HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-08-14 Council MinutesRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, WC, FORM NO 10148
December 8, 2014
Held 20
Meeting
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Mayor Gerber called the Monday, December 8, 2014 Regular Meeting of Dublin City
Council to order at 5:45 p.m. at the Dublin Municipal Building.
ROLL CALL
Members present were Vice Mayor Gerber, Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, Mr. Lecklider and Mayor
Keenan.
Staff members present were Ms. Grigsby, Ms. Readler, Ms. Crandall, Mr. McDaniel, Ms.
Mumma, Mr. Foegler, Chief von Eckartsberg, Mr. Wagner, Ms. O'Callaghan, Ms. Puskarcik, Mr.
Tyler, Ms. Husak, Mr. Gunderman, Mr. Stiffler, Ms. Kennedy, Ms. Burness, Mr. Hahn, Mr.
Hammersmith and Mr. Clarey.
ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION
Vice Mayor Gerber moved to adjourn to executive session to discuss land acquisition, legal
matters, and collective bargaining matters.
Mayor Keenan seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes;
Mr. Mayor Keenan, yes.
(Ms. Salay, Mr. Peterson and Mr. Reiner joined the session in progress.)
The meeting was reconvened at 7:15 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher led the Pledge of Allegiance.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road expressed thanks to Council members and City
management for the very thoughtful sympathy cards he received after the recent death of his
son, Jeffrey. They touched him very deeply and he is most appreciative.
Ron Geese, 5584 Brand Road, stated that:
(1) he has forwarded pictures of the intersection off North Street and North High Streets to
Council and staff. He has lived in Dublin his entire life. The "no left turn" (northbound on N.
High Street) has been removed from the intersection. He asked that the three parking spots
along N. High Street be removed, as the sight view for vehicles is completely blocked.
Because of his concern, he took the initiative for approaching the Library for their assistance.
Previously restricted public parking signage at the Library was removed, and there are now
142 public parking spots within the Library parking lot after 6:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday.
However, his guests and clients remain unable to find parking, because the public parking
available at the Library is not being utilized.
(2) on behalf of his mother, he provided Council members with copies of the recently
published Dublin pictorial history book. The Charles Mitchell family's main house was built in
1810 at the intersection of Emerald Parkway and Dublin Road, and there is a beautiful, log
cabin inside the building there now. He represents the sixth generation of the family, and his
children and grandchildren also live in Dublin — a total of eight generations of the Charles
Mitchell family to live in Dublin.
On behalf of City Council, Mr. Reiner expressed thanks to Mr. Geese for taking the initiative to
remedy the parking problem.
Mr. Geese responded that he would like to request clarification of the process to have the
three parking spaces on that corner removed.
Ms. Grigsby stated that the reason those spaces were added was to provide recognition to
drivers that they were entering the Historic District, to create an environment that would cause
drivers to reduce their speed. Staff has checked to see if the addition of the parking spaces
has resulted in any accidents or incidents — to date, there have been none. The "no left turn"
sign was removed quite a few years ago at the request of the Historic Dublin Business
Association. Before the sign was removed, however, Engineering staff conducted a gap
RECORD O�'ROCFEDINGS
Minutes of Dub m ity Coun I Meeting
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148
December 8, 2014 Page 2 of 26
20
analysis to ensure that there were sufficient gaps in the traffic to make a left turn from North
Street onto N. High Street in this location.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she believes there is also a left -turn prohibition for traffic
exiting the road next to the Library from 4:30 to 6:30 p.m.
Ms. Grigsby stated that staff would provide a staff report for the next Council meeting,
including a copy of the engineering traffic gap analysis.
Vice Mayor Gerber requested that the information be provided to Mr. Geese, as well.
Mayor Keenan inquired if there is another method for slowing the traffic in this location. Would
the removal of the parking spaces, or at least one or two spaces, really have an impact? He
drives there quite often, and it is a very difficult left turn to the north at any time of the day.
The sight line is totally blocked.
Ms. Grigsby responded that, prior to this, there were rumble strips in place. Those were not
well received due to the noise and were eliminated. Staff will revisit other options available.
Mayor Keenan requested that staff do so and provide a report to Council.
Vice Mayor Gerber thanked Mr. Geese for providing copies of the new book to Council.
ANNOUNCEMENT
Vice Mayor Gerber announced that City Council has selected the new City Manager — Mr. Dana
McDaniel. Mr. McDaniel is a strong leader with a great vision, and Council is anticipating the
best going forward.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mr. Reiner moved approval of the actions for the eight Consent Agenda items.
Ms. Salay seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Keenan, yes;
Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Vice Mayor Gerber, yes.
1. Approval of Minutes of November 17, 2014 Regular Council Meeting
2. Ordinance 123 -14 (Introduction /first reading)
Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Release of Easement for a Sanitary Sewer
Easement. (Second reading /public hearing January 5, 2015 Council meeting)
3. Resolution 91 -14 (Introduction /vote)
Requesting the Delaware, Franklin and Union County Auditors to Draw Money that may
be in the County Treasuries and to Issue a Draft to the Director of Finance of the City
of Dublin for Any Money that may be in the Accounts for the City of Dublin.
4. Resolution 92 -14 (Introduction /vote)
Consenting to the City of Dublin Working Cooperatively with the Director of the Ohio
Department of Transportation for the Upgrade and Maintenance of Traffic Signals.
5. Resolution 93 -14 (Introduction /vote)
Accepting the Lowest/Best Bid for the Frantz Road Utility Burial Project.
6. Resolution 94 -14 (Introduction /vote)
Declaring Certain City-Owned Property as Surplus and Authorizing the City Manager
to Dispose of Said Property in Accordance with Section 37.08 of the Dublin Codified
Ordinances.
7. Resolution 95 -14 (Introduction /vote)
Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Maintenance Agreement with the Ohio
Department of Transportation (ODOT) for the Dublin Road /SR 745 and Glick Road
Intersection.
8. Acceptance of Final Plat - Celtic Crossing (Case No. 13- 063FDP /FP)
SECOND READING /PUBLIC HEARING — ORDINANCES
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148
11 December 8, 2014 — Page 3 of 26 II
Held
20
Ordinance 109 -14
Adopting the 2015 Annual Operating Budget, and Declaring an Emergency.
