist from the Department of Natural Resources to walk the site. Ms. Jordan requested that the issue be tabled. Mr. Greg Lashutka was present to represent the developer, Mr. Buss Ransom and had the following comments: 1. It is low density office use which hopefully eventually will be owner occupied. 2. The buildings would be 7,000 square feet with one 15,000 square foot building. The 15,000 square foot building is what has occurred further south on Riverside Drive in the City of Columbus. 3. The office buildings on the west side will be off of one entranceway. 4. Met with the residents of the neighborhood. 5. Preservation of the green space is of paramound importance. 6. There would be individual lots that eventually would be sold off with a commercial association to maintain same. 7. There would be a private drive not to be maintained by the Village of Dublin. 8. Would deed restrict. 9. Would provide a tax duplicate for the Village of Dublin of between eight and 10 million dollars of property. 10. Would utilize existing sewer; talked with the City of Columbus and their water would be available. 11. There would be no increase in the number of school children for the Village. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin Village Council Meeting ~~ICS lHeetillg National Graphics Corp., Cols., O. Form No. 1097 ~ Held March 2, 1987 19 Page Eight 12. Have talked with the Fire Department. They have determined that the 90' dimension of the turnaround is adequate. There would also be four fire hydrants. 13. With regard to the issue of floodway encroachments. Burgess and Niple (Exhibit 5 on application) indicate there would be no building in this particular area. 14. Will work with the Parks and Recreation Department as regards their needs. 15. The site drops off appreciably from Riverside Drive down to the river. 16. The parking would be screened from the river view by the buildings and also because of the trees and drop off would have minimum visibility of the parking level. 17. There is one entrance and agress. 18. An entrance off of Martin Road into the project was discussed, but would have been very disruptive. 19. The traffic study which is not complete would indicate that Martin Road would probably have to add a third lane which would allow for a lessening of a burden on Martin Road for right and left turns. 20. The traffic count in the area does not warrant a light. 21. Perhaps a review of the S.R. 161/U.S. 33 restriping may be warranted and could improve the traffic flow. 22. There would be the same deed restrictions on both sides of the road. 23. The buildings would be of stone, glass and wood. Mr. Ralph Hogle who lives across the street from the site said that he thought that the buildings were "fine" but expressed a great concern with the traffic which would be generated on Riverside Drive as a result of the project. He indicated that the situation was grave enough at present. Mayor Close commented that if a plan is approved in concept that the applicant still must come in and satisfy the Parks and Recreation Department and the remainder of staff and Council that the wildlife is going to be treated properly, that the roads are going to adequately maintain the traffic generated, etc. That information is all a part of the preliminary plat process when the applicant comes in for the rezoning. Mr. Bowman told Ms. Maurer that he did not anticipate anything south of Martin Road being more than two lanes. At best, there would be a turn lane or at least three lanes. It is difficult to work with because of the road that goes underneath the bridge. Ms. Maurer asked what kind of office uses there would be. Mr. Lashutka said that what they envisioned was a professional type office use that would minimize the traffic because it would be low density. He noted that the preliminary traffic report does not require a traffic light at this point in time, but that situation could change, depending upon what would happen in the Sawmill Road area, traffic feeding onto Martin Road and other uses that would be occurring. Mr. Amorose asked Mr. Lashutka why the Martin Road intersection could not be improved, that with the increase in traffic it would be very difficult to make a turn onto Riverside Drive. Mr. Lashutka said that he thought that it would be possible, but that it would mean cutting away most of the green space in that particular area. Mr. Lashutka said that the buildings have been designed so that the maximum number of offices in a single 7,000 square foot building would be four, but more likely be one or two. Mr. Sutphen said that he felt that the traffic would be the number one issue and Mr. Lashutka agreed. