Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/11/1990 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Special Meeting Meeting DAN N LEGAL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 Held June 11, 1990 19 i Mayor Rozanski called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. Mr. Sutphen led the Pledge of Allegiance. Members of Council present were: Mr. Amorose, Mr. Campbell, Mrs. King, Ms. Maurer, Mayor Rozanski, Mr. Strip and Mr. Sutphen. Mr. Hansley, City Manager, and Mr. Banchefsky, Assistant Law Director, were also present as were: Mr. Bowman, Ms. Fierce, Mr. Foegler, Ms. Grigsby, Ms. Jordan and Mr. Willis. Mayor Rozanski recalled that approximately a year ago the City of Dublin elected not to go with the county system of early warning devices for tornadoes and bad weather, even though the County and the City of Columbus wanted Dublin to be a part of their system; the sirens being activated by the City of Columbus Station #2, the Westerville fire station or from Mr. Francis's van. He noted that last Friday there was a tremendous storm, and tornadoes were sighted in surrounding areas. Dublin°s system was activated and citizens alerted, but Columbus's system was not activated until after the alert was cancelled. Dublin's system worked very well, including the voice activated warnings. Mayor Rozanski commended Staff and Council, specifically mentioning Dana McDaniel. Ordinance No. 76-89 - Ordinance Providing for a Change of Zoning on a 489.015 Acre Tract Located Along the West Side of Sawmill Road North of Bright Road and Extending North to Summit View Road. Third Reading. Iviayor Rozanski, noting that there had been several lengthy meetings recent:l devoted to this topic, requested that all who wished to speak keep their comments brief. Mr. Bowman said that. he would like to review the conditions of approval imposed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, who had unanimously recommended approval with the following conditions listed below. Mr. Bowman said that staff supported tl~ie plan, that the plan was more then simply a collection of ]_and uses, but that this PUD represents a development package that can be. consiclered to be D~~ell planned as well as managing ,growth. He ~.lsa noted that the current plan has less commercial square footage, less multi-fami y uzrit:; then tl~ie plan approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The following were the conditions of approval: 1. Submission of a phasing plan. 2. Within the development of Subarea 3 which indicates access for school, suggesting a possible reconfiguration, working with the schools and the staff to provide a better access to the elementary school site. 3. Specific statements as to strE+ngthening some of the land use related to architectural coordination. 4. The municipality reserve the right to correct the text, making revisions to the plan that reflect the agreements between developers and the City, and remove and delete omissions. A great deal of concern was expressed specifically about storm water. The developei° has made statements about participating with the City in coming up with a regional solution to the Billingsley Ditch storm water problem. A short text has been written which Mr. Harrison Smith has seen, stating that the property owners agree to worlt with the City of Dublin in seeking and implementing improvements to the Billingsley storm water system. Noted that development will not go forward until a storm water management solution for the Dublin portion of the Billingsley Stream watershed is mutually agreed upon between the City and the property otimer. That Drill... be included as part of the zoning text. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes Of Dublin City Cotinci.l Spec:i.al Meeting Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK 00. FORM NO. 10148 Held June 11 , 1990 19 Page. Two 6. With regard to the sanitary sewer system, in the hearing before the Planning and Zonin}; Commission, the possibility of other alternatives of servicing the area were idr_nti.fied, and i.t was decided that: ultimately the City :Engineer who will make the: final determination. It was noted that residents are, not in favor of a large amount of blasting. Discussed the concern of the School Board regarding vehicular/pedestri movement between the elementary sc}ZOOL site and tlT.e high school site.. Mr. Bowman said that he would suggest t:hat: there be at. least some type of private, on-site vehicular movement between the two school. sites if so desired with strong pedestrian Links between thE: two. 6Jith regard to circulation between the two school sites, Mr. Bowman said that he would suggest that circulation between the two school sites be used only for the schools own purposes, not for the general public, b,ut for school maintenance vehicles and for access for emergency vehicles. Ms. Maurer said that she had spoken to Mr. Joe Riedel of the schools regarding their reasons of the need for access between the school sites. He said that the schools felt that if an event were being held at the elementary school site that the high school parking lot could be used for overflow parking. Mr. Campbell said that limitation of the circulation between the two sites must have been important to some people, and that that was why it got on the plan. He said that he did not feel that it should be changed. Mr. Harrison Smith said that there was a concern expressed, that being 'the disadvantage of exposure of elementary students to high school students. He noted that concern was expressed by the citizens and, following discussio , it was agreed that the matter should probably more appropriately be discussed between the developer and the school board. Mr. Smith suggested that the fact and conditions of access, pedestrian and vehicular, between the elementary school site and the hig}~~ school. site be determined at: the time of: the Final Development Plan. He noted that in that way r_he citizens could still be involved in the