Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/04/2007RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS September 4, 2007 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the Tuesday, September 4, 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, Ms. Salay and Mrs. Boring. Mr. Reiner was absent (excused). Mr. McCash arrived at 7:25 p.m. Staff members present were: Ms. Brautigam, Mr. Smith, Ms. Grigsby, Mr. McDaniel, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Langworthy, Ms. Puskarcik, Mr. Gunderman, Mr. Earman, Ms. Crandall, Mr. Harding and Ms. Hoyle. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Ms. Salay led the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • Regular Meeting of August 20, 2007 Council Meeting Approval of the minutes was postponed until the September 17 Council meeting. SPECIAL PRESENTATION Tracy Moore Director of Preparedness and Safety Solutions, American Red Cross presented the 2007 State Championship banner for the annual lifeguard competition to the Dublin lifeguard team. Members of the team include Kim Wigram, Stu Benton, Jon Weirich and Amy Meeks. Kim and Stu accepted the banner on behalf of the team. Ms. Moore noted that the Red Cross hosts a local lifeguard competition each year. This team won the local lifeguard competition on Sunday, July 15 and was invited to attend the state competition. Dublin Parks & Recreation hosted the event at the Dublin South Pool. The Dublin team placed first at the state championships out of 27 teams. She congratulated the members of the team. CORRESPONDENCE Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that correspondence had been forwarded to Council from the Division of Liquor Control regarding the previous objection filed by Council in regard to permits for Dublin Sunoco. She asked Mr. Smith about the basis on which the Liquor Department will not issue permits, if school proximity does not constitute such a basis. Mr. Smith responded that this is the third time Council has objected to permits at this location on the basis of the proximity of the school buildings. It can be appealed, but the Liquor Control department would proceed with issuing the permits. The basis upon which the Liquor board has taken such actions is that the location is grandfathered and has had permits for a very long period of time. There would be a better chance of amending the state code in regard to the powers of the Liquor Control division versus winning such an appeal. Ms. Salay asked if it would make a difference if this location housed a bar type of establishment versus a carryout location. Mr. Smith responded that it is possible. The Board does not disclose their reasoning - they simply take the issue under advisement and issue an opinion. He will check on this and report back to Council. CITIZEN COMMENTS Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road stated that he has three items tonight. 1. He asked if the deadline has passed for preparing documentation to run for City Council. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that the deadline has now passed. Mr. Maurer noted that he had and has no reason to run for Council. But if he had run for election and won the office, would the motion unanimously passed last October regarding to discussion of the issue of Mr. Kindra's firing stand if he were on Council? Mr. Smith responded he is not certain. As a Council Member, he could introduce legislation. The Chair does control the meeting. He would guess that Council could continue to set the agenda, but under "Roundtable" an elected official could bring up matters. He has not researched this question. 2. He thanked the Mayor for asking Mr. Guion of the Dublin Arts Council to send him information about the Dancing Hares artist. Mr. Guion did so. From his own reading of the materials, his perceptions and intuitions are strengthened, but his review is not complete. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin Citv Council September 4, 2007 Page 2 ~~ 3. His third issue is transparency. During the time he was pursuing the Kindra firing, and during the time he spoke of First Amendment rights, he did everything out in the open for all to see. In the Council meeting of July 2, he indicated that he wanted to know by the next evening whether or not Council would remove the restriction on his free speech. There was no response to that. He then spent July 4~h writing a first draft of a complaint, and the rest of the month editing it, and then filed it with the American Civil Liberties Union. He has a copy with him tonight which he will provide to the Clerk of Council. Council can then do with it as they see fit. LEGISLATION POSTPONED ITEMS Ordinance 56-07(Amended) Amending Chapter 99, "Wireless Telecommunication Regulations," of the Dublin Codified Ordinances, and Declaring an Emergency. Ms. Brautigam stated that immediately prior to the last hearing, staff received a letter from the attorney representing AT&T, recommending certain changes. Council postponed the ordinance until tonight, and staff has provided a report regarding recommendations in response to the letter from AT&T. Mr. Langworthy reviewed the memo that outlines the changes requested and staff's response to those, others not recommended for approval, and a memo from the Law Director regarding the changes. A redlined version of the ordinance was provided as well. 1. Section 99.04(6) -Definitions - "Height" AT&T proposed that language be added which would exclude lightning arrest devices from the computation of maximum height of the tower. Staff believes this is a reasonable request, and the change is reflected in the amended ordinance. Ms. Salay asked about the typical height of a lightning arrest device. Mr. Langworthy stated that they vary, and he would estimate around 15 feet. Mr. Keenan asked if any are installed on existing cell towers. Mr. Langworthy responded he does not know. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that Mr. Kandel of AT&T address this issue in his testimony. 2. Section 99.05(C)(1)Q) - "Application" It was suggested that the wording be changed to require "contact information" rather than "identification." This request relates to potential carriers, and there was a concern about the proprietary nature of this information. The intention is merely to have a contact person for the tower. The language has been changed accordingly. 3. Section 99.05(C)(1)(I) - "Application" The request was to delete "planned sites" from the required tower/antenna inventory. This related to the possibility of divulging proprietary information in terms of planned sites for a carrier versus those which had been approved. This language has been removed. 