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin Village Council Meeting ~ Meeting National Graphics Corp., Cols., O. Form No. 1097 ~ Held MarchH2, 1987 19 Page Nine Responding to a question from Ms. Maurer it was determined that the applicant was following the Dublin Code as regards parking. Mr. Lashutka said that one issue that was brough up in discussions with the Parks Department was that in non-office hours there may be a need for parking for those persons using the park facility. It was noted that Dublin Code requires one parking space per 250 square feet of building space. Dr. Donn Griffith said that he felt that the development of the east side would be a threat to residential property values as well as the residential character currently in existence. Mr. Jack Parren expressed serious concerns with regard to the traffic situation. He said that he felt that the projects should be dealt with separately _ one on the west side of Riverside Drive and one on the east side of Riverside Drive. Mr. Lashutka said that they would be re-evaluating the particular density of the offices on the east side of Riverside Drive. Mr. Rozanski moved to approve the project as a concept plan and refer it to Planning and Zoning. Mrs. Levy, a resident of Martin Road, said that she felt that the east side should remain definitely residential. Mr. Muchnicki suggested giving the Parks and Recreation Director an opportunity to meet with the experts before making a decision. Ms. Maurer seconded the motion to approve. Mr. Rozanski moved to table the request for one month (Council meeting of April 6, 1987). Ms. Maurer seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor of the motion. Request for Approval of Final Plat - Earlington Village Section 4. Mr. Bowman said that the Final Development Plan was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 10, 1987 with the following conditions: 1. Increasing the building setback along the south side of Dublinshire Drive to 30'. 2. A commitment from the applicant to work with staff on re-planting the trees that are removed along the drainage ditch. 3. The bikeway be built by the developer along the entire frontage in front of the park land and the school site from Earlington Parkway. Mr. Rozanski asked about the fact that the plan did not show the 70' easement to be continuous through lot #228. Mr. Weiler and Mr. Kelley said that it was an oversight and would be shown on the plan. Mayor Close moved to approve the Final Plat. Ms. Maurer seconded the motion. mayor Close told Mrs. Nicholls that the deed to the school site had been received by the Village as of this date. Mayor Close requested that the minutes reflect that the developers acknowledge that there is a line missing on Lot #228 which will be put back in. The vote on approval was unanimous in favor. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin Village Council Meeting ~ Meeting National Graphics Corp., Cols., O. Form No. 1097 ~ Held March 2, 1987 19 Page Ten Ratification for Allowing Permit to go Forward - Woodlands Subdivision. Ms. Prushing explained that this would be a ratification of action taken previously by her polling Council members regarding this particular situation. Mr. Yeager, president of Phoenix Land Company, is developing the Woodlands Subdivision. He has two items left on his punch list - one is for seeding around curbs and the pond area, and the other is for repairing and sealing roadways. She said that Mr. Yeager has submitted a letter of credit to the Village to confirm that the items will be completed as soon as practical, considering weather conditions, and at any rate no later than August 31st. Council was polled and agreed that Mr. Yeager could be issued building permits (four members of Council were polled). Mr. Amorose moved to ratify the issuance of building permits, Woodlands Subdivision. Mr. Rozanski seconded the motion. Mr. Sutphen asked why the Village has to wait until August 31st, when the asphalt plants open up in April or May. Mr. Olausen said that the type of seal coat that is going to be on the street is called a slurry seal. A slurry seal is a system that cures by evaporation of the water in the material. In the early parts of Mayan June the temperatures are such that that is a very slow process. It is better done in July and August. The second reason is that there is the possibility of a waterline coming into service the area; therefore, if there are any street cuts that would occur, the seal coat could go on after the street cuts are made. The vote on the motion was unanimous for approval. Discussion on Site Location for Water Tower at Avery Park. Mayor Close said that he had received a number of letters on the issue and made the following comments: 1. This is not a proposal that was suggested by Muirfield. 