process. Mrs. King suggested an alternative - that the section read that no vehicular circulation be permitted between the elementary school property and the high school property except for school vehicles which would be restricted by a gate or something of that nature. She noted that it would restrict the through traffic that all are concerned about, but would still allow parents or visitors to park in the high school parking Lot and wal}c to the elernent:ary school. Mrs. King move d_ to amend Subarea 10, No. 3, Circulation, to read as follows: "No vehicular circulation shall be permitted between the elementary school site property and the high school property except for school vehicles which shall be rE:str.icted by a gate or something simi_la.r." Mr. Strip said that he thought that the amendment was too restrictive, particularly since no school representative was present at the meeting. Mr. Campbell suggested that t:he schools. be more specific about what they want, and that. Co~_inci_1 should be of ~.i mind to resolve the issues rather than putting them off. Mr. Campbell seconded Mrs. King's motion. Vote - Mr. Campbell, yes; Ms. Maurer, no; Mr. Strip, no; Mr. Sutphen, yes; Mrs. King, yes; Mr. Amorose, yes; Ivlayor Rozanski, yes. Ms. Marcia Wood of 4300 Bright Road wondered how one could consider developing 498 acres above an established residential area that already has a flooding problem. Ms. Wood said that she did not believe that the MORPC standards were adequate. She also suggested that Dublin pay for an outside study of runoff control. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes Of Dublin City Council Special Meeting Meeting DAYT N LEGAL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 June 11, 1990 Held 19 I Page Three Ms. Wood said that she had spoken with the engineering/consulting firm of Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton, Tilton who said that it would cost between $5,000 to $15,000 to do a complete study of the quadrant. Ms. Wood also said that her second concern was the preservation of the virgin forest that covers the tract. She noted that Chapter 1187 of the Dublin Planning and Zoning Code suggests that the preservation of such an area should be encouraged, and suggested that 30 acres be set aside for a passive park. She also mentioned that she did not feel positive about the fact that the Parks and Recreation Department would turn down the responsibility of maintaining trees on the buffer zone or park land. Mayor Rozanski said that the plans that he had seen showed a 22 acre passive park in a wooded areas, as well as a ravine area. Mr. Jim Houk said that there would be 62 acres of passive park, over and above the 35 acres of active park space. Mr. Robert Brown recalled the presentation he had made at the May 21, 1990 Council meeting regarding five subject areas of concern relative to this PUD development.; concerns expressed by the residents living i.n that area. of Dublin. He noted that the developers had addressed two of those five concerns - a significant reduction in the density and the ratio of the multi-family housing zoning request. He did note that this PUD would have an average multi-family density which is 5% more dense then the average remainder of Dublin, and that the ratio of multi-family units to single family homes would be 43 S% higher than the average ratio achieved by existing development in Dublin to date. Mr. Brown said that there are still valid issues related to this develop- ment which require continued efforts to achieve valid and correct responses by Council and staff. Mr. Brown expressed his appreciation to members of Council for their sincere efforts to investigate problem areas and to listen and hear the irnput of concerned residents. Mr. John Ferrara of Tamarisk Court also addressed drainage problems and urged Council to consider Ms. Wood's suggestion regarding an independent study to address the problem. Mrs. Cathy Boring addressed and discussed the amount of retail square footage proposed, and the subsequent amount of traffic resulting from same. Mr. Randy Roth expressed his appreciation to Council for the opportunity for the property owners, staff and developers to work together. Mr. Roth discussed the problem of the Sawmill Road interchange. He said that in discussion with Mr. Doyle Clear and Mr. Bob Lawler, the assistant director of traffic at MORPC, it was noted that. they agreed that the ultimate solutiorr will probably be to widen the bridge over the interstate so that there can be a double left hand turn lane - southbound on Sawmill, going east on I-270; that current state of the art is to avoid clovt:~rleafs and move to doublE: left turn lanes in order to move about 1,000 cars ari hour. He noted also that some of the approach lights will need to be e]_imi_nated. Mr. Roth also said that the price of land will continue to increase, and that the price for the burian ground park and other park sites will continue to rise. Mr. Robert Crabb of Sawmill Road asked t11at Council act wisely regarding the commercial on Sawmill Road. Mr. Harrison Smith had the following comments: 1. Said that i_f a storm water drainage study were commissioned that: they would. pay $5,000 towards the cost of the study and would comply with whatever the requirements would be. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Special Meeting Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 Tune 11, 1990 19 Held Page Four 2. Have directed themselves to all the issues, done th.e vE:ry best that they can. 3. Will. not be back. 4. Regarding traffic. Raw figures in traffic do not make any difference; the~,~ are, not the thing ghat: det.erminc "how the world works". There was a projection in terms of neig,hbarhood traffic volume of 5,000 trips per day, those being the same people. The distribution system was dE:signed to ensure that every person that lives east of or in this area of this particular locati..on is able t.o get to the commercial area without ever being on Sawmill Road except at a si.gnali~ed intersection. The issue becomes one of not the capacity of Sawmill Road but the rapacity of the intersection. 