Ms. Mumma stated that operating budget workshops were held on November 5 and 12, and
City departments presented 2015 budgets to Council. The expenditures in 2015 are expected
to be $158.3 million, excluding any TIF funds and including transfers and advances out. If that
holds true, along with the revenue projected within the General Fund for 2015, the General
Fund balance will be nearly 81% of General Fund expenditures, which is well in excess of the
50% level desired. Staff believes that the follow -up memo addresses all of the questions raised
during the budget workshops.
Mr. Lecklider stated that he has an objection to one item in the budget for the Community
Relations department. He respects staffs proposal, recognizes their diligence in preparation of
the budget and believes that they have presented a conservative budget. However, he believes
he has a responsibility as a Council member to analyze the proposed budget versus rubber -
stamping it. He has reviewed the additional information provided on the subject of the new
staff position in Community Relations, but it was not persuasive to him. The original
information provided indicated that the individual would be responsible for the social media
contents strategies. The additional information provided indicated that the individual's primary
responsibility is to support the Police Department. The additional position proposals in the
budget were significant relative to those in past years, but there is the acknowledgement that
in past years the City has had relatively flat budgets due to economic circumstances.
However, his analysis involved what he thought was essential work in the department. If the
purpose of this proposed position is to support the Police Department, Council is aware of
many models in which the Police Departments use a member of the Police Department to
serve as their spokesperson. He believes there are alternatives available for this staffing. He
would prefer not to vote against the entire budget, if there is another way to address his
objection to that part of the budget.
Mayor Keenan stated that he was not present at the previous meeting when this ordinance
was introduced. With respect to process, in the past, during the Finance Committee of the
Whole budget workshops, Council has taken action to change, add to or subtract from the
proposed budget. He believes the Finance Committee of the Whole meeting is the appropriate
time to debate and make those changes. That is the process Council has always operated
under and what should continue in the future.
Mr. Lecklider responded that this part of the budget was presented at the first of the two
budget hearings. At the end of that meeting, Ms. Grigsby asked if she could provide additional
information to support their proposal. Council agreed versus taking a vote without the benefit
of that information. The information was provided at the second meeting, but the appropriate
staff were not present at that second meeting to discuss the information.
Ms. Salay agreed that there wasn't an opportunity in which to discuss /debate it.
Ms. Grigsby responded that during past budget hearings, Council sometimes expressed
objection at the time a position was requested. Over the years, the process changed. It was
assumed that if there were any issues with a proposal, Council would raise the issue and
discuss it at that time. She would recommend that in the future, as part of the final budget
review meeting, the Committee should discuss and vote on each of the recommended
positions that are included in the budgets.
Mr. Lecklider stated that this budget review cycle was unusual, as there were a significant
number of new positions proposed, as compared to the last four budget cycles due to the
economic circumstances at that time.
Ms. Grigsby stated that if the 2015 full -time staff levels are compared to that from 2006, there
will still be three less full -tame positions.
Mr. Lecklider stated that this proposal could also be compared to 1999 staffing levels.
Mayor Keenan stated that he had some conversation with Ms. Grigsby, as well, in terms of
whether the additional position belonged in the Police Department or Community Relations.
His understanding is that staff believes it does not make sense to separate the dynamics of
that department.
Ms. Grigsby stated that is correct. Staff does not want to begin a process where each
department has their own Public Information, Human Resources or Finance staff. It is
important to ensure consistency across the City departments. This year, the Police
Department requested a public information officer position, and she discussed with the Chief
that the preference is to have the position housed in Community Relations. This would ensure
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City C ouncil
_Minutes_ of. Meeting
DAYTON LEGAL BL ANK, INC., FOR NO. 10148
December 8, 2014 Page 4 of
Held 20
a consistent City message at the same time the position is serving the need addressing tY 9 Po 9 / 9 the
concerns of the Police Department.
Vice Mayor Gerber inquired if Mr. Lecklider would like to propose a change to the budget by
motion, or is simply registering his objection to that part of the budget.
Mr. Lecklider stated that the information regarding the position provided tonight is not
consistent with what was previously provided.
Ms. Grigsby stated that Council can make changes to the budget by motion tonight. However,
as discussed at the previous meeting, staff's intent was to present a document that did not
need to be revised at this point in the review process.
Mr. Reiner noted that he does not believe that it makes good economic sense to add another
unionized position in the Police Department. He agrees with adding the position in the
Community Relations department.
Mr. Lecklider responded that he was not suggesting the addition of another person to the
Police Department. In summary, he respects everyone's opinion and hopes they also respect
his.
Mr. Lecklider moved to amend the proposed 2015 operating budget to eliminate the new
position proposed in the Community Relations budget.
Ms. Salay seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, no; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr.
Peterson, no; Vice Mayor Gerber, no; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Keenan, no.
(Motion failed.)
Mayor Keenan moved for emergency passage.
Ms. Salay seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion Vice Mayor Gerber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Keenan, yes; Mr.
Peterson, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes.
Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes;
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Vice Mayor Gerber, yes.
Ordinance 110 -14
Accepting the Annexation of 2.7 Acres, More or Less in Washington Township
Franklin County to the City of Dublin. (Petitioner: Jackson B Reynolds, III agent
for Petitioners The Jay W. Liggett Trust, David W. Patch, Jr., Valerie N. Finch,
William S. Darling)
Mr. Gunderman stated that this is a request for approval of an annexation of 2.7 acres
involving the Liggett property. The property, which is adjacent to the Amlin area, is set back
one lot from Rings Road, just east of the railroad tracks. The original rights -of -way have been
vacated through the County process, so the area will be annexed without public right -of way.
The annexation petition has been approved by Franklin County and if Council approves it, the
annexation will be effective 30 days after passage.
Vote on the Ordinance: Vice Mayor Gerber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Peterson,
yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes.
Ordinance 111 -14
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, and Declaring an Emergency.
Mr. Stiffler stated that this ordinance establishes the fee schedule for 2015 based on the
results of the cost of City services study. In 2014, an inflation measure was used to determine
the fee changes with the expectation that in 2015, a full study would be conducted. The
proposed fee modifications that resulted from that study are described in the memo and
attachments to the ordinance. These modifications were reviewed at the November 12 Finance
Committee meeting.
I' Ms. Chin nici-Zuercher moved for emergency passage.
Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Peterson,
yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Gerber, yes.
Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Keenan,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148
December 8, 2014
Page 5 o
Held
yes; Vice Mayor Gerber, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes.
Ordinance 112 -14
Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Necessary Conveyance
Documentation to Acquire 2.04 Acres, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest
from Sane M. 3acobs and Thomas C. 3acobs, and Declaring an Emergency.
Ms. Grigsby stated that this ordinance authorizes the acquisition of 2.04 acres of property off
Woodland Drive, which is adjacent to the Hutchins tract already owned by the City and used
as parkland. The agreed upon price is the appraised value of the property. Approval by
emergency action is requested so that the City can close on a portion of the property this year
and the remaining portion early next year.
Ms. Chin nici-Zuercher moved for emergency passage.
Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Peterson,
yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Gerber, yes.
Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Keenan,
yes; Vice Mayor Gerber, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes.
Ordinance 113 -14
Petitioning the County Commissioners of Franklin County, Ohio for Annexation of
Approximately Two Acres of Land Located East of High Street, North of Dublin -
Granville Road and Adjacent to the Scioto River.
Ms. Grigsby stated that the City acquired this piece of property earlier this year. It is located
along Dublin Road and the Scioto River just north of property the City purchased last year.
Staff is recommending the property be annexed into the City so that it is under the control of
and subject to City enforcement.
Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Peterson, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Gerber, yes; Ms.
Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes.
Ordinance 114 -14 (Amended)
Amending Sections 1S3-0S7 through 1S3.066 of the City of Dublin Codified
Ordinances (Zoning Code) to Amend the Bridge Street District Zoning Regulations.
(Case 13- 09SADM)
Ms. Grigsby requested that Mr. Foegler provide additional information related the Bridge Street
District, including the reasons for creation of the District, the related issues, and clarify some
incorrect information that has been circulating. There have been some comments and
concerns expressed, and additional clarification is needed for the public.
Mr. Foegler stated that the Bridge Street project was initiated in 2010, nearly five years ago.
There has not been another area of the City that has been as planned, studied, analyzed and
publicly engaged as the Bridge Street District. From the earliest stages, Council has wanted to
bring in the leading experts in the field. The City engaged in a full range of fiscal impact and
infrastructure analysis, urban design and other kinds of tools, all of which were done as
background to inform decision- making. This initiative was based in part on the desire of
Council to have a better understanding, given some of the changes the City is confronting in
many areas, including economic competitiveness, demographics and changing characteristics
of households, and to ensure that Dublin is postured for the next 10 -40 years, and can be as
successful as Dublin has been over the last 40 years. Many regional efforts are beginning to
align with the Bridge Street District plans, including the recent efforts of Columbus 2050.
Where Dublin has taken the lead, such as with fiber optics and other initiatives, it seems to
stimulate other activity across the region. The new 2050 Initiative reinforces much of the
analysis that Dublin conducted early on. When looking at what is projected for central Ohio, it
begins to inform regarding the market dynamics that are going to change Dublin. One of the
most striking pieces of data from the 2050 Initiative -- and he noted that he has been engaged
in that effort - depicts the different drivers for development. Over the last 40 years,
development in central Ohio has been heavily driven by the growth of the population segment
of heads of households of prime home - buying ages with children. Over the next 40 years, over
80% of the growth in households will be one and two- person households without children —
and therefore, a radically different driver will be pushing development. The consultants have
looked at Dublin and the planning and analysis that has been done as not just a regional
20
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Du Ci ty ounce
'ON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148
December 8 014
Held
Meeting
Page 6 of 26
20
model, but a national model going forward. Dublin is trying to take steps to address how to
remain competitive and respond to the markets of the future. One of the biggest drivers on
this for Dublin was economic development. Our study with the Human Resources directors of
local companies and others indicated that the lack of housing for young professionals 25 -30
years old negatively impacted their ability to attract talent to work in Dublin. Economic
development is at the core of Dublin's development activities. Recently, jobs have increasingly
gone where that young talent wants to work. Dublin does not have those types of urban,
mixed -use, denser environments — and the Bridge District is meant to address that. Many four -
bedroom homeowners with now grown children are looking at other housing options to stay in
Dublin. Empty nesters are likely the biggest growing segment of the one and two- person
households without kids. From an economic development perspective, where the
demographics are heading, and to build upon the core of the City that served a small village
with a much more dynamic core, the Bridge Street concept emerged for this six percent of the
City land. It will be a very dense, mixed -use walkable grid of development with a variety of
housing types that has strategically located office, housing and other supported uses, and
captures the quality of the river as an amenity that serves not only that development, but the
entire community in a way it never has before. It will provide housing opportunities for a much
broader range of the population in the future than we have done in the past. That planning
process has been informed by market studies and other types of analysis moving forward.
He noted that some of the information currently circulating is the notion that the Bridge Street
project will have 7,000 apartments. Due to the density in the Bridge Street plan, there is a lot
of housing and retail /office use. To develop that amount of density to create the walkable
activity and vibrancy to support those activities, that significant amount of housing units will be
needed over time. The key point is that this density will occur at build out. Just as it took 40
years for Dublin to develop the 15,000, single- family units in place today, the new
demographic driving smaller households types will take another 30 -40 years of buildout. There
is a significant portion of the Bridge Street District that reflects redevelopment sites that will
not occur until the economic life of those existing projects runs out, and there is the desire to
redevelop the sites for these other purposes.
Another aspect that has been emerging in discussions is that all the projects in the pipeline are
apartments. That is simply not correct. With the projects seen thus far, staff has been very
impressed with the range and the mixing of uses proposed. The three major ones in the
pipeline at this time all align very well with the adopted Community Plan. In those areas
where retail and mixing of uses is appropriate, there is a very dynamic mix such as with the
Crawford Hoying project that Council has some information about. It includes over 600,000
square feet of non - residential uses, including hotel concepts and restaurants, conference
facilities, etc. Other projects being contemplated on the west side of the river include
condominiums, retail, office — and multiple developers are proposing those. The Casto project
is in an area recommended for residential; the first phase is purely residential; future phases
might have some integrated uses but build importantly across the grid in an urban format that
connects and creates the walkability that is important for the District.
