Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/21/1990 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin city council Meeting Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO., FORM NO. 1014 Held May 21, 1990 19 The regular meeting of the Dublin City Council was called to order at 7:30 P.M. on Monday, May 21, 1990 by Mayor Jan Rozanski. Mr. Strip led the Pledge of Allegiance. iWw Members of Council present were: Mr. Amorose, Mr. Campbell, Mrs. King, Ms. Maurer, Mayor Rozanski, Mr. Strip and Mr. Sutphen. Mr. Amorose moved to approve the minutes of the May 7, 1990 meeting of Council. Mr. Sutphen seconded the motion. Vote - Mayor Rozanski, yes; Ms. Maurer, yes; Mr. Amorose, yes; Mr. Sutphen, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes; Mr. Strip, yes; Mrs. King, yes. Mr. Hansley, City Manager, and Mr. Banchefsky, Assistant Law Director, and Mr. Smith, Law Director were also present as were the following City Staff persons: Mr. Bowman, Ms. Clarke, Chief Ferrell, Mr. Foegler, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Jones, Mr. Mack, Mr. McDaniel, Mrs. Metz, Ms. Kurtz and Mr. Willis. Comments from Citizens (Items not on the agenda.) 1. Mr. Richard Hobbs of Manor Court. Mr. Hobbs presented a petition with approximately 120 signatures from residents of Brand Road, Bellaire, Coventry Woods, Manor Court and Limerick Lane to Council. The petition read as follows: "We, the undersigned residents of the Brand Road/Dublin Road area, do oppose the proposed Brand Road Bridge. A bridge at that location has been previously ruled out by MORPC. Additionally, in 1982 this bridge was ruled out of the City Plans by the then constituted City Council. Subsequently, when Manor Court was plotted and before the houses were built, Council committed that the bridge would not be built there. To now condemn those houses and disrupt this neighborhood is unfair and an i11-advised use of our tax dollars to buy houses to tear down. The cost of condemnation of those houses, along with all of the legal actions that will take place, is detrimental to the entire City of Dublin." 2. Mr. Donald Leimenstoll of Jenmar Court wondered about the petition he had volunteered to deliver in his neighborhood as regards the Bright Road Waterline. Mr. Foegler reported that Council had reviewed the original question- naire and had decided to use the opportunity to solicit more detailed information regarding the nature of the problem with questions about problems (if any) with wells, equipment, hardness of water, etc. so that they could get a full assessment of health and safety issues that exist in the area. Mr. Foegler said that the City, therefore, had decided to mail the questionnaires to the property owners in the area, and that the returned response had been good. Update Report - Sewer Situation - Mr. Terry Foegler Wr.. Mr. Foegler reported as follows: 1. The contract for the improvement of the pump station and force main was awarded to Kokosing Construction. 2. Legal counsel has filed a stay in the City's behalf before the Environmental Board of Review and the hearing is slated for May 30th. 3. Status of City's efforts to locate the inflor/infiltration problem. A. Referred to memorandum from Paul Willis addressing the concerns raised at the last Council meeting regarding illegal connections RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting DAYTON LEGAL ©IANK GO_. FOF2M NO. 10148 Held May 21, 1990 19 ~ Page Two identified with earlier smoke tests to ascertain status of same and a report noting which of those have been corrected. All appropriate persons have been notified and many of the illegal connections have been corrected. B. Memorandum from Burgess & Niple regarding assessment of all problems identified to date through whatever source; manhole inspection, video taping, etc., indicating the nature of the problem and the type of followup required, as well as certain ~ cases, where appropriate, an estimate of the amount of sewage that has been determined. C. A detailed work program has been prepared for improvements in th field. D. With regard to whether a "big hole" has been found, the most important thing is that a great deal of data is being collected, data identifying problems and being assessed as to "correcting sources of inflow". E. $500,000.00 was invested previously in manhole repairs, which has had a very minimal effect on the overall amount of inflow into the system. F. The analysis and assessment of various sources of inflow identif ed is being done; the improvements and/or corrections to same is the easier part. G. Much of the manhole inspection program was done previously by City staff; consultants (Burgess & Niple) have been brought in ~ and have inspected approximately 2,000 manholes in order to look at the next level types of issues. H. A map/graph was exhibited showing various levels, if any, of ~ inflow through manholes. I. An additional flow monitoring effort will be instituted in certain suspicious areas, isolating various areas that are tributaries to try to isolate the various areas that are tributaries to the sewer system to determine during peak rain periods how much flow is being accounted for at those locations. J. Are proposing about 20 to 24 manhole flow meters to get a more complete picture to help verify other things being planned, and to keep the video inspection on the right track. K. Smoke testing and dye testing services will be provided by the City of Columbus, going hand in hand with the City of Dublin video inspection program. L. There is about 91 miles of sewage collection system on the west side of the river and about 11 to 12 miles has been inspected to date (approximately 1000 square feet per day), and it is anticipated that completion of inspection of the entire system will take about one year. 4. Noted that if Council had more specific and more technical questions that representatives of Burgess & Niple were present to answer those questions as well as being available on an ongoing basis. 5. Also noted that the consultant is providing the overall project leadership in terms of the tests to be done, areas to be investigated as well as evaluation for repairs to be made. Mayor Rozanski expressed a concern, noting that calculations were being made but wondered about receiving a determination of the amount of inflow and infiltration and scheduling a priority list for repairs, resulting in action. Mr. Foegler noted that Council had authorized the funds for repairs; that one contract had been awarded for a repair on Dublin Road, and that two other problem areas had been identified for repair as of this date. Mr. Foegler also commented that it was critical to get accurage data, and then to determine a priority list for repairs, keeping in mind the cost effectiveness of those repairs. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes Of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting D4y1 OIJ I. EC~AL BLANK CO., FOF<M NO. 10148 Held May 21, 1990 _ 19 Page Three Mr. Foegler also noted that in the previous manhole repair program, with $500,000.00 spent on the program, that the City had had only a 3% reductio in the problem. Mr. Foegler also said that the data derived is the critical part of the information; that the repairs are relatively simple. He also noted that if two million gallons were derived in I&I reduction that the City's I&I program would be deemed to be extremely successful. Responding to a question and comment from Ms. Maurer, Mr. Foegler said that a major component of the EPA's evaluation of the whole process will be its review of the I&I reduction that the City is accomplishing by the improvement; that Dublin will be able to demonstrate that that assessment, that analysis was done in a thorough, complete, comprehensive and accurate fashion as is possible. Ms. Maurer said that she felt that pursuing the problem with deliberate ease is very important; that it also is important to gather the data so that legal issues are supported as well. Mrs. King noted that Mr. Foegler had mentioned that at the next Council meeting that perhaps Council will be asked for an additional appropriation and wondered if that meant that staff will have awarded sufficient contrac s to have utilized the entire amount of money previously appropriated by Council. Mr. Foegler said that it had been determined that there is a problem with the aerial sewer in the vicinity of the lift station and that repairing that aerial crossing will utilize much of the monies that have fir.. been allocated thus far. He also noted that probably 40 manholes will need to be repaired also. Mrs. King wondered if the City was moving as fast as possible on identifying the problems and repairing same. She re-expressed the sense of frustration on the part of members of Council with the continuing overflows. Mr. Foegler said that staff and the consultants have been communicating on a regular basis with the Ohio EPA and that