5. The ration of multi-family to single family. The ratio at Earlington, multi-family to single family is greater. The plan was evolved under. the primary jurisdiction and impetus of C:i.ty staff to set a pattern for everything east of the river. 6. Kegarding the percentage of retail. The configuration in terms of square footage to the total of the areas is 1.2%, which is similar to the Muirfi.eld, Perimeter Mall, Riverside area and to the Solove center. 7. A PUD is not a zoning classification. that can be imposed upon an applicant; the a.ppl.icant roust reyuest it. Every PUD is extremely expensive, and by the time one gets to the execution of the Final Development Plan and Final Flat, the expense goes up, does not come down. Same of those commitments, made up front, were: A. Made a determination early on not to use Summit View; none of this development is dependent upon movement along Sawmill Road, but the creation of parallel systems inside the development, the above costing an additional street expense of approximately one million and a half to two million dollars. B. Have committed to the improvement of the storm water situation, costing perhaps a half a million dollars. C. Unified architectural treatment, D. Should one lose the PUD, possibly having to consider 7 to 10 individual zoning cases, there will be a loss of design and coordination and commitment, as well as substituting public dollars for private dollars for infrastructure development. E. Affords a level of certainty of what will. happen, increasing the value of homes, quality of life. Mr. Houk mentioned the quality of a PUD - a level of coordination, three separate owners with a commitment to the PUD; a unified architectural element, a bike system, a pedestrian walkway system, quality statements as far as landscaping, architecture, e.tc. Mrs. King asked if there would be any objection to changing the text so that Subarea 5C would be restricted to post office/day care/library/ community center, eliminating multi-family. Mr. Smith said that he could add those uses so that they would be alternatives to the multi-family. Whether or not it would be rnulti-family or one of the other uses, Mr. Smith said, would be determined at the appro~.~al of the Final Development Plan, suggesting that if a library, for example, would be placed there that those responsible act with reasonable diligence. Mr. Smith also said. that he would be willing to "hold it off" for six months or so until such time as interested public agencies had an opportunity to look at the site. Mrs. King asked Mr. Smith if he had approached staff and offered a passive park in the mature woods section. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes Of Dublin City Council Sper_ial Meg:tir.~g Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BIANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 Hel June 1.1 1990 19 I Page Five Mr. Houk said that they had worked with Ms. Jordan on the creation of_ the passive open space which was two ravine areas, one with a flat area on top. Mr. Smith said that they would deed it to the City with the condition that the. area maintained. He did note that Ms. Jordan h<:rd said that she dicl not. want the f:i_ve ~:~cre. strip of land along Summit View so the developer was changing the plan to include five single i:amily homes on that land. Mrs. King said that she wanted it to be deeded to the City. Mr. Houk said that the developer was 21% in excess of the requirement of Dublin's green space ordinance; over and above the 35 acre purchased park and the school site; the 21°o includes only the donated area. Mrs. King recalled that the point is that the City asked voters for approv 1 to pass a bond issue to acquire park lands, active and passive, and that if there were a spectacular, pristine natural area on this particular site that it ought to be considered and that if it were a possibility that perhaps the City should consider acquiring it. She also rioted that some of the proposed open space dedication is under the powerline. Mr. Sutphen recalled that at a previous meeting it had been decided that regarding the sanitary issue that it would be up to the office of the City Engineer to advise Council as to the best solution. Mr. Sutphen said that he did not feel that another pumping station in Dublin was appropriate, and also said that he felt that the issue needed to be decided by Council and not the City Engineer; that it was a policy issue. Mr. Bowman reported ghat he had always identified the sanitary system as a major issue for the entire quadrant and that it had been identified as a major element in the Community Plan, but said that he was never at any time proposing a particular system, hoping that there would be a great deal more discussion about what kind of system would be appropriate for the land uses in the area. He noted that he felt that it is an issue unresolved and needs community discussion. Mr. H. Smith said that the text makes it abundantly clear that the collective City of Dublin decides what the system is going to be and that their only obligation is to build it. Responding to a question from Mr. Sutphen regarding Hard Road, Mr. Bowman said that the developer clearly has the obligation to construct three lanes; that it will dead end at the river unless it is extended across the river; that three lanes will probably handle the traffic adequately; that if the municipality wants to work with the developer to assure that the five land road is built, staff will do that; that the City does have the appropriate right-of-way for five lanes. Mr. Smith agreeing, it was determined that the grade on Subarea 3 will be the same as the other multi-family. I There was also discussion regarding the placement of mature trees on the mounding, and Mr. Houk said that he thought they would agree to upsize the trees, some of the trees along that