Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/05/2007RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS M inutes o f _ Dublin Ci Council _ _ Meeting _ Held November 5, 2007 Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher called the Monday, November 5, 2007 Regular Meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 5:10 p.m. at the Dublin Municipal Building. Present were: Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher, Vice Mayor Lecklider, Mrs. Boring, Mr. Keenan, Mr. Reiner and Ms. Salay. Mr. McCash arrived at 8:54 p.m. upon his return from an out of town business obligation. ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Chinn ici-Zuercher moved to adjourn to executive session to consider the appointment, employment, dismissal, discipline, promotion, demotion, or compensation of a public employee or official. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher, yes. MEETING RECONVENED The meeting was reconvened at 7:10 p.m. Staff members present were: Ms. Brautigam, Mr. Smith, Ms. Grigsby, Chief Epperson, Mr. Earman, Mr. Hammersmith, Ms. Crandall, Ms. Kennedy, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Goodwin, Ms. Willis, Mr. Gunderman, Ms. Puskarcik, Ms. Readler, Ms. Hoyle, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Combs, Ms. Husak and Ms. Wawskiewicz. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Veterans in attendance at the meeting led the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • Regular Meeting of October 15, 2007 Council Meeting Approval of the minutes was postponed to the November 19 Council meeting. CORRESPONDENCE The Clerk reported there was no correspondence requiring action from Council. SPECIAL RECOGNITION /PROCLAMATIONS • Veterans Awareness Week 2007 Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher stated that Veterans Day is observed annually on November 11 to publicly commemorate the contributions of the nation's veterans for the cause of peace and freedom throughout the world. Veterans Awareness Week this year is November 11 -17. This past year, a special committee has been working on a Veterans memorial to be placed in the City's Veterans Park. Members of the Veterans Project Committee present were: Council members Mike Keenan and John Reiner; community members Gene Bostic, Bill Doty, Mack Parkhill, Michael Kehoe and Fred Dafler. She recognized the Veterans Committee members for the time they have devoted to helping the City select a tribute to all veterans to be placed within the City of Dublin. Mayor Chinn ici-Zuercher presented a proclamation to the committee members in recognition of "Veterans Awareness Week" in the City of Dublin. She noted that there are other veterans present in the audience, and on behalf of Council thanked them for preserving the freedom of all citizens. • Dublin Jerome Boys Golf Team Recognition Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher presented a proclamation to the Dublin Jerome Boys Golf Team in recognition of their recent win of the Division I State Championship. She noted that the Dublin Jerome High School golf program has won three state championships in four years. On behalf of City Council, she commended the team and coaches on their outstanding achievement. Coach Jim Hull thanked Council for the recognition and for proclaiming a day of honor for the team. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Du blin City Council November 5, 2007 Page 2 _ 20 • Presentation of 2008 Calendar - Dublin Area Art League Bev Goldie, Dublin Area Art League stated that in 2007 the Art League sponsored an art contest in which the top 12 submissions would comprise the second "Distinctly Dublin" art calendar. She thanked the City for its support. There were 45 entries from 21 artists. The judging was conducted by a panel, which included the Mayor. She presented a copy of the 2008 "Distinctly Dublin" community calendar to Mayor Chinn ici-Zuercher in appreciation for her assistance in judging entries and for serving as the emcee for the awards ceremony and reception. SPECIAL PRESENTATION • Miracle League of Central Ohio Terry Lyden, Miracle League of Central Ohio stated that three years ago the City and the Miracle League embarked on a unique project and built a great facility. This was due to the efforts of a large group of volunteers, including Executive Director, David Abood. Due to the success of the Miracle League ballfield, a Miracle League playground has also been built. Michael Hufford was instrumental in that achievement. Their next initiative will be to build a pavilion positioned between the ballfield and the playground for the benefit of the participants and their families. He thanked the City and all the volunteers who have contributed to the project. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher stated Mr. Lyden brought the concept to the City three years ago and the City and Duke Realty agreed to partner on the construction of a ballfield in this community for children with disabilities. The Miracle League ballfield is located in Darree Fields. She encouraged everyone to visit the facility and to participate in the next initiative. She thanked Mr. Lyden and Mr. Abood for having a vision and bringing it to fruition. She also thanked the families who have permitted others to share in the lives of their children. AGENDA MODIFICATION Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher reported that Council Member Salay has requested that the discussion regarding Washington Elementary be moved up on the agenda to accommodate the residents in attendance. There was no objection from Council to this agenda modification. The Mayor noted that the Community Plan discussion would take place following the other agenda items. The discussion regarding the southwest area will be continued from the previous Council meeting, followed by discussion of the northeast quad area, and of a third area, time permitting. Council members have agreed to end tonight's meeting at 10:00 p.m. due to the fact that an executive session has been scheduled. CITIZEN COMMENTS Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road stated that an organization called "Thinking Outside of the Bottle" has formed to address concerns about a generation that has grown up convinced it must drink water out of a bottle. The United Nations has estimated that there are presently over one billion people with no safe drinking water. Very few are within the United States, yet last year this country spent $10 billion on bottled water, using 8 billion bottles. The bottles of water are transported, often from overseas, and the plastic bottles have generated about 4,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions. This is equivalent to the carbon dioxide emitted from approximately 7,000 cars. Not only does has this practice contribute to air pollution, it has produced underground pollution. Less than one fourth of the bottles are recycled; several billion pounds go to the landfills. The mayors of San Francisco and Salt Lake City have prohibited the use of City funds for purchase of bottled water. He can provide more information for the next Council meeting. Mayor Chinn ici-Zuercher responded that Council would take the comments under advisement. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Co DAYTON k F.GAL BLANK, INC -FORM NO. 19148 ueeting_ November 5, 2007 Page 3 Held 20 LEGISLATION POSTPONED ITEMS Resolution 65- 07(Amended) Adopting a Statement of Services for a Proposed Annexation of 5.352 Acres, More or Less, from Washington Township, Franklin County, to the City of Dublin. (Petitioner: Costner Consulting Company; Property address, 7679 Post Road) Resolution 66- 07(Amended) Adopting a Statement Regarding Possible Incompatible Land Uses and Zoning Buffer for a Proposed Annexation of 5.352 Acres, More or Less, from Washington Township, Franklin County to the City of Dublin, Ohio as Required by Section 709.023(C) of the Ohio Revised Code. (Petitioner: Costner Consulting Company; property address, 7679 Post Road) Mr. Smith stated that the resolutions were postponed previously, awaiting action by the Franklin County engineer certifying that the descriptions were accurate. Mr. Maurer stated that in the last line, page one of the memo, the word "criterion" is used incorrectly. That form of the word is singular; "criteria" is the plural. Mr. Smith agreed to correct this. Mayor Chin nici-Zuercher called for the vote on the two resolutions together. Vote on Resolutions 65 -07 and 66 -07 Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. SECOND READING /PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCES Ordinance 67 -07 (Amended) Rezoning Approximately 13.7 Acres Located on the North Side of Post Road, Adjacent to the M.L. "Red" Trabue Nature Preserve, from PUD, Planned Unit Development District, to PUD, Planned Unit Development District. (Morse Mast Plan — Senior Star Living — 6480 Post Road — Case No. 06 -138Z) Ms. Husak stated that Ordinance 67 -07 was introduced at the August 20 Council meeting at which time Council held a lengthy discussion regarding the proposed western sideyard setback, additional landscaping, the proposed height of the sign, the building materials and reduced lighting. This rezoning would create a new planned district from an existing planned district. The application proposes a 95,000 square foot assisted living facility, which could accommodate 88 units. The site is located in the center of the City, south of Post Road. To the east of the site are the existing retirement village and the Convalarium. To the west is the entrance drive to Trabue Park and Gorden Farms. The new PUD will encompass the existing retirement village and the proposed new building to the west. The current zoning permits the addition of 66 units. Because the applicant is requesting 88 units, a new rezoning is necessary to accommodate an additional 22 units. The site plan has been revised to include additional landscaping along the western sideyard setback. The additional landscaping includes a variety of different size trees, a hedgerow and stone walls. A similar treatment is proposed for the Post Road frontage. The applicant has provided prospective drawings. The elevation will mirror the architecture of the existing building. The sign height has been revised in the development text to be limited to six feet. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval with the nine conditions recommended in the attached Record of Action for the July 12, 2007 Commission meeting. Ben Hale, 37 W. Broad Street, stated that the landscape architect, Jim Burkhart, is present to answer questions. At the previous meeting, the landscape plan for the west, which was created after the site was developed, wasn't shown. When the original rezoning was approved in 1986, there were only two components — the central component, which is the retirement home, and the eastern component, the nursing home. The applicant is attempting to provide an alternative for individuals who are independent but do have a need for assisted care. The number of units of this type within the City is very limited, so there is a need for this facility. The existing facility is 98 percent occupied. The applicant has agreed to one main entry RECORD OF ORDINANCES Dublin City Council Dayton Legal B lank, Inc. Form No.30043 Ordinance No. November 5P20 � Page 4 sign, which will not exceed six feet. He noted that Mr. Burkhart would review the plans. Jim Burkhart, landscape architect stated that upon approaching the site from the east, the current facility has mounded landscaping. From that direction, the existing small stone sign located at the park entrance does not identify the site well. From the west, the signage is more visible. The current mound blocks the site. The new plan will introduce some undulation in extended mounds and will facilitate a visual flow into the site. This plan provides the number of trees required by the City for building and parking lot coverage; a substantial number will need to be placed. If the City would prefer, the applicant is agreeable to placing the trees on the City's property to enhance the park. Mr. Hale stated that there are only two places on the site where units could be constructed. One area is constrained by the high- intensity telephone cable running through it. It is not possible to move the proposed building closer to the east and closer to that cable. The building will be placed at the required setback. Pat Costello, 6431 New-grange, President of Lowell Trace Civic Association stated that he is the closest neighbor to the north. The neighbors did not support a building of greater height than the existing building, which was originally proposed by this application. The neighbors would not oppose a building that provided 88 units if it met the current height requirement and provided light and sound considerations on the neighbors' behalf. The applicant agreed to recommendations for addressing those concerns. Mr. Reiner inquired if there is a reason the building could not be set back more than 30 feet. Would that place the building in the floodplain? Mr. Hale responded that it would. That is the reason the landscape plan provides for mounding, stone walls and landscaping to enhance the view. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher inquired the location of the floodplain. Ms. Husak outlined the floodplain (green line) and floodway (blue line) depicted on the map. The parking will be located against that line, and moving the building further to the north would cause it to cross over. Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired if there is any buildable area to the north of this site. Ms. Husak responded that it is difficult to say. There may be a small area between the green and yellow lines. The City's Code prohibits building within the floodway plus 20 feet. Mr. Reiner inquired if the site plan depicts current, existing Post Road. Ms. Husak responded that is correct. Mr. Reiner inquired if widening Post Road is anticipated. Ms. Husak responded that is correct. There is currently no right -of -way for the site, so the property line extends to the center of the right -of -way. Mr. Burkhardt responded that they are working on the roundabout. Part of the extension of Post Road including the right -of -way line was inadvertently omitted from the Engineer's drawing. However, the bikepath is part of the proposed revamp of Post Road. Mr. Reiner inquired if the plans are to widen Post Road. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the plans do accommodate a widened Post Road to the extent that a left turn lane is being added. Improved Post Road will be two lanes only, one in each direction, and a center left turn lane. Mr. Keenan inquired if that would also include curbs and gutters. Mr. Hammersmith responded that at the present time, the plan includes ditches. However, that is being evaluated and may be changed to curb and gutter. The right - of -way will be adequate in either case. Mr. Keenan inquired if additional right -of -way is needed for curbs and gutters. RECORD OF ORDINANCES Dublin City Council Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Ordinance No. November 5 00l Form No.30043 Pago 5 Mr. Hammersmith responded that generally speaking, no. Ditches typically require more, but it is determined by the extent of utility relocations to provide curb and gutter. Mr. Reiner clarified that the plan depicts a three -lane Post Road. Mr. Hammersmith confirmed that is correct. Mrs. Boring inquired if the Community Plan addresses whether the community desires curb and gutters. Wouldn't that be a subject for discussion? Mr. Hammersmith responded that if staff determines that curb and gutters would be preferable, that proposal would be taken to Council for approval. East of Avery- Muirfield Drive, the intent is to maintain the rural character. Ms. Salay inquired if the plan is unchanged from its first reading. Mr. Hale responded that the basic placement of the building is unchanged. The park entry has been upgraded and landscaping added. The desire is to not add additional trees in the back of the site, which already contains trees, but to limit placement of additional trees to the front of the site where it would enhance Post Road. The problem is the constraint of the utilities easement that runs through the middle of the site. Mr. Keenan inquired if some of the existing trees on the site might be relocated. Mr. Hale responded that they could be accommodated on the site but probably provide little value there. The plan provides for some of them to be used to provide additional landscaping in the City park. Ms. Salay stated that she spoke briefly with Mr. Hale a couple of days ago about relocating an entry road. Mr. Hale responded that they are willing to discuss that issue with the City Parks division and address that issue with the Final Development Plan in the best way possible, ensuring a good entry with the right kind of walls and landscaping. He has shared the proposed drawings with Mr. Hahn. Ms. Salay stated that her overarching concern is that land is becoming scarcer in the City, and yet developers want to maximize use of their sites. In this case, the extra units make the site extremely tight. Her initial impression of the plan remains. She is concerned about "shoe horning" a building onto the site. The City is not doing a good job when that occurs. She appreciates the extra work on this proposal. Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired if it is true that a building north of the creek is not feasible due to the site constraints. Mr. Hale responded that is correct. This is the only site that could work. Vice Mayor inquired if it is also true that the units could not be split. Mr. Hale responded that is correct. One structure is necessary, as the residents must be serviced 24 hours a day. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that the plan meets the legal setback but not the setback dictated per the building design. Mr. Hale responded that is also correct. The building meets the legal setback of 15 feet. The problem with this building is that it has a long wall, which needs to be added to the height of the building and then divided by 4. Therefore, the setback should be larger than 15 feet, closer to 40 feet. Mrs. Boring inquired how this plan meets the setback criteria. Ms. Husak responded that the setback for this application is defined in the PUD. It is essentially creating its own setback requirement. Vice Mayor stated that he also had a conversation with Mr. Hale in advance of this meeting. One of his concerns was the drive, which is only 15 feet from the 35 foot wall. He asked the Engineering division to comment regarding whether it would be acceptable to move this entrance to the west. He would also like input from Mr. Hahn about whether this is in keeping with the overall plan for passive greenspace in RECORD �M Minutes of Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 Held November 5, 2007 Page 6 20 that area. Although Mr. Hale correctly states the history of why the drive is where it is, he would like to hear input from other Council members. Mr. Keenan responded that he would be interested in that information as well. He would also like to know if Mr. Hale's client would be willing to pay for that relocation. Mr. Hale stated that the applicant would agree, although it would be preferable not to move the entire road. They are committed to working with the Parks division to enhance the entrance to the park. Mrs. Boring stated that the road was initially provided as a second point of access, a back -up access, for Gorden Farms. Mr. Hahn responded that the road came first. The Gorden Farms developer inquired if the road could be utilized as an emergency point of access. The developer's request was granted. Mrs. Boring inquired what impact moving the road would have on the park. Mr. Hahn responded that it is simply moving the driveway to the west. The frontage of Gorden Farms by design is simply an open field. Pushing the road into that field would take away from the open field, but would create no other problems. If moving the road would be preferable, that idea could be investigated. Another issue is whose responsibility it would be to maintain the increased landscaping. Currently, this is a large park with minimal maintenance cost. Some of the landscape schemes suggested tonight are proposed for City property. That would increase the maintenance cost for a park that by design is low maintenance. Other than that, there should be no other impact. Mr. Smith stated that his office recently had a legal case with one of Mr. Hale's clients who had a strip of land they needed to use. What occurred is that a strip of land the City was not using was partitioned off and sold to his client for a nominal fee so that they had a better buffer on their end. Perhaps a condition could be appended that in the event the City were to determine the entrance should be changed, the applicant would receive some land in return for moving the road and landscaping it. The land could consist of 10 feet or 20 feet, but it would resolve the setback and the maintenance issues, because they would own the property that required the maintenance. Ms. Brautigam requested that Mr. Hammersmith comment, as there could be issues with access to Post Road. Mr. Hammersmith stated that it is important to take a careful look at the south side of Post Road. The City recently approved a development along the south side and it is important to ensure the ability to line the driveways up or provide sufficient separation between the two driveways, if the park entrance were to be moved to the west. He is not able to respond to that question tonight, but it is important to evaluate. Mr. Keenan inquired if this would be too close to the interchange. Mr. Hammersmith responded that is not necessarily so. The issue is that the City does not want to have driveways on opposite sides of the street at a distance of only 50 feet apart. That would result in vehicle conflicts. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that the traffic count for this driveway would need to be minimal. Mr. Hammersmith responded that would be one consideration, but it really is determined by the distance — 50 feet is different than 20 feet. At this time, he could not comment on how the turn lanes would line up. Moving the driveway would require consideration. Vice Mayor stated that he understands that Mr. Hale would not want to commit his client to any greater expense than necessary, but he is concerned that the road would run only 15 feet from the building. Perhaps it could work if the road were realigned only at Post Road, but would retain its setbacks otherwise. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin Ci ty Council et November 5, 2007 Page 7 Held Mr. Hale responded the realignment would have to continue back some distance from the entrance. The road is actually set approximately 10 feet off the right -of- way line, so the actual road setback is closer to 25 feet. There are trees planted in a tree line beside the drive. There is some additional area available for enhancing the drive. Mr. Burkhart stated that he is interested in doing what is best for the community and for his client. He has looked at the site and he personally does not have a problem with a relatively tight row of trees and a wall located on one side of the road upon entering the site. That would have the feel of a Lexington, Kentucky horse farm; it is very charming. He does not believe there is reason to enter into an additional expense of moving the road 15 -20 feet. That would do nothing for the site. Personally, he believes that when it is completed, this side of the property would look better than the City's side. To him, the aesthetics on that side of the property do not work well. He would propose continuing some of the City walls for a short distance on the applicant's side to provide cohesiveness. He also suggested a simple wall structure that indicates a gateway would achieve the same result and cost much less. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that Council would concur with Mr. Hahn's recommendations, and an arrangement whereby the applicant provided the maintenance would be necessary. This is a 220 -foot expanse at a height of 35 feet — that is not minimal. Mr. Burkhart responded that all of the oak trees on either side of the drive are already 15 -30 feet in height. Ms. Salay stated that she could not support the current plan. The road would need to be relocated more than 15 -20 feet, enough to provide separation between the three -story, 200 -foot wall. In previous circumstances, the present condition could be ignored, but that would not be appropriate in this particular area. It is important to maximize the view and open space on the north side of Post Road. The southern side is being developed. An entrance to one of Dublin's premier parks is located here, and adding a three -story, 200 -foot wall would ruin that feel. Mrs. Boring inquired if the road were moved, would the oak trees be sacrificed? Mr. Burkhart responded that they would not. Mr. Hale responded that the trees were planted as part of the original development. They have been in place for 20 years. Vice Mayor inquired if their root system would survive this degree of construction so close to them. Mr. Burkart responded that with care, they could survive. Particular attention must be taken during construction. They are the City's trees. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that is the determining factor for him — whether or not the trees are likely to survive. Mr. Reiner responded that construction here would be very problematic for oak trees that large, with a 15 -foot growth base. He spoke to Mr. Hale about this proposal by telephone. He had hoped the revised plan would have a revised building. He also believes the proposed building is too large for this site. The park would essentially be cut off by the proximity of the building to the road. The City's intent is to maintain rural characteristics on Post Road, primarily with broad setbacks. This plan defeats that purpose. He is sympathetic with the constraints the applicant is attempting to work with — the floodplain, the underground cable, proximity to the road, and inability to separate the units. Mr. Hale suggested that the ordinance be tabled at this time. They will discuss the issue with Mr. Hahn and identify a way to address the concerns of Council. They will return in 4 -6 weeks with some responses. Mr. Keenan moved to table Ordinance 67 -07. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minute f Dublin C ity Council Mee ting- November 5, 2007 Page 8 Held 20 Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. Ordinance 84 -07 Declaring the Improvement to a Certain Parcel to be a Public Purpose and Exempt from Taxation; Specifying the Public Infrastructure Improvements Directly Benefiting the Parcel; Requiring the Owner Thereof to Make Service Payments in Lieu of Taxes; Establishing a Municipal Public Improvement Tax Increment Equivalent Fund and Providing for the Collection and Deposit of Service Payments into That Fund; Providing for the Payment of a Portion of the Service Payments to the Dublin City School District in the Amount It would Otherwise Receive Absent the Exemption; and Authorizing the Execution of Tax Increment Financing Agreements and an Infrastructure Agreement. (Ohio Health — Medical Office Building) Ms. Brautigam stated that this is a non - school TIF associated with the medical building for Dublin Methodist Hospital. There have been no changes since the first reading. Vote on the Ordinance Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. Ordinance 85 -07 Amending Chapter 76 (Parking Regulations) of the Dublin Codified Ordinances by Amending and Enacting New Sections, Which Provide for More Stringent Penalties to Persons Who Park Vehicles on a Sidewalk, Curb, or Street Lawn Area. Ms. Brautigam stated that this legislation would provide parking regulation in regard particularly to the parking of vehicles on landscaping by Dublin car dealers. This problem continues to occur. The various car dealers in the area have been made aware of the legislation on tonight's agenda. Mrs. Boring inquired if Section 76.01 is adding language regarding unpaved and /or unfinished surface. Mr. Smith indicated that is correct, and the penalties for violation are being increased. Instead of a $100 fine, the penalty could be up to $1,000. Mrs. Boring stated that, currently, the car dealer could be fined for parking vehicles in the tree lawn. Mr. Smith responded that Council Member McCash also requested this be clarified. The regulation exists today and is currently being enforced. However, the penalty for violation will be increased by Ordinance 85 -07. Mr. Keenan noted that the penalties would increase incrementally with repeated violations. Vote on the Ordinance Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher, yes. Ordinance 86 -07 Amending Section 73.02 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances Regarding Reckless Operation. Mr. Smith noted that this section is being added back to the Code so that the penalty for reckless driving can be $1,000 and six months in jail. This provision was previously eliminated by the State revision to the OMVI code. Mr. Maurer inquired if the perception of reckless driving is in the mind of the officer. Couldn't a driver using a cell phone while traveling on a freeway be guilty of reckless operation? There are some jurisdictions in which a driver can be cited for wearing ear phones because it reduces the ability to hear surrounding noises. Mr. Smith responded that there are criteria, both case law and statutory, which indicate that for a conviction of reckless driving there must be two violations, such as speeding and weaving. That is determined at the discretion of the officer. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council November 5, 2007 M e Ln — Page 9 D Mr. Keenan inquired if the State of Ohio changed the law for this conviction and reduced the applicable fines. Mr. Smith responded that is correct. Two or three provisions were inadvertently omitted by the State when the OMVI Code was revised. Under home rule, the City has the right to add these provisions back into the local Code. Mr. Keenan inquired if he anticipates that the State would add the sections back. Mr. Smith responded that he is not aware of their plan to do so. This is the second correction the City has made in the past six months. Vote on the Ordinance Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. INTRODUCTION /FIRST READING – ORDINANCES Ordinance 87 -07 Adopting the Annual Operating Budget for the Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2008. Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam stated that this is the first reading of the proposed annual budget. Council will hold two budget workshops in the next two weeks to discuss the details of the budget. Following the workshops, there will be a second reading /public hearing on December 10. Mr. Reiner moved to refer Ordinance 87 -07 to Finance Committee for review. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Vote on the motion Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Ordinance 88 -07 Amending Sections 2 (Wage & Salary Structure /Administration), 12 (Vacation Leave), 14 (Longevity Pay), 16 (Tuition Reimbursement), 17 (Temporary Work Assignment), and 18 (Overtime /Compensatory Time) of Ordinance No. 73 -06 ( "Compensation Plan for Non -Union Personnel "). Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam stated that the employee compensation plan is included in the City Code. Each year during budget consideration, changes are proposed, including some new positions. In addition, changes approved in the United Steelworkers collective bargaining agreement are proposed to be extended to all employees. These changes will be reviewed during the budget sessions. There will be a second reading /public hearing at the November 19 Council meeting. Ordinance 89 -07 An Ordinance Amending Chapter 100 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances Regarding Cable Service and Competitive Video Service to Comply with the Enacted Ohio Senate Bill 7. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Greg Dunn, Schottenstein, Zox & Dunn stated that this summer the State passed a bill that eliminated many cities' power of authority over cable TV. The bill became effective September 24. This legislation is "housekeeping" -- preserving what free rights the City has remaining. Included is the City's right to set the franchise fees up to 5 percent of gross revenues. Ad sales could be included in that definition. The recommendation is to keep the franchise fees as they currently stand – 3 percent of gross revenues, including ad sales. The legislation also preserves the right of the City to have a public access channel. He added that there is always somewhat of a battle between the programmers and the operators. Previously, the City had some power to influence this, but that power has now been taken away. Mr. Reiner inquired what basis was cited by the legislature to change this law. Mr. Dunn responded that one argument related to supporting competition. Although Dublin was ahead of the curve and had already granted a competitive franchise to AT &T, other cities had not yet arrived at that point. The argument was that this legislation was needed for competitive purposes in order to include AT &T in the market. It was also promoted to be a pro jobs bill, and the Communications Workers Minutes o RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dub lin City Coun cil Meeting- November 5, 2007 Page 10 of America supported it. The effort was well thought out. The telephone industry and the cable industry combined legislative efforts to achieve it. The cable TV industry achieved de- regulation, and AT &T achieved free access to the market without having to request that permission from cities. Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired if the City has the discretion to charge up to 5 percent for a franchise fee. Mr. Dunn confirmed that the City could institute a charge now or in the future. Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired if there is a time limit on this of 2012. Mr. Dunn responded that the 2012 date applies to multiple public access channels and institutional networks. Dublin has one public access channel and no institutional network. Some of the larger cities, such as Dayton and Cleveland, negotiated for free carriage on the fibers of the cable company to carry internal traffic. Dublin has its own fiber. Mr. Keenan suggested that franchise fees be discussed during the budget sessions. Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired if Legal staff is certain there is no time limit on collection of a franchise fee. Mr. Dunn responded that the cap is only on the amount, not on the time period. He recommended that the City approve the legislation in a timely manner to ensure collection of at least the 3 percent franchise fee. The Finance Committee could discuss the possibility of increasing it to 5 percent. He anticipates that AT &T and Time Warner will be issued state franchises within the next 45 days. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that it appears the Department of Commerce will regulate this. Mr. Dunn confirmed that is correct. Mayor Chinn ici-Zuercher inquired the difference of what would be realized between a 3 percent and a 5 percent collection. Ms. Grigsby responded that it would be an additional $215,000. The City currently receives $320,000 annually. Mrs. Boring inquired if those are direct costs that are passed on to the consumer. Mr. Dunn responded that the cable companies or video providers do pass the cost on to the consumer. They have the option of including it on the bill. Direct TV does not have franchise fees, however, and the cable companies /video providers need to remain competitive with them. Mr. Keenan inquired if Council would essentially be levying a tax on themselves and the citizens. Mr. Dunn responded that is correct. There will be a second reading /public hearing at the November 19 Council meeting. Ordinance 90 -07 Amending Chapter 35 of the Codified Ordinances to Revise the Fee and Service Charge Revenue /Cost Comparison System and Establishing a Schedule of Fees and Service Charges for City of Dublin Services. Mr. Keenan introduced the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam stated that this is the cost of services ordinance, which is reviewed annually. It is proposed that the Finance Committee review it immediately prior to the November 19 Council meeting. Mrs. Boring inquired about the statement under "Outdoor Pool Fees" that it has been verified that the fees do not recover costs. Isn't the policy in place not to recover costs? Ms. Grigsby responded that is correct. Overall for recreation, the goal has been set at 50 percent recovery in the aggregate. In the last couple of fee reviews, Council Min utes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Du blin City Council November 5, 2007 Held Page 11 has discussed the recreation fees for residents versus non - residents. The latter is the fee referred to. The non - resident fee is not recovering costs at this time. Vice Mayor Lecklider requested that the information be provided in larger print for the Finance Committee review. Ms. Salay moved to refer Ordinance 90 -07 to the Finance Committee for review. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Following the Finance Committee review, there will be a second reading /public hearing at the November 19 Council meeting. Ordinance 91 -07 Rezoning Four Parcels Totaling Approximately 7.52 Acres, Located on the North Side of Post Road, From: R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District, To: PUD, Planned Unit Development District (5800 -5904 Post Road — Case No. 07- 094Z). Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Ms. Adkins stated that this is the rezoning of the Nyrop property located on Post Road south of the recreation center. The purpose of the rezoning is to incorporate the sites that are owned by the City into the Coffman Park PUD so that they can be modified as part of the larger Coffman Park Plan. The City would like to renovate the house on this property for use as a park facility. Mr. Keenan inquired if it is necessary to make the building ADA compliant for public use. Ms. Brautigam responded that it is correct. It has not been determined specifically how the building will be used, but the intent is to preserve the unique architectural features of the building. Currently, it is used for some staff meetings. Before it is scheduled for public use, the necessary permits will be obtained from the Building division. In the future, staff will be returning to Council with a proposal regarding a public use. Potential use as a nature center or a community retreat facility have been suggested. Mr. Keenan stated that he would like to make certain that the implications of elevators are understood, if there is a need for one in this building. Ms. Brautigam responded that staff is aware of those. Fortunately, there is outside access to both levels. The front access is to the second floor, and there is a walk -out exit from the bottom level. There will be a second reading /public hearing at the November 19 Council meeting. INTRODUCTION /PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTIONS Resolution 68 -07 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with the Delaware Municipal Prosecutor in the Delaware Municipal Court. Ms. Brautigam stated that this is an annual housekeeping matter. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road inquired a case in point that could be involved with this contract. Mr. Smith responded that if an arrest were made within the Delaware County jurisdiction, the case is heard in Delaware County. The City pays the Delaware City prosecutor for their services. The number of cases is minimal. Mr. Maurer inquired if municipalities such as Dublin, Hilliard or Delaware have the Codes of other municipalities on file. Mr. Smith responded that they do. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of _ _ D ublin City Council Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 12 Held 20 Mr. Keenan stated that this appears to be a very dated contract form, as there is no hold harmless clause in the agreement. Also, is there any possibility for wrongful prosecution actions to result? Mr. Smith responded that there is no risk to Dublin, as Delaware is prosecuting. The Franklin County prosecutor recently updated their contract form, but Delaware County has not done so. Vote on the Resolution Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. OTHER • Preliminary Plat - Duke Blazer Plat (Paul G. Blazer Memorial Parkway - Case No. 07 -091 PP) Ms. Husak noted that this undeveloped area is located in southeast Dublin, north of Rings Road. Ashland Chemical is located to the west of the site; Nationwide is located to the east. The proposal is to create three lots of varying sizes, from 4.5 to almost 12 acres. The surrounding area is zoned OLR, Office and Laboratory Research district. There is currently no development planned for the lots, but the applicant desires to proceed with the lot splits. The Planning Commission recommends approval with one condition: that the final plat will reflect all access points. Ms. Salay inquired if on this site there is a large, industrial type of tank hidden by a mound. Ms. Husak responded that the mound was installed to screen the tank. Ms. Salay stated that a similar lot split case was heard recently by Council — the Thomas Kohler rezoning area. In both instances, there are no plans for development, but lot splits are being requested at this time. Why is this recommended when there are no development plans submitted? Mr. Husak responded that it makes the land more marketable for the applicant, who is then able to sell smaller lots. Regardless of the size of the lot, the City retains the ability to ensure the proposed development meets the underlying zoning regulations. Mr. Keenan inquired if the uses contemplated would be for three different offices. Ms. Husak responded that the uses could be office, laboratory or research. Mr. Keenan inquired if one individual could purchase all three lots and have one large use. Ms. Husak responded that could not occur without replatting the land. The lot lines must be adhered to with any development proposed in the future. Ms. Salay stated that she does not understand the need to do the lot splits at this time. The applicant can sell portions of the land without formal lot splits. There must be a compelling reason for the applicant to do this at this time. Anthony Antronica. Duke Realty, 5600 Blazer Parkway stated the purpose is to create more interest in the land. They have owned the property for several years, and there has been no significant interest. There have been some inquiries about smaller portions. The intent is to have the land ready should any serious RFPs be presented. They want to have the land ready for sale versus having an interested prospect and needing to go through a lot split process. [At this point, Council Member McCash arrived.] Mr. Keenan inquired if Duke was aware that they would need to come back for approval if there is a later desire to market the three as one. Mr. Antronica responded affirmatively. Ms. Salay inquired whether the access points and how the sites would function together are unknown at this time. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS November 5, 2007 Page 13 20 Ms. Husak responded that there has been preliminary review of suggested access points. There are two existing access points for parcel 1 from Paul Blazer Parkway. The suggestion is that the two other lots might share an access. Vice Mayor Lecklider responded that the access points are critical. There appear to be two access points available for parcel 1, none for parcel 2, and one near the boundary of parcel 2 and 3. Ms. Husak responded that the solution could be to have parcels 2 and 3 share that access point. Mr. Keenan moved to approve the Preliminary Plat — Duke Blazer Plat. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher seconded the motion. Vote on the motion Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, no; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. SECOND READING /PUBLIC HEARINGS - CONTINUED Ordinance 58 -07 Adopting the 2007 Community Plan. (2007 Dublin Community Plan - Case No. 07- 056ADM) Mr. Combs stated that a staff memo was included in the meeting materials that provides information on some of the issues discussed at the last Council meeting, including: 1) the O'Shaughnessy Hills concerns; 2) land use issues regarding Avery and Post Roads; and (3) the US 33 Corridor /Jerome Township concerns that were raised. This evening, staff spoke with the Planning and Zoning coordinator for Jerome Township. The Township has submitted a letter to City Council that summarizes their concerns, and he is providing that for the public record. The letter states that they would like to work with the City of Dublin to pursue joint planning opportunities, but they would prefer that properties within Jerome Township remain in the township. He invited questions. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher stated that Council has agreed to begin tonight's discussion with continuation of the Southwest Area portion. That would be followed by discussion of the other areas, as outlined at the outset of tonight's meeting. Southwest Area Mr. Combs stated that at the last meeting, discussion focused on the area extending from Hirth Road west. The primary topic was the Ponderosa Estates. The office bubbles in the plan have now been modified to accommodate the entire site. Moving to the northwest portion, the Plan provides for a variety of single - family and mixed residential development to the south of the Tuttle extension, westward under the rail line, then curving north and west to hook into Houchard Road. The basic concept for the Amlin area is to concentrate on a village style of development. Along the periphery of the plan, through the Columbus and Hayden Run corridor, the Plan suggests application of a conservation design with lower density and higher concentration of greenspace, which would provide for a regional greenway connectivity from Avery Road all the way west. There is the potential to link to Columbus on the south, to the Central Ohio Innovation Center in the northwest, and to Heritage Trails. As discussed at the last meeting, the development concept between Hirth Road and Avery Road provides for a variety of office and mixed uses around a neighborhood center area that would be pedestrian accessible to a surrounding residential use. There would also be additional office development at the corner of the Tuttle extension out to Avery Road. This is the general concept of a conservation and open space design. The Amlin concept would have an on- street parking configuration, buildings close to the street, and a walkable streetscape environment. The village concept includes future integration of a public open -space square, around which there could be a neighborhood level of mixed uses; residential would surround that. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher invited public comment on the southwest area. There being none, Council discussed was invited. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of QUbJin-city_Csuncil Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 14 Held 20 r Ms. Salay corrected a comment she made at the previous meeting regarding not having seen the Hirth Road area plan. She does recall having seen this plan previously. Mrs. Boring stated that she would like to confirm that there are no more questions regarding this area. At the last meeting, there were a number of concerns raised. She inquired about the current corporation lines. Mr. Combs indicated on the slide the corporation lines, subject to any recent annexations in the Houchard Road area. Mrs. Boring inquired if it would be necessary to annex all the land to incorporate the road. Mr. Combs responded that it is similar to any area plan on the periphery of the City. In terms of extending the roadways, as properties are annexed into the City, development would encourage extension of the road in a managed form. Ms. Salay noted that much of this land has already been annexed. Based on this map, it appears that Eiterman Road ends at Rings Road and does not continue on to Tuttle Road. Mr. Combs responded that is correct. The map indicates Eiterman coming through the Washington Elementary site and ending at Rings Road. The concept is that as the areas to the south develop, there would be a curb cut access to that particular development. The approved Ballantrae plan provides for the Rings Road bypass around the north side of Amlin, around the multi - family phase of Ballantrae, and extended further to the south to hook up to Tuttle extended. Mr. Keenan stated that he recalls a previous conversation with the residents about this topic. Ms. Salay responded that is correct. However, a resident went to the library and viewed the plan, which he interpreted as showing an Eiterman Road extension. She verified with Engineering that this was not the case, but wanted to clarify this point for the public record. Mr. Keenan stated that the concern was that if the road should extend further south, it would serve as a thoroughfare, a north -south connector. Mrs. Boring stated several years ago Council discussed where they desired retail to be located on Tuttle Crossing to achieve a certain look. Now there is a mixed use neighborhood center there and throughout the plan. Is this proposed plan what the neighborhood envisioned? Ms. Salay responded that, generally speaking, most of the residents are comfortable with it. The southwest traffic calming plan not only made the neighborhood safer and more comfortable, it also provided some protection from the retail. Due to the way that plan has worked, the concern about commercial development has lessened. With the Columbus jurisdictional boundary immediately to the south, there is obviously much land that could potentially have retail development. She believes the residents are comfortable with the plan for Dublin's buildout. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher noted that it is important to remember that the Central Ohio Innovation Center is in that area as well. Mrs. Boring responded that there are three town centers planned. She can understand the reason for some of the new plans, but she is concerned about discarding all of the old concepts that have been important to Council. Mr. Keenan responded that what is driving this is that more space will be needed because of the hospital opening, the future COIC and the changes with Perimeter Drive. After Dublin Methodist Hospital opens and the medical buildings are occupied, the traffic situation on Avery- Muirfield Drive will be serious. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher stated that Council received an email today from Mike Myers who indicated that in the former Community Plan, the goal was that all land in RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS in u O ff_ Dublin City Co uncil November 5, 2007 M eeting Page 15 the City would be within the Dublin School District by 2010. His question is if that remains a goal. She does not recall any discussion on that matter during this process. Mr. Combs responded that he is not familiar with such a reference in the 1997 plan. Given that the municipality is completely separate from the school districts, he does not know how that could be achieved. Most of the southwest area of the City is within the Hilliard School District and Dublin has no jurisdiction over school district boundary changes. Mrs. Boring stated that she is not aware whether that was addressed in the 1997 update of the Community Plan. At one time, however, there was discussion regarding a goal of having all municipal land also within the Dublin school district. She recalls a case where a developer worked to have the school district boundary changed for land in the southwest area. The attempt was unsuccessful. Northeast Quad O'Shaughnessy Area Plan Mr. Combs stated that this particular area has an existing plat with a variety of lots and rights -of -way that do not conform to the underlying zoning. The plan provides a balance for north and south access onto Summitview between existing Club Road which backs up to lots in Wedgewood Hills. The Plan proposed providing modified north and south connections, using existing rights -of -way that run east and west and to make a connection through the center of the existing plat. At the last meeting, an alternative was presented by a resident. The 1997 Community Plan indicates that the previous Plan used existing rights -of -ways, then terminated all of those rights -of- way with cul -de -sacs to eliminate curb cuts along Riverside Drive. A proposal made at the last meeting suggested looking at the south phase with a two -way alignment up Club Road, then to use a one -way alignment with the existing rights -of -way that would be provided in a north -south connection from Riverside Drive via one property owner. In the proposed plan, the areas in red indicate portions of the right -of -way vacated. Mr. Loveland would like to comment tonight on the north section of O'Shaughnessy Hills. Additional information was provided in the packet regarding the O'Shaughnessy Hills plan. Regardless of the plan selected -- the proposed plan or an alternative -- there will be the need for lot combinations and modifications. In particular, for the area on Summitview, in order to meet Engineering criteria for site visibility. There is one high point at which true access could be given. The likelihood of this area plan developing in the short term as a comprehensive plan is limited, so the issue before Council tonight is to determine what direction the plan should take. From staff's perspective, the key concern is to reduce the number of curb cuts along Riverside Drive in view of the high speeds. In the long term, as traffic levels become higher, it will be critical not only to provide access off of Summitview for the south portion of the development, but also to have a northern connection that will provide these residents primary access on Summitview as well. Dick Loveland, 8159 Riverside Drive stated that he owns the 19 lots at the corner of Riverside Drive and Summitview Drive. He learned of this process a week ago. He never received a notice that a plan was proposed for their area or his property. He has looked at this area plan and Jim Black's alternate plan. Mr. Black's plan is much more appealing to him. He, Mr. Black and one other individual own the lots. Most of the lots are vacant. The reason he prefers the alternate plan is that it separates O'Shaughnessy Hills into two sections, north and south. The great advantage of Mr. Black's plan is that it does not require a new road to be cut through the park, which is located in the center between the north and south parcels. That makes the park much more useable than if a public roadway runs through the middle of it. The alternate plan would have much less traffic, which would make the property much more valuable. There are many issues to address. For example, on his lots along Riverside Drive there is a dedicated alley. That would have to be vacated for either plan. Otherwise, he would have no access for those lots. His ultimate plan is to have two homes built on the 19 lots. Having a roadway entry from Summitview that would serve the lots on the south end of O'Shaughnessy Hills and not requiring RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of _ Dublin City Council FORM NO. 10148 Held Mee ting November 5, 2007 Page 16 20 further cuts into Riverside Drive would work if there is that internal loop shown on Mr. Black's drawing. The northern section has an access road directly onto Riverside Drive that is much further north. The alternate plan would eliminate a couple of entry ways onto Riverside Drive from the center and mid center of the O'Shaughnessy Hills development. He does not see merit in having a public roadway run through the center of the property, north to south. Having two separate roadway systems could be accomplished with very little change in the plans, and it would make both sections of the property much more suitable for high quality residential use. Jim Black, 8206 Riverside Drive stated that he lives in the southern portion of O'Shaughnessy Hills. He does not know of one property owner who supports the plan proposed for this area in the 2007 Community Plan. There is quite a bit of support for the alternate plan. He is aware that Engineering and Planning staff have concerns with that plan; however, those concerns can easily be met. Their plan would eliminate 6 -7 curb cuts onto Riverside Drive. The proposed plan by the City would require 15 -20 lot combinations and purchases. Their plan would require that only one parcel be acquired, across Lot 1, 2, 3 and 6. He and his wife own that land, and he can assure the City an agreement could be worked out. The City owns the remainder of the needed area. Staff indicated that a one -way street would not meet City Code, but there is a one -way street now — Arrowhead. Either there could be a one -way street that actually accommodates all the lots, or existing Arrowhead Drive, where no passing traffic is possible He is very concerned about the fact that the residents of the neighboring subdivision are exerting so much influence on decisions made concerning their subdivision. Club Road has always been shown. The plan would eliminate most of that road — half between Ridge and Arrowhead and all the section running along the back of the park. The curb cuts onto Riverside are eliminated. Both plans use the access at Summitview. To do so, there are issues to be addressed. The hill at Club Road and Riverside would need to be reduced by 8 feet to eliminate a visibility problem. He requested that Council remove the plan that is proposed for O'Shaughnessy Hills, table it for a year, and permit the property owners to work with City staff to resolve the concerns with their alternative plan. Hopefully, a compromise can be reached and a plan submitted to Council next year. The City might, however, need to include money in the CIP for engineering. He thanked Planning staff who have been very cooperative in discussions. Richard Green, 4555 Arrowhead Road stated he is one of four residents on Arrowhead Road and one of five residents in the southern portion of the O'Shaughnessy Hills subdivision. He concurs with the others who have spoken tonight. He is not in favor of the plan proposed by the City's Long Range Planning staff. He considers it to be ill- advised. He strongly encourages Council to consider providing access in the future development of this area, keeping the northern and southern sections separate. He proposes that the Wedgewood Hills parkland, which is City- owned, remain inviolate and that it continue to reach from Sandwich Court to Riverside Drive as a conduit for wildlife. He has seen red tail fox, mink and a great deal of birdlife in that area. He does not want to see it gutted with a road traversing from the north to the south. This is passive parkland, woodland, and it should remain woodland. He requested that one of the options for development be to permit the area to remain as it is. If that cannot be an option, then he requests that this tract of wooded parkland be preserved inviolate. He was pleased to hear concerns expressed by Council earlier in the meeting about preservation of oak trees, which indicates that Council is arbor - friendly. Although he is a recent homeowner and has not owned and paid property taxes on multiple lots of vacant land for several years, he does acknowledge the property owners' rights to develop the land. He would like to request that the wooded area be preserved as long as possible with as few roads as possible. This is an opportunity not to make a rash decision. He requests that the plan proposed by staff be tabled for a time to permit study regarding a more appropriate development that would preserve the unique character of one of the few parcels of land left in central Ohio that is still unaltered, virgin hardwood forest. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Minutes of tY_ meet- g _DAYTON LE-OAL BLANKJNC- FORM NO. 1014 November 5, 2007 Page 17 Held 20 Tom Jacobs, 4383 Forest Hill Road stated that he lives in the north part. The residents of the north and the south sections have the same goal — to preserve what is existing. He and Mr. Black have worked years toward doing so. This property was developed 80 years ago. The streets were platted and bulldozed then; iron pins mark the radius curves. Other than a couple of houses, however, they have refrained from developing the land further. When the neighboring subdivision, Wedgewood Hills, was later developed, it was with a building line setback that prevents building on the rear of their properties. Club Road is on every Ohio city and county map that exists, so it was no surprise to Wedgewood Hills that Club Road exists. In regard to limited access to Riverside Drive, nothing changes. All O'Shaughnessy Hills will acquire is a through street running past their houses from Summitview to Riverside Drive. The plan does not block it off. He indicated key points on the plan. He owns all the vacant lots in the subdivision north of the park, except one irrelevant lot. Combining the lots in some manner and vacating Club Road would make Wedgewood Hills very happy. Then vacate Woodland down to where it is currently paved; vacate Westbury to where it is currently paved — there is enough square footage for the building sites. That works for the property owners. Because of the property owners' goal to protect the woodland area, he is willing to combine his lots if the City will vacate the streets. There would then be no issue in regard to the northern section of O'Shaughnessy Hills. He does not support the proposed City plan for the Community Plan. Litany Shirk, 4390 Forest Hill Road stated that they are new to the community. They love the location of their home — close to everything, yet tucked away on a secluded street with seven other families who feel the same way about their homes that they do. They love the surrounding nature and wildlife, without cars rushing by and without headlights in their windows at night. That would all change if Forest Hill were to become a thoroughfare from the connection of Club Road to Riverside Drive. They love the acres of wooded land that the Jacobs have allowed them to enjoy, which provide connection to parks in Wedgewood. They treasure the privacy they currently have and the outdoor experience they have enjoyed. With 39 City parks, it is evident that the City has an investment in nature and wildlife. That is the perspective of the City they received when they moved to the community. They oppose the proposed road extension because it contradicts all the previously stated sentiments. The destruction of trees that are decades old, the elimination of the wildlife there, and the loss of seclusion and serenity that is so dear to them and their neighbors would eliminate most of the reasons they decided to make Dublin their home. Josh Zenz, 4390 Forest Hill Road stated that they moved to this area six months ago. The day they first viewed their home, their real estate agent called them to tell them he had an indication that this would be the right home for them — there were seven deer surrounding his car. If all of those roads are built, the wildlife will be gone. Dublin has parks integrated into the City, and Council indicated earlier this evening that they would not approve a plan if it meant sacrificing a 25 -year old line of trees. The trees in the O'Shaughnessy Hills area are 50 -60 years old, yet the City's plan proposes cutting those down. He requests that Council consider this when evaluating this plan. He definitely opposes the addition of the roads and development of that area. Joe Rieale, 4600 Arrowhead Road stated that he has heard comments from some new residents to the City, whose homes are valuable to them. He has lived here since before Dublin became a city. The consistent theme of all the requests made tonight are, "don't do anything" to this area. Leaving the area as is would not impact Dublin's financial situation or its growth as a city. Not one individual has requested this land be developed with houses or roads. O'Shaughnessy Hills is a unique, little area unto itself. Sometimes no action is the best action. It seems staff developed a plan without walking the area. He suggests that Council walk the area, because if they do, they will choose to leave it as is. Council has discussed diversification in jobs, but how about diversification in living areas? Does everyone have to live in a Minutes RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council l ee dng-- November 5, 2007 Page 18 Held 20 subdivision with houses 20 feet apart? There are not many areas in Dublin such as O'Shaughnessy Hills. To entice people to move here, different living areas should be offered. He believes that Council should consider what the residents want, not just what City staff suggests, not simply to impose City opinions on the residents. If so, he believes Council would decide that the status quo is the best plan for this area. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher stated that subsequent to the last Council meeting, she has visited this area and spent time there on five occasions — the area is very attractive. As a result, she does wonder why at this point in time the City would want to do anything in this area. The last person's comments seem accurate — it did strike her as a unique area in Dublin. One of the things Council tries to ascribe to is to have diversity in housing for potential residents. Often, that has meant the style of the housing, but it lends itself also to looking at a diversity in the community area. Not everyone would want to live in that type of area, but many would, given the level of traffic volume and pollution today. She would like to understand why staff believed it necessary to create a plan for this area for the Community Plan rather than leaving it as it exists. Ms. Salay stated that she would like to correct a couple of impressions. She has heard such statements as "Dublin wants to do this or do that," but in reality, Dublin is not going to do anything unless the landowners want to develop the land. The property owners present tonight have said they have no interest in development other than a house or two. Council is not in opposition to that. The City has no plans to carve that area up in a year or ten years. This plan was a concept of how development might occur if at some point in the future these landowners wanted to pursue development. One of the goals of the plan would be to minimize the curb cuts along Riverside Drive. With the manner in which the streets are platted, there is the potential for many houses to be built. Therefore, another goal would be to minimize the number of lots /building lots and control the development. None of that could happen, though, unless the landowners wanted it to develop. The City of Dublin is not insisting the area be developed a particular way; it is offering a suggestion for one way it could occur. In fact, she is inclined to agree that it would be better to keep the north and south sections separate and keep the parkland as it is today without the division of a road. On the other hand, the City also will not state that development is not permitted in this location. It is important to clarify the City's intentions. If the land stays exactly as it is today, that would be fine. Mrs. Boring responded that if she were living in this area, this plan would constitute a threat to her. Anyone considering a purchase of one those homes that sees the City's plan could not be convinced that the plan won't be executed. Ms. Salay responded that she is fine with changing the plan as proposed. She simply wanted to clarify that the City does not have the intention for it to be developed. Mrs. Boring responded that she does not believe the residents were accusing the City of such. They were simply asking the City to "put on the brakes." Years ago when Wedgewood Hills came in for development, there was the offer from Mr. Hutchins to donate his land to the City if they would buy the ravine. Unfortunately, the City did not take him up on the offer. She could not believe the destruction that occurred when Wedgewood Hills was constructed. Since then, the City has acquired the Hutchins property as parkland. She agrees with the Mayor. Why does the City have to provide any plan for the area, when it is so rural and so unique? She needs to understand the reason the City has shown any plan for this area. The plan includes a through road. Is there an existing house in the location where the road comes out on the plan? Mr. Combs indicated that there is an existing house on Summitview where the road comes out on this plan. Mrs. Boring responded that again, the plan is overlaying current residences, which is very unsettling to the homeowners. She would prefer not to have a plan for the area. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin C i#y C November 5, 2007 Page 19 20 Mr. Keenan stated that Council can do what it wishes in regard to this. In fact, it seems as though Council is in agreement about this issue. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that one resident indicated that no one had requested development in this area. Yet another resident presented his plan which showed the utilization of Club Road with the cul de sacs. Isn't that, in fact, someone's proposal for development? Mrs. Boring responded that there was no such proposal. Mr. McCash stated that was in the 1997 Community Plan provisions. Vice Mayor Lecklider responded that is not what he is referring to. It is a plan showing cul de sacs. Mr. Combs responded that the only other version he is aware of is in the 1997 Community Plan. He was not employed by the City in 1994 -1995 when that planning process began. He assumes the only reason this plan was considered was due to safety issues, in view of the traffic modeling along Riverside Drive. He believes that is the reason staff looked at this series of cul de sacs through the existing rights -of -way. The intent was to eliminate the curb cuts by keeping Club Road all the way up to the future parkland, or the Hutchins property, with a second access on Riverside Drive. With this update of the Community Plan, staff reviewed and updated all the area plans that were in the 1997 Plan. During public meetings in this process, feedback from the residents indicated dissatisfaction about the I proposal for putting in Club Road. Until the Planning and Zoning Commission public adoption review, staff did not hear the opposing side of the issue from the O'Shaughnessy Hills residents. Mr. Keenan stated that it is accurate that Club Road has been indicated for that area for a long time. Mr. Combs responded that in terms of a platted right -of -way, it has been in place a long time. He cannot speculate why originally lots were approved that would back up to a right -of -way, which would create a double- fronted lot condition. That is certainly not a planning practice that would be encouraged today. Mr. Keenan inquired if these lots are 50 feet in width. Mr. Combs responded that they are very narrow lots and would not meet today's zoning requirements. Mr. Keenan stated that a building permit would not be approved for a lot of that size. Mr. Combs concurred. It would be necessary to combine lots to meet today's zoning standards. In the absence of public water and sewer, there would be on -site sanitary sewer issues to be resolved with the Health Department. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that he would be satisfied if no other road or home were built in this area. Mr. Reiner stated that this is the first total conservation design project the City has had. It really met those requirements, as interest is focused on the landowners; it has internal circulation; it removes the curb cuts on Riverside Drive. It's a wonderful subdivision layout. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher moved to leave the O'Shaughnessy Hill area as it exists. The landowners have asked to work with staff over time to develop an area plan. At any point in the future, the residents can come in, and if an area plan is later developed, the Community Plan can be amended if needed. Ms. Salay requested clarification on what it is being left as it exists — as the 1997 Plan provided? Mr. McCash asked why was this area plan revision was undertaken? This process was to be an update of the 1997 Community Plan. The plan was fine in 1997. Nothing has changed in that area since 1997, so why did staff propose changes? RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS _Minutes of Dublin City Council _ Meng November 5, 2007 Page 20 Held 20 Ms. Salay responded that Mr. Combs has indicated that staff received input from residents that Club Road was no longer desired. Mr. McCash stated that the residents they heard from were from Wedgewood Hills and therein is the problem. Those residents bought their homes with a road that was platted a number of years previous. This was in the 1997 plan. Why does it need to be changed at this time? Ms. Salay responded that it is not fair to put the onus on staff or Council. There was an attempt to be responsive to the residents. With the overall goal of minimizing curb cuts on Riverside Drive, staff suggested an appropriate way to develop in that area. It may not be the right way, but it was an option. That is why Council allows public comment. In terms of leaving things as they exist, perhaps the 1997 plan was not a good option either. Mrs. Boring stated it would be best to leave the area entirely alone. Mr. Reiner stated that if there must be a plan for the area, the existing landowners have created a more workable plan. Mrs. Boring moved to leave the O'Shaughnessy Hills area as an existing residential area and remove the 1997 O'Shaughnessy area plan from the update. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, no; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher thanked the residents for their input. She recommends that they work with staff in the future to prevent the same occurrence. Bright Road Area Plan Mr. Combs noted that in this plan staff addressed a couple of concerns that arose since the last review. • Congestion: A concern was raised by a resident about the potential for congestion at Bright and Sawmill roads. Staff's response is summarized in the memo included in Council packets. The plan was modified to note that the City will work with the City of Columbus on the issue. In addition, there are several improvements that are anticipated to alleviate congestion: (1) improvements at Hard and Sawmill Roads in 2008; (2) extension of the final phase of Emerald Parkway. The addition of more connection points to Emerald Parkway is expected to disperse traffic. • Cut - through Traffic: Concern regarding cut - through traffic in the area of the future single - family residential area. A couple of improvements will address that issue: (1) the future installation of a cul de sac at Riverside and Bright Roads to address safety issues with speed and current crash ratios at that location. With this construction, traffic levels on Bright Road are anticipated to drop. (2) The extension of Emerald Parkway will provide a divided arterial with higher speeds and is expected to discourage cut - through traffic. (3) Future improvements at the intersection of Emerald Parkway and Bright Road, a potential roundabout or other options, will ease congestion and decrease travel time along Emerald Parkway. This particular road alignment, which is shown in the concept plan, is a concept only. Any future north to south alignment that is needed for fire and safety access to serve these residential areas will be determined by technical studies conducted during the rezoning process. • Bright Road Concepts Bright Road at Sawmill and 1 -270 This concept plan provides the intended style of office development at the interchange of Sawmill and 1 -270. To the north, in keeping with the wooded areas RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes o Dubli City Council �1leti.