all persons involved do feel a sense or urgency to resolve the problem. Mayor Rozanski referred to a handout submitted by Burgess & Niple, Ltd. titled "TV Sewer Inspection Summary - Significant Findings" with findings of unknown laterals, for example. Mr. Foegler noted that assessment in these kinds of situations was difficult. He also said that the expectation and hope was that one or two major holes would be found; that that would not be the case; that it will be a highly distributed problem throughout the entire system. Mr. Paul Shepherd of Burgess and Nipe said that they understood the City's frustration and that they have found a number of small leaks, are studying the problems and working to determine the cost effectiveness of repairs. He said that lateral connections need to be checked via smoke testing or dye testing, but that it is a slow and time consuming process. Mrs. King suggested providing to the public and to Council a chronological timetable of information, problems and progress reports regarding the situation. Mr. Foegler said that in accordance with the EPA order that the City will be providing a detailed report to the Ohio EPA on approximately the 15th of each month with information, timelines, expenditures, etc. regarding efforts to solve the overflow problem. The City of Columbus, it was reported, is continuously metering the capacity of the east branch interceptor sewer and that it is expected that Columbus will report that information to Dublin within the next week or so. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MiriUteS Of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting i DHYTON LEGAL E3 t.A NK CO, FORA NO I~JI4 Held May 21, 1990 19 Page Four Mr. Ted Lenker referred to a memorandum he had prepared for members of Council, and asked that someone from Council be designated to address the issues raised in the memorandum. Mayor Rozanski said that money for repairs has been allocated; that if additional monies are needed that they will also be made available; that, if necessary, special meetings of Council will be held to deal with the situation; that the offer of assistance from the City of Columbus was accepted, a strategy for utilizing those services has been developed, and they will probably be working in Dublin later this week. Mr. Campbell told Mr. Lenker that Council has spen hours and hours trying to resolve the problem; that they had met with the Depty Director of the EPA who informed Council that both Dublin and Columbus must work to solve the problem; that a snap of the fingers will not make the problem go away. Mayor Rozanski said that the true solution to the problem is completion of the west branch interceptor sewer and that anything done before then is just a "band-aid" approach to the true correction of the problem. Mrs. King said to Mr. Lenker that Council and staff have shown complete resolve to solve the problem from the very beginning, but suggested that perhaps a weekly, written update on the situation could be written and provided to those who wish to educate themselves. She also suggested that persons such as Mr. Lenker might communicate with persons in the City of Columbus and exert some influence in getting them to work and budget monies for the west branch interceptor sewer, noting that Dublin's monies for the project have been budgeted for years. Ordinance No. 76-89 - Ordinance Providing for a Change of Zoning on a 489.915 Acre Tract Located Along the Flest Side of Sawmill Road North of Bright Road and Extending North to Summit View Road. Public Hearing. Registered Proponents: Mr. Jim Houk, 55 Nationwide Boulevard; Mr. Harrison ~ Smith, 37 W. Broad Street; Dr. Dale Bertsch, 830 Loch Lomond Lane; Mr. ~•Robert Parkinson. 1326 Noe-Bixby Road; Mr. Jason Coffee, 1237 Dublin Road. ~ Registered Opponents: Mr. John Ferrara, 7653 Tamarisk Court; Mr. James Dill, 7676 Red Bay Court; Mr. Robert J. Brown, 3888 Inverness Circle; Mrs. Carol Gantz, 7343 Macbeth Drive; Mrs. Cath Boring, 8227 Glencree i Place; Ms. Joy Prior, 7231 Inverness Court; Ms. Marcia Wood/ Rebecca Kidder, 4300 Bright Road; Dr. James Stoycheff, 4540 Arrowhead Road; Mr. Maury Walsh, 8353 Glencree Place. Registered "Neutrals": Mr. Joe Riedel, Dublin Schools, Mr. Carl Nielsen, 8030 Sawmill Road. Mayor Rozanski explained the rules for Public Hearings. Mr. Bowman had the following comments: 1. The rezoning application is for 493 acres of undeveloped land in the northeast quadrant. ~ 2. It has approximately one mile of frontage along the west side of Sawmill Road. 3. The site is about 300 feet from Sawmill Road, although two parcels extend all the way to Riverside Drive. 4. The acreage to be rezoned is under the current ownership of three property owners; at one time there were five and six property owners but the properties subsequently were consolidated. 5. Homewood Corporation owns 170 acres; Summit View Associates owns 54 acres at the corner of Summit View and Sawmill Road; Sawmill Partners owns approximately 257 acres. The school district owns a 10 acre parcell, essentially without access, right in the middle of the entire quadrant. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Mlriutes of Dublin City .Council _Meeting_ Meeting DAYT N LEGAL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 Held May 21 , 1990 19 Page Five 6. The current zoning for the vast majority of the property is R-1 except in the extreme northwest section, fairly close to Riverside rr.. Drive, a 10 acre portion owned by Homewood Corporation, which is zoned R-12. 7. The process was begun over two years ago, and centered upon negotiations between representatives of the residents, the large property owners, as well as the City. 8. Dr. Dale Bertsch was hired to facilitate the discussions between and among various groups. 9. There were many meetings with various groups, proceeding with a large planning effort on the rezoning, including a public hearing before Council discussing the entire northeast quadrant of Dublin. 10. Staff believed it imperative that the area be zoned in a comprehensiv manner, influencing the creation of a development package with parks, schools, roads, sewerlines, etc., combined with land uses to get the best possible plan. 11. The Northeast Quadrant is approximately the size of Muirfield; 1600 acres. 600 of those acres are currently developed. 12. Alternatives to the sanitary sewer system, noting that residents did not want blasting; the construction of a sanitary sewer on Riverside Drive would be very expensive for the amount of land that it would service. 13. A cross quadrant arterial had to be developed in order to get a road from Sawmill Road to Riversdie Drive, taking traffic off of Bright Road and Summit View. 14. Existing R-1 development had to be enhanced, presering their value and ensuring their compatibility. 15. Needed a large park site. 16. Needed 65 acres for a high school. 17. At one point in the process staff was hopeful that there could be a City sponsored rezoning. 18. City Staff worked and negotiated a package that met Dublin's require- ments, resulting in a functional and attractive environment. 19. Staff would recommend approval. Ms. Clarke showed several aerial slides of the site and area and commented as follows: 1.' None of the land that is located in the Bright Road area is included within this application. 2. The wester half of the site is wooded and the eastern half is mostly farmland. 3. There are three signalized traffic locations - Hard Road, Summer, and Saltergate. 4. In terms of land use, the predominant use is single family with 351 homes. 5. The second largest land use component is multi-family -866 units on 105 acres. 6. The next largest land use component would be the retail which is 31 acres which would support a maximum of 290,000 square feet. 7. There would be 9 acres of office use. 8. The other uses on the site would be a high school, an elementary school, a 7.5 acre church site and a 35 acre active park. 9. Public uses account for more than 20% of the overall land. 10. The owners will be dedicated a 10 acre north/south bike path link. 11. Also, there are two wooded areas that will be maintained in thier nature state; one to the south of the Hard Road extension of 4z acres and the other one in the northwestern portion of the quadrant, that of 14.5 acres. 12. Green space buffers are established along Summit View Road and Riverside Drive. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting DAYT N LEGAL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 Held May 21, 1990 19 Page Six 13. The City will be purchasing 35 acres for an active park site. 14. Private open space will be constructed. 15. Open space amenities will be part of the multi-family development. 16. There will be two east/west bike paths that go from Sawmill Road to Riverside Drive, as well as a north/south along Sawmill Road for pedestrian purposes. 