strip, so that it will have a more mature appearance and buffering. Mr. H. Smith said that their commitment can be reviewed upon submission of the Final Development Plan. Mr. Amorose requested a commitment from Council that Council will review the Community Plan for the entire quadrant and how it will develop, everything north of I-270 and east of the river and in that review touch RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes Of Dublin City Council Special Meeting Meeting AYT N E AL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 Held June 11 , 1990 19 I Page Six upon the following points: that there would no more retail, no more additional multi-family, unless it is owner occupied), and that the rest of the Riverside Drive corridor is preserved. It was noted that Council had agreed, as one of their goals, to update the Community Plan. Mr. Campbell agreed that he also felt that the Community Plan needed to be updated. He noted that he thought in terms of single family north of Summit View and single family south of Bright in the central portion in the neighborhood of two to three dwelling units per acre, and in the area in the southeast portion of the area sotcth of Bright something in the office-type cat-r_gory, the same office-type category in the far southwest area. Mr. Strip said that he could not commit to no additional retail, no additional multi-family in the quadrant; that Council cannot "tie the future" based on a vote on this rezoning request. Mr. Strip, however, did commit to a quadrant study and review. Mayor Rozanski agreed with Mr. Strip in that he did not feel he could commit to no additional retail or no additional multi-family in the quadrant in the future; however he did make a commitment to study and review the Community Plan, particularly as it relates to the northeast quadrant. Ms. Maurer noted that Council had already committed, as a 1990 goal, to update the Community Plan. She also pointed out that with recent and planned annexations in the the southwest area of Dublin, the recent Starkey/Coffman condominium developed at 12 units per acre, that at this time it would not be prudent to fix a ratio. She also commented that the City is trying to keep a reasonable base of commercial, office and other non--residential uses in order to maintain a good tax base. Mr. Amorose wondered what would happen to the 66 acre proposed high school site if the Dublin School Board decided not to purchase the propserty, and suggested giving the school board a deadline in. which to decide whether or not they would be purchasing the property and building a high school on that 66 acres. He suggested that if the schools decide not to build a high school on the site within a year that the site (Subarea 10) pick up the same development standards as Subarea 8 directly to the south. Mayor Kozanski said that he could not agree with putting a time line on the schools, not interfering witl-~ the school. board's decision as to whether or not they wish to put a second high school on that site. Mr. Sutphen asked Mr. Smith if the developer would be willing to sell to the City that particular 66 acres if the school board decided not to build a high school. Mr. H. Smith said that they have an agreed upon price; that if the City were to come and offer the same price that they could not say no because the City could condemn the property for the same price without question. Mr. Sutphen. "Just for the mike; one more time; you would agree to sell it to us for the same price?? P~(r. H. Smith. "I)an, let me, obviously I have to ask the client whether that is so, but I'm telling you as frankly as I can that since you can take it for the same price, I would have to say yes." Mr. Smith agreed, after discussion, that if the School Board does not purchase Subarea 10 that Subarea 10 subsequently would have the same development standards as Subarea 8. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Special Meeting Meeting DAYr N LEGAL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 Held June 11 , 1990 19 Page Seven Mrs. King remarked regarding discussions about the inadequacy of the MORPC standards in dealing with storm water runoff. She wondered if the City of Dublin would choose to revise the standards for storm water_ retent on between the present time and the time the Final Development Plans for this project are developed - can Dublin impose those higher standards on this project for the sake of achieving what Mr. Smith committed; that is that he will do anything to solve the storm water detention problem, the storm water runoff problem. Mr_. Bowman said that. the City Engineer_ generally reserves the right through the development planning/platting process to make those kinds of field decisions, whether the City has the standard or not. In gE:.ner.al, the City cannot require a development to solve a regional system where others are contributing. Mr. Banchefsky that with approval of the pr.eli_minary plan, the rezoning, the City is giving the developer the "go ahead" to da final engineering preparation and that if the code is amended later on that it might be legally proved that the developer must conform to the standards in place at the time of the approval of the rezoning. Mr. Smith said that h.e would waive that and if those standards are changed and that if those standards would apply to everybody that they would agree to abide by them also. Mrs. King asked Mr. Bowman if he envisioned the widening of Sawmill Road to seven lanes at any point in the future. Mr. Bowman said that he did not foresee Sawmill Road being widened to seven lanes in the future. Following discussion it was decided that each Council person would make a short statement of their position, to be followed by a vote at the conclusion of those statements made by each member of Council. Mr. Campbell first listed the conditions (should the rezoning be approved) imposed by the City Council on the developer: 1. The developer agreed to put the height requirements in on Subarea 3 which would mean that the grade of the building will be no greater than one foot above the grade of the road. 2. The developer(s) agreed to contribute at least $5,000 for a storm water study for the entire area. 3. Agreed to put in the Final Development Plan a discussion of mature trees to go in the setback in certain areas in the multi-family. 