�g November 5, 2007 Page 21 Held 20 along Bright Road, additional residential would be integrated with the Village of Inverness. To the west of the future extension of Emerald Parkway would be additional office development. Bright Road at Future Emerald Parkway and Riverside Drive The concept provides for the preservation of the existing Indian mounds site and cemetery area as a large park area that can be connected with pedestrian paths. South of the ravine, which is a major natural feature in this area, integrated office development that faces Emerald Parkway is proposed. Mrs. Boring stated that this is essentially the plan that is currently in existence. Mr. Combs responded that it is a refinement of the 1997 Bright Road area plan. Mrs. Boring referred to #12 - medium density residential that backs up to Grandee Cliffs. Would the lot lines be aligned with this, or is that not essential? She is concerned about placing medium density development in that area versus low density. Mr. Combs responded that it is generally intended to be consistent with the surrounding residential areas. Staff could verify the correct category with the Future Land Use map. Mrs. Boring asked that staff do so. She believes this may have changed, as medium density seems somewhat high considering the older properties in that area. Mr. Keenan inquired the difference between low and medium density. Mr. Combs responded that with a medium density, there would probably be a single - family development. With mixed residential, there would be a variety of housing types within the same development. He believes the concept for this area is single - family, two units per acre. The medium density mixed residential provides for five units per acre with integrated types of housing. He will check to verify the densities. Mrs. Boring stated that the premium office provided for at the interchange would certainly be a positive. However, in the past, there was an issue with the impact of such density on the traffic. She assumes that if there is development interest, the developer would be required to conduct traffic studies to ensure that the density of the proposed office is appropriate. Mr. Combs responded that when any major office development is proposed, a traffic study of trip generation and access issues would be required. Mrs. Boring stated that she believes there has been a change from the 1997 plan. With the Emerald Parkway extension in this area, what is the feedback from the residents regarding the change from medium density development to office? Mr. Combs responded that staff has heard responses on both sides of the issue. However, there has not been overwhelming response for one side over the other, so the concept has remained the same throughout the process. From a planning perspective, there is existing residential development just off of Sawmill, and surrounding it completely with office development would not be good land use. It would be preferable to add a blend of additional residential and office. Keeping in mind the commercial /residential balance and what is anticipated with the Central Ohio Innovation Center and some other areas, it would not be wise to include too much office in these area plans. That might make it counterproductive to focus on office development in some of the other areas. Mrs. Boring asked that staff verify that the proposed density matches the existing density for the adjacent land. Ms. Salay asked if there was a timetable for the cul de sac of Bright Road at point one on the map. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the expectation is that it would occur as part of the Emerald Parkway Phase 8 construction, which is currently in the design stage. Ms. Salay stated that the reason she wanted to clarify that point is that in the past, Council has made decisions to cul de sac various roads, which the residents relied RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin C ity Council Minutes of � tY _ MeetLng— November 5, 2007 Page 22 Held 20 upon. Later, Council has reversed such decisions. She wants to verify this is scheduled. US 33 Corridor Area Alan Guerin, 10240 Mitchell DeWitt Road, Plain City stated that he speaks for the owners of the 100 plus homes located in the US 33 corridor. They reviewed the City's plan for their community and are not in favor of that plan. They ask City Council not to approve the U.S. 33 corridor plan as this time. They realize that the City has been involved with the planning process for some time and has obtained input from the Dublin community. However, the City has not contacted the residents in the US 33 corridor or taken into consideration the impact of Dublin's community plan on their homes. With the proposed plan, three neighborhoods – Frazier Road, Weldon Road, and the area of Warner Road and Mitchell DeWitt would be completely replaced with high density housing, high density office, a town center, a village center and extensive acres of low density office. How can the City make plans for this land without consideration of and without the input of the present owners? Even though this plan is a projection of the possible development within the next 15 -30 years, planning to eliminate their homes and develop at such intensity is not reasonable. The present homeowners moved into the community, and built or purchased these homes in large open spaces for a reason. To see their future alternatively planned in this manner is disheartening. Their concerns are as follows: 1. They have not been provided the opportunity to voice their opinions. They are not Dublin residents so do not receive the Dublin newspapers. 2. The Dublin draft community plan is not consistent with the Jerome Township draft community plan, the southeast corridor plan, or the 1997 Union County Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, this is not what Jerome Township wants for their community. 3. They understand Dublin prefers compatible uses, however, elimination of their homes and replacing them with new compatible uses is not reasonable. 4. They are the families who will be forced to feel the impact of the Dublin tech park initiative, yet they have no voice in this plan. Why is Jerome Township the proposed area to handle hundreds of acres of high density housing and office? 5. Why are their homes not recognized on the maps, as every other Dublin home is? At their last meeting, Council indicated that the Ponderosa renters, not homeowners, should be recognized on the Plan's maps. Do the U.S. 33 corridor homeowners not have the same value? 6. Why are their communities not planned for in such a way that they can remain in their homes and continue to experience the life they all moved there to live? The City's plan calls for smart growth principles. Is there not room within the smart growth principles for larger tracts of land or open space or a right not to live in dense housing surrounded by retail and office? 7. If this plan is approved as is, the City has cost them both their way of life and their money. They are completely trapped by this plan. If they stay, they lose everything they moved to this community to achieve and experience. If they try to hurry up and sell their homes, the City has lowered the value of their homes. Who would want to buy their homes, knowing what Dublin has planned for that land? 8. As Mrs. Boring indicated in the discussion regarding the O'Shaughnessy Hills plan, there is a fear factor involved for the homeowners. That is the situation for the U.S. 33 corridor homeowners as well. The US 33 corridor plan impacts a greater number of homes than the O'Shaughnessy plan. In summary, they ask that Council not approve the plan for the US 33 corridor area, and that the homeowners be involved in future decisions. He urges the City to work with the township trustees and residents in any planning for this area. Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher stated that tonight Council would accept public comments on any of the other proposed area plans. Council will discuss those plans at the next Council meeting. Council has seen a couple of email communications between staff RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes o f Dublin City Council M etir�_ November 5, 2007 Page 23 Held and citizens, including that of Ms. Crowley. Was there an engagement of Jerome Township in any of the discussions about the corridor concept plan? Mr. Combs responded that staff has been engaged with Jerome Township officials on and off throughout the Community Plan update process. The process has spanned over three years. When the process began, there was a joint meeting with the township representatives to talk about the existing plans, the similarities and the differences. As the area planning process moved forward, they continued to have dialogue with the township. There has been regular township representation at most of the open house joint work sessions. In addition, as concerns were raised during the process, staff has dialogued directly with the Zoning Coordinator for the township to ensure that Dublin was in communication with them and to let them know what the issues were and that the issues would be addressed through the meeting process. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher emphasized that this area is not in Dublin, and this is a long -term vision for the area. Mr. Combs responded that the area is not in the City, but in general, the Plan addresses areas that are within the City's water and sewer service area. The City's planning boundaries are based upon the water and sewer contracts. This is reflected in the 1997 Community Plan as well. Ron Rhodes, Jerome Township trustee stated that he has been a trustee for 20 years and he has never participated in a discussion about this area. If a meeting took place, he was not involved or invited. This weekend, he was campaigning along Mitchell -DeWitt Road and other areas reflected in the US 33 corridor plan. To say those residents are not happy would be an understatement. He understands it is a plan 15 -20 years into the future. However, for the trustees and residents not to be consulted about a proposed plan for their area is to be insulted. For future relations with the township, it would be better to work with the trustees. Staff's statement that they have met with the trustees is not true. Jerome Township trustees request that Dublin put this plan aside and let Jerome Township plan their own future. Mr. Keenan stated that he must respond because the comment is inaccurate. He served as a Washington Township trustee for 20 years. There have been numerous meetings about the US 33 corridor development, and Mr. Rhodes attended some of those meetings. Vice Mayor Lecklider and Ms. Salay indicated that they had attended such meetings as well. John L. Wirchanski, 160 Franklin Street, Dublin stated that he is surprised by the reactions of three Council members to Mr. Rhodes' comments. He also attended the US 33 corridor meetings of which they spoke. The discussion in those meetings had nothing to do with this plan. Densities in the area were not discussed. The group was working on an Accord regarding development of the whole area. It had nothing to do with individual landowners and specifically how their land might be developed. There was no discussion about Jerome Township and how they thought Dublin should move forward in its development, nor how Dublin thought Jerome Township should develop specific areas. As he indicated in his letter forwarded to Council earlier today, as a property owner whose family has owned this property for 175 years, he finds it very upsetting to see the future of their land being determined by a municipality that they are not part of. Mayor Chinn ici-Zuercher indicated that public testimony on the Community Plan was concluded for the evening. Mr. McCash stated that this seems to be a particularly contentious issue, and there appear to be many residents in the area north of Post Road who want things to remain as they are. Mr. McCash moved to eliminate the proposed US 33 corridor plan from the Community Plan with the understanding that Council would review the issue of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Mi nutes of Dublin City Council _ . Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 24 r - __ development north of the Central Ohio Innovation Center if and when it is annexed to the City of Dublin. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher seconded the motion. Mrs. Boring stated that she would need more information before she could vote. Ms. Salay stated that it was her understanding that this area is within the City's water and sewer agreement area, which means Dublin could potentially service the area in the future. Mr. McCash responded that it is within Dublin's service area, but so is the O'Shaughnessy Hills area, which was removed from the Community Plan tonight. The issue can be addressed in the future should someone desire to develop it. Ms. Salay responded that she believes that would be very irresponsible. Mr. McCash stated that no one wants to develop in that area, so it probably won't be annexed for some time. Ms. Salay responded that some of that area has been approved for development. Mr. McCash responded that it has been approved for development outside of Dublin; it will develop in Jerome Township. Ms. Salay responded that it will develop if they can obtain water and sewer. Mr. McCash responded that if they cannot, it would remain as an open space or rural area. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher stated that this is an area that Dublin could potentially serve with water and sewer. That is the reason staff wanted to evaluate the potential build -out. What is the City's policy if someone were to desire City water and sewer service? Wouldn't they be required to annex before they could be provided those services? Ms. Brautigam confirmed that is correct. The City has a similar situation now in the southwest area. The City has not actually annexed all land in the southwest area that is shown on the Community Plan, although it is anticipated. However, to plan appropriately for the area that is currently within the City, it is necessary to evaluate how that area would likely develop. Similarly, with this area it is important to plan according to what the future likely holds, even if it is 30 years distant. Vice Mayor Lecklider noted that the City does not initiate an annexation; the property owner does that. Ms. Brautigam confirmed it is solely the property owner's prerogative to seek annexation. Mrs. Boring stated that based on that principle, wouldn't it be preferable to plan around these properties rather than do an overlay? If the City should wish to do something innovative in the area in the future, but the property owners did not desire annexation, this would continue to afford the City the opportunity to do so. Ms. Brautigam responded that this is a policy decision for Council. The City could plan around them if Council were to decide that residential is an appropriate use in that area. If it is suspected that in the long run the area would be developed as commercial or mixed use, then the plan should reflect the anticipated use. That does not mean the area must be developed as that use, but that it is what the City anticipates would occur. Mrs. Boring stated that as a homeowner, it would be very upsetting to hear that someone else is determining what will likely happen to their land. She realizes that there are different circumstances involved, and she needs more information before making any decision. Mr. Keenan stated that without proper planning, the result will be what Columbus has done with the Cosgray Road and Hayden Run area. The elected officials in Jerome Township have been aware of what has been happening. He, Ms. Brautigam and Mr. Hammersmith reported regularly to the U.S. 33 Corridor committee about the Community Plan. The Community Plan meetings have been reported in the local papers the past three years. If the Jerome Township elected RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minu of _ Dublin City Council ll�e etin� November 5, 2007 Page 25 officials did not communicate to their residents what was taking place, it is to their discredit. Ms. Salay stated that the Township chose to disengage from the process. It would be completely irresponsible of the City not to plan this area, as it is within the City's negotiated water and sewer service area. Mr. Keenan stated that development drives what occurs, and it is best to plan for it. That is what the U.S. 33 Corridor Committee tried to do. The purpose of that committee had nothing to do with Dublin's Community Plan, as Mr. Rhodes pointed out, but Dublin did report on its Community Plan to that group throughout the Plan process. Mrs. Boring stated that she does not find proper planning and planning around existing residences mutually exclusive. She definitely wants planning, but having the land use around the residences defined would provide the direction needed. Mr. Keenan responded that Council can do whatever it wants with the plan, but eventually development will occur in the U.S. 33 corridor area. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher called for the vote. Vote on the motion Mr. Keenan, no; Mr. Reiner, no; Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, no; Ms. Salay, no; Mrs. Boring, yes. (Motion failed.) Mayor Chinn ici-Zuercher noted that the Community Plan discussion would continue at the next City Council meeting. STAFF COMMENTS There were no comments from staff. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS /COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Mrs. Boring: 1. Noted that a memo in the packet described the reasons for the early display of City Christmas decorations. She understands the reasons for this as outlined in the memo, but is hopeful that next year, there will be time to celebrate Thanksgiving before the Christmas decorations are displayed. Ms. Brautigam noted she agrees. Part of the reason for this early display is that the sign crew workers are needed to work on signs for the opening of Tuswell roundabout. Next year, staff will plan ahead so that this does not occur. 2. Wished good luck to the candidates running for election tomorrow. She encouraged everyone to vote. Mr. Keenan: 1. Reminded staff that he is waiting for the information regarding wind ratings and safety matters related to the City events. Ms. Brautigam assured him that staff is working on this report, which will be forwarded to Council upon completion. 2. Reported that he, Mayor Chin nici-Zuercher and staff met with a corporate resident from the Avery Road area and he would appreciate receiving an update on this matter. Ms. Salay commented regarding the Community Plan discussion. She is supportive of the desire of Council to conclude meetings in a timely fashion, but it seems that Council will need to have some long meetings, in view of the fact that there are two meetings remaining in 2007 for this Council. If the goal remains approval of the Plan this year, a plan is needed to conclude the public testimony and allow time for Council to make decisions. She does not want to be meeting for long hours during the holiday season in order to be at the point of voting on the Plan. Therefore, she believes that Council needs to be prepared at the next meeting to spend whatever time it takes to complete the Plan review. With artificial limits of 10 p.m. on meetings, this goal cannot be met. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS M inu tes of _ Dub.lin_City Council _ November 5, 2007 _ Meeting Page 26 Mrs. Boring responded that one reason for concluding tonight's meeting at 10 p.m. is that the meeting began at 5 p.m. History indicates that good decisions are not made at late hours. Council needs to take the time necessary to complete the review. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked if Council is changing the objective of approving the Community Plan in 2007. Council Members commented that the objective has not changed. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated there is no need then for further discussion. Vice Mayor Lecklider commented: 1. Minutes were included in the packet from the Veterans Committee. The minutes indicate that Council was trying to somehow impose itself in the finer details of what was otherwise understood to be the Committee's prerogative. He does not believe that is the case. Council's concerns are primarily financial ones, to the extent that Council would be asked to fund an additional $250- 500,000 for the project. That is Council's responsibility to consider. Once that issue is resolved, he is more than willing to defer to the Committee. 2. In the minutes of the Dublin Board of Education, there was some discussion from residents regarding the use of the stadiums and related funds transfer of rental revenue. It suggests that the district is engaged in efforts to bring in outside groups to generate revenue. He is not certain if the City has an official liaison to the District, but he would suggest some coordination. It is the School District's property and their right to use it as they wish, but insofar as it impacts adjacent residents on a more frequent basis than they would reasonably expect, he would like to know more about their plans in terms of attracting additional events. Often -, these events impact those beyond the school property and parking availability. Mrs. Boring, Council liaison to Dublin Schools, stated that when the artificial turf was installed at the stadiums, included in the proposal was their intent to attract outside rental groups to bring in revenue. If there was concern about this, it should have been discussed at the time the agreements were entered into with the City for the funding contribution. Vice Mayor Lecklider responded that he would be happy to pursue this matter, if she desires that he do so. His understanding of the intent of the synthetic fields was that the Schools could have more teams using the fields, including soccer and field hockey. With a grass field, the field is preserved for the football team, as it is subject to weather impacts. He does not believe the primary purpose of installing synthetic turf was so that they could bring in groups from around Ohio to utilize those facilities. Mrs. Boring clarified that she did not indicate this was a primary purpose — rather, it was a selling point in requesting the City's financial partnership. 7 Mr. Keenan asked if there is an issue at a particular school. He lives adjacent to Coffman High School and is not aware of anyone with concerns about Coffman's scheduling of their field. Vice Mayor Lecklider noted that the minutes of the Board suggest to him that this outside group rental is a new initiative. That is why he has questions about the matter. If Council wants him to be the liaison to the School District on this matter, he will do so. Mr. Keenan recalls that the Schools do have a policy to try to maximize the use of the stadiums. This was brought up with respect to the synthetic fields several months ago. If there is an issue for Belvedere residents with Jerome High School, he has not been informed of it. He is not aware of an issue with Coffman or Dublin Scioto. If it is isolated to Jerome, the discussion should focus on that particular location. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher asked Mrs. Boring to have discussion with the Board President and /or the Superintendent regarding what was stated in the minutes, and whether this is a new policy. Perhaps an annual calendar could be shared with Council as well. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dub lin _City Council Meeting FORM NQ 1 Q 1 48 - _ _ - - _ _ - - November 5, 2007 Page 27 Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher: 1. Stated that she received a letter from Steve Lyons regarding the Memorial Tournament fundraiser at Digger & Finch for the Nationwide Children's Hospital NICU. Last year, the City participated at the $5,000 Associate Partner level. They are requesting participation in 2008 at the level of $7,500. She asked if there was any opposition to this, and if not, it will be included in the proposed operating budget. There was no objection to including this. 2. Noted that today she participated in a site visit and evaluation related to the School District's application for the International Baccalaureate Diploma Program for all three high schools. They are assessing the interest in and the potential relationship of the program for the community, both business and government. There are only a couple of school districts who have pursued having this at multiple high schools at the same time. There was discussion of the importance to the Dublin community of having similar programming throughout the district. This will be a great opportunity for juniors and seniors at the high schools. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher moved to adjourn to executive session to consider the purchase of property for public purposes. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher, yes. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher noted that the meeting would be reconvened following the executive session only for the purpose of formally adjourning. The meeting was adjourned to executive session at 10:40 p.m. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was reconvened at 11:30 p.m. and formally adjourned. Mayor — Presiding Clerk of Council