2. In the process of haning an engineering survey done of all the Village's water needs it was recommended by the consultant hired by the Village would need a new water tower in the Deer Run area. 3. The site available in the Deer Run Elementary School area is not large enough for the size water tank required. Also, because of the topography and pressure, the location at Manley Road is not a preferred site as far as getting the maximum pressure and storage capacity at the present time. 4. The Village needs a two million gallon tank in order to equalize the pressure in the system (a Village distribution system). 5. This water tank is not intended primarily for the benefit of the Muirfield residents. 6. The heaviest usage of the tank will be in the area south of Brand Road, north of Post Road, between Coffman and Avery Roads. 7. The tank will assist in the equalization of the pressure in the Muirfield area, and will be a Village-wide tank. 8. When the tank at Manley Road was to go in, Muirfield was going to have the responsibility for paying for it. Mu~tfield has agreed and begun negotiations with Dublin that they will contribute to this tank at this time rather than deferring their responsibilities until the time that the Manley Road tank will actually be built. 9. A tank needs to go up as quickly as possible and in order for that to happen a site on Village property needed to be located. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin Village Council Meeting ~ICS AIeeting National Graphics Corp., Cols., O. Form No. 1097 ~ Held March 2, 1987 19 Page Eleven 10. Some persons have questioned putting said tank in a park site. Ms. Jordan has said that they would prefer this not to happen, but that upon completion the Parks and Recreation Department will have a place to store their equipment as well as office and work space. Ms. Maurer said that she feels that one of the problems in this case has been one of publicity. She noted that the reporters have not had available to them Mr. Boothe's study. She suggested that in the future when the Village has a massive study similar to this that the Village should make that study available to reporters and they should ask for it as well. Mr. F. Dan Boothe said that he did evaluate and compare two sites. He said that he had recommended the site further to the south in Avery Park for the following reason; availability of land. He noted that the Manley Road site for '~stance was too far back off of the road; that it would require a larger' line back to the tank, etc. The Manley Road is too small; it would require additional land acquisition for a two million gallon tank. Mr. Boothe said that one of his considerations was to move the tank further south towards the more dense and therefore higher demand water areas. He noted that since the last Council meeting the soil study on the site has been completed and it has been found that that site has the best possible foundation material. It will not require piling. He noted that if the tank were moved to any other site within Avery Park that they would run into different problems. One of the problems in moving further back on this site would be the additional utilities required (water, telephone, electric and roadways, etc.). He noted that soil borings would have to be taken at another site. It is possible that there could be required a more costly foundation, possibly water problems with the foundation and perhaps some construction problems. Moving the tank to another site, more importantly, would cause a delay in actual construction. Mr. Boothe said that he feels strongly that his original recommendation is the correct one. In review and discussions as well as computer analysis with the City of Columbus, Columbus determined that the two sites (Avery Road and Manley Road) are indistinguishable on their computer analysis. Mayor Close asked what the implications would be if the tower were placed in the far nothwest corner of the park. Mr. Boothe said that first there would have to be an access road built and that building such a road would "cut up the park". He also noted that the waterline back to the tank would have to be oversized, and that the cost of the utilities, expecially electricity, would be more expensive. Ms. Prushing had the following comments: 1. The current location is approximately 330 feet back and will require a 16" pipe. To take it to the back of the park site which is approximately 1000 feet would require a 24" pipe. That additional cost was estimated to be an additional $25,000.00. 2. The pipe going up into the tank would also need to be oversized for an additional $4,000.00. 3. Additional pave space would be needed around the tank to maneuver trucks. 4. A cost of $10,000.00 would be required to take the roadway from the current proposed site to the rear of the site in the northwest corner. 