4.Agreed that if there was not a school site on Subarea 10 that that Subarea would be subject to the same standards as Subareas 2 and 8, which are the single family, north and south of the area. 5. Agreed to do whatever is reasonably required by the City's engineer in terms of the storm water and the sanitary sewer management problems. 6. Indicated that if the standards were changed and heightened after this date that they would meet the higher standards. 7. The allowance of a post office/library/day care center or community center in Subarea 6 B. 8. Mr. Smith. To protect a commitment previously made; in connection with the standards for Subarea 10, the same as Subareas 2 and 8, with as a part of the Final Development Plan, the particular standards for the west boundary to be worked out as part of the Final Development Plan; in other words, buffering along the west side of the site. 9. Tlxat the developer will be willing to sell additional tree property to the City for a passive park if the City so chooses to negotiate. 10. If higher standards are developed and adopted and in place the developer will conform as long as those standards are citywide. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Special Meeting Meeting DAYT N LE AL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 Held June 11, 1990 19 Page Eight 11. That if it is determined that the bridge site will be north of I-270 that the developer would rezlign the inetrsection so that Hard Road would flow "that way". That being the intersection of the presently proposed extended hard Road and the ring road. Mr. Campbell had the following comments: 1. A great deal of effort and work has been expended by the citiznes of Dublin, the staff and developer(s); those persons should be commended. 2. The community should feel that then had a subsY_antial effect on the final stage of the process; the process has been important but difficult. 3. The City, if necessary, should retain their own independent experts in the storm water management area. 4. The residents will have a concern until they can be assured that the storm water management has been accomplished. 5. The developer, since the last meeting has scaled back the multi- family density, improved the setbacks, etc. 6. Personally he can live with the retail since the square footage has been scaled back. 7. The City needs the same kind of development standards on the east sid of Dublin as there are on the west side of Dublin. It is important to have all types of uses on both sides of the river. 8. Will vote in favor of the plan as it has been amended with the conditions listed previously. Mrs. King's comments were as follows: 1. Has been a real pleasure working on the issue, specifically with the intelligent, articulate, rnotivated people who are members of the East Dublin Civic Association. 2. Need to work very hard to see that there is a post office or a librar in Subarea 6. 3. Need to work hard as a community to preserve the woods that deserve t be preserved 4. Thanked all for their notes and verbal expressions of appreciation for Council's involvement. 5. "Can live with the Schottenstein store" but have a concern regarding the other 80,000 square feet of retail space. 6. Thanked everyone for their participation. Mr. Sutphen's comments: 1. Expressed his pleasure to Mr. Smith regarding the storm water plan. 2. Very unhappy about having another pump station, but that gravity sewers should be put in or the site is not developed. 3. Not happy with the multi-family or the retail, noting that Asherton is not yet finished. 4. There are enough traffic problems on Sawmill Road at the present time; don not need anymore. 5. Believe the municipality should stick with the Community P7_an. Mr. Amorose: 1. By representing the. residents in Ward 1 tried to bring everyone into the decisiord making process or at least the educational portion of the decision making process involving staff and outside consultants, etc. 2. The plan is not perfect but does address many of the City's needs, such as the storm water issue. 3. The sanitary sewer is an issue that can be worked out, noting that the residents had expressed a concern regarding blasting required along Riverside Drive to put in a gravity sewer. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes Of Dublin City Council Special Meeting Meeting DAYT N LEGAL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 Held June 11, 1990 19 Page Nine 4. Not happy with the amount of retail. 5. Council has done their homework; am extremely cox~.fident of our staff; confident of the planning and development process and will vote for approval. Ms. Maurer commented as follows: 1. Have seen many changes as a result of development around here own home on Dublin Road. 2. Would like to see some of the woods preserved as suggested by Ms. Wood. 3. A PUD is a process of compromise, a process of weighing the balance of what the City is getting in terms of roads and amenities with a coherent planning of the green space. 4. There is an advantage in that a large area is planned with input from staff; that there are not 7, 8, 9, or 10 separate owners coming :in with small plans with very little green space. 5. Wondered ~ohether this particular process worked very well - having a moratorium on zoning, hiring a planner (Dale Bertsch) to work on developing compromise, etc. 6. Would like to hear from those involved regarding their thoughts on the advantages and disadvantages of the process. 7. MORPC has been working with a group called the Transportation Manage- ment Agency which was formed after the}= did a study of the traffic in the northwest area called Suburban Mobility Initiative Study. That study included recommendations which included widening roadways, improving intersections and interchanges, etc. 8. On the positive side there will be architecture that is uniform. 