17. Two major roadways will be constructed by the developer; one being the Hard Road extension which will be between three and five lanes extended from Sawmill Road to Riverside Drive which will have extremely limited curb cuts with high school frontage on that road. There would be a northern road that would be an east/west collector constructed at three lanes that would have more frequent curb cuts and would go through the single family neighborhood. 18. The three intersections at Hard Road, Summer and Saltergate are con- trolled by traffic signals. The northern two of the three would be re-signalized and the intersections improved at the developer's expense. 19. The southernmost of the three intersections would be a shared expense between the City of Dublin and the developer. 20. The developers have agreed to work with the City of Dublin as well as with the City of Columbus in solving some of the existing problems in the quadrant which include the flooding of Billingsley Ditch as well as the extension of a gravity sewer through the quadrant. 21. The Community Plan sets forth land use to the north of Summit View as being low density, single family. 22. The land uses across the street should lend themselves to single family extension. r.r 23. The area south of Bright Road has been designated as a transitional area. 24. A great deal of the area in the western half of the quadrant is not contained within this application. 25. The land owners of this application control more of the Sawmill portion of the quadrant than the Riverside Drive portion. 26. One of the real advantages of this plan is the opportunity it presents the community in terms of design. There is approximately a mile of frontage along Sawmill Road in which there is to be consisten treatment, with coordinated architecture. Mr. Bowman concluded the saying: 1. After deliberating two meetings on the proposed application, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval, subject to the six following conditions: A. Submission of appropriate Subarea 9 development standards for the high school site; B. Submission of phasing plan by developer; C. Submission of a plan for the development of Subarea 3 which indicates access for school and possible reconfiguration; D. Strengthening language relating to architectural coordination; E. Corrections to text and revisions to plans to reflect the agreements between the developers and the City and to remove ommissions; and, ~.r F. Recommendation that the Commission and School Board consider amendments to Subarea 9 standards submitted by Jeff Blood. 2. With the above six conditions both staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the plan. Mr. Amorose commented that the Council representative to the Planning and Zoning Commission he had voted for approval of the plan when it came before the Planning and Zoning Commission. He said that he believed then, as he believes now, that the plan does have some merit but also said that it is not perfect and would warrant additional study. Mr. Amorose said that there have been additional numerous meetings between and among various groups since that Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting and that new facts and additional information were presented by several residents of the area. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes Of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting DAY7 EGAL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 Held May 21 , 1990 19 Page Seven Mr. Amorose commended the residents for their hard work in researching the plan as well as for communicating their findings and expressing their concerns among themselves and with City Council members. he specifically mentioned a report submitted by Mr. Robert Brown in which it is pointed out that this rezoning has a much greater ratio of multi-family to single family units than anywhere else in Dublin. Secondly, Mr. Amorose said, much additional information has been collected concerning the retail portion of the proposal, noting that when comparing this retail with other "limited retail areas" as mentioned in the City's Community Plan, this proposal contains more than twice the square footage, for example, of Dublin Kroger Plaza, Dublin Village Squa~~, not to mention other smaller centers like Muirfield Square. Mr. Amorose further said that East Dublin consists of more than 2500 acres, and that the East Dublin neighborhood community is rapidly becoming disproportionately developed in commercial and multi-family versus the single family then anywhere else in Dublin. Mr. Amorose suggested rethinking the following items regarding the plan: 1. The ratio of multi-family to single family to bring said ratio more in line with the rest of the Dublin community. 2. Reduce the retail within the framework of limited retail as part of th Community Plan recommendations. 3. Take another look at the potential if not the already existing fin, traffic problems as they relate to Sawmill Road and the Hard Road extension. 4. Continue with the commitment to solve the storm water problem. 5. If the high school site is constructed that it will be reasonably buffered from the adjoining property owners and that the schools will have open public meetings with the residents to get their input when designing the new high school facility. 6. Make certain that the sanitary sewer is in conformity with the Communi y Plan. Mr. Amorose asked that Mr. Harrison Smith address as many of the above concerns as possible. Mayor Rozanski explained that there would be no vote on the Ordinance at this meeting, that Council would be taking no action, and that a third reading of the Ordinance will be heard at the Council meeting on June 4, 1990. Mr. Harrison Smith, representing the applicants, commented as follows: 1. This is the most complex negotiation I have ever been involved in. 2. Real people with real concerns, not only can but ought to express those concerns to the developer, and it is the responsibility of the developer, if it is within his economic capability, to respond to real concerns with solutions to real problems. 3. Have, to this point, negotiated with four different parties. 4. One client is Jerry Schottenstein, another is the Homewood Corp., clients who had not had any particular exposure to Dublin, and did not fully understand the process or the expectations regarding r,,, development in Dublin. 5. They responded favorably on 10 separate occasions with 30 different major solutions. 6. First met some 22 years ago with the negotiator appointed by the City to bring together real people to discuss real problems, real solutions. 7. Met on many occasions with City Staff and responded over the years to different concerns, conditions, etc. 8. Several general categories cam to Light in general negotiations: A. The "public things" - schools, parks, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, traffic, etc. and the client responded to every question that was raised. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes Of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting DAY7 N LEGAL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 Held May 21 , 1990 19 Page Eight A Total attention was given to the traffic problems that exist in the area and the solutions that might be available. ~r B. Land use. "The Dublin that is on the east side of the river is on the west side of the river and not of the place east of Sawmill Road." 1) The early part of the process was the coming together with the consultant and with the group of people participating in the process with identification of major problems. 2) Brought to the table sufficient ownership. 3) Dr. Bertsch got the Homewood Corporation into the issue. 4) Bought John McKitrick's property. 5) The church site was moved to the northeast corner of Summit View so that there could be one large, cohesive piece of property. 9. Because of the time element, new people have been brought "on board" and new concerns have had to be addressed. 6. There are some persons who impose an impossible agenda. Mr. Jim Houk of Bohm-NBBJ noted that as planners and developers they had existing development impacts extensively on the east side of Sawmill Road that had to be dealt with as far as commercial frontage of the not very highest quality. He noted that there is a powerline running through the middle of the site; that there is a river corridor area with single family moving from large ~,u„ lot at the river to more traditional Dublin single family in the center; that the Sawmill Corridor and River Corridor were divided with park and high school and with a public area division between the residential, River Corridor area and the Sawmill Road area; that the commercial area was dealt with in a unified architectural quality; that a street system was developed, creating an extension from Hard Road to Sawmill Road; that there will be no driveway curb cuts along the major arterial going from Hard Road to Sawmill Road; that there has been a major architectural effort with regard to the multi-family, the commercial, the office, etc; that there are entry features, bike path systems, landscape plans along street frontage along Sawmill Road, fencing design to carry along in front of the commercial area, picking up the character developed along Dublin Village Center; that there has been developed a landscaping plan for the buffer between the high school and the adjoining residences; that there have been developed numerous bike trail systems. Mr. Smith and Mr. Houk discussed 30 items which had been addressed as concerns throughout the negotiating process, and which they felt that they had addressed as follows: 1. Certainty and total plan commitment involving the major landowners. 