5. To oversize the underground cabling for the electric power the cost would be approximately $10,000.00 and an additional $2,000.00 for the telephone lines; for a cost of approximately $50,000.00 for the utilities. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS M illutes of Dublin Village Council Meeting ~r5Wks M eetillg National Graphics Corp., Cols., O. Form No. 1097 ~ Held March 2, 1987 19 Page Twelve 6. If a pile foundation would be required the cost would be another (up to) $150,000.00. 7. Time delays would be another consideration. Currently the Village was projecting letting the bids in April, take bids, and coming back for acceptance of the bids in May. There are only two companies that do this type of construction and both say that a minimum of 14 months is required for construction. 8. If the tank is not in place by next summer (1988) the Village could experience some serious water problems. Mr. Tim Hussey, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Indian Run Methodist Church, said that they would like to recommend that the tower be moved back in the park site into the northwest corner. Mr. Larry Vance, Chief of the Division of Soil and Water Conservation for the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, had specific comments on the resource issues (soils, land use, flood plain), most specifically discussing various types of soils in the different sites. In summary Mr. Vance recommended that Council consider seriously the site in the northwest corner, about a thousand feet back into the property. He said that the soil type is more favorable; it has at least two feet more in terms of elevation in the 100 year flood plain. He also said that he felt the maintenance on a long term basis on that site would be more favorable. Mr. Vance said that site 1 and site 2 were in the 100 year flood plain. He also said that he felt that in site in Avery Park would be better than one in Earlington Park. Mr. Gene Johnson discussed the sites from a geological standpoint. Mr. Boothe, responding to Mr. Johnson, said that the soils boring report had not been performed when the study was done. He said that the soils boring report had just been mailed to the Village. He noted that it is 7 feet, 5000 PSI bearing and that it goes up to 10,000 at 10 to 12 feet. The soild report was done by Geotechnical Consultants. Five borings were done - four on the rim and one in the center. They were at 25, 30, and 35 feet. Mr. Boothe said that all in all it was an excellent report for his recommended site. Mayor Close asked Mr. Boothe about the time and the cost involved in getting the soil borings on the northwest corner of the site. Mr. Boothe said that it would take three weeks to a month. He also said that they would have to get another topo. Mayor Close asked Ms. Jordan if the northwest corner of the site would work as well from the standpoint of use by the Parks and Recreation Department. Ms. Jordan said that from a purely aesthetic point of view, no. She said that they felt that within the site located that they would be able to serve the needs; that they could mound and landscape around it; it would have the least amount of impact on the park in the original site selected. She commented that the Parks Department are in the midst of a landscaping program for which Council appropriated money and significant changes would be required if the site were moved to the northwest corner of the park. Mr. Sutphen said that if it cost 10% more to put the tank in the northwest corner of the park that he did not see that that was a problem. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS M iI/utes of Dublin Village Council Meeting national gram~ M eetil/g National Graphics Corp., Cols., O. Form No. 1097 ~ II eld March 2, 1987 19 Page Thirteen ~ Mrs. Marsha Temple, a resident at the northwest corner of Brand Road and Avery Road, commented that she did not feel that any kind of mounding could make a water tower aesthetically pleasing or hide it from view. Mr. John Humbert a resident directly west of Indian Run Methodist Church mentioned a concern regarding the creation of a shadow at about 3:00 P.M. in the summer. Mr. Humbert inquired about the possibility of putting the tower in a commercial/industrial type of area. Mayor Close said that one must put a water tower in a location where the elevation dictates that one is going to get the maximum benefit, and suggested that perhaps Mr. Humbert might wish to read the engineer's report. It was noted that this site is somewhat elevated and is easier to get water to than the Manley Road site. Responding to a question from Mr. Humbert it was determined that there are no waterlines