Staff is extremely pleased with the level of developer interest, the type of projects, the
alignment with the plans, visions and goals that have occurred. Staff is working to create the
economic development models, and it is necessary to understand the developments in order to
assemble the development agreements. As Council is aware, and as they have been more
educated on some new development financing tools emerging, these cannot be considered
separately. There is a basic development framework for a project moving forward and there is
a financial /economic agreement that supports it. They cannot be looked at in isolation for
these larger projects, where the development agreements and plan must go together — the
economics are too closely intertwined. As Council will recall, a Letter of Intent process was
explored for the Casto Project as one way of trying to arrive at that approach. There will be
some other regulations being considered tonight to help align that better -- to ensure that
from the earliest stages of the project, the key aspects of development agreements and
preliminary project concept ideas are as aligned as possible. Overall, in terms of the concepts
moving forward, the public infrastructure investments that won't just serve these projects, but
rather all of the citizens of Dublin in terms of the amenities offered to the core, the mixing of
uses, the character of the uses being proposed — staff is very pleased. In 2015 -- given the
public investment in projects ready to move forward, the private developers ready to move
forward, the five years invested by the City in lots of planning, analysis and public engagement
Minutes of
LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO 10146
Held
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin Cit Coun cil Meeting
December 8, - 2014 Page 7 of
20
with the community and developers -- there will be significant transformational initiatives
moving forward.
Mr. Peterson asked about the area east of the river, south of I -270, west of Sawmill Road,
north of SR161, which he believes has created most of the controversy that is being discussed
tonight. Is the location of that area what allows for a Bridge Street District type project to be
proposed? There has been some question raised that the City is abandoning the image of what
Dublin is, and that Dublin will transform the City's identity by developing that area. Would a
Bridge Street District type development be proposed in an area such as west of Muirfield?
Does the current location provide a unique opportunity?
Mr. Foegler responded that this is a unique opportunity for Dublin. In reviewing the growth
and development that has occurred in Dublin over the last 40 years, and given the fact that
the Bridge Pointe Center struggles, the Bash Golf course never redeveloped, and the Dublin
Village Center that has struggled — there is a lot of underutilized land in this area. The normal
kind of suburban drivers did not have the opportunities and market demand to occur in this
area. Given the demographics emerging and the benefits of creating the development types
being discussed, it had tremendous assets going forward. First, the river in the heart that was
an underutilized amenity; the visibility from the road system in place; the ability to build upon
the historic core and create a 21 century version of those elements. The Bridge Street District
is six percent of the City's land — a relatively small percentage — and even if those numbers of
residential units do take place, Dublin and all of Central Ohio as of 2050 will still predominantly
be the single - family form of residential development that exists in the region. The drivers that
are going to be occurring in the next three or four decades are radically different, and that is
what will drive the demand for new housing. If Dublin wants to take advantage of the
economic development objectives as well as meet the needs of what will be an aging
population, and provide alternatives for future buyers of homes in the region, it does a lot for
Dublin. The geography of that area is strictly related to the Bridge Street District — those
assets and opportunities do not exist elsewhere in Dublin and would not make sense in those
other locations.
Mr. Peterson asked if successful, single - family home development could occur in this same
area.
Mr. Foegler responded that clearly the market, given the 15,000 single - family units built has
not taken us in that direction. He believes some denser single - family homes — maybe some
attached units, or more urban in character — could be considered. However, in terms of
traditional lower density development, he believes it would be a gross underutilization of that
land. Most of the focus has been on the east side of the river, as that is where most of the
development activity has initially emerged. There will be some projects on the west side and it
will be important to engage the community on those projects as well.
Mr. Peterson asked if he is comfortable with the studies and the data, that everything is still on
track, given what has come in.
Mr. Foegler responded affirmatively. Some of the best transportation consultants in the
country have been engaged. The grid provides benefit to address many of the traffic needs. A
second study indicates that where this grid meets the surrounding road systems, what
improvements might have to take place and when — and the tools are in place to handle
transportation, traffic and utilities in an extremely capable, well planned way. The City is as
poised to handle this development properly and successfully as possible.
Mr. Peterson noted that when Tuller Flats was first discussed, and as mentioned in the memo
accompanying Ordinance 114 -14, this particular project did not have much mixed use
included. He is not aware of anything coming forward with mixed use, so how can the City be
assured that the mixed use will come — that the diversity of uses will come forward?
Mr. Foegler responded that not every project and every location lends itself to commercial and
other uses being integrated. The plan adopted for the Bridge Street District does not
recommend that. The plan as adopted indicates that these kinds of interstitial locations that
are between the arterials and not around the edges should be residential. The key is to have
the grid and streets like John Shields Parkway, on which a great greenway is being created, to
connect to destinations to the west — some of which will be in the Historic District, some in the
new Crawford Hoying development along the river, some will be the park amenities — and
eventually, the Dublin Village Center redevelopment, which will be a major mode of activity as
well. Good connectivity, walkability and markets so that when these restaurants and office
uses come about, there is a strong residential market to support it. This is land that was
planned for and is totally appropriate for residential. It will reinforce the more dynamic mixing
of uses that occurs at those nodes where it is recommended in the plan.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
D ublin City Cou ncil
Minutes of _ Meeting
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148
December 8, - 2014 Page 8 of 26
Held 20
Mr. Peterson stated that, based on this information, his understanding is that the future
economic engine will need to be fueled by this type of development.
Mr. Foegler responded that Mr. McDaniel and his staff have done studies and interviewed firms
about what needs to be done to keep the City's suburban office parks competitive over time.
What is being done with Bridge Street is aligning with all of this information. The regional
effort with 2050 has come to the same conclusion. The big advantage for Dublin is that Dublin
is far out in front on this — responding to proposals and working to have them fit together.
Council has created a framework and plan for how the pieces should fit together, and it is
guiding private investment. It is what has inspired private investors to come to Dublin.
Mr. Peterson stated that aside from fueling the economic engine for Dublin, why would other
residents of the City desire the Bridge Street District development?