2. No sewer construction along the river. 3. A sanitary sewer system for the entire area, requiring it to be designed from a capacity standpoint to fit the densities plan, to be paid for by the clients. 4. No road access to Summit View and Bright Road, which meant creating a; ~ 5. Major east/west arterial, the extension of Hard Road, which the clien has agreed to build, building it "up front" being the initial construction on the project, all: 6. Helping to preserve the character of Bright Road and Summit View Road. 7. The initially proposed multi-family use was removed from Riverside Drive. 8. Also agreed to a large lot limitation of one unit per acre along the river. 9. A high school site of 65± acres which, if it were not a school site, would be single family. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes Of Dublin city council Meeting Meeting DAYT N LEGAL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 Held May 21, 1990 19 Page Nine 10. The 35 acre active park site would also otherwise have been single family, but a lighted, active park does create problems in terms of the land immediately surrounding it. 11. Preservation of open space along Riverside Drive was extended per a request of Mr. Amorose. 12. Identification of a Riverside Drive Corridor versus a Sawmill Road Corridor was accomplished. 13. Limited access control along Sawmill Road was accomplished with a loop road around the intense area, enabling persons living east or west of the site to get to the commercial space without ever being on Sawmill Road except at a light. With the three signalized intersections, every person can get to the site without ever being on Sawmill Road. 14, 15, 16 (see above) 17. Limitation on commercial space. Were told to get it down to 25 acres but strictly speaking it is 31 acres with 6 acres in the area delegated to office space, the pure retail element being totally interior, with office uses north and south, the theatre site being eliminated as well. At the present time from the freeway to Saltergate, 86% is commercial from Hard Road to Saltergate 77% is commercial and 23% as apartments at 12 units per acre; from Bethel to Saltergate (32 miles) 90% is commercial, 5% apartments at 12 units per acre and 5% is single family. 18. Improved surface water drainage. 19. Provided for link to new bridge across the river. One of the things they were asked to do is that if there would be a bridge south of Bright Road that the desire was expressed to at least create the possibility that the traffic did not feed into Bright Road and that there be a street to the south along the freeway that would in some way intersect with the proposed loop road system. "If you need it, you've got it." 20. Architectural marriage of elements - "it is there." 21. "Traditional" Dublin single family, keeping in mind the proximity of an active park, a school and a powerline; hence, the buffer of multi-family. 22. Gravity sewer. Dr. Stoycheff gave a plan to Mr. Smith and Mr. Smith gave said plan to engineers who said that if a gravity sewer can be constructed with any economic reality and Dublin will approve it, that then the client will cooperate in working on same. 23. Surface water. Billingsley Ditch. Various solutions were investigat d - detention, a pipe along the Hard Road extension when built. Conversa tions with the City of Columbus were held regarding matters of detention and the client agreed to pay part of the cost. 24. Hard Road upgrade. Are having discussions with City of Columbus regarding same so that there will be an "end to end Hard Road improvement". 25. School standards have been worked out. 26. Indicated in the total packet information regarding rental or condo 1~* of the multi-family. Mr. Smith concluded, at this point, by saying "everything that we possibly can do to hold this together in terms of the commitment, in terms of the willingness and the economic capability of the client to make it happen we will do. If there are reasonable things that we have omitted to do, categorically we will do them. If there are unreasonable things that we have omitted to do, categorically we will not do them." Professor Dale Bertsch, the negotiator appointed by the City on the plan, commented that he felt very strongly that the developers and the team that was appointed initially by the East Dublin Civic Association negotiated in very good faith and identified a long series of issues which .~.3,~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes Of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK 00., FORM NO. 10148 Held May 21, 1990 19 Page Ten did consistently change over the years, but as the issues came up, the owners consistently moved toward solutions and he said, he felt, with the err. public interest at heart. Dr. Bertsch said that he had never found a group on either side more positive to work with; that every that was raised was addressed, including the percentage and ratio of multi-family to single family which he responded to as follows: that if you take the entire 1600 acres rather than just this development one will find that the ratio more closely approximates a reasonable ratio; that another major concern expressed was the large number of homes and the subsequent large number of children that would be in the school population. In working with the school board and examining figures, it became clear that multi-family more closely pays their way in property taxes then any other land use. He noted that the quality of the development was the important and primary issue and that the proposal before Council was a win-win situation. Professor Bertsch noted that the "team" members changed about 10 months to a year ago and with the change of the team there occurred an entire new series of issues, not new in the sense that they had not been addresse but new in a sense that the team members were not aware of what had been addressed and what had occurred previously. He noted that he had withdrawn subsequently from the negotiations and again said that he felt that this proposal was a win-win situtation; that to deny the application has a great possibility of throwing it back into only what is marketable and then the City will be faced with !~1°" piecemeal rather than comprehensive zoning applications. Mr. John Ferrara, president of the East Dublin Civic Association,asked Council to reject the P.U.D. as filed because they felt that it was in conflict with Dublin's Community Plan in two major areas - one being retail, noting that the Community Plan calls for, if needed, limited neighborhood retail along Sawmill Road and that a 290,000 square foot regional mall with a 110,000 square foot anchor store cannot be considered limited, neighborhood retail. Mr. Ferrara said that the second area of conflict with the Community Plan was in the ratio of density of multi-family to single family homes in this area as compared to the rest of Dublin. Mr. Robert Brown of 3888 Inverness Circle and a trustee of the East Dublin Civic Association, discussed two major areas - traffic and the multi- family versus single family ratio. Mr. Brown first discussed the traffic situation, referring to the Community Plan, which was adopted by Resolution of Council on December 19, 1988. Mr. Brown read the following statements from the Dublin Community Plan: 1. "Permit a rate of residential growth which does not exceed the ability of the City to provide adequate services, so as to avoid undue congestion or undesirable conditions brought on by high density and overcrowding." 2. "Assure adequate living space for all by providing lots of adequate size and taking into account existing development patterns and demands for public services." 3. "Assure traffic safety through the design of street systems which discourage through traffic in residential neighborhoods and by severely limiting uses which generate non-residential traffic." 4. "Provide (Protect) residential neighborhoods from through traffic or non-residential volumes." 