physically as of this date to Mr. Humbert's home. It was noted that if he would wish to pay the assessment to get the lines to his home it could be available. Ms. Prushing said that there is no waterline that goes from Avery and Brand Roads out Brand Road west. There would have to be a line put in along that roadway. She said that if the property owners are willing to take the assessment then, yes, the residents could tie into the waterline. Mr. Humbert said that he would hope that consideration would be given to other sites. Mrs. Catherin Headlee a resident of Brand Road said that the water tower on the site that was initially proposed is in the flood plain; that it floods every time it rains; that it will continue to do so. She said that she felt that the northwest corner of Avery Park is probably the best site. Mrs. Headlee said that she hoped that completion of a water tower would prevent jockeying by the people that live north of Glick Road; jockeying being putting devices on waterlines to increase water pressure to individual homes. It was pointed out that there are already some large trees in the north- west area of the site. Mr. Boothe pointed out that a temporary septic tank and leech system is being put in; were the site closer to the road one would be able to connect into a sewerline that will eventually come up Avery Road much more easily and inexpensively. Ms. Jordan said that they are talking in terms of moving the entire parks maintenance department to the site; that they need office space, storage space, working space, water, heat, etc. Mr. Temple of Avery Road said that the site does flood during a heavy rain. Mr. Sutphen moved to go ahead and accept the water tank being put up at the site at the far northwest corner of the park pending the borings being substantial enough to hold the tank or whatever else needs to be done to "make sure it works". To clarify, Mr. Sutphen moved to accept the water tower in the northwest corner of Avery Park, pending the borings showing substantially the same as those done at the present location. Mayor Close said that the motion on the floor is to consider the northwest corner, presuming the borings are substantially the same as they are at the present location. Mr. Thornton seconded the motion. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AI inutes of Dublin Village Council Meeting ~ Ateeting National Graphics Corp., Cols., O. Form No. 1097 ~ Held March 2, 1987 19 Page Fourteen Mr. Boothe said that it is approximately 250' back to the existing borings from Avery Road, and that to the northwest corner it would be an additional 1000 feet. Mr. Boothe noted that the additional cost for doing the additional topos and borings would be approximately $6,000.00 to $7,000.00 for a total cost of approximately $68,000.00. He noted that the price would include the roadway. Mr. W. Chambers said that he felt that neither site is the right one. He said that he wondered why the Village has given up the plan that the water tower is to go in the Deer Run School area. He pointed out that the water started from either the Dublin Road water treatment plant or the Morse Road treatment plant some 20 miles away, and now persons are saying that it is not possible to go the last mile. Mr. Chambers wondered how the City of Columbus gets into outlying areas. The answer being, by Mr. Chambers, that they build a direct line and pump it directly. He suggested to Council that if that is what it takes to get to the edge of Dublin then that is what the Village ought to do. Mr. Jankowski amended the motion - build the water tower in the far northwest corner of the park as long as it is technologically feasible to built it there regardless of what it costs (it cannot cost more than $200,000.00.) Mr. Sutphen seconded the motion. Mayor Close said that he is not willing to give anyone a blank check; that he would be willing to come back in a special session of Council to consider the site if the borings show that it is going to cost additional money, but that he is not willing to write a blank check. Ms. Maurer said that she agreed. The amendment to the motion (as repeated by Mayor Close) is that the Village build the tower in the northwest corner if it is technologically feasible, without regard to cost. The vote on the amendment was as follows: Mayor Close, no; Mr. Thornton, no; Ms. Maurer, no; Mr. Rozanski, no; Mr. Amorose, no; Mr. Sutphen, yes; Mr. Jankowski, yes. On the underlying motion the vote was unanimous in favor - the motion being that the Village build the water tower on the northwest corner of the site if the borings are substantially similar to those on the original proposed site. Review of Earlington School/Park Basic Site Plan. Ms. Maurer said that according to the lease, the Planning and Zoning Commission as well as the Council have to approve the site plan, the architecture, etc. Mr. Dan Smith reported that a favorable vote was received for the concept from both the Parks and Recreation Committee and the Dublin Local Board of Education. Mr. Dan Smith presented an overall view of the plan - three softball field~, three soccer type football fields, the school, the parking for 150 cars initially, etc. Mr. Stephen Smith said that he had received the deed on this date for the entire site. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS M i IlUt es of Dublin Village Council Meeting national graoo(!::S Meetillg National Graphics Corp., Cols., O. Form No. 1097 ~ lf rId March 2, 1987 19 Page Fifteen Mr. Amorose said that the original agreement was that the school was going to provide certain amenities to this piece of property because of the joint use. He wondered why the school cannot develop the entire site at one; to grade and put in the other facilities (with the exception of the pool). He said that he would like to see the entire site developed (other than the pool) as Phase 1. Ms. Jordan noted that Mr. Dan Smith in this instance is a consultant for the Village not the schools. Ms. Maurer moved to refer to Planning and Zoning for their approval, and then it will come back to Council for their approval. Mr. Rozanski seconded Ms. Maurer's motion. It was noted that the School Board would like to have the school site completed by August of 1988. The park site will be running about a year behind. Mayor Close suggested taking the request to the Planning and Zoning Commission at their next meeting (Thursday evening). Mr. Bowman said that it had not been advertised nor had members of the Commission received copies of the information. Ms. Maurer said that she had talked to several Commission members and they had indicated that they would be willing to look at the plan at a special meeting between now and Council's next meeting. Mr. Steve Smith said that all the lease says is that it must be approved by Planning and Zoning; it does not say in what order. Ms. Maurer withdrew her motion. Mr. Rozanski withdrew his second. Ms. Maurer moved to refer to Planning and Zoning as approved, subject to their approval. Mr. Thornton seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor. Mr. Bowman said that the plan would be taken to the Planning and Zoning Commission in concept form immediately, and based upon that the plan would be in the normal rotation for final development plans. Discussion of Hotel/Motel Tax. Mr. Stephen Smith said that he had been contacted by Ms. Maurer concerning the possibility of the Village placing a hotel/motel (commonly referred to as a bed tax) in Dublin. He said that preliminary research indicates that the municipality could do so, and could do so up to a rate of 6%. He noted that one half of that amount over 3% would have to be referred back and put into the community toward a convention bureau, bringing business into the community, etc. It is, he said, his preliminary opinion that the Village could do so throug the Chamber or through its own convention bureau. However the Chamber would need to establish a separate arm, a separate board, most likely a separate non-corporate entity. Mr. Vern Metz, Mr. Tom Grace, and Mr. Page Vornbrock of the Chamber of Commerce were present at the meeting. Mr. Metz said that the Chamber would be interested in pursuing the matter; 1~% being a significant amount for the Chamber to do a more satisfactory job of selling the community to business, to travel, and also to assist in supporting those corporations, mainly the hotel/motel industry. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin Village Council Meeting ~ICS Meeting National Graphics Corp., Cols., O. Form No. 1097 ~ Held March 2, 1987 19 Page Sixteen Mr. Metz said further that the Chamber is very interested; that they feel that their past performance has shown the community that they can serve Dublin in such a capacity and ask that the Chamber of Commerce be considered to carry this proposition forward. Mr. Metz will be meeting with the Columbus Convention and Visitors' Bureau. Ms. Maurer said that the Columbus Convention and Bisitors' Bureau receives 40% of Columbus' collection; are required by law to provide 25%. Ms. Maurer suggest that the next step should be to sit down with the members of the Chamber who are interest in pursuing the matter as well as with representatives of the hotels/motels in Dublin. Also, the size of the tax needs to be discussed as well as where and for what the monies would be used. Ms. Maurer suggested that perhaps the Finance Committee might wish to pursue the issue further. Report from Bonnie Reynolds of the Dublin Board of Education Regarding the Urban Land Institute Seminar on Impact Fees. A copy of Mrs. Reynolds' remarks is attached to these minues. Mr. Muchnicki made available to members of Council copes of resolutions adopted by the Waterford Civic Association and requested that they be put on the next Council meeting agenda for citizen input. Mayor Close adjourned Council into Executive Session at 10:26 P.M. ~ Mayor - Presiding Officer /J , ~ " / A-a~z~-<::~) /Jj . Z '/1LC?