Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/20/2007RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Held Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the Monday, August 20, 2007 Regular Meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Dublin Municipal Building. Present were: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, Vice Mayor Lecklider, Mr. Keenan, Mr. Reiner Ms. Salay and Mrs. Boring. Mr. McCash was absent (excused). Staff members present were: Ms. Brautigam, Mr. Smith, Ms. Grigsby, Mr. McDaniel, Chief Epperson, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Langworthy, Ms. Hoyle, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Crow, Mr. Earman, Ms. Karagory, Ms. Crandall, Ms. Husak and Mr. Phillabaum. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Mayor Lecklider led the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • Regular Meeting of August 6, 2007 Vice Mayor Lecklider moved approval of the minutes of the August 6, 2007 Council meeting. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. EMPLOYEE INTRODUCTION Ms. Brautigam introduced Brett Crowe, new public affairs officer, for the City. Council welcomed Mr. Crowe to the City. CITIZEN COMMENTS Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road: 1. Noted that in his comments on page 6 of the Council meeting minutes of August 6, the reference to his taking cancer treatment drugs is incorrect. His comment was that it was necessary for him to refill a prescription for another medical condition every 90 days. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher indicated that the correction would be made. 2. Referred to the May 21 Council meeting agenda item, Amendments to Chapter 33, Personnel Policies, Section 33.04, Classified and Unclassified Service of the Dublin Codified Ordinances. His faulty use of protocol at the time to secure the mayor's attention and his desire to review the situation with the City Manager before she left for Spain account for his delayed revisit. Core statements in the staff memo arguing for the amendment prompt him to provide a preliminary glimpse of the historical incentive to invent the city council/city manager form and logic of municipal government. The real driver behind it was urban population explosion that made government/administration complex inducing increasing specialized knowledge, especially in cities over 5,000. Above all, because the form evolved within the frame of representative and responsible government that from 1776 onward existed to serve the citizen, it is essential to distinguish between the functions of council and management in their merger. By mid 20th century, the American constitutional historian Charles Beard identifies these functions: "The business of the council is to legislate and scrutinize; the business of the manager is to execute." This distinction with its implications about the flow of responsibility is not, as he sees it, incorporated in the following central, crucial definitions of the staff memo argument: "By way of background, unclassified employees serve at the pleasure of the City Manager and may be dismissed, disciplined or reduced in pay or position at any time without appeal. Unclassified status is synonymous with at-will employment. The basis of establishing an unclassified service is the philosophy that the executive officer of an organization should have the prerogative to select, retain and discharge employees serving in a fiduciary role, a position of trust and confidence, and that this prerogative should not be subject to an administrative appeal process." Two organizational forms with differing authority and logic exist here in potential conflict: a Constitutional representative and responsible government in Council and individual business enterprise in management. That the City Manager, at his or her pleasure, at RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Held 1 i 1 will, can hire, dismiss, discipline, retain and discharge employees, and do so like a business enterprise CEO is supported by the City Charter giving the City Manager the power to "appoint, promote, suspend, remove or otherwise discipline any City employee." But the Charter embeds constraints requiring compliance. The City Manager is the creature of Council, must "submit to Council and make available to the public complete records of the administrative activities of the City," must "make such reports as Council may require concerning the operations of City departments," and must hear "Council express its views with the City Manager about anything pertaining to the hiring and termination of employees whom the City Manager is empowered to hire." The Charter interweaves such constraints around City government at all levels of hiring and firing. For example, City Council itself, empowered to hire a City Manager, cannot fire him or her outright without first a suspension with reasons and then, if he or she requests it, a public hearing. City Council is also, of course, under the prime constraint of citizens' will at elections, the "citizen comments" spot and public testimony on legislation. At the end of their conversation a month ago, the City Manager and he were in basic agreement, except on one matter. About it, since legality was not an issue, he is respectfully silent. An unaccountable exception to constraints on absolute power of firing exists in the case of the Clerk of Council, who according to the Charter, "shall serve at the pleasure of Council and may removed without cause by Council." The only constraints he could see reside in the votes of Council and what the previous City Manager referred to as "a citizen watchdog." Who is there with the character and stamina to fill that latter role? SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS • Historic Dublin Market Assessment -Camoin & Associates Dan Phillabaum, Planner, presented the project background. In order to ensure the long-term economic vitality of the Historic District of Dublin, the City engaged the services of Camoin & Associates, an economic development consulting firm. The goal of the assessment was to identify consumer needs, determine the type of commercial uses that could be attracted to and economically sustained in the district, and to assist in identifying the appropriate scale and mix of businesses that could be supported by the district while preserving and enhancing the unique character of Historic Dublin. The project was initiated in April and the initial findings were presented to Council in June. Since then, the consultant has conducted additional interviews and completed their analysis. This version of the market assessment contains the vision statement, implementation plan, and summary of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats the consultant has identified in the District. Staff seeks Council feedback and direction following the report. Any corrections or clarifications from Council will be incorporated in the final report for submission to Council. Rob Camoin, Camoin & Associates indicated that he would review the purpose of the study before discussing the draft plan. He shared a PowerPoint presentation. The purpose of the assessment was to look at the business development aspects of improving or supporting a better economic climate in Historic Dublin and outline the steps that could be taken in a manner to complement the planning efforts currently underway -the revitalization plan. The data reviewed included demographic trends and projections, commercial real estate data, input from a number of stakeholders in the area, developers, and City Council members. Their conclusion was that there is potential for business development within the Historic District, but there are also significant constraints, many of which are geographic. There also appeared to be a common vision for Historic Dublin. Because it did not exist in writing, their report has tried to capture that vision. It also takes a look at the unique strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to the District. Based on those factors, they have suggested an action plan. The plan begins with a Draft Vision Statement: "Historic Dublin is a quaint village center, distinctive in character and scale, from its suburban surroundings. It is primarily an upscale entertainment district with high quality restaurants, unique specialty retail shops and a steady series of interesting and fun events year round adding to its charm. The District is full of activity, morning, noon and evening, as residents, office workers and visitors walk around and enjoy all that Historic Dublin has to offer." RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council gu 20 The Historic Dublin revitalization plan, prior surveys and discussions with the residents reflect the desire fora (1) quaint village center. Dublin is one of the more affluent communities that they have surveyed and that is the reason that there is the desire and consumer market for (2) the upscale restaurants and specialty retail. The primary interest they heard expressed was for (3) an active and vibrant District. The plan provides many supporting statements for the draft vision statement, such as: (1) an interest in a balanced mix of commercial and residential uses; high-end and high-density housing; new development that complements historic buildings and (2) an interest in renewed partnership between the property owners and the City. The action plan proposes the establishment of apublic-private entity that would address some of the issues identified in the planning process. Their assessment revealed that there is already in place a clear, although unwritten, vision statement, and all the parties -- Council, the residents, business owners and developers, revealed an understanding of that vision. Existing accomplishments and projects are in line with that vision. Mr. Camoin reviewed the 9 Goals and Objectives of the Implementation Plan: 1. Increase residential density. 