Mr. Foegler responded that most locations in the City that would have a relatively dynamic
core, with lots of restaurants, parks lining the river, other kinds of amenities, would add value
to nearby residential development. The single - family residential development closest to the
dense, walkable mixed -use district will receive the highest bump in value. Residents are
gaining the amenities of an urban core nearby without actually being in the District. It is a
value add to residential areas in Dublin. The consultants indicated that 75 percent of retail
market leaves Dublin to shop elsewhere. Part of the reason is that these options do not exist
in Dublin at this time, and people go to the Short North or Easton for a walkable environment
with this type of retail and mixed use. If Dublin is to be successful in this endeavor,
apartments have to be an important part — bringing young professionals in at an early stage.
These same residents will feed into the Dublin homes in the future after being vested into
Dublin through the Bridge Street District. Based on demographics, the bubble that fed home
sales and valuations over the last 40 years is over. It is a value -add proposition — the notion
of a lifelong community, with young professionals who want to raise a family in a residential
neighborhood and retire in Dublin in some empty nester options where there is a walkable
environment.
Ms. Salay stated that is also important to emphasize that the planned apartments are targeted
for individuals or couples, similar to a development such as Craughwell Village. They are
designed to accommodate young professionals and empty nesters and are not the traditional
apartment product that is attractive to families. This development will not impact the school
district in terms of generating students.
Mr. Foegler responded that another proactive effort Council has taken is working with the
School District to establish an agreement to facilitate this development, which has uniquely
positioned the City compared with other entities. The demographic information was shared
with the Schools as well.
Mayor Keenan stated that it is also important to emphasize the incredible parkland
opportunities the Bridge Street development brings. This will be very special.
Mr. Foegler responded that the river park, the pedestrian bridge and some of the amenities
emerging around that location will be the defining core of the City. The pedestrian bridge
could well be a defining image for the City.
Mr. Reiner commented that he views this as an economic opportunity because the next
generation desires to live in a dynamic, exciting location. There is an obligation to provide
employees for the companies driving the economic engine for the City. Dublin has a very high
standard of living, and it has been funded through planned development and economic
development efforts. The District is an important and integral part of the future of the
community.
Mr. Foegler responded that Chris Leinberger did a follow -up presentation in the region about a
year ago and has been analyzing for the Brookings Institute where this development is
occurring. Most is occurring in suburbs and will continue to do so. There is still a substantial
segment of population that is seeking a suburban location, but there is lack of a suburban form
of an urban development in Dublin. In the analysis of valuations per acre, the valuations are
conservatively 10 times per acre what they would be under conventional suburban
development. The additional tax valuation to the Schools will be extraordinary, as there will be
very few additional students generated with this type of development.
Ms. Grigsby noted that the City and City Council has worked very hard to ensure that the
information is provided and available to the residents — with speakers, public forums, study
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council
LEGAL BLANK, INC. FORM NO. 10148
December 8 - 2014
Held
Meeting
Page 9 of
sessions, community surveys - and the surveys indicated a high level of knowledge and
support for the Bridge Street District development, particularly the river park and pedestrian
bridge. Good feedback has been provided by the community overall indicating they are in
favor of this type of development.
Vice Mayor Gerber stated that, going forward, perhaps the residents could be better informed
about the various projects as they are taking place.
Ms. Grigsby responded that staff does work hard to share information, with workshops on the
potential developments. Tonight, there is legislation on the agenda relating to one of the
proposed developments. The website contains an enormous amount of information about the
Bridge Street District, including responses to frequently asked questions. These are updated
continually, based on a -mails from residents, who are referred to the website.
Mr. Lecklider stated this has been a public process over many years, and the concepts are not
new to Council, the Planning Commission, the public and development community. There is
nothing occurring "behind the scenes" regarding this matter. Each and every member of
Council firmly supports the direction the City is headed with respect to the Bridge Street
District. With respect to the Bridge Street Code amendments on the agenda tonight, the
changes proposed have been thoroughly reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission
over a number of months. The one significant change being proposed by City Council is to
allow Council the discretion to take upon itself a review at the initial level. The rationale
behind this is based on the very significant investment involved. These are policy decisions,
and ultimately, the body held accountable is City Council - not an appointed body. Council
believes this is appropriate basis for taking this step. Whatever applications Council reviews in
the future will be reviewed in public meetings. The majority of Council members have
previously served on the Planning and Zoning Commission, and are very familiar with
reviewing such development plans. Because of the financial investment involved in the
projects, City Council will likely scrutinize these projects very carefully. Council will not review
every project that comes forward, but will have the discretion to determine this. All of Council
is very excited about the Bridge Street District, and Council has a tradition of staying ahead of
the curve. For all the reasons Mr. Foegler and the consultants have stated over many years
and many meetings, he is anticipating moving forward with the Bridge Street District
development.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher agreed with Mr. Lecklider's comments. The Planning and Zoning
Commission has been working on the BSD Code revisions over many months and have had
special meetings exclusive to this topic. The major changes being recommended tonight came
from the Commission. The only changes Council is making is to include Council in the process,
specifically for those cases that require a development agreement. These financial matters are
not the purview of the Commission, but are Council's purview. She is concerned that people
have commented that Council is rushing these amendments, when in reality, the Commission
has very carefully reviewed the BSD Code and has recommended some changes to Council.
Staff Presentation
Mr. Langworthy stated this is the second reading /public hearing of Ordinance 114 -14 related to
the Bridge Street Code amendments. Some of the amendments were discussed at the first
reading, and he can respond to those. Tonight, he will focus on the changes requested by
Council. During the first reading discussion, items raised related to some of the
recommendations of the Commission. Some of those matters will be discussed in a
Commission work session on Thursday, December 11. Another issue raised was the master
sign plan review procedures. The last issue related to the process changes.
• Council's requested amendments to the process are only applicable to projects that
also require a development agreement.
• The first step in the existing process is the Basic Plan Review, and includes the
development plan and site plan. The amendment would move the approval for Basic
Plan Review from Planning and Zoning Commission to Council and would require two
actions by Council: action on the Basic Plan itself and action regarding who the
required reviewing body would be for the formal development plan and site plan going
forward. The choices would include: Council; the Administrative Review Team;
Planning and Zoning Commission; or for projects in the Historic District, the
Architectural Review Board.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148
December 8, 2014 -__- — Page TO of 26
Held 20
• For the master sign plan, similar changes were made. Council during its review of the
Basic Plan would also determine the required reviewing party for the master sign plan
with the same options.