<--.yJ Clerk of Counci 1 Comments by Mrs. Bonnie Reynolds at Dublin Village Council Meeting on March 2, 1987. IMPACT FEES Officials view impact fees with mixed feelings. Florida views them as the wave of the future. California is reviewing their use. In some areas the fees have become so high that officials feel they may be hampering growth. One hundred thirty- two people came from allover the United States to attend the Urban Land Institute seminar on impact fees. SCHOOLS I talked with people from many states and all had the same situation - municipal boundaries and school district boundaries that are different. Therefore, there is less success in this area. 1. Special enabling legislation through the state legislation could be enacted. 2. There could be cooperation between ALL concerned municipalities. I am not saying that impact fees for schools are impossible, just more complicated. I. TYPES OF FEES A. In-kind contributions 1) Land from developers for recreational and educational purposes. 2) Dublin park ordinance is as good as any. B. In-kind contribution outside but near the project 1) Rationale - a subdivision creates needs beyond its boundaries. 2) Officials have not been as successful in maintaining this against challenge. 3) The flaw is that the benefit from the improvement would not only go to the new subdivison, but to everyone and may not be fair. However, if the cost of improvement is apportioned, it is more likely to be upheld. C. Money in lieu of in-kind contributions 1) This came into being for smaller developments. It was unfair to take land when the development was so small, but several small developments soon took their toll on the infrastructure. 2) The fees are pooled and used for the benefit of all. 3) When used with proper enabling legislation and appropriate implementation it has become as uncontroversial as dedication. D. Impact fees 1) Rationale - It is possible to allocate to each development its share of the cost of providing improvements. II. LEGAL BASIS FOR USE A. Rational Nexus is used as criteria. 1) Exactions are legally acceptable under due process and equal protection as long as there is a reasonable relationship between the exaction and the public needs generated by the development. Bonnie Reynolds Impact Fees Page Two B. Court case used - Hollywood vs Broward County, Florida Broward County required a fee to expand a county-wide park system to accommodate new residents. 1) Developers were given three choices: a. dedicate three acres per 1000 residents b. pay an amount of money equal to land value c. pay an impact fee according to a chedule 2) This was upheld and has become a standard for impact fees. 3) Two elements to withstand challenge - a. a careful economic analysis documenting the relationship between the impact of the development and the fee required b. a good appeals procedure III. SETTING FEES A. Set community standards and have a master plan that is determined by what your residents want. 1) Bring the infrastructure up to these standards with public funds and then set fees to handle the impact of new development. B. Roads 1) Divide the city into zones and determine costs for each. 2) Distribute the costs by the amount of traffic the development will generate. 3) Zones are important because: a. fees vary with costs in different parts of the city b. this satisfies courts that the fee is spent for those paying C. Water and sewer 1) 2) More straight forward calculation. Take into effect intergenerational for the entire bill). Fee could be set - It is done on a direct evaluation. factors (don't make them responsible 3) a. Residential - number of bathrooms b. Commercial - number of employees or amount of floor space. D. Set of specific service standards for community. 1) Parks - amount of open space per 1000 residents. 2) Schools - number of classrooms per number of children. 