5. "Design all thoroughfare and terminal facilities, including parking, with sufficient capacity to accommodate anticipated traffic based upon intensity of projected and planned land use." RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin city council Meeting Meeting DAYi N LEGAL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 gej~ May 21, 1990 19 Page Eleven I~"r 6. "Control the intensity of land use to keep traffic generation on any thoroughfare from exceeding its planned capacity." ~r 7. "Plan the street system and land uses to keep commercial and industri 1 traffic off residential streets." Mr. Brown also referred to page 41 of the Community Plan which discussed Northeast Area Future Land Use - "It is apparent that no matter what the ultimate land uses within the northeast quadrant are, the development of the planning area with require negotiation." He also referred to a reference in the Plan which said that "the higher density single family (two to three units/acre) will be associated more with Sawmill Road rather than Riverside Drive." Mr. Brown also said that they would like to see step-down zoning moving away from the center portion of the retail proposed along Hard Road, eithe on the north or south side of the public retail area. Infromation was received from Mr. David Younger, City of Columbus Traffic Engineer, relating to future development along Sawmill Road. Mr. Younger, Mr. Brown said, commented that Hard Road will be a major east/west thoroughfare; that the intersection of Hard Road and 315 has been funded and awaits scheduling for construction in the immediate future (1990 or 1991); that the current City of Columbus Thoroughfare Plan includes the expansion of Hard Road from S.R. 315 west to Sawmill Road, to five lanes with an underpass under the railroad west of Smokey Row Road (1993); that the current capacity of Sawmill Road is approximately 35,000 Average Daily Trips; that at the time of a 1987 survey taken on Sawmill 33,000 Average Daily Trip generations were indicated, leaving 2,000 Average Yr. Daily Trips to achieve current Sawmill Road capacity. Mr. Brown said that his figures would indicate that the totaled, average daily trips generated by this developed would be 24,222 trips, noting that 8% of the total trips generated within the whole development needs to "hit" Sawmill Road and that Sawmill Road will be at capacity. He noted also that the traffic study was done after the O'Shaughnessy Dam Bridge was closed. Mr. Brown also noted that the stated purpose of the Hard Road extension is to relieve the through traffic pressures from the existing residential roads, but that with this extension limited to two lanes with a shared turn lane that it appears highly unlikely that that will occur. Mr. Brown further described the Hard Road extension plans with the use of a slide and said that it was felt that the road needs to go where Dublin wants it to go and that Dublin should not let any individual owner of property determine the position of a major east/west collector. He summarized by saying that areas of concern were the positioning of the road, the movement of the traffic, noting that traffic will flow to the point of least resistance. Mr. Brown went on to talk about the density ratios, quoting from the Community Plan as follows: "the City plans to avoid undue congestion or undesirable conditions brought on by high density or overcrowding"; "as the City developed the City would provide lots of adequate size and to als take into account existing development patterns". He explained that gross density uses the total acreage of land involved before any deductions due to roads, parking lots, retention ponds, driveways, etc. whereas net density uses the total acreage of land involved after deductions for the roads, parking lots, retention ponds, driveways, etc. Mr. Brown pointed out that the ratio of multi-family units to single family units is achieved by dividing the number of multi-family units by the number of single family homes. He said that what they wanted was equal zoning standards - east side of Dublin the same as the west side of Dublin. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin city. council .Meeting Meeting DA N EGAL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 Held May 21. 1990 19 Page Twelve Mr. Brown reported the following figures regarding density ratios of multi-family to single family: Existing single family units developed within Dublin to date, a density of 1.79 units per acre; this rezoning request would have a density of 1.97 units per acre. Existing multi-family units developed within Dublin to date, a density of 4.64 units per acre; this rezoning request would result in a density of 8.25 dwelling units per acre, representing a 77.80% increase in multi- family density. This request would represent a 740% increase in the ratio of multi-family units to each single family home. With regard to this issue Mr. Brown said, "In summary, all that we ask is to receive equal treatment as been extended to the present residents of Dublin as this City has developed over the past years. Dublin Council members have reassured us many times in the past by saying 'There is no East or West Dublin', only a 'City of Dublin'. We the residents, ask that Council closely consider with empathy the facts presented here tonight before rendering any decisions." Mrs. Carol Gantz of Macbeth Drive and a trustee of the East Dublin Civic Association commented, objective to the size of the retail area within the P.U.D., 290,000 square feet proposed with a 110,000 square foot anchor store, pointing out that even the Hechinger anchol store was only 60,000 square feet. Mrs. Cathy Boring, using slides and Legos, compared existing commercial areas in Dublin with the one proposed, noting that when the proposal ` was discussed before the residents initially that the residents were confused with terms, thinking that the term "commercial" meant "office" not retail. She also said that the residents felt that they had all the neighborhood services in the area that they could possibly require, and she also commented regarding the great number of vacant store fronts Ms. Boring also asked Council to consider the effect on surrounding property values of residences. Mr. James Dill of Red Bay Court spoke of concerns as related to storm water runoff and sewage especially as regards capacity of the two lift stations proposed. Mr. Dill requested that before voting on the proposal that Council and the City obtain independent evalualtions of the water runoff and sewage capacity issues to protect the citizens and the City of Dublin. Ms. Marcia Wood, with slides and prepared text, discussed the natural beauty of the area with its woods, wild animals and the effect that this proposed development would have on the quality and uniqueness of life as enjoyed by the residents on the east side of the river at the present time. Ms. Wood also referred to sections of Dublin's Code regarding the preservation of wooded areas, perhaps to be used as a nature preserve, a passive-type park. Ms. Wood mentioned concerns regarding storm water runoff and how, if it were not properly contained, could destroy the land. Ms. Joy Prior of Inverness expressed concern regarding the proposed location of the high school, being close to a large retail area, perhaps allowing for not so positive outside influences affecting the students of Dublin. Dr. Stoycheff had one comment - "For the sake of brevity, Mr. Harrison Smith, please come back with a much better plan." RECORD OF PROCEED[NGS MlriUtes Of Dublin City Council Meeting_ Meetlrig A BLANK 00. FORM NO. 10148 Held May 21 , 1990 19 Page Thirteen e* Mr. Maury Walsh, a trustee of the East Dublin Civic Association, wonder- ; ed where this development would send its waste water if indeed the east branch interceptor is at capacity. Mr. Walsh also said that the felt that too much retail was being proposed as well as mentioning the negative aspects of the multi-family density. Mr. Riedel of the Dublin schools said that the Dublin Board of Education is still interested in acquiring the approximately 65 acres for a high school site. With regard to development standards, Mr. Riedel said that the school's position would ask Council to not include the amendments to the Subarea 9 development standards as approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission which would make the site unusable for construction of a high school. He also noted that it is the position of the Dublin Board of Education that decisions regarding access between school sites is appropriately the decision of the School Board, a public body and that public input to address the issue is possible at the School Board level. Mr. Riedel also said that the School Board would like to assure City Council as well as the public that their long standing practice of addressing school building design and school site development at public school board meetings will continue with the development of this site; that public input would be welcomed in the schools continuing effort to eliminate negative aspects of this school development. Mr. Carl Nielsen of Sawmill Road