2. Strengthen organizational capacity to support an improved business climate. 3. Increase activities in Historic District 4. Support existing Historic Dublin businesses 5. Attract desired business types 6. Continue to streamline Historic Dublin's development approval process 7. Make pedestrians feel safer 8. Determine availability of school district property for development 9. Ensure adequate parking Mr. Camoin stated that they were asked to prioritize the top three items for the City to undertake. They identified the top three priorities as: establishing a zoning for higher density residential; establishing a public-private partnership; and staffing that partnership. Many of the initiatives this plan proposes will require the focus of an individual. The City presently does not have anyone in that capacity. Mr. Camoin invited questions. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired what experience he has had with other communities who have created such a staff position to assist in an effort to revitalize a historical area. Have cities historically fully financed the position, or has that been a partnership with the businesses in the historic area? Mr. Camoin responded that it is often a combination. Many times, the position is initiated by the City as a paid position. If a separate entity is created, often the City will contribute. If it coincides with the establishment of a business improvement district, as has been suggested, then typically the position is financed by a number of participating property owners who pay an agreed upon property fee. Those property owners anticipate receiving additional services in addition to the typical municipal services. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if the fee is paid by the property owners, not the tenants of the buildings. Mr. Camoin responded affirmatively, although, typically, that cost is passed on to the tenants. Mr. Reiner inquired the type of businesses that might attract more consumers and more pedestrians to the District. Are more restaurants needed, orhigher-density restaurants? Carmen Lawrence, Camoin & Associates indicated that the information is provided in the Retail Market Analysis included in the report. Included on the list of suggested businesses list are: restaurants/dining establishments and entertainment options, such as: toy/game stores, movie theaters, art venues, photography equipment/supplies, luggage, watches and jewelry stores. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council ~J 1 ~' Mr. Reiner inquired if, based on their experience, there are businesses they would discourage in the District, as it is very small and limited. Would there be businesses that should not use up the limited frontage available and others that might stimulate interest in the area? Mr. Camoin stated other than something such as an adult video store, nothing specific comes to mind in terms of a business to be discouraged. The market will drive the demand. He would anticipate the results would be personal service and specialty retail stores. Mrs. Boring stated that the plan includes an implementation plan matrix. Has Camoin also put together a corresponding matrix of estimated costs for the implementation? Mr. Camoin responded that they have not, but they could do so. Mrs. Boring stated that she agrees with most of the business types suggested. However, the cost of the space would be cost prohibitive to many of the businesses, such as shoe repair. How could those types of businesses be brought in that do not enjoy high profits? Ms. Lawrence responded that one recommendation would be a micro-enterprise program. Some communities have provided low cost financing for working capital loans to assist with the beginning operational costs. Mr. Camoin added that when demand is greater than supply, rental rates will increase. In time, when available space increases through infill and redevelopment, the costs will be less prohibitive. Mr. Keenan stated that the City has either done or is doing many of the actions proposed in this plan. He believes that until the City is able to acquire the needed land from the school district, doing anything more is not possible Mr. Camoin agreed. The existing District is largely built out and there are the additional constraints of the river and ravine. Mr. Keenan stated that for this reason, he is surprised that land acquisition is not one of the top three priorities. Mr. Camoin responded that their understanding was that the City has done what it could in regard to that issue and that the City has an option on the property. Their report does recommend that land acquisition, but they looked at other things they could suggest. Ms. Salay stated that she had anticipated the recommendations to include a parking authority. Does the consultant believe the City has done what it should? Would that not be an appropriate effort for the City to consider? Mr. Camoin responded that their conclusion is that parking would be an ongoing effort of the City. There are other solutions that would involve private property owners as well. The parking issue is something that cannot be addressed by this report alone. Their recommendation was that the City continue to explore and discuss future parking needs. They were not necessarily ruling out a parking authority by not discussing it in the report. Ms. Salay stated that she is interested in how a parking authority might work, what other communities have done and discussing that option with the business community to determine their interest. Parking is certainly an issue. Ms. Salay inquired how amicro-enterprise program would be funded, and how a potential business owner would proceed to obtain funding. Mr. Camoin responded that there are a variety of federal programs -the Small Business Administration and HUD programs are often funded through state and city programs. Ms. Salay inquired if an affluent community like Dublin would be eligible for such programs. Mr. Camoin responded that it would not be eligible for the HUD programs, but Dublin should be able to access the funding through the SBA. Ms. Salay inquired if it would be a duty of the proposed Historic Dublin coordinator to assist small businesses in this manner. Mr. Camoin responded affirmatively. RECORD OF PROCEED[NGS Dublin City Council 1 1 n Held Ms. Salay stated that this is a draft report. What is the next step? Will the report be taken to the Dublin business community to obtain their feedback? Mr. Philllabaum responded that the initial findings were presented in an open forum to the Historic Dublin Business Association (HDBA) and other representatives for their feedback. Other than the Council meeting tonight, no other venue has been scheduled. Staff can look at other options, if that is Council's direction. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it is difficult in this type of forum to discuss and understand all the recommendations. She suggested that staff have an actual work session with the HDBA and thoroughly discuss the recommendations. As has been stated, this needs to be a partnership. The City cannot be solely responsible for the steps that are taken. The business community needs to actively participate in this process in an ongoing manner. No one has signed in to testify on the topic tonight. This was an opportunity for the community to hear the presentation and begin to assimilate the recommendations. Following tonight's presentation, a work session with staff would provide an opportunity for HDBA to formally respond to the recommendations. Mr. Phillabaum responded that staff would proceed accordingly. Mr. Reiner stated that he supports the establishment of a parking authority. A substantial amount of parking area exists behind the buildings. A few years ago, the City expressed an interest in making improvements on those sites if they could be used for public parking. That would be a viable way to address the parking issue without the huge expense associated with a parking garage. There is a large amount of real estate that could be utilized, primarily in the southwest corner of Historic Dublin. It could be worthwhile to learn if the business owners would be interested in such an initiative. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that it is important to invite the business owners to participate in a work session. Historically, they have not been as interested in participating as the City has desired. Currently, the City is investing a large amount of money in developing a parking lot in the Historic District. Although it will provide many more parking spaces, it may not be sufficient for the businesses that will be located there in a few years. She agrees with Mr. Reiner that one component that has not been brought forward during recent discussions is existing parking lots that are privately owned and the potential provision of public parking during business off hours. Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired if the report makes the recommendation that the District would be enhanced by the existence of anchor retail. Ms. Lawrence stated that when they conducted the retail and real estate market analysis, they looked at the potential of what could be developed there if the City acquired the school property. Additional retail could be located there, perhaps with a small store in a national chain as an anchor to draw people to the District. If there were interest in the District becoming more of a retail center, that would be helpful. However, the interviews with Council members regarding their vision for the District revealed that Council is more interested in the Historic District becoming an entertainment and dining district. In that case, the anchor retail would not be desirable. Vice Mayor Lecklider referred to page 9, paragraph 6.3, which provides for the redevelopment of non historic and non-protruding structures, and asked for clarification of the sentence which begins, "Redevelopment proposals for properties not on the list should not be subject to review other than to ensure that they meet the objective criteria developed as part of 6.1." Ms. Lawrence responded that the intent was to make the process more objective and clear from the outset. If the Architectural Review Board and the City agreed on a list of historic properties in the District, any other property not on that list would need to meet all the established criteria if they wished to re-develop a property. There would be no additional review. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher thanked the consultants for the presentation. The next step is to schedule a work session with HDBA. Council members should also be invited to participate, if able to do so. Following that, a final report/recommendation should be brought back to Council for final review and approval. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Mr. Reiner stated that if a certain synergy occurs, the public would be drawn to a particular area, such as has occurred in Grandview. He asked that the consultants advise staff on the mix of businesses that can make that happen. Ms. Salay stated that in Grandview, many retail businesses remain open in the evening after the dinner hour. In Dublin, most of the retail shops close at 5-6 pm. She believes the hours of operation would be important to the vitality of the District. Mrs. Boring inquired what other type of entertainment, other than restaurants, are suggested. Ms. Lawrence responded that it would primarily be specialty boutique shoppes. In response to the synergy question, part of the motivation in establishing an Historic Dublin partnership would be to work out issues such as hours of operation to achieve the desired synergy and to work on attracting desired businesses. LEGISLATION SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 53-07 Accepting the Annexation of 1.479 Acres, More or Less, from Jerome Township, Union County to the City of Dublin. (Petitioners: Robert W. and Elaine T. Horr; Agent: Michael L. Close, Esq.) Ms. Brautigam noted that there was no additional information to report. Vote on the Ordinance: Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. Ordinance 54-07 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with Washington Township to Provide Communication Services for the Washington Township Fire Department. Ms. Brautigam noted that there was no additional information to report. Vote on the Ordinance: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. Ordinance 56-07(Amended) Amending Chapter 99, "Wireless Telecommunication Regulations," of the Dublin Codified Ordinances, and Declaring an Emergency. Ms. Brautigam stated that Mr. Langworthy has spoken with the representative of the law firm who expressed issues today on behalf of their client, AT&T. Mrs. Boring stated that some of these objections seem to be related to regulations that the City already has in place, not to the amendments. Mr. Langworthy responded that when an additional carrier becomes involved, the issue is given another review. Staff hears from other providers, as well. A letter from AT&T has been provided with tonight's meeting materials. He had a discussion with AT&T representatives earlier today. They have requested that Council revise the ordinance language to: 1. Raise the maximum tower height from 140 feet to 190 feet. 2. Measure the 100-foot setback from the tower facility to an actual residential structure, not to the property line. AT&T has also requested a couple of other minor, administrative changes. He reported that the City has restricted the number of permitted districts for the towers to a fairly small number, which limits the number of available locations. When both the number of locations and the height are limited, there is the potential of a request for another tower. There is a trade-off that occurs. A reduced number of sites translates to a reduced amount of coverage, and therefore higher towers are needed. For this reason, AT&T's request to increase the height from the proposed 140 feet to 190 feet does not appear unreasonable. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council 1 II Held Mrs. Boring asked why reducing the tower height requirements was proposed by staff. The current maximum height is 200 feet, and a reduction to 190 feet will leave the current requirements virtually unchanged. Mr. Langworthy responded that he had spoken with the City's wireless consultant and had asked if the height of the towers could be reduced to 140 feet. She indicated that the City could reduce the permissible tower height, but there would be a trade off -with requests for more towers. What appears workable from the City's viewpoint may not be workable from the provider's standpoint. Ms. Salay inquired how the situation could be handled, should the City put into effect the 100-foot setback, the 140-foot height restriction, and a reduced number of districts and possible sites. If a provider could demonstrate that they need 180 feet of height to provide coverage or would need two towers of a lower height, what process is there by which an exception could be granted to them or a variance? Mr. Langworthy responded that there is no such process. The provider could apply for a conditional use from the Planning Commission. However, the Commission would be restrained by the Code requirement. This is not a zoning regulation, and therefore there is no variance procedure. Ms. Salay stated that the proposed ordinance provides for co-location. The higher the tower, the more users are needed. Wouldn't that have the effect of creating a need for fewer tower locations? Mr. Langworthy responded that the potential then would be for the provider to remove an existing tower and build a higher tower. Ms. Salay stated that based on her knowledge, she remains in favor of the 100-foot setback from the property line and the 140-foot tower height. If in the future, there is the need for a higher tower, this issue could be re-visited. She would be in favor of adopting the legislation as drafted. Mr. Keenan asked for clarification of the 100-foot setback AT&T is requesting from residential buildings. Mr. Langworthy stated that the ordinance as drafted includes a 100-foot setback from the property line. AT&T's request is that it be revised to require the 100-foot setback be measured from the actual structure, not from the property line. Mr. Keenan inquired if there could be an issue with surrounding property owners being infringed upon. Mr. Langworthy responded that is the question. Mrs. Boring stated that she agrees with Ms. Salay regarding the 100-foot setback Mr. Keenan added that there are some homes today on Riverside Drive with high property values immediately adjacent to a tower site. Mr. Langworthy responded that although there would be the requirement of the 100-foot setback from the principal building, he understands Council's concern. Mr. Keenan inquired if the lightning rods on top of the towers are calculated in the total tower height. Mr. Langworthy responded that is one of the minor revisions that the providers have requested - to eliminate the height of the lightning rod from the equation. He believes that is a reasonable request. Mr. Keenan inquired how that would interface with the City's existing building codes. If the height is restricted, are the lightning rods as effective? Mr. Langworthy responded that they would be. Mr. Keenan inquired if a tower is at the maximum height, could they then receive approval to install the lightning rods? Mr. Langworthy responded that he believes that is possible. Mr. Keenan stated he would like more information about the method by which a provider would secure approval, whether that would be from Council or from Planning Commission. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council 1 C 1 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher referred to #3 in the letter from the attorney, which states, "may place proprietary information on each carrier at risk." What has been the staff response to that issue? Mr. Langworthy responded that AT&T has objected on the basis that they would be required to disclose any "planned" towers. In their view, that could have the potential of being proprietary information. They ask that the language be revised from "planned" towers to "approved" towers. That also seems a reasonable request. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if that change has been made. Mr. Langworthy responded that he has not made any changes. It was his intention to review the proposed minor changes with Council after the height issue is resolved. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired where in the document is the revised wording that is proposed. Mr. Langworthy responded that it is in Section 99.05J, on page 8. Instead of "sites planned and/or approved" it would read "sites approved." Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher requested that Mr. Langworthy review the other minor changes recommended in the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam suggested that Council postpone this ordinance to the September 4 Council meeting at which time staff will provide a revised ordinance which shows the changes being requested. Mrs. Boring stated that she supports the proposed height restriction and setback, as it will encourage providers to consider other appropriate sites. Mr. Keenan requested that the revised document be redlined to identify the changes in the language. Mr. Langworthy noted that the moratorium on the new towers is due to expire. At this time, Council will need to extend the moratorium or permit it to expire. Ms. Salay moved to extend the cell tower moratorium to the September 4 Council meeting. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. Ms. Salay inquired if staff wants to continue with presentation of the other proposed changes to obtain Council input. Mrs. Boring noted that she would prefer that Legal staff review the proposed changes prior to the next reading. Mr. Smith responded that his office received the letter from the attorney today. However, Mr. Dunn has not had an opportunity to review the document. He would prefer this be postponed until the September 4 meeting. Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired if staff required any other feedback from Council. Mr. Langworthy: 1. Referred to #7, administrative review process. The provider has requested that the "reasonable" time be replaced with more specific terminology. Staff has proposed "within 90 days." 2. Noted the second issue relates to conditional uses, specifically, how cost is considered in the review considerations. On page 15 of the ordinance, page 15, section 99.07, B8 and 66, the statement reads, "Costs of alternative technology that exceed new tower or antenna development shall not be presumed to render the technology unsuitable." It is proposed that the following phrase be added to that statement - "but can be considered as a factor." Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired if that was the provider's request. Mr. Langworthy responded that the provider preferred that the entire statement be deleted, but he would prefer to leave the condition in as a factor, though not a deciding factor. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council gu 1 1 1 Held Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that he would prefer that Legal staff review the proposed changes, particularly the timeframe established for the administrative review process. David Kandel, AT&T, Director of External Affairs stated that, in regard to the tower height, AT&T agrees that trying to coordinate providers is good. However, if the tower height is limited to the extent that, from a technical standpoint, it is not practical to have multiple providers, then in a sense, the City has unintentionally created the need for the provider to build a second tower. There is a certain amount of space required between the equipment. There are also a certain number of pieces that could be affixed to a higher tower. There would be more opportunities to have multiple providers co-locating, which would mean fewer actual towers. Mr. Reiner moved to postpone Ordinance 56-07 to September 4th. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Ordinance 57-07 Amending Portions of the Zoning Code related to Wireless Telecommunication Regulations, and Declaring an Emergency. Ms. Salay moved to postpone Ordinance 57-07 to September 4th. Vice Mayor Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay Ordinance 60-07 Rezoning Approximately 2 Acres Located on the South Side of Post Road, Approximately 2,000 Feet West of the Intersection with Avery-Muirfield Drive, from PCD, Planned Commerce District, to PCD Planned Commerce District. (Perimeter West PCD, Subarea 3 - Post/Perimeter Office Building - 6655 Post Road -Case No. 07-049Z/FDP) Ms. Husak stated that the rezoning is for a proposed office building within Subarea 3 of the Perimeter West Planned District. The two-acre site is located south of Post, west of the intersection with Avery-Muirfield Drive. This application requests two modifications to the previously approved development text. The proposed modifications include permitting access onto Post Road and decreasing the length of the loading space from 50 to 40 feet. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of this rezoning on July 12, 2007 with two conditions. The applicant has addressed both conditions through an addendum to the development text and the completion of an approved traffic study. Ms. Salay inquired if sidewalk would be included on the north side of this property adjacent to Post Road. Ms. Husak responded affirmatively. Ms. Salay inquired if there would be sidewalk to the west and east of this project. Ms. Husak responded that the approved plans for both subareas provided for sidewalks. Mr. Keenan stated that there has been discussion about the potential to install curb and gutter along Post Road in conjunction with the Avery-Muirfield and Post Road roundabout improvements. It is currently bar ditch. Would the plans for curb, gutter and sidewalk interface properly? Mr. Hammersmith responded that there is currently sidewalk in the area adjacent to one of the developments. What happens is that sidewalk ends up being installed on the back side of the ditch, as there is not room to accommodate it between the ditch and the roadway. Mr. Keenan inquired how much room would exist between the sidewalk and the curb and gutter when completed. Mr. Hammersmith responded that no less than 7 feet of tree lawn would be installed. Mr. Keenan inquired if that standard would be maintained with the new development. Mr. Hammersmith responded affirmatively. There were no other questions. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council 1 1 1 Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 66-07 Adopting and Enacting a Supplement (S-21) to the Code of Ordinances. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam stated that this is a pro forma matter, which occurs twice yearly, by which updates to the City Code are approved. Mr. Reiner moved to dispense with the public hearing. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Ordinance 67-07 Rezoning Approximately 13.7 Acres Located on the North Side of Post Road Adjacent to the M.L. "Red" Trabue Nature Preserve, from PUD, Planned Unit Development District, to PUD, Planned Unit Development District. (Morse-Mast Plan -Senior Star Living -6480 Post Road -Case No. 06-138Z). Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Ms. Husak stated that this application is a rezoning request (preliminary development plan) from PUD, Planned Unit Development District) to PUD (proposed Post Road Retirement Village plan). It will create a new PUD from an existing, larger planned district, which is called the Morse-Mast Planned District, approved in 1986. The proposed PUD zoning allows the construction of a 95,000 square-foot assisted living facility accommodating 88 units on the north side of Post Road. The rezoning will also include the existing Dublin Retirement Village senior care facility. To the east of the site is the convalarium, and further to the east is the Presbyterian Church; to the north is the Lowell Trace subdivision; and to the west are the Gordon Farms condominiums. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this case at three meetings, and on July 12 the Commission voted to recommend approval with nine conditions, The applicant has addressed conditions 2, 6 and 9 by modifying the development text and the preliminary development plan. Planning will ensure that conditions 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 will be fulfilled at the final development plan and building permitting stages, as applicable. Subarea A of the proposed site plan will be developed with a new assisted living facility. The development text permits the facility, but the applicant is proposing 22 more units than is permitted by the text. The proposed elevation of the facility is similar in style to the existing building. Significant discussion occurred at Planning Commission regarding the need to limit the elevation to 35 feet, and the applicant has agreed to do so. Mr. Reiner inquired the height of the existing building. Ms. Husak responded that the existing building is approximately 40 feet. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked why the western setback of the site is very minimal. Ms. Husak responded that the applicant modeled this site to be consistent with the adjacent developments. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that there appears to be no more than a 15-foot setback on the side or the rear. Ms. Husak responded that it is 15-20 feet. The existing zoning refers to the Suburban Office zoning classification. It is a straight zone, which means that the side setback is required to be a minimum of 15 feet. That is where the setback proposal originated. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that is not the size of setback Council would typically desire. Is it staff's position that the small setback is allowed by virtue of the original zoning? Ms. Husak responded that staff took this into consideration. The current zoning could potentially allow this building to be located there, and the standard of the current zoning of a setback of 15 feet is what the applicant has proposed. Mrs. Boring asked for clarification about the original zoning classification. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Held Ms. Husak responded that it is a planned district with SO, Suburban Office standards. i 1 G Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired if those standards permitted a setback as minimal as this. Ms. Husak responded that the standards permitted a minimum of 15 feet of setback. The equation used is actually based upon the height and the width of the building. Vice Mayor Lecklider noted that the landscape is also minimal. Will that be enhanced? Ms. Husak responded that the Planning Commission discussed that issue, but did not append a condition. The applicant is aware of the concern, and before the final development plan would move forward, staff would encourage the applicant to landscape the area more than the preliminary development plan provides. Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired if staff is satisfied that the plan provides for sufficient screening of the parking along Post Road. Ms. Husak responded that they are satisfied. There is a Post Road landscape treatment, which is a six-foot high mound. The Planning Commission also discussed the possibility of a stone wall being added to the top of the mound. On the south side of the site, part of that mound is installed now, so it is possible to view the amount of screening it provides. Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired if the stone wall would be included in the mounding. Ms. Husak responded that there were two separate discussions about walls -one about screening dumpsters in service areas and one about adding a stone wall to the top of the mound along Post Road to better screen the cars. However, that was not made a condition. Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired if there was an agreement that the mechanicals would be roof mounted Ms. Husak confirmed that is the agreement. Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired if it would be under the maximum height permitted. Ms. Husak indicated that it would. Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired if the eight-foot high signage that the plan would permit along Post Road is typical. He does not recall other eight-foot signage within that area. Ms. Husak responded that she believes eight feet is the maximum height permitted in some districts. However, she will check specifically on other districts to confirm whether six or eight feet is the maximum permitted. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that an eight-foot high sign for this type of use is unnecessary. The sign is merely for the purpose of identification, and it should not be difficult to locate a facility of this size. He would be interested in input from other Council members on the issue. Vice Mayor Lecklider noted that there has been discussion regarding lighting. Council is sensitive to this issue, as the subdivision backs up to the Red Trabue Preserve. There was discussion about having the lights on timers. He would like to mitigate the lighting impacts from this development. Ms. Husak responded that the applicant has proposed lowering the height of the pole. The potential for timing or reducing the lighting at certain times has not been explored for this application. There have been other cases in which a requirement was made to reduce the lighting by 50 percent after evening hours. That is an option that could be considered for this case as well. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that he would like to see some measures to reduce the lighting to whatever level would be appropriate. Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired about the drainage tiles, which feed directly into the south fork of Indian Run. This issue was raised a few years ago. Ms. Husak stated that Subarea B was developed prior to the City's stormwater regulations. However, in the new subarea, stormwater will be mitigated consistent with the current Code requirements. Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired if this application could provide an opportunity to remedy the existing stormwater drainage situation in Subarea B? Ms. Husak responded that she did not believe so, but she would prefer to have the opportunity to discuss it with Engineering. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Held 20 Vice Mayor Lecklider responded that the existing drainage issue came up during the review of this application. He has seen photographs of the drain the feeding into Indian Run. Mrs. Boring asked about the impact of 22 more beds than what was permitted in the original zoning. Ms. Husak responded that the original zoning limited the total number of units the use could have. From a financial feasibility standpoint, the applicant indicates he needs the extra units. He could construct 66 units through an amended final development plan, but building the additional 22 units required a rezoning. Mrs. Boring inquired the impact the additional units would have on the site. Would retaining the original concept, which the neighbors had expected, mean that the building would be set back further from the driveway? Would it result in a smaller building? Ms. Husak responded that it would result in a smaller building. Mrs. Boring inquired why staff recommends deviating from the original zoning. Ms. Husak responded that staff believed that the applicant addressed the concerns that staff and the residents had voiced and would meet the criteria. Mrs. Boring stated that the impact, however, would be significant. It would put a larger structure on the Red Trabue Reserve. That may have been the original concern and the reason that the total number of units was limited by the rezoning. She does not believe that consideration of financial feasibility is the function of rezoning considerations. Evidently, the Commission went through significant effort to reduce the height of the proposed building. It is unfortunate when a potential buyer makes the effort to check the zoning of the surrounding land and makes a decision based on the existing zoning and expected land use, only to later have the City change the zoning to a more intense use. Mr. Reiner stated that this is a destination location. He does not understand the justification for an eight-foot high sign. He would be interested in knowing the details. Ms. Husak responded that the original text that staff evaluated actually provided for a sign based on the sign code, which permitted a 15-foot sign height. Staff requested that the height be reduced to eight feet, consistent with existing signage. The current sign is 5-6 feet in height. Mr. Reiner inquired if it is a ground sign. Ms. Husak responded that is correct. Mr. Reiner stated that there is no elevation or description of the signage included in the packet materials. Did the Commission members view the sign? Ms. Husak responded that they did not. Those details are provided with the final development plan. Ms. Salay stated that she is uncomfortable with the fact that many of these details are not presented until the final development plan, which prevents Council from viewing them. She wants to view the entire package. She requested that staff work with the Commission and the applicants so that those details are provided with the rezoning. Fine-tuning of the details can occur with the final development plan. Mr. Reiner inquired if the adjacent parcel is owned by Gorden Farms. Ms. Husak stated the adjacent parcel is City-owned parkland. Mr. Reiner asked exactly where the Gorden Farms property line is -does it extend to the edge of the road? Ms. Husak responded that it runs along their access drive. Mr. Reiner stated that he was concerned about devaluation of the neighboring property by a three-story building sitting 15 feet from the property line. However, the adjacent property owner is in fact the City. He understands why the building has been sited as it has, and the proposed density. It is a good fit located next to an already existing retirement home. However, it is fairly tight development for the site. Is a future expansion of Post Road anticipated? Ms. Husak responded that a future widening of the road is anticipated. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council 1 1 ~~ Mr. Reiner stated that Dublin has been careful to require sufficient setbacks to place the buildings back from the roads. With the anticipated widening, will there be sufficient land for a bike trail, the landscaping, the buffer and the mounding? Ms. Husak responded that the plans for the Post Road widening and the bikepath have been accounted for with this proposal, and the applicant has worked with Engineering to include the setbacks from the anticipated future right-of-way. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired what the ultimate setback would be following the widening of Post Road. Mr. Keenan noted that it appears the parking lot would be impacted. Ms. Husak responded that the parking lot setback is 40 feet from the right-of-way. The building setback is 80 feet. Mr. Reiner requested that Ms. Husak indicate where the road widening would impact on this site plan. Ms. Husak responded that there are two dotted lines. One indicates the existing right-of- way; the other indicates the expanded road and right-of-way. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the dashed lines indicate the right-of-way and the future proposed right-of-way. Setbacks are measured from proposed right-of-way, not improved roadway edge. Mr. Reiner inquired what the current setback requirement is for a building of this size. Ms. Husak responded that the Code requires that the setback be half the width of the right-of-way. In this case, the right-of-way is 60 feet, so the setback would be 30 feet. Ms. Salay noted that this is a planned district. Mr. Reiner noted he now understands what happens to the 100-foot or 200-foot setbacks required on major thoroughfares. Mrs. Boring asked about the number of stories in the existing convalarium structure. Ms. Husak responded that it is 1-1/2 stories. The existing retirement village is three stories. Mrs. Boring noted that the convalarium is situated near the road; the retirement village is situated further back on the site. Ms. Salay expressed appreciation for the amount of time that has been spent on obtaining a plan acceptable to the neighborhood. She inquired if the building exterior would be 100 percent stucco. Ms. Husak responded that it is modeled after the existing building, which is primarily stucco with some inlay of brick and stone. Ms. Salay asked if there would be inlays of brick and stone. Ms. Husak responded that, potentially, yes. That would be a final development detail and not included in this packet. Ms. Salay stated that she prefers the look of more brick and stone and less stucco. Stucco does not age well unless it is extremely well maintained. Even then, it does not provide the character that Dublin is seeking today. She would also be interested in having the existing stormwater situation mitigated with this application. Having parking lot drainage and rooftop drainage directly into Indian Run is a concern. From the aerial view, it appears that the building is turning its back on the frontage on the corner. She is concerned with the view in regard to the setback. The plan gives her the impression that the building is tightly "shoe horned" onto the site, and she is not comfortable with it. Fifteen feet between houses feels close, but this involves the entrance to one of Dublin's premier parks. She cannot support the application in its current form -with the minimal setback and the fact that the back of the building is turned to the front. She echoes the concerns about the signage height. In addition, the plan recommends a 16-foot light. Isn't that half the typical light height? Ms. Husak responded that 28 feet is the typical light height. Ms. Salay noted that she prefers the 16-foot height, if it provides sufficient lighting in the parking lot. The City's night sky is vanishing. She would also recommend timers for the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Held lights. She appreciates the effort invested in this application, but she cannot support it in its present form. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she is in agreement with all the concerns expressed. The building does not appear to be coordinated with the existing structure. In viewing the expansion of other retirement facilities, such as Friendship Village, a coordinated look was maintained. The size and location prevent it from feeling part of the surrounding area. She does not recall the details of the original zoning, but she is certain that the size limitations were due to the fact that there was limited property upon which to expand. The current residents of the facility appreciate the greenspace and the pond. The environment plays a critical role in the comfort and health of the residents. This plan seems to diminish that opportunity for the residents. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited the applicant to speak. Ben Hale 37 W. Broad Street representing the applicant stated that he worked on the original rezoning in 1966. The original proposal for the existing building was four stories. They are coordinating the entry with the existing development with a shared sign for both; it does not make a difference if the sign is six feet or eight feet high. The proposed plan will provide an opportunity to the facility that it does not currently have. The existing 134-unit facility provides a higher level of mobility to the residents, as some have automobiles. The proposed facility will provide a higher level of care -- congregate care, 24-hour nursing. Currently, when a resident reaches the point at which they need a higher level of care, they must often move off site, away from their friends and perhaps a spouse. The new 24-hour nursing facility will permit the individual to be moved to a higher level of care but to remain on site with their loved ones and be able to continue their social life. The reason for the significant discussion on building height was an attempt to provide nine-foot ceilings in the new building, consistent with new construction today, and to have sufficient volume in the atrium and dining room. The units in the existing, 37-foot height facility have seven-foot ceilings. This proposed setback is consistent with the existing convalarium. The existing building does have a large amount of brick and stone, and the applicant has agreed to work with staff to construct a building of similar quality. They believe that the proposed plan better meets the needs of the community. The only alternative would be to build more of what presently exists. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that Council does not disagree that the higher level of care should be provided. She requested that staff and the applicant work together to address the concerns expressed this evening. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the September 4 Council meeting. Ordinance 68-07 Rezoning Approximately 5.625 Acres Located South of W. Dublin-Granville Road at the Terminus of Shamrock Boulevard, from SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District. (Sunrise Senior Living -Stoneridge Lane -Case No. 07-0342) Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Mrs. Husak stated that this is a request to rezone the acreage from SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District. The proposed PUD zoning allows fora 66,000-square-foot assisted living facility and an additional 34,000 square feet of office/institutional use. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend approval of this rezoning on July 12, 2007 with four conditions, which are provided in the meeting Record of Action. The Sunrise Senior Living development, encompassing 5.625 acres, is located in the eastern section of the City, south of West Dublin-Granville Road, at the terminus of Shamrock Boulevard. Ms. Husak showed aerials of the surrounding zonings. To the north is the recently approved development, Shamrock Crossing. Council also recently approved the extension of Stoneridge Lane to the north of the site. The Shamrock Crossing concept plan, which was reviewed by Council, included this site in their proposal. The formal rezoning for Shamrock Crossing did not include this site. The applicant is proposing to create two subareas -- Subarea A to the west and Subarea B to the east. Subarea A would be comprised of approximately four acres with access from the terminus of Shamrock Boulevard as it currently exists. The proposed 66,000 square feet assisted living facility would be located to the east of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council 20 that subarea. Parking would be located along the western and southern sides of the building. A detention pond located in the western portion of the subarea will manage stormwater runoff from both subareas. Subarea B is comprised of 1.6 acres and includes a building footprint of 34,000 square feet. The preliminary development plan includes proposed architectural elevations for the assisted living facility. Upon request, the applicant also provided a section drawing to show how the proposed building will fit with the current uses on the site. Mrs. Boring requested that the applicant be sensitive to the residents' concerns regarding lighting. At a minimum, there should be back shields. Ms. Salay inquired the height of the light poles. Ms. Husak stated that she is not certain, but the pole is described in the text. Staff could add a requirement that the poles be 16 feet. Mr. Reiner stated that the dry retention basin is fairly large. How are the aesthetics being handled so that it does not become a site of weeds? Ms. Husak responded that has been discussed with the applicant. It was a concern of staff as well. Dry retention basins are not common in Dublin. The landscape architect has provided plans for naturalized landscaping that have satisfied staff's concerns. Staff will pay close attention to those plans during the final development plan. Mr. Reiner inquired if perennial plantings would be utilized in the landscaping plan for the pond. Ms. Husak responded that it would contain wild flowers to add color. She would envision perennials being planted as well. Mr. Reiner noted that some dry retention basins have been relatively successful. The wet ponds are attractive, but require significant maintenance. Ms. Husak responded that the applicant has much experience with this type of arrangement. Mrs. Boring stated that Mr. McCash had suggested at Planning Commission that the Dublin lighting guidelines be avoided. Why wasn't night sky preservation made a condition of the rezoning? Ms. Husak responded that she was not aware of the reason. Perhaps the Commission believed it would be addressed with the final development plan review. Mr. Keenan stated that this use would probably have the least negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. He believes the plan fits the site well. Ms. Salay indicated that she, too, supports the plan. The plan contains good details on the landscaping and outdoor living features. There is adequate room on the site for these amenities, which should be a benefit to the residents. The only dry detention basin in Dublin that she is aware of is located at Bradenton and Park Center. It is attractive when wet or dry and appears to be low maintenance. It might be helpful to have some photos of that site. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked about the location of the dumpster. Ms. Salay noted that it is located on the southern portion of the site. There was discussion at the Planning Commission hearing concerning the possibility of relocating it. Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired what the recommendation was regarding night trash pick- up issues. Ms. Husak responded that there is a trash track turnaround included. For this reason, the Commission has suggested that the final development plan consider relocating the dumpster away from the residences to minimize the noise for the residents. Ms. Salay stated that it could be merely an operational issue of ensuring the pick-up occurs during the day. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that the residents should not be disturbed with beeping of a trash truck during the night hours. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if the drawings accurately indicate the amount of stone that will be included on the facility. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Ms. Husak responded that she believes they are accurate. The applicant is moving forward toward final development details. Ben Hale 37 W. Broad Street representative for the applicant stated that, initially, he advised the applicant of the prejudice against dry detention ponds in Dublin. When he saw the photographs of other facilities they had done, however, he believed there was a good chance Dublin would approve the plan. He will obtain the photographs for Council. Regarding the dumpster noise issue, the facility owners indicated to him that they exert control over the time the trash track services the facility. They have also been meeting with the neighbors regarding the landscaping plans for adjacent areas and will continue to do so prior to the final development plan submittal. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked that Mr. Hale address the lighting concern noted by Mrs. Boring. Mr. Hale responded that this was discussed at the Planning Commission hearing. They indicated to the Commission that they would consider the night sky preservation standards and try to abide by them. They have included most of the lighting recommendations in their plans. They offered to have that made a condition for approval, but the Commission did not believe it was necessary. Linda Merchant-Masonbrink, 3168 Lilly Mar Court stated that they are pleased that representatives of Sunrise Senior Living have been meeting with the neighborhood to address their concerns. Those concerns include adequate buffering of visuals, noise and light. They have also discussed habitat enhancement of the dry basin. They are supportive of the planned construction of Sunrise retirement community at Shamrock Crossing, which may buffer their neighborhood from the retail development planned along S.R. 161. The plans the residents reviewed yesterday are substantially more detailed than those being viewed tonight. There is some representation of mounding behind their neighborhood that is five to six feet in height with plantings on top. They look forward to continued discussions with Sunrise representatives as the details evolve. Andrew George, 3154 Lilly Mar Court stated that their neighborhood is unique -all one- acre parcels in a double cul de sac design. It is similar to country living in the city. To find something similar, they would have to move to Delaware county and have a significantly longer commute. They would like to preserve the neighborhood as much as possible. An assisted living facility is preferable to many other types of development. He does have some concerns with "line of sight" issues and buffering. According to the EMHT plans submitted at the August 3, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, a 4-6 foot berm is planned with 8-10 foot plant height (evergreen species). However, this is listed as a condition for final engineering plans. He believes it should be stipulated that even if import is necessary, it should be made a condition for final engineering. Otherwise it may not happen. The photometric analysis indicates the need for zero candle lumens on properties to the south. He also is concerned about Subarea B. Nice details were provided for Subarea A, including the different building materials for different facades. However, they have not seen anything for Subarea 6, although that area has been combined in this rezoning request. With the expense that has been incurred for surveying and associated legal costs, he does not believe Sunrise plans to leave that area as greenspace, as was previously suggested. The 1.6 acres zoned as PUD at this location would sell quickly. A two or more story building could easily be built on this parcel without any notable line of sight protection. Therefore, he proposes that a 4-6- foot barrier with planted evergreen species be added as a condition for this area as well, to provide a buffer and maintain the existing line of sight. Finally, he requests that the setback in Subarea B be stipulated in the text. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher indicated that her impression was that there were plans for a commercial building in Subarea B. Mr. Hale responded that the zoning provides the authority to either build more of the same type of facility or an office building on that site. The text indicates that if it were a one-story building, it could be set back 50 feet; if it were higher than one story, the setback would be 85 feet. They will add provisions for landscaping in Subarea B. Presently, they do not have a use for that site, so the plan is to retain it for their own use. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council If that plan changes, it will be placed on the market. Staff has requested a capacity study to suggest what might be built on the site. The small drawing provided in packet materials envisioned what type of office building could be accommodated on the site. Mrs. Boring inquired if Mr. Hale would be willing to amend the text to indicate that the landscaping on Subarea B would match what is next to the properties. Mr. Hale responded that they would be willing to do so. Mrs. Boring requested information regarding the engineering requirements in relation to the height issues. Ms. Husak responded that the southern boundary landscaping buffer is described in the text for both subareas. In essence, it provides for a buffer at a minimum height of six feet -- either a mound, fencing or trees. Because there are existing trees on the site, it is preferable that the existing vegetation not be disturbed. The final engineering plans could make a difference it were to be a mound, but it could be other than a mound. Mrs. Boring requested that staff address Mr. George's concern that the residents not receive what is expected, as it is dependent upon final engineering plans. Obviously, there is not a desire to eliminate mature trees. Ms. Husak responded that is correct. Regardless of the various options, there will be a six-foot tall screen of some type. The text does not indicate any engineering issues with the options. Mr. Hale noted that there is a need to avoid existing tree roots and to ensure that there is adequate drainage on the site. There is a need to engineer that part of the plan, so it cannot be resolved until the final development plan stage. Mr. Reiner stated that, in reviewing the plan, it does not show elevations. In regard to the question asked by Mr. George about the mounding, will it become part of the application for the final development plan? Ms. Husak responded that is correct. Mr. Reiner stated that he has some concerns about the recommended screening on the back of the mound, specifically, arborvitae as a long-term screen in exposed areas, and taxus yews of the spreading variety. Some of these shrubs grow only about 30 inches in height and are not good screening elements. Other alternatives might provide a more effective buffer for the neighbors -- something that could grow 30 to 70 feet. In addition, fewer elements would be used, which would save the applicant money. He would advise reviewing the suggested planting along the perimeter to achieve privacy for the owners of the neighboring one-acre sites. The suggested materials also include white pines. Eastern white pines do not fare well here. It would be better to substitute Norway Spruce, which performs well in this area and provides high density screening, noise buffering and high opacity. He would suggest re-evaluating the buffer to provide a more forested look for the neighbors. A 30 inch tall, spreading yew would not only be very expensive, but would not provide the desired screening. Permanent evergreen elements would save the applicant money, provide better screening and please the neighbors. Mr. Hale indicated he would convey that information to the applicant. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the September 4 Council meeting. Ordinance 69-07 Authorizing the Purchase of a 16.9 Acre, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest, from J.T. Davidson, Clara Lewis and Mark E. Vannatta, Trustees of the Edward F. Hutchins Revocable Trust, Located on the West Side of Riverside Drive, County of Franklin, State of Ohio. Ordinance 70-07 Authorizing the Purchase of a 3.64 Acre, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest, from Francis T. Barry and Virginia T. Barry, Located on Woodland Drive, City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio. Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced Ordinances 69-07 and 70-07. Ms. Brautigam stated that the parcels included in these two ordinances are parkland acquisitions near the northern border of the City. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council ~' 1 There will be a second reading/public hearing at the September 4 Council meeting, INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING -RESOLUTIONS Resolution 55-07 Authorizing the City Manager to Accept and Receive a 0.975 Acre, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest, Donated by the Balgriffin Homeowners Association, Located on the East Side of Wilcox Road, City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio. Mrs. Boring introduced the resolution. Ms. Brautigam stated that this an unused section of land located between two areas of City-owned parkland that the homeowners were maintaining. They have requested permission to dedicate it to the City. It is adjacent to the City's parkland and would be easier for the City to maintain. Staff concurs with the request. Vote on the Resolution: Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Resolution 56-07 Accepting the Lowest and Best Bid for the Avery Park Phase Two Ball Fields Project. Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the resolution. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher. OTHER • Update re Tuttle Crossing Widening Project Mr. Hammersmith stated the staff report is intended to give Council a project update and to make them aware that at a future Council meeting a resolution to update the City's cooperative agreement with Franklin County regarding this project would be proposed. The bids for the widening project will be opened tomorrow and the construction will begin soon thereafter. The access to old Hirth Road as it exists today would be eliminated and a traffic circle constructed at the junction with new Hirth Road. Thereafter, existing Hirth Road north of that circle up to Tuttle Crossing would be a right in-right out access only. The residents have asked that the project include some masonry columns. Providing that neighborhood amenity would help to deter vehicles from entering the neighborhood anticipating an outlet further to the south. He clarified that the total cost of the traffic circle is estimated at $180,000. The contribution by the Edwards Company will be $70,000, making the City's portion $110,000. The City's funding for the Tuttle Crossing widening project is $1.5 million. The City's obligation was to pay for bikepaths, sidewalks and other amenities unique to Dublin as well as the land acquisition costs. Ms. Salay stated that the neighborhood was concerned that it be memorialized that at some point in the future, new Hirth Road would be eliminated as future access is anticipated through a commercial parcel along Tuttle Crossing. She requested that notation be included in a resolution so that future staff and future Council will be aware of the understanding. Mr. Hammersmith responded that an appropriate time to do that would be with the traffic circle construction. The Franklin County Engineer's office has offered to design the project. Staff proposes that Dublin fund the construction. The project bid acceptance resolution could contain the memorialized long-term plan for Hirth Road. • Final Plat -Oak Park Residential (Oak Park Plan -Mitchell-Dewitt Road and Hyland-Croy Road (Case No 07-001 FDP/FP) Ms. Husak stated that on March 15, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the final development plan for this site. The site is located in the northwest portion of the City. The north fork of Indian Run crosses the site. Trees exist along the western and southern portions of the site. Across the street from the site is the Dublin Jerome High School. The Glacier Ridge Metro Park borders the site to the west and the south. The plat provides for 72 single-family lots and 36 townhouse lots, public improvements, utility easements and 24 acres of open space. Only the residential RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council portions were platted. The commercial section will require a separate final development plan application. Pursuant to condition 14 of the Planning and Zoning Record of Action, the applicant filed that application on August 1. The plat meets all the criteria and staff recommends approval. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired the timeframe for construction. Ms. Husak responded that the applicant has applied for a building permit for construction of the clubhouse. However, the public infrastructure must be in place before anything else can occur. Vote on the Final Plat: Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. • Proposed Council Meeting Schedule for 2008 Mrs. Boring asked if the budget hearing date could be changed so that it does not conflict with the National League of Cities conference. Ms. Salay noted that on Wednesday, November 5, it is likely the school district will hold its annual Family Night. This year, the budget meeting was moved from Wednesday to Thursday for the same reason; a similar action will likely be necessary in 2008. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that a revised 2008 calendar would be prepared for the September 4 Council meeting, including those requested revisions. • Appointment of Acting Clerk of Council Mr. Keenan moved that Deputy Clerk Judy Beal be appointed Acting Clerk of Council for the period of time of August 22 through August 29. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Mrs. Boring stated that other Ohio communities are beginning to take measures to address the growing deer population. She asked if staff could research what other communities similar to Dublin are doing? Ms. Brautigam indicated staff would investigate and report back to Council. Mr. Keenan stated that: 1. The Veterans Project Committee has been discussing a potential fundraising event to be held in September. At their last meeting, the Committee discussed sending out an RFP to hire a professional fundraiser for the project. Committee members considered it prudent not to proceed with fundraising events, pending any action that Council might take. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that she has previously indicated that she believes an RFP should be sent out for this purpose and a committee established to execute the fundraising efforts. It may include some members of the Veterans Committee, but could be more expansive. Mr. Keenan inquired if staff is working to that end. Ms Brautigam responded that they are. Later this week, the RFQ will be ready to send out. Mr. Keenan inquired the anticipated timing on the project. Ms. Brautigam responded that, typically, 30 days response time is permitted for an RFQ. 2. Mr. Keenan noted that earlier this evening, he, the Mayor, Mrs. Boring, Ms. Brautigam and several staff members attended the Washington Elementary School dedication. The presentation was very nice and the efforts of City staff on the project were recognized. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated: 1. Although she was unable to participate, she has spoken with Ms. Nardecchia and Ms. Crandall and understands that the River Clean-up project was a success. Following that event was the kick-off of the Riverbox Project. She encouraged everyone to participate in the riverbox scavenger hunt. She commended Mr. Guion and the Dublin RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 August 20, 2007 Page 20 Arts Council staff for bringing the new idea to the community. A curriculum for 3~d and 4`h grade art students has already been developed. This is a great combination of efforts of the Arts Council, the City and the school district. 2. Tomorrow evening, August 21, the Dublin Chamber of Commerce will host a reception for the new Dublin Schools superintendent, Dr. Axner and Treasurer Steve Osborne at the Woodfin Suites on Tuller Road. 3. Noted that a few weeks ago, an email was sent to Council members polling for a date for a Council tour of the new Dublin Methodist Hospital. Ms. Brautigam noted that the date did not need to coincide with a Council meeting. The walk-through will be more in-depth than is typical. It will give Council members the opportunity to tour the hospital with one of the architects. They would like to point out the unique features of the facility and describe the wellness opportunities the hospital will provide. Following discussion, September 10, September 12 and September 24 were identified as possible tour dates. The date will be determined pending the decision to hold a study session on September 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to adjourn to executive session at 10:00 p.m. for land acquisition and legal matters. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher announced that the meeting will be reconvened following the executive session only for the purpose of formally adjourning. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was reconvened and formally adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Mayor -Presiding Officer .~ 1 Clerk of Council