• Council would also determine the required reviewing body for conditional uses that
would take place for projects requiring development agreement. The three bodies that
could review these are Council, Planning Commission, and Architectural Review Board
– which is actually a recommending body to the Commission in that situation for
projects within the Historic District.
• Another change requested by Council is to provide a more direct appeal process.
Currently, there is an administrative appeal process available, which goes from the
deciding body to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a potential outlet to Council if the
applicant is not in accord with the decision of BZA. This provides for direct appeal to
Council by the applicant or to any adverse decision by the ART, P&Z, ARB, and BZA.
There are some Director decisions and CBO decisions, which can also be appealed to
Council.
• In regard to size - limited uses and housing diversity, there are no further Code
amendments recommended. Those will be discussed at the Commission work session.
• For tree related issues and planting related issues, the City Forester will address those
and they will be discussed at the Commission work session.
• For signs, no amendments are recommended, but there has been discussion of
assembling a set of sign guidelines to provide guidance to sign manufacturers or
owners. This would provide an opportunity to clarify the type of signage
encouraged /permitted in the District as well as what is discouraged.
Staff is recommended Council approval of Ordinance 114-14 (Amended).
Ms. Salay asked about the sign guidelines or pattern book. When would that be available for
review?
Mr. Langworthy responded that staff can provide this in the first quarter of 2015.
Vice Mayor Gerber stated that in a situation where there is a development agreement required,
Council will review the basic development plan and site plan, and then determine what body
will review it – Council, ART, P&Z, ARB, BZA. What criteria will Council utilize in the decision
about the appropriate body for review?
Mr. Langworthy clarified that it will likely be on a case -by -case basis. His view would be that
the level of infrastructure necessary and level of investment by the City necessary would be
part of the criteria, and how that investment is tied to the development itself might give
weight to Council's decision.
Mr. Reiner commented regarding the tree issue, which was controversial. In view of the
Emerald Ash borer, there has been an effort to alternate trees and use many species.
However, a key factor in landscape architecture is the unifying element of having one species
of tree on a street. A street tree can be a unifying element, and he does not support planting
15 different species of trees.
Mr. Langworthy responded that he agrees, and the various areas can be identified using street
trees to delineate the changing character of the roadway.
Mr. Peterson commented there was an enormous amount of material accompanying this
legislation. The legislation itself is only 10 pages, correct?
Ms. Grigsby responded that much of the information is background information on the Code.
The legislation is simply the ordinance and memo provided by staff.
Mr. Langworthy added that redlined and clean copies are provided so that Council can more
easily identify the changes.
Public Testimony
Kevin Walter, 6289 Ross Bend stated that there has been conversation tonight about time,
which is an elusive thing – sometimes there is too much, and sometimes too little. Council
members were all elected as stewards of the City of Dublin – of the past and the future. He
cited Dub /ins loumey, which speaks to the value of time in the development process of
Dublin's future. It walks the reader from the start of the City to modern day, with key events
listed. It depicts the slow and arduous process that brought about modern day Dublin. He
recalls the Chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission talking with him, as a member of the
Commission, about the delicate balance between development goals and what is best for the
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
_ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, IN_ C., FORM NO. 10148
December 8, 2014 Page 1 of 26
City of Dublin. The process in place over the years has created a truly idyllic community that all
can be proud of. Today's discussion subverts that process. He has listened intently to the
discussions over the last five years about the Bridge Street District. The discussion centered on
the need for speed, to ensure the development community is confident in Dublin's sincerity to
move forward with projects in the District and that the development community has what it
needs to successfully complete these projects. The Commission provides valuable time in the
development process — time for Dubliners to think about their future, time for City staff to
work with developers, time for developers to bring their best projects forward — not just the
projects they believe they can get through the process. Council speaks of development
agreements as the reason to cut out the Planning and Zoning Commission; in fact, what
Council is doing is solidifying the economic interests of the developer, trumping the public's
ability to participate in the process. He asked that Council carefully discuss the concept of time
this evening, and think about Dub /ins Journey and the value that time has brought to the
community. He asks that Council provide the time needed to build the best Dublin possible.
Alison Close Myers, 7630 Bellaire Avenue provided a copy of her remarks to Council. She
noted she has been following the Bridge Street District process for five years and watches the
live streaming of meetings provided by the City. She is a concerned citizen who loves the City
in which she grew up and where she lives today. She lived in Chicago for 4 -5 years in an area
of high density, but felt pulled back to Dublin and chose to live in Dublin and raise her family
with her husband. She is not anti - development and is excited to have new life in the Bridge
Street corridor. She does want to see this is done right. However, she recently has become
concerned that developers are pressuring City Council to get this done and get this done their
way as soon as possible. Her main issue is with the change in the process — an existing
process that requires developers to work with the City in such a way that Dublin's high
standards are met. Large projects such as this add true long -term value to the community.
The review process in place has resulted in Dublin being one of the finest communities in the
country. Dublin does not have bright signs and vacant big box stores, but has green space for
everyone to enjoy. Her concern is with making fundamental changes to a proven process that
will affect every project in the future. Taking the review and decision making process out of
the hands of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the ARB erases a check and balance
that has been in place as long as Dublin has been a city. While this may help expedite
projects, she would hate to have a rushed project resulting in a lesser project that all have to
live with for a long time.
Ron Geese, 5584 Brand Road asked what is the process tonight? Will there be a vote on the
Ordinance? The posting of the 460 pages on Friday should have been done prior to the first
reading. Current drawings are not posted correctly and are not up to date. The current P&Z
process works. Why change a process in place for 38 years that provides a check and balance
system that has created a state -of- the -art city? The creation of an ART review process moves
the development review out of the public view. P&Z provides a public check and balance
system. If Council is not satisfied with appointed Commission members and what they do,
Council should discuss with them what needs to be done differently. Developers always have
complained about the zoning process in all cities. Current Dublin is not any different. He has
questions about the tax increment financing and if the Franklin County Children's Services
funding will be impacted, the Library, Columbus Metro Parks and Columbus Zoo. He reference
an article from the paper, dated September 3, 2014 indicating that monies are being given
away by the City that are not the City's to give. These entities are entitled to the percentages
of taxes they are to receive.