expressed concerns regarding storm water runoff. and said that he would hope that whatever form the development takes that the City Council will be concerned that handling of the surface water is an important part of the plans for the development Mr. Campbell commented: 1. The presentations were "terrific" demonstrating a great deal of thought and work. 2. While serving on the Planning and Zoning Commission, said that this was a good plan in concept and that some retail was justified along Sawmill Road. 3. A positive aspect of the plan is that it does provide for the more intense uses along Sawmill Road and gradually lowers intensity toward the west. 4. It would be desirable to save the woods, and with a P.U.D. there is such a chance. S. Should the plan deteriorate into a series of zoning applications, one does not know what would happen to the area. 6. A negative aspect of the plan is the ratio of density when compared with other parts of Dublin, noting that this area should be closer to Asherton (6.1 du/acre) rather than the Dublin Village apartments (9.5 du/acre). Subarea 3 lists 10 du/acre, and the site for multi-family adjacent to the school site does not indicate the number of units per acre and the text does not indicate how Subarea 3 is going to be developed; there is no plan. Suggested the applicant cut the densities back in Subareas 3 and 6. 7. Subarea 5B, combination retail/office leaves too much undefined use and should be treated as office (65,000 square feet) which would drop the retail to 225,000 square feet. 8. The square footage in Subarea 5, which is the major retail portion of 26 acres, needs to be dropped back to under 200,000 square feet and thus would be in the range of what is already existing in the balance of the City of Dublin, such as the Dublin Plaza Shopping Center. 9. If the bridge site ends up being on the area immediately north of I-270, the 60' right-of-way intersection in the south of Sub- area 6 where the road comes into Hard Road extended, may have to be reconfigured because that may well be the entrance from the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City__Council Meeting Meeting AL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 Held May 21 , 1990 19 Page Fourteen bridge road into Hard Road extended. When that road is reconfigured, it should flow so that Hard Road flows right down through the new road towards the bridge. Noted that people do not make right angle turns when they can keep on going straight. 10. The school site. The people that are living in the area of the high school are entitled to know what the site is going to look like before making a decision about whether it is right or not. 11. The plan needs to be reworked, but it is good for the City to have some positive development in the area. Mrs. King's comments: 1. Appreciate the time that everyone put into their presentations; they were sophisticated, well planned and coordinated. 2. The six areas of concern listed by Mr. Amorose at the beginning of the meeting continue to still be concerns. 3. Part of the real issue is whether or not the client purchased the right piece of property with the commercial area being the center- piece of the property. 4. Concerned when Mr. Smith began his presentation with the issue that there was some reason to consider any point in this plan a mirror image of what is happening in Columbus. It was never an appropriate part of any plan to mirror what had happened in Columbus. 5. There are some positive aspects to the proposal - the buffers along Riverside Drive and Summit View at 150'; the consistent architectural style; overall, the roadway system is good except that the right-of-way of the Hard Road extension needs to be 100' r.;~ throughout its length; the early completion for Hard Road is a real asset; minimal curb cuts and changes in the traffic signals on Sawmill Road are assets as is the availability of the park land. 6. Would like to see the City make a special effort to preserve some of the uncommon treed areas for passive parks. 7. Subarea 5, about 11 acres, being set aside for community use is an asset to the plan but the City may need a larger site when considering all the possible uses.. 8. Making sewer services available to the entire project is welcome if a total gravity system can be worked out, but am concerned that at the present time there is no capacity in the east branch sewer for this project since Columbus has oversold that line. 9. Invite Mr. Smith to talk with people on Columbus City Council and in Columbus City Hall to secure their full and prompt funding for the construction of the west branch sewerline. 10. Regarding the issue of traffic; probably Sawmill Road is very near capacity at the present time and the addition of this many more shoppers and residents will send it over the edge of capacity. 11. The Community Plan requires that commitments for roadway expansion be in place prior to proceeding. 12. There are a great number of concerns about the density of the area; it should be similar to other portions of Dublin. 13. If the commercial could be limited to around 50,000 square feet it would be acceptable; 290,000 square feet is too much. Mr. Sutphen commented: 1. Cannot vote for this unless it is a gravity sewer. 2. Need to see engineering and written discussion on how the water is going to get to the river, making sure that it drains off properly and that there will be no flooding in the future. 3. Sawmill Road already is over capacity. 4. Request that the Engineering Department gather information regarding the waterline for the area; what size line does it need to be, will the City run out of water, etc. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes Of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting N LE AL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 Held May 21, 1990 19 Page Fifteen * Ms. Maurer 's comments: 1. Mentioned the great number of post cards received from Columbus residents (pre-printed) opposing this plan, including 27 from the same person and commented that Council members do read their mail. 2. Also mentioned the post cards from Dublin residents, thought- fully written. 3. Would like to have people spend some time in getting the Columbus City Council to deal with the drainage issue on the east side of Sawmill Road. The City of Dublin requires that developers keep the drainage at the level it was prior to development; Columbus's standards start after single family dwellings have been built. 4. Pleased that this developer is going to address the drainage issue by putting in retention pond, and by putting a line down Hard Road to the river. 5. Not as concerned about the density as fellow Council members; information received regarding a pending 577 acre annexation on the west side of the river will have 94 acres of 12 units per acre. 6. With the green space ordinance the wooded areas shown in the slides will have a chance of being preserved. 7. Concerned about the buffering of the school site from adjacent residences, suggesting that at the time of preliminary zoning that everything on the school site be determined. 8. Reported that most of the traffic in the area, determined by the Suburban Mobility Initiative Study done by MORPC, indicated that most of the traffic in the area are short trips, cross corridor. 9. Commented that the Community Plan does not say that the area is going to have limited, neighborhood retail. 10. The multi-family ratio is similar to the Earlington subdivision - the Asherton condos, the apartments, the single family, the churches, the school, etc. 11. Regar~iiag-::the multi-family said that if it could be reduced and still be economically feasible then she would like to see it reduced. 12. Would think that an active park in the area would be an asset. 13. Would appreciate anything that developers can do to convince the City of Columbus regarding the necessity and important of the west branch sewer, trying to speed up the process for the health, safety and future of Dublin. Mr. Strip commented as follows: 1. Thanked residents for their interest; the campaign, the cards, visits to homes, letters, etc. 2. Admiration expressed to David Amorose for expressing his views early in the meeting. 3. Are dealing with a Planned Unit Development; the alternative being to have 50 acres "chopped up here", 100 acres "chopped up there", insignificant green space, broken up park land, etc. ending up with a situation that could be even less desirable then is being presented. 4. Dublin is not Sawmill Road; Sawmill Road is not Dublin. 5. Expressed a concern with regard to the amount of retail space, suggesting that perhaps 75,000 square feet would be better. 6. Concern regarding traffic congestion but suggesting that all remember that Dublin cannot control what happens in Delaware County. 