9. Sawmill Road is a problem; however, it is not owned by the City of Dublin, was developed by Columbus and Dublin is somewhat at the mercy of the City of Columbus as it pertains to Sawmill Road. 10. Drainage is a problem, a bone of contention between Columbus and all of the suburbs that adjoint Columbus. Dublin asked to have MGRPC's new mediation process used to deal with the issue; Columbus refused to participate in that process. 11. Dublin's hope was that Columbus would assist financially with putting in some of the retention ponds to hold back the water that is draining off of there but up to this point they have not wanted to do that. 12. Suggest that residents send letters and have conversations with members of the Columbus City Council to see if they can get them to adopt standards of drainage that will protect those communities adjacent to Columbus's borders. 13. I will vote for this project. Mr. Strip's comments: 1. Thanked residents for notes and letters. 2. As much as possible has been extracted from Mr. H. Smith and his clients. 3. Did not consider this as a tax question sheet; that the retail, commercial, office space would add to the tax base of the City. Did not consider this a tax question. 4. Persons have expressed grave concerns about the traffic forgetting that for the most part when people are going to work or coming home from work the retail will not cause additional traffic problems; the hours for those trips do not coincide. Nobody mentioned the very thing that will cause the biggest traffic problem - the high school. 5. Nobody complained about potential traffic problems when they heard the word library or post office; those can cause great traffic problems. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Special Meeting Meeting N LEGAL BLANK GO. FORM NO. 10148 Held June 11 , 1990 19 Page Ten 6. Referred to Rite Rug and other stores, noting that when coming in tc Dublin they brought quality. 7. Want to save the Planned U-nit Development because in several years when you see what replaces it, if voted down, it will be something the City does not want. 8. Wi11 be a reluctant yes vote that I cast. Mayor Razanski's comments. 1. Compared this area to the Waterford area which came in piecemeal. 2. Tkre worst traffic irr the morning is that associated with the two schools on S.R. 161. 3. The Kroger shopping center is not accessible to residents of Waterfor unless one goes on S.R. 161. This project will have internal roads leading from the residential to the retail. 4. Waterford has no bike paths to connect the area; there are no major parks. 5. With regard to drainage, twelve years ago had similar fears, building on Franklin Street, with a drainage ditch that often had 6' to 7' of water in depth and 15' to 20' wide after an average rain. With the development of Metro Center and the construction of retention ponds the situation has improved greatly. 6. Storm water management will be studied at the Final Development Plan stage, not here at the preliminary plan/rezoning stage of the process. 7. Residents and members of the East Dublin Civic Association did an excellent job. • Call the question, making note that all of the items that Mr. Campbell listed before he made his statement are to be considered a part of the question. Vote - Mr. Strip, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes; Ms. Maurer, yes; Mrs. King, yes; Mayor Rozanski, yes; Mr. Amorose, yes; Mr. Sutphen, no. Council recess from 10:00 P.M. to 10:20 P.M. Scioto Bridge Crossing Alternatives Mr. Bowman referred to a memorandum he had written to members of Council that described the process, should Council approve a site at this meeting; that process to be as follows: 1. Would begin negotiations with the property owners. 2. Would continue detailed preliminary engineering, mentioning specifically a number of State environmental-type reviews. 3. Would meet with surrounding property owners, not necessarily to negotiate, but to get their sense of timing and specific plans. 4. Need to integrate the site into a five year capital improvement plan. 5. Would come back to Council with a specific amendment to the Thoroughfare Plan. 6. Would then hold public hearings with the specific engineering details of the proposed plan. Mayor Rozanski said, that after reviewing and looking at each of the sites, that he felt that the right site would be either south or north of I-270 and that he felt that the City should move ahead as fast as possible with the one of the two sites that the engineers feel is the best location and which will move the greatest amount of traffic. Mayor Rozanski also said that he felt that Mr. Sutphen was correct in suggesting that the City needed two bridge sites, selecting a potential second site, and that as properties become available that the City could possibly purchase those properties and hold them in reserve. He noted that he felt that a large portion of the properties will change hands in the next 10 to 15 years. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Special Meeting Meeting E AL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 Held June 11, 1990 19 Page Eleven Mr. Sutphen said that he also felt the need for the selection of a site for a second bridge, saying that he felt that it should be a mandate from City Council to the City Manager that if he is made aware of property available that it should be purchased and put in reserve for use at a late date. He agreed with Mayor Rozanski in that he felt that the first bridge site should be north or south of I-270. Mr. Campbell's comments are as follows: 1. Expressed the desire to decide the issue at this Council meeting, assisting residents whose property is "in line" of one of the proposed bridge sites. 