Ms. Grigsby responded that for any tax increment financing districts set up by the City and any
tax exempt districts established, the tax revenue — or payments in lieu of that tax revenue —
would either come to the City or be paid to the development to fund infrastructure
improvements needed to support the project, such as structured parking. Anytime the City
has set up TIF districts, those dollars have been used to fund public infrastructure. The dollars
are therefore deferred for the various entities. But in most cases, had the incentive districts
not been established and the public improvements not completed, the development would not
have moved forward. TIFs are a tool that the State of Ohio has provided to local governments
in order to create a revenue stream or source that allows the development to help fund the
improvements and the infrastructure needed to support their development.
Mr. Geese stated that there are entities such as Metro Parks, Children's Services, Columbus
Zoo and the Library that are entitled to their small percentages. It is not Council's right to give
those taxes to a developer.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dub City C ouncil
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, I_NC., FORM NO- 10148
11 December 8, 2014
Held
Meeting
Page 1'2 of'26 --
20
Mr. Lecklider added that his understanding of a TIF is that the property taxes collected today
will continue to be collected going forward. These revenues will continue to be provided to the
various entities. The funds generated from the TIF are a result of the increase in the value of
that property as a result of the development and are directed toward improvements supporting
the development. Nothing is being taken away from the entities, as they will continue to
receive their present allocation.
Mr. Geese stated that this is not correct, based on what he has read in the newspaper.
Future development needs to pay its share of funding to these various levies.
Ms. Grigsby stated that only the incremental increase is used to fund the improvements
needed to support the project. Any new increment allows that development to occur. Once
these TIFs expire, a significantly increased tax base results, positively impacting all of the
entities Mr. Geese has referenced. A good example is the construction of Emerald Parkway
Phase 1 and 2. If the City had not established a TIF to build the roadway, utilizing the tax
'I revenues from the buildings constructed by Cardinal Health and Verizon, the City could not
have funded the roadway at that time. The other key point is that the individual developers
i � continue to pay their fair share — it is simply a payment in lieu of tax or a fee set by a New
Community Authority. It only involves the incremental increased value — not the current value
on which the payments to the various entities are based.
Vice Mayor Gerber stated that for a property valued at $100,000 today, the landowner will
continue to pay taxes on that value to all of those entities; with further development and an
increased value, the increased taxes will fund the infrastructure needed to support the new
development.
Mr. Peterson added that if a TIF were not established, the taxpayers of the City would be
funding those infrastructure improvements.
Mr. Geese commented that the City did approve payments to the School District so that they
were not adversely impacted. He is only concerned with the other entities who will not receive
their "fair share." He asked again if Council will vote on this legislation tonight.
Vice Mayor Gerber responded that this is a second reading of the Ordinance, and Council will
determine what action they want to take at this time. It is not proposed as emergency
legislation — it is simply a second reading /public hearing, and this is generally when the vote is
taken.
Mr. Geese commented that it is impossible to view the river from the east side due to the
honeysuckle. The City should use the funding generated to remove this honeysuckle.
Mayor Keenan stated that a memo in the packet discusses the proposed removal of this
invasive plant along the river.
Mr. Lecklider noted that one question by Mr. Geese related to the 460 -page document on the
website.
Mr. Langworthy responded that there is a redlined and clean version of the Code, and an
extensive history of the Code.
Ms. Salay added that these documents were online for the first reading in November as well.
These documents were posted at that time and posted again on Saturday night at the website.
The process has been completely public.
Ms. Grigsby noted that the only new information was the direction given by Council at the first
reading; all of the other information was posted on the website and included in Council
packets. Due to the size of this packet and the Thanksgiving holiday, the packet was not sent
out until Friday and the website updated on Saturday.
Vice Mayor Gerber summarized that tonight, Council is reviewing the procedures and criteria
on a limited basis with respect to applications that involve a development agreement in the
Bridge Street District. Council will also provide input about the changes proposed by the
Planning and Zoning Commission. There are also some proposed changes related to the appeal
process. He asked if there are any other items before Council tonight.
Mr. Langworthy stated this is correct.
Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher clarified that included in all of the documentation are minutes from
various boards and commissions that have been posted on the City's website after those
meetings of the respective board or commission. In regard to the tax increment financing
districts and impacts on entities receiving property tax levy funds, she asked for verification:
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin C ity Council . _ _Meeting
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148
D_&&e_i*il5erV, ZO f 4 Page 13
property owners will pay the same property taxes they are currently paying based on the
current value; only the increase in property valuation as a result of the new development will
be used for infrastructure improvements.
Ms. Grigsby stated that for any new development that occurs, the value of that land will still be
taxed and funds distributed to all the entities as they are today; only the incremental increase
and revenues generated will come to the City or go toward the development.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher noted that the entities can continue to rely upon the funds they are
presently receiving from the property owners.
Ms. Grigsby stated that is correct.
I
Mayor Keenan added that the township never received any monies to support the fire
department from all of the tax increment financing districts that were established over many
years; however, after the various TIFs expired, the township gained the benefit of the
increased property tax value. The development is the economic engine that supports
everything the City does.
Ms. Salay stated that it is important to point out that the Bridge Street District is only six
percent of the City land. The increased value in the future will have major impacts on these
entities.
Roger Vogel, 177 Longview Street stated that it would help to understand what is the
timeframe of the TIFs.
Ms. Grigsby responded that TIFs are allowed to run for 30 years or until the improvements
that have been identified as being supported by the TIF are paid for, and the City is
reimbursed.
Mr. Vogel stated that it does not last indefinitely; it does end.
Ms. Grigsby responded affirmatively.
Ms. Salay noted that the City has had some that are now expired.
Mr. Reiner stated that there is a County oversight group that reviews items such as the TIFs
annually.
Mr. Peterson requested clarification. This amendment to this Code only reflects this procedure
with respect to Bridge Street and only with respect to a project that has a development
agreement.
Mr. Lecklider stated that is also within Council's discretion. Council may or may not reserve
that option for itself.
Mr. Peterson stated that there have been questions and comments that projects reviewed by
the Administrative Review Team would not have the same public review process.
Mr. Langworthy responded that all the same notice requirements apply as would apply to
Planning and Zoning Commission. Even if Council reviews the project through certain stages,
all the public notice requirements that apply to Planning and Zoning Commission would apply.
Mr. Peterson stated that the current procedure may also remain — the Planning and Zoning
Commission may review all these projects just as they always have.