7. Concerned about the density as well as some of the setback lines, noting that some of those setback lines are down to about 35 feet. 8. Said that he thought that Mr. Smith had represented his client well with thorough background work and a good presentation, but that there needed to be some changes before he could vote for approval of the application. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MinUteS Of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting L BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 Held May 21. 1990 19 Page Sixteen Mayor Rozanski's comments: 1. Greatest concern would be that the area would not get developed in a piecemeal fashion. 2. The property has approximately 169 acres of open space, including the school, park, the bike paths, the open space. 3. Concern regarding Hard Road and the reduction from five lanes to three lanes at one point. Mr. Smith said "five all the way", noting that initially the plan is to build three lanes and that when Dublin needs the other two lanes they construct them. 4. The application is similar to the Aterford area, noting that needing to be added to the statistics provided by the East Dublin Civic Association was the fact that the Carrowmoor project, near Waterford, has 68 units. Noted that residents of Waterford liked the amenities - children being able to walk to school, to the park, McDonald's as well as to the grocery store. 5. Wondered about the necessity of the great amount of retail space. 6. At the time of request of approval of the Final Development Plan; that is the time to discuss storm water, sewers, etc. Mayor Rozanski wondered if Council could come to a decision in two weeks at the time of the third reading of the Ordinance, suggesting perhaps that it would be appropriate to have a special meeting prior to the third reading to allow the developer, the property owners, etc. ample time to answer the questions of the residents and Council members. There was discussion regarding the timing of, or necessity for, a special meeting of Council to discuss the rezoning, and Mayor Rozanski said that Council would discuss the matter and report back to him. Mr. Campbell said that he would not be available the second meeting of Council in June and that he would like to vote on the issue. Mr. Smith said that he would have a conflict the last week in June, but said that he would communicate with the City Clerk. Mayor Rozanski called for a brief recess - 11:50 P.M. to 12:00 midnight. Ordinance No. 37-90 - Ordinance Amending Certain Sections of the City Compensation Plan. Third Reading. Vote - Mrs. King, yes; Mayor Rozanski, yes; Mr. Amorose, yes; Mr. Campbell yes; Mr. Sutphen, yes; Ms. Maurer, yes; Mr. Strip, yes. Ordinance No. 39-90 - Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Lease Agreement for Additional Space at 5131 Post Road. Third Reading. Mr. Strip commented that he thought that from a business standpoint that it was a bad lease. He mentioned that the lease was for $13.50/square foot, starting out, r.~. plus $4.00 per square foot for maintenance, with the City paying for the employee's retirement, insurance, salary, vacation, etc., and that the landlord has the right to increase that amount if his expenses exceed what was budgeted for maintenance expenses. Mr. Stephen Smith said that this lease will incorporate the other Lease as well, and that the owner's position is that of "take it or leave it". The possibility of leasing space in another building was discussed, but it was mentioned that it might prove difficult to relocate 25 people, and that it was important for the Development Director to be with the staff he is directing, as well as the convenience of having staff locations in fairly close proximity to the municipal building. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting N AL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 Held May 21, 1990 19 Page Seventeen It was noted that this would be a two year lease. Mr. Strip read paragraph 4 of the lease which reads, "In addition to the " Base Rate specified in Section Three (3) above, Lessee agrees to pay its proportionate share of $4.00/square foot as hereinafter defined." Mr. Banchefsky said that, historically, no additional costs have been imposed, the $4.00 rate being inclusive. Mr. Foegler pointed out that the previous paragraph of the lease says that the base rate of $13.50/square foot includes the $4.00. Mr. Banchefsky also pointed out that the owners are obligating themselves to pay half of the improvements to the existing space up to $7,000.00 and to do all of the improvements on the new space. Mr. Strip moved to approve, provided the lease is capped as to Section 3, $13.50 being the base rate the first year. Mr. Sutphen seconded the motion. Vote - Mr. Sutphen, yes; Mr. Amorose, yes; Mr. Strip, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes; Mayor Rozanski, yes; Mrs. King, yes; Ms. Maurer, yes. Resolution No. 15-90 - Resolution of Intent to Continue to Permit the Dublin Counseling Center to Use Building at 5614 Post Road. Third Reading. Vote - Ms. Maurer, yes; Mr. Strip, yes; Mr. Amorose, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes; Mrs. King, yes; Mr. Sutphen, yes; Mayor Rozanski, yes. Ordinance No. 45-90 - Ordinance to Accept an_Annexation of 557.0± Acres from Washington Township to the City of Dublin. Second Reading. Mr. Hansley reminded Council that staff was asking Council to treat this as a second reading; that request coming from Ms. Rebecca Princehorn, legal counsel for the Washington Township Trustees. Mayor Rozanski said that the trustees had reported to him that they were not aware of such a request. Historically, Mr. Hansley said, annexations have been given three readings Mr. Christopher Cline, legal counsel for the petitioners, had the following comments: 1. The end result of the annexation petition, when presented, did not look good. 2. Owners of most of the land in the area did not want to come to Dublin; those being the owners of the non-residential property (the income producing property). 3. When plans were begun, before the merger had been defeated, it was discovered that there were plans underway to annex much of the land to Columbus. 4. It was perceived for the non-residential properties that the land would be more valuable and more easy to develop in the City of Columbus. 5. Council, staff and the residents had the initiative to use the tools ~ that they could grasp using the land use plan; the opposition being quelled; there was no opposition expressed at the hearing; the annexation went forward without opposition. 6. Reported figures regarding monies to the City of Dublin, as a result of this annexation, noting that Mr. Bowman's and his figures varied somewhat. 7. Breakdown of the land use, Mr. Cline said, indicates that approximate ly 240 acres will develop into non-residential uses, breaking into totals of something between $250 to $350 million dollars of ultimate RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes Of Dublin City_Council Meeting Meeting N LE AL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 Held May 21 , 1990 19 Page Eighteen tax base for the City of Dublin. Figures indicate that there will be about 4 million dollars a year in real estate revenues to the schools; an estimate of 6 million dollars a year in income tax, that figure obviously depending upon the income levels of the people working on the properties. 8. Praised the Council, staff and residents for their interest and their flexibility in getting those things done that were necessary and that needed to be done in order to put together the land use plan. 9. Mr. Pete Edwards' support was crucial. 10. In addition to dollars with this annexation, the City of Dublin will get quality, solid, active residents, residents who "pursued a goal that actually became a dream and a quest". Mr. William Yoder, a resident and petitioner of the annexation had the following remarks: "I worked with many of my neighbors and other friends to help make possibl the annexation mentioned. We, of course, are very proud of what this means in terms of Dublin's future growth and future taxes for both the City and the school system. But what I really wish to express this evening is a concern of many of the neighborhood that the commitments made during the annexation petitioning be carried through. As we are all well aware, even small changes in zoning intentions can caus a rippling effect in the surrounding properties which can prove financiall devastating to even those remote from the decision. The zoning considera- tions contained on the Dublin map of which you are in copy are the same understandings which were discussed and negotiated by many of the petitioners. Proper application of zoning requirements can allow the fulfillment of the commitments made as agreed, but particular interest is in the cul-de-sacing of Wilcox Road and the new road link between Rings and Wilcox Roads. We feel that the land of the property owner which abuts the north side of this new road link should be