3) Fire or police - infrastructure and equipment needed for specific response time. Bonnie Reynolds Impact Fees Page Three IV. SUGGESTIONS A. A community cannot use another's ordinance. Every community has different standards. Those standards are determined by having a good master plan. Be selective in choosing the services you will fund. B. A complete study will take at least a year. You will be challenged and you must be a~le to prove your needs. Use experts. Raleigh, North Carolina, Montgomery, Maryland, and Loveland, Colorado have successful ordinances that are worthy of study. C. You cannot use fees to cure ills of the past. You cannot require more or better services from the new residents than you are already providing. Try to develop the system in a slow that has not yet begun to develop. a rush to pull building permits. E. Realize that this will not stop growth; in fact, before implementation, growth will accelerate. After the shock, developers will love the plan. It will stop talk of a moratorium. The developer will soon realize that he can demand service much more quickly. Funds must be spent in a timely manner which shortens the lag-time between the development and the service. growth period, or develop for an area Make it retroactive or there will be D. F. You must be fair to the developer to avoid litigation. There should be a periodic fee adjustment and an appeals procedure. There has to be a way for the developer to get credit for improvements made above and beyond the norm. G. The fees must clearly be for the benefit of the people paying. Come up with a capital improvement cost that includes no replacement or better- ment charges. The basis for the fee must be defined and defendable. Remember that fees can only be used for capital improvements. None can be used for operations. H. Finally, the general public must realize that public financing is still the fairest way to finance infrastructure. Development will be willing to pay its share if the public proves that it is willing to do its part. In a community like ours, it is important to realize that new residents will one day outnumber old. Infrastructure will eventually need to be upgraded and replaced. It is important that fees be fair so that residents will not feel they have been double taxed. Kosanchick and Associates, Inc. Basic Distribution Corp. Lambert's Coffe Service Sutherland's W. W. Grainger Fire Hydrant Maintenance Service Ray Fraley Inacomp computers ntral Ohio Welding adlee Office Products odyear Legend Lake Golf Club Economy Petroleum Equipment, Inc. Columbus Dispatch Ohio Bell Telephone Jerry Brown Tuller Printing and Graphics Sears Roebuck and Co. Domtar Industries, Inc. Robert F. Mayer M Tech Company Office of the Attorney General AT & T Motorola Inc. Floyd Browne Associates, Ltd. Key Blue Prints Brigid Rembert Mary K. Rosner Sue Wilke Marketing advertising and promotion James F. Olausen Athletic Club at Metro V alth One rl's Truck sales and Service lumbus and Southern Ohio Electric The Gledhill Road Machinery Co. Brunning Xerox United Technologies(Otis Elevator) Wandel and Schnell, Architects Service Merchandise Dyna-Serv Inc. National Graphics D & M Distributors Kwik Kopy Printing Dublin Ex-press Printing Clyde E. Williams and Assoc. Inc. Smi th and Hill H. F. ~1cclory Perry Township police Dept. BILL LISTING MARCH 2, 1987 850.50 37.61 79.20 396.85 377 .69 40.00 175.00 4989.00 77.29 605.58 32.76 1000.00 265.00 125.12 1241. 58 345.00 242.55 3.03 5082.61 673.92 58.65 90.00 21.12. 637.00 1860.00 83.33 l80.00 170.00 206.50 26.50 2160.00 95.00 496.44 799.71 5978.66 4800.00 119.80 60.00 290.00 1223.19 19.94 49.80 26.49 7.39 320.26 141. 55 7020.00 5350.00 340.00 2500.00 51771.62 Avery Rd./Indian Run topographic survey DC/F Bulb Coffee supplies for February Wire and supplies Sander,grinding wheel, blades, etc Flush hydrant at 4370 Tuller Rd Document exam-Warner signature IBM computer and equipment-Bldg 1/8" Electrodes, oxygen and acetylene Misc. supplies for all departments Repair truck tire 5-gang, National Mower Repairs to gas pump at maint. bldg. Ad- Vehicle insurance Telephone service for February-March Wash and wax cruisers Employment applications, and incident cards File Salt for roadways. Hotel reimbursement-Police Chief seminar Sewage testing tablets Training for Det. Beaudry,Davis, and Ptl Louks Lease and rental fees Repairs on walkie-talkie/Police Dept Sewer pump station study Mylar and neg. bond paper, template Instruction for kaleidoscope Oil painting instruction Stained glass instruction Typesetting certificates Engineering services Employees membership dues Medical Insurance. rtepairs on dump truck lO Electric charges for Feb./March Snow Plow repair Blue print paper Developer Pressure relief valve test(elevator), Dublin Swimming pool Jog-Trampoline Printer ribbons for Financ2 Dept. computer Record of proceedings-Council Clerk Dietz flasher unit-truck Electrical permit cards, street cards, electrical approval cards Letterhead/business cards- Income tax Traffic signal study plan-Frantz Rd at Blazer and at Metro Place Legal fees for February 1987 Pump Station maintenance agreement Police communications contract