2. Said that he favored the site to the north of I-270, the cost being relatively reasonable, has the greatest effect on removing traffic from the 161/33 bridge and has the least impact on homeowners, although he noted that the impact on any homeowner having to be displaced is substantial. 3. Said that he would hope that City staff will make the appropriate financial settlements with the people involved, be very understanding of the impact on people; it being very difficult for people in Dublin to acquire another home for the same amount of money. 4. Also wondered about the possibility of moving affected homes to new sites in the vicinity. 5. Suggested determining the site of the bridge immediately and the "aim the roads at it". 6. Everyone is in agreement that a bridge is needed but no one wants it in their own back yard. 7. Personal preference would be a bridge immediately north of I-270 with the road network aligned as soon as possible. 8. With regard to selection of a site for a second bridge, wondered whether it might not be better to wait to review the impact of the first bridge. 9. On the west side of the river within a couple of miles of the bridge development is very nearly complete; on the east side the river development will continue. 10. Should a second bridge be decided upon, residents and potential developers need to be informed as soon as possible. 11. If there were to be a second bridge the concern should be to provide community, local access, eliminating the feeling of east versus west, creating a feeling of the community as a whole. 12. Noted that he would like to see as much buffering as possible to adjoining property owners. Mrs. King's comments were: 1. Traffic is the number one issue in Dublin. 2. Believe the site north of I-270 will move the most traffic the most efficiently through Dublin. 3. A great deal of the traffic originates outside of Dublin and passes through. 4. Dublin is a headquarters community for a number of companies with a lot of jobs, generating more traffic. 5. In selecting a second site, the City needs to keep in mind that by selecting another site that Dublin may be inviting into Dublin additional through traffic. 6. A second site would have to be a neighborhood-scale bridge. 7. Prefer to wait until the City can determine the impact of the re- opening of the O'Shaughnessy Dam Bridge. 8. The City will need to provide relocation assistance to families displaced by the bridge; helping homeowners with the distressing realities of having to vacate their homes. 9. Need to plan ahead if committed to acquiring a site for another bridge. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes Of Dublin City Council. Special Meeting Meeting DAYT N LEGAL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 Held June 11 , 1990 19 Page Twelve Mr. Strip had questions: 1) assuming either of the I-270 locations is selected, how many houses will have to be taken or replaced; and, 2) while focusing on the bridge stated he was equally concerned about the connecting roads and wondered whether the costs of the connecting roads have been factored in. Ms. Maurer noted that the basic premise is that there is a traffic problem that there is a great deal of local traf:Eic going on 161 and 270; that the purpose of the bridge is to take local. trips off of those roads. ms. Maurer also said that she felt that Council should vote to approve Alternate A, the location just north of I--270. She also noted that figures presented indicate that it would be a 6L million dollar project while anything south of I-270 would be 12 to 13 million dollars. Ms. Maurer also agreed that the impact on homeowners affected, those immediately next to the bridge as well as those adjacent to the connector roads should be reduced, with a humanitarian and reasonabla_ kind of_ help that would be supportable by the taxpayers. Mr. Amorose said that after studying the issue and listening to the planners and engineers that he was confident that the sate f_or the new river crossing should. be immediately north of 1-270. He said that in thar_ area he felt that there were fine connectors, heading west from Sawmill Road, Hard Road can be extended, move through a piece of relativel undeveloped property, increasing property values in that area as far as future suburban office contruction - come across the bridge to tie in with another piece of valuable real estate between the existing high school and I-270, moving traffic on down to Tuller Road if the traffic wishes to make that crossing. Mr. Amorose said that he felt that the City would need to take a very active role, perhaps becoming involved in the zoning process. Mr. Bowman said that with regard to any extensions on the east side, that they should only happen and be part and parcel to a rezoning or a development proposal. Discussion followed regarding the costs involved in the selection of a site north or south of I-270, including connector roads. Mr. Bowman said that he 1=elc that extending Coffman Road to Riverside rive does more in moving traffic then in extending Coffman Road through t - south side, tI-erou.gh T.'uller Road. and then to Sawmi}.1 Road. He also said that the assumption was made that *_he road from Coffman Road to Dublin Road would be built somehow; that the Likelihood is that there will be a great deal of private participation in the. road; that assumption being made. With regard to the connector roads to the east, Mr. Bowman said that a portion would be private funding but that the City would have to bear a good share of the cost. Mr. Bowman said that the expectation on the ricKitrick parcels would be that they would build the :required four lane road on the west side. He also said that as regards the east side, that: from Riverside Drive to Grandee Cliffs would be a Dublin project, and that t-hen "hooking it up" to Sawmill Road would pr_obribly necessitate municipal action in getting it accomplished. Mr. Bowman noted that one of the biggest concerns regarding the existing bridge is the eastbound to northbound movement. He stdggested ti~at another bridge even without soma-~ of t:.he r,:onnectors, by rotting traffic t.o tihe second bridge, that traffic could go north either to the Hard Road extension or could go even further north and would have some value even without the connector, but he further stated that the connecting road that is most important is the Hard Road extension. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes Of Dublin City Council Special Meeting Meeting DA N LEGAL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 Held June 11 , 1990 19 Page Thirteen Mr. Sutphen noted that the study of the roads with regard to a location south of I-270 indicated that the grade was so steep that it would be an ice skating rink in the winter. Mayor Rozanski suggested that an additional public hearing be held before a final decision was made. Those residents in the Counr_il Chambers disagreed. Mr. Bowman proposed that the location just north of I-270 gives the City more opportunity; that there can be constructed a road without moving anybody between Coffman Road and Dublin Road and if Council should decide to expand it east at some point that the opportunity exists. He noted that the study also shows that the cost of extending the Tuller Road alternative west is greatly cost prohibitive and should not be considered as an alternative. Mrs. King suggested not spending additional funds for an engineering study regarding the south of I-270 alternative, but rather spend the funds on a drainage storm water runoff plan. Mrs. King moved that Council select the xtorth of I-270 location, Option A, for Dublin's new Scioto crossing; that staff begin negotiations with affected property owners as soon as possible; that detailed preliminary engineering continue; that the bridge construction be integrated in the five year capital improvement plan; that the City revise the Thoroughfare Plan accordingly; that the City develop a Master Plan for the area in cooperation with the East Dublin Civic Association and other affected and interested parties, and that it will be completed prior to airy rezonicig in the area. Mr. Campbell seconded the motion. It was asked whether or not the City was imposing a moratorium. Mrs. King said that she did not have a problem with including a moratorium as an amendment to her motion. Mrs. King defined the location as being north of I-270, the northern boundary being the Hard Road extension, a western boundary east of 257 and to further amend the motion to provide for a six month moratorium in the above referenced area. Mr. Campbell seconded the amendment. Mr. Willard Chambers said that for years his position has been that Dublin is not growing too fast but is building too slow; that the municipality has not built fast enough to keep pace with the City's growth. He noted that in 1980 a study was done which determined that a new bridge was needed across the Scioto but the bridge was never built. He mentioned that in 1890 there was not a single automobile in Franklin County but at that time there were three bridges across the Scioto River for use by the residents of Dublin; at present there are 22f being in the same locations there were 100 years ago. Mr. Chambers said that he felt that Dublin should have two bridges - one under construction and another- birdge in the pl.anxiing and early acquisition stage. He also agreed with Mrs. King, saying that much of the traffic across the bridges is not Dublin traffic but people from outside of Dublin traveling through. Ms. Lois Carter of Bright Road requested that Council make an immediate decision regarding the location of the bridge so that people living in the area can plan for their future. Mr. Randy Roth reported that the Utilities Committee of the East Dublin Civic Association strongly supports selecting two bridge sites as quickly as possible. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Special Meeting Meeting DA N LEGAL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 Held June 11 , 1990 19 Page Fourteen Mr. Roth further stated that the East Dublin Civic Association would like to work with the developers, staff, etc. and be involved in the planning process for the area. He also stated that there was a concern that another David Road situation would develop. Mr. Roth commented that they would like the site location for the bridge to be south of I-270 but also acknowledged that consideration of costs, etc. was an important factor and that the ultimate site Location was a decision of Council. Mr. Robert Brown of Inverness reaffirmed the need for the residents along Bright Road to have a decision, and also said that the connector roads were "the key". Mr. Harold Parish of Grandee Cliffs Drive wondered about the relative human factor cost of each route, north or south of I-270. Mayor Rozanski noted that he had asked that question earlier in the meeting. Mr. Bowman said "if the human costs are too high don't extend it east". He said that the traffic that wants to travel Tuller Road will travel Tuller Road, whether it lines up directly across from it or not. Instead of jogging onto Dublin Road the traffic will job on Riverside Drive, which is a better movement of traffic off of the McKitrick property on the north. Mr. Bowman also said that if it were decided to go soul=h of I-270 and extend it east, that the City should consider the Brand Road extension, saying that he felt that the cost of redoing Brand Road and extending that across and then hooking it up wii.h the Hard Road extension makes more sense then trying to do something along the south side of I-270 and then extending it east. Mr. Strip said that he felt that the primary goal in building the bridge is moving traffic a.s expeditiously as possible, getting that traffic out of Dublin. Following additional discussion, tale vote was called: Mr. CArnpbell, yes; Mrs. King, yes; Mr. Amorose, yes; iti1r. Sutphen, yes; Mayor Rozanski, no; Mr. Strip, yes; Ms. Maurer, yes. The meeting was adjourned by Mayor Rozanski at 11:30 P.rt. Mayor - Presiding Officer ~ Z~~~~~ C erk of Cou cil