permitted to locate required park land donation along the north side of this road. This park could then service as a buffer to our neighborhoods and also promote the residential viability and general health of the area. In sum, we ask that you and other Dublin officials recognize our efforts i helping Dublin grow, and continue to work with those of our neighborhood who helped in that effort. Thank you very much." There will be a third and final reading of the Ordinance at the Council meeting on June 4, 1990. Ordinance No. 46-90 - Ordinance Accepting Lowest/Best Bid for Two Single Axle Dump Trucks. Second Reading. Mr. Sutphen requested that the Ordinance be passed as an emergency so that the units could be purchased and be ready for wintertime. Mr. Sutphen moved to waive the three time reading rule and treat as an emergency. Ms. Maurer seconded the motion. Vote on the motion - Mr. Sutphen, yes; Mayor Rozanski, yes; Mrs. King, yes; Ms. Maurer, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes; Mr. Strip, yes; Mr. Amorose, yes. Vote on the Ordinance - Ms. Maurer, yes; Mr. Sutphen, yes; Mr. Amorose, yes; Mayor Rozanski, yes; Mr. Strip, yes; Mrs. King, yes; Mr. Campbell, ye . Mr. Amorose moved to pass Ordinance No. 39-90 as an Emergency. Mr. Strip seconded the motion. Vote - Mr. Sutphen, yes; Mr. Amorose, yes; Mr. Strip, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes; Mayor Rozanski, yes; Mrs. King, yes; Ms. Maurer, yes. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes Of Dublin .city.. council Meeting Meeting AL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 Held May 21, 1990 19 Page Nineteen Ordinance No. 48-90 - Ordinance Amending the Annual Appropriations Ordinance - Avery Park Improvements. First Reading. Mr. Sutphen introduced the Ordinance. There will be a second reading of the Ordinance at the Council meeting on June 4, 1990. Resolution No. 19-90 - Resolution Amending Resolution No. 26-89 Regarding the Establishment of a Community Reinvestment Area, and Declaring an Emergency. First Reading. Ms. Maurer introduced the Resolution. Mr. Strip moved to waive the three time reading rule and treat as an emergency. Mrs. King seconded the motion. Vote - Mr. Strip, yes; Mrs. King, yes; Ms. Maurer, yes; Mayor Rozanski, yes; Mr. Amorose, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes; Mr. Sutphen, yes. Vote on the Resolution - Mayor Rozanski, yes; Mr. Strip, yes; Mr. Sutphen, yes; Mr. Amorose, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes; Ms. Maurer, yes; Mrs. King, yes. Resolution No. 20-90 - Resolution Regarding Statement of Services for Proposed Annexation of 733 Acres from Washington Township to the City of Dublin. First Reading. Mr. Sutphen introduced the Resolution. There will be a second reading of the Resolution at the next Council meeting. Other Request for Approval of Roadway Dedication.- Discovery Boulevard, Wall Street and. Perimeter Drive. Mr. Sutphen moved to accept the roadway dedication. Mr. Strip seconded the motion. Vote - Mr. Campbell, yes; Mayor Rozanski, yes; Mrs. King, yes; Mr. Sutphen, yes; Mr. Amorose, yes; Mr. Strip, yes; Ms. Maurer, yes. Discussion Regarding Season Pass Discounts for Municipal Pool. Mr. Hansley said that the Washington Township firefighters had requested season pass discounts for the municipal pool. He noted that Ms. Jordan's recommendation was that if the discount was extended to firefighters then it should be granted to all township employees. It was noted that then it should be granted to Perry, Concord and Jerome township employees as well. By consensus, after discussion, it was decided not to grant season pass • discounts to anyone other than City employees. Comments from Staff Mr. Stephen Smith 1. Announced that the hearing before the EPA Environmental Review Board would be held on Wednesday, May 30, 1990 beginning at 9:00 A.M. 2. Suggested that perhaps a special meeting of Council should be held; that there were a number of issues that should be discussed in Executive Session. It was decided that, depending on the length of the agenda, that Council could perhaps go into Executive Session after the June 4th meeting of Council. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes Of Dublin City Council .Meeting Meeting DA LE AL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 Held May 21 , 1990 19 Page Twenty Mr. Foegler 1. Regarding the Muirfield Drive extension. Staff met with the representatives of the property owners to cooperat with the City on the Muirfield Drive extension. Initially, it was indicated that the property owners would be willing to provide one half of the right-of-way for the proposed improvement, provided that the right-of-way would be credited towards the required park dedication; that the City would rezone the property in accordance with that which was requested at the previously proposed rezoning; and that the project would not be done on an assessment basis. The legal counsel, Mr. Albright, did not feel that it would be legal to do the project on an assessment basis because, in his opinion, the project did not confer "special benefit" to the abutting property owners. Mr. Albright subsequently had discussions with the property owners and he reported back, noting that the property owners would be willing to provide the entire right-of-way for the project but that they would again want that acreage credited towards the park dedication requirement of the City Code, and asked that the project not be done on an assessment basis. The alignment was studied once again to make certain that no undevelopable residual was being created. Reported that the Development Department is recommending that the City proceed with detailed engineering design on the original alignment as soon as possible, and that the City initiate the necessary actions required to take the property through condemnation. Also, while detailed engineering design is underway, the City will meet with legal counsel and determine the degree to which the project can be done on an assessment basis The informal consensus of Council was to assess the land, build the road and do it now. Mr. Willis 1. Reported he recently received the final report on the culvert study on Billingsley Ditch and that after review, the study will be made available to Council with staff recommendations. Mayor Rozanski and Mr. Sutphen commented favorably on the map received in Council packets which indicated road improvement projects proposed for the year. Mr. Willis said that the total of the improvements indicated on the map would be in the neighborhood of $650,000.00 and that $500,000.00 was budgeted, which will include some ditch enclosures and intersection repair Mr. Foegler 1. Referred to the memorandum from Mr. Mack regarding the Holiday Chevrolet, OBBS Adjudication Hearing, noting that the Board has been supportive of Dublin's Building Department. 2. The McDowell easement for the lift station site was signed and execut Mr. McDowell agreed to $20,000 for five years, and if the west branch . sewer is not complete in that five years, the cost would be $6,000/ year for an additional five years. If the easement would be needed after that period of time, the City would initiate a take on the property. Council Roundtable Discussion Ms. Maurer 1. Met with Mr. Bruce Mansfield of MORPC regarding the Suburban Mobility Inititative Study, and said that she would be preparing a memorandum for Council with information regarding those discussions. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin city _ Counc i 1 Meeting Meeting N E A BL4NK CO. FORM NO. 10148 Held May 21, 1990 19 Page Twenty One Mr. Amorose 1. Reported that Mary Ann Melvin (Rausch) would be resigning from the Planning and Zoning Commission because of a move to a residence outside of the corporate limits of Dublin, and noted that a replace- ment needs to be appointed as soon as possible. Mr. Sutphen 1. The Dublin City Council met with the Washington Township Trustees on May 14, 1990. The Concord Township Trustees have been contacted and will be meeting with Dublin City Council within the week, and members of Council will be notified. Mrs. King 1. She and Mr. Sutphen will be introducing legislation regarding policy concerning the conversion of private streets to public streets. 2. Requested additional information Regarding Resolution No. 20-90 (Statement of Services for Proposed Annexation of 733 Acres from Washington Township to the City of Dublin); information with regard to land use, fiscal information, revenues to the City from this acreage, etc. Mr. Campbell 1. Requested that Council schedule meetings regarding key issues such as the bridge and the northeast quadrant rezoning so that Council members can plan to be present at important votes. Mayor Rozanski suggested that Council members submit to the Clerk a schedule of their summer activities. The Mayor adjourned the meeting at 1:05 A.M. r or - Presidin fficer Clerk of Coun '1 r..~