4. Section 99.05(C)(2)(a) - "Applications" The concern expressed was that if the City required more than one tower to be considered as one application, a controversial tower could hold up the entire application. Staff added the possibility of having multiple applications where there is concern about this occurring. Mrs. Boring stated that there may be an issue if the controversial site is a key one for coverage. It seems that all locations should be considered in concert with one another so that the coverage is achieved. Mr. Langworthy agreed, noting that if the applicant believes one tower may be controversial but does not include this one, there could be a potential problem. But he does not have a solution to this issue. (At this point, Mr. McCash arrived at the meeting.) RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council September 4, 2007 Page 3 5. Section 99.06(B)(2)(d) - "Administrative Appeals" The proposed change would place time limits on administrative approval decisions and notification of decisions, and provide appeal to the BZA if the time limit is not met. The concern expressed was with the language "reasonable time" which could unnecessarily draw out the process. Staff is suggesting a 90-day time period for a decision by the Administrative review team, and aten-day notice period following that for notice to be given to the applicant. 6. Section 99.06(B)(3)(b) - "Appeals" AT&T requested that the wording clarify that the written record required in the administrative review is made available to the Board of Zoning Appeals. This ensures that the appellant's testimony is provided to BZA through the written record. This is a clarification of the language in the ordinance. Mr. Langworthy noted that the following requested modifications by AT&T are not recommended: 1. Section 99.05(C)(4)(a)(i) - "Lot size and setback" AT&T requested that the required 100-foot setback be measured from the tower to a residential structure rather than from the tower to the property line. Staff believes that the required setback provides a suitable amount of open space and distance from property lines. 2. Section 99.05(C)(3)(f) - "Maximum Height" AT&T requests a maximum height of 190 feet for all towers versus the 140 feet in the ordinance as drafted. Staff believes that 140 feet maximum height for the multiple user tower is appropriate, particularly given the fact that administrative approvals are given for alternative or "stealth" types of towers. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that extensive discussion was held at the previous hearing on the changes not being recommended by staff. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited public testimony. David Kandel, External Affairs Director, AT&T noted there are two significant changes that the industry is very concerned about. They have some minor suggestions for change in response to these concerns. 1. AT&T does emphatically support the concept of co-location. The intent of the ordinance is to promote co-location. However, the practical application of the ordinance will have the opposite effect of the intent. Currently, the height limit is 190 feet. There needs to be between 10 and 20 feet between the various providers' equipment on the tower to prevent interference of signals. From an aesthetic perspective, there is little difference between a tower of 140 feet and one of 190 feet. From a co-location and operational standpoint, there is a significant difference. Most of their towers are now in the 140 to 160 range. As the ordinance is now written, the height will be reduced to 140 feet. The fourth company on that tower will be at the 80-foot level, and the height for those at the lower end may not be adequate to meet the demands of their customers. They may need to erect their own tower due to the significantly reduced height requirement. The effect of the ordinance could actually increase the number of towers that need to be constructed in the community. If Council wants to encourage co- location, they should not approve an ordinance which will in effect discourage it. If Council desires a lower height restriction, he suggested it be lowered to 170 feet, which would provide enough range for four competitors to share the tower. 2. They also have concerns about the setback language. They understand and support the concept of keeping towers away from residential areas. They agree that the setback should be 100 feet from the residential property line. But the ordinance requires a 100-foot setback from all property lines. This makes placing towers in the areas set aside for this purpose nearly impossible. A 100-foot setback on a commercial property typically places a tower in the center of a commercial property. They will not want a tower in the prime portion of their commercial or industrial space. This can be addressed by adding one word to the ordinance - "residential" property line. That would resolve the issue -- not for only AT&T, but for the entire industry that serves this community. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council 1 1 1 He summarized that the ordinance as written will place severe and arbitrary limitations on cell towers. This is a highly competitive business, and residents and businesses will not be pleased if public policy restricts technology and the demands of the community cannot be met. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that staff has worked with a consultant on these changes. She asked Mr. Langworthy to address the issue of 140 feet height versus 170 feet. Mr. Langworthy responded that the City's consultant, Jan Murphy is very familiar with this technology and equipment. Her recommendation related to the 80 foot limit and the lowest serviceable antenna height. Mr. Kandel is not indicating that the 80 foot height would not be serviceable, but rather that the coverage would be limited. Ms. Murphy indicated that 15 feet between antennae was appropriate. Calculating this provides a height limit of 140 feet. Staff felt the 80 foot was reasonable. He emphasized that the ordinance also provides for alternative towers, either located on existing light poles or on water towers or other facilities. Stand alone towers are not the sole alternative. Mrs. Boring noted that one of the purposes of the restrictions is to encourage the providers to explore alternative locations for these devices. Mr. Langworthy stated that staff did some internal analysis on existing tower locations, what zoning districts they would be permitted in, and reviewed the coverage the City has in place with existing towers. The coverage is good at this time, without considering the alternative towers. Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road predicted that in ten years, the technology will be such that the current towers will seem primitive. On page 3 of the ordinance, in regard to alternative tower structure, what is a man-made tree? Mr. Langworthy responded that Dublin's pine tree tower in Scioto Park is an example of such aman-made tree. It looks like a tree, but is actually a cell tower. Mr. Maurer asked if every metallic tower is ipso facto a lightning rod. Mr. Langworthy responded that the AT&T representative can respond to this. Mr. Maurer asked how many towers are existing in Dublin and are planned in Dublin. Mr. Langworthy responded that there are approximately 12 existing, although some antennae are located on other structures. Mr. Maurer asked if there are any irreconcilable collisions between the tower technology and the City values of health, safety and welfare. Mr. Langworthy responded he is not aware of any. David Kandel. AT&T noted that the reason the antenna include lightning rod equipment is because they do draw lightning. The lightning rod serves to ground the lightning. A lightning hit could result in being without wireless service in that cell. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked about the spacing needed between devices on towers. Mr. Kandel responded that typically, the industry prefers spacing between 10 and 20 feet. It depends upon the terrain, the signal and number of cell sites. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked about the height of a typical lightning rod device. Mr. Kandel responded he does not know. In regard to how many cell sites are currently in the City, AT&T has five within the City limits and another 19 on the periphery which serve Dublin. Ms. Salay moved for emergency passage. Vice Mayor Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. McCash, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Ordinance 57-07 Amending Portions of the Zoning Code related to Wireless Telecommunication Regulations, and Declaring an Emergency. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Held 1 J 1 Ms. Brautigam stated there have been no changes subsequent to the previous reading. This is the zoning code portion of the amendments to Chapter 99. Richard Helmbright, Site Development Manager, Sprint/Nextel, 2005 Sutter Parkway, Dublin noted that the concerns expressed by Mr. Kandel on behalf of AT&T are valid ones and ones shared by Sprint/Nextel. For all carriers, wireless technology is part of the standard communications. It is not just a service, but a public necessity for public safety, police, fire, FEMA, US Marshals, Secret Service, and all branches of the military utilize phones of all carriers. During the 9-11 event, communications went down and all carriers provided wireless communications. All major disasters have resulted in reliance upon wireless carriers. He deals with public safety entities throughout the state of Ohio and all departments, including Dublin have radio systems as primary service. Public safety entities utilize wireless phones of various carriers because of reliability and better coverage. He summarized that Council should postpone these amendments for further consideration and review, and for further input from the wireless carriers. The goal is to have a workable ordinance which will maintain the desired level of service for the community. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked staff for clarification. Ordinance 57-07 simply moves the regulations related to wireless telecommunications from the zoning code into the wireless chapter, correct? Mr. Langworthy responded that is correct. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher added that Ordinance 57-07 is then an administrative amendment related to Ordinance 56-07, which has already been approved by Council. Mr. Langworthy stated that is correct. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that she will accept a motion for emergency passage. The reason for emergency passage for this and the previous ordinance is that a moratorium was imposed on cell tower applications and extended until September 4. In order to lift the moratorium, it is necessary to approve the ordinances by emergency tonight. Mr. McCash moved for emergency passage. Vice Mayor Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 55-07 Adopting the 2008-2012 Five-Year Capital Improvements Program. Ms. Brautigam stated that two workshops were held on the CIP during August. This document includes the changes requested in the CIP review process. Mr. Keenan asked about the Avery Road/Shier-Rings roundabout. The funding had been programmed in 2008 for preliminary design work. Will all of the design work be completed in 2008? Ms. Grigsby responded that 2008 funding is for preliminary, not final design for the project. The preliminary design will help to understand the right-of-way needs for the project. Mr. Keenan asked when the final design will be done for the project, as this was the direction given by Council during the workshops. Ms. Brautigam clarified that the direction give was for staff to understand the intersection better. In order to do so, preliminary design will be done. Staff will then bring to Council the alternatives that are learned about in preliminary design plus the estimated costs so Council can make a determination. Staff can then program funding in a future CIP for final design. Mr. Keenan confirmed that this item will come back to Council at the CIP hearings in 2008, and Council will then have the benefit of the preliminary design to make other decisions on finalizing and perhaps moving this project forward. There are several RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council 1 D 1 businesses that are impacted by the project, as previously discussed at a Council meeting. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher added that with preliminary design done, the businesses would also have a better understanding of the potential impacts. Mr. Keenan stated that Council will then have a better of idea of where this project should be placed in the future CIP. Ms. Salay noted that design work for the Tuttle Crossing Boulevard extension from Wilcox to Avery Road is programmed in 2008, and further design work and right-of-way acquisition in 2009. She asked for verification of whether the alignment of the portion westward from Avery will be decided by the end of 2009, because she has had some questions from developers about the alignment. Mr. Hammersmith responded that staff will have the guidance of the Community Plan to better determine that alignment, working with the property owners. There is not a firm concept of the alignment of that portion at this time. Ms. Salay asked if this will be known by the end of 2009. Mr. Hammersmith responded that is the expectation. Vote on the Ordinance: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road noted there is a line item for synthetic turf at the Dublin high schools. What is the rationale for the City funding this, and does this include construction and maintenance? Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that the City and the Schools have partnered on a number of occasions. The school district approached the City a few years ago about partnering on this project and the City agreed to do so. The City utilizes the field for the July 4th event and felt this turf would give longer life to the field. Mr. Maurer asked if the City funds this for all of the high schools. Ms. Grigsby responded that the funding to the District is split among the three high schools. Ms. Salay added that the DCVB works to host conventions and special events in the City, and the upcoming Can-Am Police and Fire games will use the high school fields for their events. 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). Ms. Brautigam indicated that the applicant is requested that this item be tabled indefinitely, based upon the comments made at the last hearing. Ms. Salay moved to table Ordinance 67-07 indefinitely. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. 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) Mr. Gunderman noted that several issues were raised about the rezoning at the last hearing. 1. In regard to site lighting, the text has been revised to indicate that the maximum height of a light pole has been lowered to 16 feet. 2. In regard to the landscape buffer, the text has been revised to indicate that the area of Subarea B will have the same treatment as the landscape buffer on the rest of the property. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council D Held 20 3. In regard to the retention facilities, some sample photos of the same type of retention ponds with and without rainwater at other locations in Dublin and outside of Dublin have been provided. He offered to respond to any other questions. Ms. Salay noted that in the photos, two treatments are depicted. The Tuttle Crossing one near Llewellyn Farms South is not as aesthetically pleasing as the one at Park Center. She wondered which type of treatment is proposed for this application. She favors one with more plant material and more rocks in a more naturalized setting. It is aesthetically pleasing in a wet and dry condition. Andrew George, 3154 Lilly Mar Court, Dublin noted that Linda Masonbrink could not attend tonight's meeting and wanted him to voice her concern. There is a Stavroff development nearby, and around dinner time until 8 or 9 p.m., there is a lot of construction noise. For the Sunrise development, she is requesting that the landscape berm be installed with the site excavation so that it will help mitigate the noise coming into their subdivision. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked Mr. Gunderman to investigate this. Mr. Gunderman stated that this issue and any others raised will be reviewed at the final development plan stage. 1 1 Vice Mayor Lecklider echoed Ms. Salay's comments regarding the detention pond treatment. Personally, he likes the photo on the back page, beneath which it indicates "Chicago" -which is fitting for this site. The plant material shown is more aesthetically pleasing. Mrs. Boring noted that construction activity times are regulated by ordinance. She asked for the specific time limits. Mr. Gunderman responded he is not certain of the exact hours. Ms. Brautigam indicated the restrictions are from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Mrs. Boring asked who a citizen would contact at 9 p.m. if there were a violation. Ms. Brautigam responded that they should contact zoning code enforcement. Staff can visit the site the next day to ensure the noise violations do not occur again. Because the issue has been raised, she will request the zoning code enforcement staff to investigate. Mrs. Boring stated she has had calls in regard to the roundabout construction area, particularly on the weekends when work is beginning prior to 7 a.m. Mr. McCash noted that during the previous hearings on this project, lighting was discussed. He had commented about avoiding the Dublin lighting guidelines and possibly looking at some night sky preservation issues. It is not reflected in the P&Z minutes, however, but he believes the applicant's representative made comment that all of the lighting in the back of the building would be reduced in the evening to that needed for security reasons. He does not see that reflected in the text. Mr. Gunderman responded that he recalls that discussion. He is not aware of anything in the text that addresses it, and it can be dealt with at the final development plan. Mr. McCash noted that he is concerned that the text currently references the Dublin lighting guidelines and indicates it "may" deviate, not that it "shall" deviate from those guidelines. Under the lighting guidelines, the back of the building will be too bright for the adjacent residential area. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that a condition could be added, and the applicant's representative, Mr. Hale, is present to respond. Ms. Salay agreed with Mr. McCash, and encourages staff, wherever possible, to minimize light. The existing lighting guidelines are, in her opinion, too bright for most areas. As time goes by, fewer stars are visible in Dublin. Reducing lighting wherever possible is desirable. Ben Hale. Jr., representing the applicant stated that they are using full cut-off fixtures. Subsequent to the last meeting, they reduced the height of the fixtures to 18 feet. They are willing to address any other concerns at the final development plan. There is a RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 1 1 September 4, 2007 Page 8 website devoted to night sky preservation, and they focus on height of poles for cut-off fixtures, which they have committed to do. If there is a further issue of reducing lighting, a representative of the company is present tonight. They believe the changes made to the text had addressed the concerns of Council. In addition, the applicant has committed to the dry pond as shown to Council, and will do a first-class job, better than anything done to date in Dublin. Mr. McCash moved to add a condition: "That the light levels at the rear of the structure shall be sufficiently reduced in overall coverage during the night time periods to reduce and minimize the impact on adjoining properties, and that this be reviewed during final development plan." Mr. Hale responded that in view of the staff present 24 hours a day, they must ensure the staff can safely access their cars. They must meet the security needs for the staff. Within that confine, they will be happy to work with staff and the Planning Commission at final development plan. Mrs. Boring seconded the motion, but requested that this apply as well to Subarea B lighting. Mr. McCash agreed to this modification which would make this applicable to Subarea A and B. He noted that there may be different lighting provisions between A and B because of the timing periods. Vote on the Ordinance with the additional condition: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. 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. Ms. Brautigam stated there has been no change subsequent to first reading. These ordinances authorize purchase of some vacant property on Riverside Drive known as the Hutchins and Barry properties. Vote on Ordinances 69-07 and 70-07: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 71-07 Rezoning Approximately 1.66 Acres Located at the Intersection of Heather Bluff Drive and Wilcox Road, from R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District. (Heather Bluff Estates -Preliminary Development Plan -Case No. 02-1172) Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Ms. Salay noted that she has concerns about the process for first and second readings of rezonings in relation to public testimony. At the first reading, there is a presentation made by staff and discussion by Council. Residents may not be present to hear that discussion, nor can they provide testimony which can be addressed by staff at the second reading. She wants to ensure that the communication is made that discussion takes place at the first reading and that public testimony is taken, so that they can plan their schedules accordingly. Mr. Gunderman stated that under the current system, the adjoining property owners are notified in advance of the introduction/first reading. The notice indicates the date of the first reading as well as the second reading/public hearing. The Clerk indicated that under the current system, one notice is sent out to adjoining property owners regarding the Council's first and second readings, indicating that public testimony is taken at the second reading. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS September 4, 2007 Page 9 LJ 1 1 Ms. Salay added that she would suggest revising the language of the notices to reflect what takes place at each reading, and that public testimony would be accepted at both hearings. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that staff review the content of the notice, to ensure that residents understand they can speak at either reading. Mr. Gunderman stated that the timing of the introduction and first reading closely follows the Planning & Zoning Commission action. Staff will review what can be done to meet this desire of Council. Ms. Salay emphasized that residents should be notified of what takes place at the first reading -staff presentation, questions from Council, responses from staff. In this way, the residents can be present if they so choose, and can provide testimony if desired. At the second reading, staff could then respond to any concerns expressed by the residents at the first reading. Mr. Gunderman noted this rezoning involves property located at the corner of Wilcox Road and Heather Bluff Drive. He showed aerial photos of the site. It rezones from R-1 to PUD to permit six single-family lots. He shared the preliminary development plan layout. The text for this project is similar to that of the adjoining property text of other Heather Bluff subdivisions. The rezoning was approved by Planning & Zoning Commission on August 9, 2007. The largest issue related to the removal of one lot in this subdivision, which was referred to in the minutes as Lot 5. The final recommendation of P&Z was to turn the area of Lot 5 into part of the tree preservation area. The tree preservation area had already been defined for several other locations on the site. Most of these have fairly heavy tree stands. The intent was to preserve a larger stand of trees. In consideration of the reconfiguration of these lots, P&Z recommended that the parkland fee be waived for this application. Staff would have a fee waiver on the agenda at the time of second reading of the ordinance. The rezoning is recommended for approval by P&Z. Ms. Salay asked if there are any sample building elevations. Mr. Gunderman responded there are none available, as this is asingle-family subdivision project. Ms. Salay asked how large the homes will be. Mr. Gunderman responded that the applicant made it clear that he expects to building homes similar to those in the rest of Heather Glen. Ms. Salay stated that there is a great variety of homes in Heather Glen from 1200 square feet to 2500 square feet. Mr. Gunderman stated that there are not any size limitations in the text. Ms. Salay stated that the materials are indicated as all natural with the exception of hardie plank. Mr. Gunderman confirmed that is correct. Ms. Salay stated she believes buyers are confused by the terms "tree preservation zone" versus "no disturb zone." The property owner of the end lot will own the tree preservation zone, but can only build on the smaller portion of the lot. What will they be permitted to do in the tree preservation zone in terms of landscaping and upkeep? Mr. Gunderman responded the property owner will be able to address other vegetation as desired, but the trees would be required to be retained. Ms. Salay asked if this includes all trees on the site. Mr. Gunderman responded that this will be reviewed at the final development plan stage. Typically, the trees six inches and above would fall in that category. Ms. Salay stated it is important to be clear about this as well as enforcement in the future. The homeowner would need to understand what they are permitted to do on their land. Mr. Gunderman stated that there is always an education process involved for home buyers. The areas are identified on all drawings so that the owners are aware, but he acknowledged that the communication between the builder and property owners could be problematic. Mr. McCash stated that there was much discussion at Planning Commission about this tree preservation zone matter. He voted against the rezoning due to the approach taken which provides no way to deal with the trees less than six inches in caliper and the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS September 4, 2007 Page 10 1 1 1 education component. He would prefer this land be dedicated to the City as passive parkland. In that way, the smaller trees will be protected and such items as play equipment will not be placed upon the land, resulting in the need for code enforcement measures. Mr. Keenan asked if the issue is that particular lot could be higher in value due to the area adjacent to it. Wouldn't that lot be more valuable with this vacant land adjoining it? Mr. McCash responded that the issue focused on the cost of maintenance and why the City should pay to maintain the land. Mr. Keenan noted that it is a treed area and will not require heavy maintenance. Ms. Salay noted it resembles the Waterford green space. Mrs. Boring suggested this land instead be dedicated to the City. It will avoid a future situation where the property owner believes he can do what he wants with land he owns. Mr. McCash stated that he was overruled at the Planning Commission on this matter. Ms. Salay asked Mr. Hahn for his perspective, and if he would object to this land being deeded to the City. Mr. Hahn responded that the best way to protect the land is to place it under public control, if that is Council's desire. The discussion at Planning Commission likely focused on the small size of the land and whether it is important that it be under public control. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if the developer could respond to this matter. Jeff Hackett, developer and Richard Anderson, property owner came to the podium. Mr. Hackett asked the Mayor to repeat the question. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher clarified that the issue on the table is instead of allowing a portion of the wooded area to the east being part of Lot 4 that it would be dedicated to the City in order to ensure the owner does not remove trees. Mr. Hackett responded that the discussion at P&Z changed from having five lots on that side of the road to joining Lots 4 and 5 together and whether it would be acceptable. He cannot envision a problem with dedicating this portion of land to the City. However, it was a way that the developer could recoup some of the money lost by losing a lot. It was suggested by the Planning Commission that by having that lot larger, the lot would be more valuable. In addition, it was suggested that because a lot was eliminated and the new lot was larger and more valuable, the parkland dedication fee could be waived as a concession to assist the developer. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the waiver can still be dealt with as a separate issue. Mr. Hackett had understood that the tree cutting issue could be addressed under the City's tree preservation ordinance, as there is enforcement in place. This change would remove a concession given to the developer by the Planning Commission. If it is the only choice, there is nothing he can do. But he would argue that it was a concession made by Planning Commission, and removing it would seem harsh. Ms. Salay stated that the lot would remain more valuable than the others, as it would be surrounded by parkland. Council's issue is not so much with preventing an owner from cutting down trees as with an owner placing play structures on the land. The owner will want full use of that lot. There is continuing confusion for property owners with no disturb areas as well as tree preservation areas. These restrictions prompt many questions. With the City taking this as parkland, it will be undisturbed as a wooded lot into the future. Mr. Hackett responded that while he understands this viewpoint, a lot twice as large is still more valuable than a lot surrounded by trees. This will constitute additional impact on the developer and property owner. He asks that Council approve the ordinance as P&Z and staff recommended. Ms. Salay asked about the fee waiver request of $8,847.80. Is this a fee waiver for the developer? Mr. Gunderman responded that this waiver is for the development. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS September 4, 2007 Page 11 Ms. Salay asked for confirmation that the developer is requesting this waiver as well as having the treed land included in lot 4. Mr. Gunderman confirmed that is correct. Mrs. Boring noted that if the City had control of the wooded portion of lot 4, there would be no need for the waiver, correct? Mr. Gunderman responded that is likely correct. Mrs. Boring stated that her concern is that she does not believe the Commission supported the concept of 7 houses in this proposal at the outset. They felt it was too tight. She believes control is needed over the land under discussion. She will support this proposal only under the condition the treed lot portion is dedicated to the City. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked if there is a reason that the front setbacks are not staggered. Mr. McCash responded that it was felt that the setbacks were consistent with the rest of the existing neighborhood. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the September 17 Council meeting. Ordinance 72-07 Rezoning Approximately 11 Acres Located on the East and West Side of South Riverview Street, South of Bridge Street, From R-2, Limited Suburban Residential District and R-4, Suburban Residential District To HR, Historic Residential District. (Historic Dublin Residential, Case No. 07-0692.) Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Mr. Langworthy noted that this rezoning is part of the ongoing area rezoning process undertaken by staff. It is also in response to a petition submitted by the property owners in Historic Dublin. The properties are located for the most part along South Riverview. Two issues were encountered in this process: a clerical error, which has subsequently been corrected; and the second related to an unknown address. The 136 S. Riverview address should not have been included on the petition, as it is the other half of a two- family residence. The 134 S. Riverview address is the property owner. Ms. Salay noted that Ms. Amorose, in the P&Z hearing, asked about a bed and breakfast use in one of these properties and what would potentially occur with such a request. Would it require a rezoning? In the minutes, Mr. Langworthy stated that a property owner desiring that use could take this to the BZA. Mr. Langworthy responded that it is always an option for them, but staff would not recommend it. Ms. Salay asked if staff would be supportive of such a request. Mr. Langworthy cannot envision a scenario under which staff would support such a request. Ms. Salay clarified the process for the benefit of the residents present. In view of the Community Plan process underway and the departure of the previous Planning Director, the application was processed as quickly as was feasible. Council has made decisions during the past few years which reaffirm the desire to preserve the residential character of this neighborhood. She thanked the residents for bringing this forward and Mr. Langworthy for facilitating the process to bring it to Council. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the September 17 Council meeting. INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING -RESOLUTIONS Resolution 57-07 Authorizing the City Manager to Accept and Receive a .276 Acre, More or Less, Bike Path and Utility Easement, Donated by Church of the Redeemer Moravian Church, Inc., Located on the West Side of Sawmill Road and South Side of Summit View Road, City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio. Mrs. Boring introduced the resolution. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS September 4, 2007 Page 12 20 1 1 Ms. Brautigam stated that Council Member Boring requested several months ago that staff begin working on this item. Staff has discussed this matter with the church and the church has agreed to donate the easement. Mrs. Boring noted that she is very appreciative that this has been undertaken by staff and that this can be formalized. Ms. Salay suggested that a thank you be sent on behalf of Council to the church. Ms. Brautigam agreed that staff will do so. Mr. Hammersmith noted that staff is working with the street maintenance contractor to have this bikepath link installed yet this year. Given their schedule, staff is optimistic this can be done. Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road stated that the Church of the Redeemer Moravian should be lifted up and commended for being generous. Their donation may have been the model for the two that follow. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Resolution 58-07 Accepting a Permanent Easement from Vineyard Christian Fellowship at Tuttle Crossing for Access to Emergency Warning Sirens. Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the resolution. Ms. Brautigam stated that the City owns a siren located on the Vineyard property and this allows access for maintenance purposes. Mrs. Boring asked for some history related to this. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the siren was believed to have been located on the township property to the north. The siren is located on a 20-foot strip, which contains a sanitary sewer easement. The desire is to formalize the understanding with the church for City access to the siren through the township property. He shared an exhibit showing the location of the siren on the property. Brief discussion followed. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. Resolution 59-07 Accepting a Permanent Easement from Muirfield Association, Inc. for Access to Emergency Warning Sirens. Ms. Salay introduced the resolution. Mr. Hammersmith stated that this is a second situation with the Muirfield Association in which they have generously donated an access easement to the City. This one is north of Glick Road and provides access to the siren near their pool facility. Vote on the Resolution: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. OTHER • Report re Woods of Dublin Sidewalk Replacement/Tree Removal Issue Mr. Hahn noted that a brief report was contained in the packet. The report proposes a testing procedure that can help staff add more objectivity into the evaluation process of trees. The firm is from Canada and they simulate stressful conditions that could occur during a weather event. The process measures deflection of trunking ground and determines whether a tree truly is unstable. The field of urban forestry does not have agreed upon standards for assessing tree stability. In dealing with healthy trees where roots are cut such as with the sidewalk replacement, there is not enough research upon which to base decisions. Therefore, staff is recommending this procedure for 11 trees on Rushwood Drive at a fee of $6,500 plus travel expenses for one of the consultants. There is a government tax imposed on those working of 6 percent in addition to the $6,500. Staff believes this will provide additional information for the evaluation process. Mr. Hahn noted that staff will be participating in the test with set-up and rigging, which will reduce the costs for the consultant. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council e Mrs. Boring noted that the reasons cited in the staff report were to validate a staff decision to remove the tree or to change the existing formula. If the existing formula is changed, is the assumption that these 11 trees would be retained? Mr. Hahn responded that if the trees pass the stress test, staff would leave them in place. One of the frustrations in the process is the different perspectives from different entities with a lot of knowledge of the field. Myron Grauer 5640 Windwood Drive President of Woods of Dublin Homeowners Association asked for clarification. He heard staff indicate that staff will be conducting the tree pull test with oversight by the consultant. Mr. Hahn responded that staff would serve as laborers on the job to keep the costs down. They will perform the work under the direct supervision of the consulting firm, installing the rigging, etc., which would reduce the need for crew to accompany the consultant from Canada. Mr. Grauer thanked staff on behalf of the homeowners for working with them on what they hope will be a good solution to this issue. Mr. Keenan suggested that Mr. Hahn consult with Mr. Whittington's office regarding safety issues with the rigging. There are risks involved in this operation. Mr. Hahn responded that there are existing practices in which staff's exposure to the risks are limited, and they work closely with Mr. Whittington. Mr. Keenan noted that rigging in itself is risky and poses serious injury issues for all parties. He envisions some potential for problems. Vote on the staff recommendation: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, no. • Preliminary Plat and Final Plat -Eiterman Road Right-of-Way (5625 Eiterman Road -Case No. 07-058PP/FP) Mr. Gunderman stated that this is a right-of-way plat for the Eiterman Road extension. Council is familiar with this project in front of the new Washington Elementary School. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked what is taking place immediately south of the elementary school. There seems to be some site development. Ms. Salay responded that she understands the school owns this land and they are developing play fields. The ultimate plan is to have a middle school south of the existing elementary. Vote on the Plat: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. • Proposed Council Meeting Schedule for 2008 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that, based upon discussion at the last meeting, the Clerk contacted the Dublin Schools in regard to the date of the Family Night in the fall of 2008 and the desire not to conflict with the budget hearing dates if possible. The Schools have agreed to take this into consideration when scheduling the Family Night. In addition, the dates have been adjusted to accommodate the National League of Cities meeting in November. Mrs. Boring noted that the July Council meeting in 2008 is scheduled on a Tuesday. Would it be possible to move this to Monday, June 30 in order to keep the meeting consistent with the Monday scheduling? The Clerk pointed out that the Charter language states that "The Council shall hold at least one regular meeting each month ...." Therefore, a June 30 meeting would not meet that requirement for July. Mr. Smith concurred. Vote on the proposed 2008 calendar: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. STAFF COMMENTS There were no additional staff reports. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council 1 1 1 COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that Mr. McCash has announced that he will not seek re- election to Council. He is completing 12 years of service on Council. She noted she has learned much from working with him on Planning & Zoning Commission as well as Council. Council will miss his contributions to the dialogue, particularly in relation to building and zoning issues which is his specialty area. He has been very helpful in Council's decisions in those areas, and she is very appreciative of his contributions he has made personally and professionally to Council and to the community. Mr. McCash noted that his decision not to seek re-election was a difficult decision for him. He changed jobs at the end of last year, and the responsibilities of his new position are growing rapidly. to addition, his new job requires a great degree of travel. His daughters will graduate from OSU in June. He recalls that his daughters have been involved in his campaigns since they were very young. Serving on Council requires a lot of time, and he believes that the pressures of his job will not allow him to dedicate the hours he has dedicated in the past. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that everyone will have the opportunity to thank him for his service at a reception to be held later this year. Mrs. Boring: 1. Agreed that Mr. McCash's expertise will be very much missed! 2. Noted that staff has reported that the City is cooperating in providing crossing guards for the new Washington Elementary. In view of the many schools throughout Dublin and the number of crossing guards in the Dublin City School system, what is the plan for this in the future? Ms. Brautigam responded that staff learned of this safety consideration only 7 days ago. In view of the fact that the City provides School Resource Officers to Dublin Schools and not to the Washington Elementary school, it seemed a fair trade off to provide crossing guards on a temporary basis. Staff is doing some research on this matter and wants to work with the Hilliard School district so that this will not be a permanent arrangement. Staff will report back to Council on this. Mr. Keenan: 1. Thanked Mr. Hahn and staff for their quick response to sprucing up efforts for the Coventry Woods pocket park. Some neighbors had pointed out that there were dead trees in the park. It is much improved after staff's efforts. The sign indicating the park closure at dusk is also much appreciated. 2. Noted that a joint meeting was held with the Woods of Indian Run and Coventry Woods Homeowner Associations related to the bridging of the Indian Run. Mr. Hahn's staff did a nice job of explaining the project to the residents. It does not appear there are any issues raised at this point. 3. Commented that he is interested in better understanding the lightning safety issues and windstorm ratings of the tents in place at the Irish Festival. He spoke with Gene Bostic about this, and he advised that there are safety ratings of various tents for both lightning and windstorms. It would be useful to know the parameters to better understand how to handle emergency situations. He asked if staff could follow up on this. Mr. McCash commented that the Building Department reviews the structures under the permit process. Mr. Keenan noted that he believes the township and City cooperate on the review of permits for these structures. Ms. Brautigam noted that staff will follow up and provide this information. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if Mr. Keenan is suggesting there were issues with the Irish Festival tents. Mr. Keenan noted that there was heavy thunder, lightning and rain with large crowds and young children. He would like to know if it would be safer to keep people inside the tents or moving them to other shelters during a storm event. He believes the tents are likely grounded for lightning. Ms. Brautigam stated that staff will also provide a report on the safety plan with those installations. RECORD OF PROCEED[NGS Dublin City Council Held 1 1 1 Ms. Salay: 1. Thanked staff for their prompt and thorough response to the traffic issues with Washington Elementary. There are many young children in Ballantrae and the traffic officers are on site each morning. The residents are very appreciative of this support. 2. Noted that she has learned that there are some issues again involving the Shoppes of Athenry. She encourages staff to continue working with them in the hopes of resolving these issues. Vice Mayor Lecklider echoed the comments made by Ms. Salay in regard to the Shoppes at Athenry. It is also his understanding that staff is working on the issues. He believes the issues came about as a result of a recent development application for an outparcel. He had believed the issues in this location were largely resolved and was disappointed to learn that they are continuing to some degree. He appreciates staff's efforts to find a resolution. Mr. Keenan wished Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher a Happy Birthday! Mavor Chinnici-Zuercher: 1. Noted that the Dublin Methodist Hospital has offered a tour for Council Members and Planning Commission. Following discussion of the potential dates, it was the consensus of Council to tour the hospital on Wednesday, September 12 at 4 p.m. Staff will make the arrangements with the architect of the project. 2. Reported that the Dublin Arts Council has offered an escorted tour of the loaned art in Coffman Park on Monday, September 17 beginning at 6 p.m. 3. Reported that she received a letter from former Council Member A.C. Strip in regard to the Veterans Project. He is suggesting that Council reconsider the entire package. She will provide copies to Council and to staff. 4. Noted that she had a meeting last week of the Columbus Franklin County Housing Advisory Board. One of the discussions the county commissioners had with the groups was in regard to "green" buildings. On the same day, she met with the Mayors and City Managers group of Central Ohio and Jeff Tyler presented regarding sustainable building practices. In addition, Ms. Crandall has been instrumental in Central Ohio in development of a Green Pact. MORPC is working on a document in conjunction with Ms. Crandall's efforts. A project update was provided by Michelle Crandall on August 2 indicating what the City is already doing in this regard. At the September 17 Council meeting, Ms. Crandall will provide a further update and a proposed resolution for Council regarding the Green Pact that communities will work toward in public buildings. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to adjourn to executive session at 9:10 p.m. for land acquisition and personnel 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; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was reconvened and formally adjourned at 10:00 p.m. ,~ Mayor -Presiding J ~. Clerk of Council