Mr. Langworthy responded that is correct. Council may determine that at the Basic Plan review
stage.
Ms. Salay clarified that the ART meetings are also public meetings and are noticed to the
public.
Mr. Langworthy responded that is correct.
Mr. Lecklider stated that he appreciates the citizen comments this evening, which are the
result of the citizens caring about their community. In regard to the comments with respect to
time — he finds it difficult to understand how there are some who believe Council is moving too
quickly, when these concepts have been studied by Council for five years. He also served on
the Planning Commission for five years, and there was no project -- Cardinal Health,
Ballantrae, or any other -- that took five years to make its way through the review process.
Also, the suggestion that IF Council reserves unto itself this review, that would be something
less than might have been otherwise experienced. He would suggest that those individuals go
back and review the minutes for the past year or so related to the Tuller Flats project and ask
the applicant if they thought their hearings before Council were easy. The answer to that is
"no." These projects are going to receive a level of scrutiny from this body certainly equal to
the review they would receive at Planning and Zoning Commission or with any other body.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
- December 8, 2014 Page 14 of 26
20
Ms. Salay stated that she wanted to read her response to an email she received earlier today
about the process, because it addresses some of the concerns.
'Y wanted to take a moment to assure you that Council's intent is not to limit the
public's involvement in decisions surrounding future development in the Bridge
Street District. To the contrary, we have had over 30 public meetings, workshops,
charrettes, guest speaker events in the past 4 %z years to discuss this important
vision. We will continue to invite public input, as has always been our tradition,
and in fact, our law, in Dublin, whether that be at a City Council meeting, a
Planning Commission meeting, an Architectural Review Board meeting, a Board of
Zoning Appeals meeting, a Community Services Advisory Commission meeting, an
ART meeting, or any other public meeting or venue we have -- expressly to ensure
that our citizens are connected to and part of the decision- making process in
Dublin. To say we are somehow interested in shortcutting, hiding, or taking away
the public process is a gross misstatement that has unfortunate /y been emailed
around the City today. If something seems uncharacteristic, crazy, off-base or
contrary to what you have come to know about Dublin, then it probably is. The
only change proposed in review of the Bridge Street Code amendments that were
passed by Planning and Zoning Commission in November after a month of their
review is to bring the first step in the review process — the Basic Plan Review, to
City Council rather than the Planning and Zoning Commission, and this would only
be for the larger projects that will involve some type of development agreement
with the City of Dublin, which would have to be voted on by City Council, as well
Council would like the opportunity to have the first look at those proposals to see if
they meet our expectations for quality design, /and use, density, layout, pub /ic
space, streetscape, etc. before we enter into agreements with developers to
facilitate the building of the public infrastructure, such as roadways, stormwater
facilities, public areas, etc. After Council gets this look at the projects in the pub /ic
meeting with opportunity for public review and comment, we will send the project
to the appropriate body for review, and the public process MY continue. I have
been a Council representative to the Planning and Zoning Commission for the past
eight months, and we have had six to eight public meetings concerning Bridge
Street District projects or the Bridge Street zoning code itself. I have been on City
Council since the inception of the idea for the Bridge Street District in 2009. I, and
the rest of City Council have been open, transparent, and very desirous of citizen
voices and involvement for that entire time. Please contact me and the rest of City
Council to let us know your thoughts Your involvement in this City has been
helpful, and I speak for all of Council when I say your voice and the voice of all
residents is important. "
She believes all Council members share those sentiments.
Vice Mayor Gerber stated that everyone on this Council has worked very hard on the Bridge
Street Corridor Plan and is very committed to it. As he looks through this document, he
appreciates all the work that has been done. He is very pleased to see the clarification related
to the appeal process. He appreciates the Planning and Zoning Commission's hard work; they
have vetted this document thoroughly in public meetings. The one concern he has with the
document is with respect to where does Council send this and under what criteria. He would
like to see this document address those issues. It is early in the process, but it appears that
there are different expectations of each body of review, and that could drive differing results.
He is not saying that is occurring, but potentially, it could. From that standpoint, he would like
to see more definition of the criteria by which we refer this to ART, PZC, etc. That is his only
concern with this, and he is not sure how to address that. He understands the financial side.
The world has changed since 2008, and developers need to address the financial component
earlier. However, we have built a fine City by setting an incredibly high "bar" in the City Code.
Even with Code requirements, there are still subjective areas where the City needs to make
sure the project comports well with the surrounding areas. He infers from that the City's core
value. If Council selects one of these bodies to refer a project to, he is unsure of the criteria
and how to ensure the provisions of the Code are met.
Mr. Langworthy stated that there are three parts to his response. One, the review of the plan
itself is guided by the criteria listed in the plan. Second, at some point, there is a need for
better guidance from Council as to which projects should go in what direction. Some of that
clarification may take place over time as we learn Council's individual preferences for projects
as they go through the process. It is difficult for staff to define the criteria Council should use
Minutes of
LEGAL BLANK, INC, FORM NO 10148
Held
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dubl Cit Council
December 8 - 2014
Meeting
Page 15 of - 26
20
to pass the review on, or keep it. Third, the Basic Plan itself has a very good opportunity to
"set the stage" for what happens next. Doing the best possible job at the Basic Plan level will
define the expectations concerning architectural layout, landscaping, etc. for whatever body
reviews it next. He would not discount the value of the Basic Plan Review process, for it will
determine what occurs thereafter. The information Council passes forward to the next
reviewing body will impact their review.
Vice Mayor Gerber inquired if "setting the stage" means the Basic Plan review would establish
what would be required.
Mr. Langworthy responded that the site plan and development plan must follow what the Basic
Plan has laid out. There are details, however, that are not covered by the Basic Plan review,
which would need to be resolved.
Vice Mayor Gerber stated that he has previously described the Basic Plan, using PUD terms, as
lying somewhere between the preliminary development plan and the concept plan -- more
detailed than a concept plan, but less detailed than the preliminary development plan.
Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Keenan, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Ms. Chinnici-
Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Gerber, no; Mr. Lecklider, yes.
Ordinance 117 -14
Authorizing the Provision of Certain Incentives to Exact Holding North America,
Inc. to Induce it to Locate an Office and Associated Operations and Workforce
within the City, and Authorizing the Execution of an Economic Development
Agreement.
Mr. Clarey provided a brief summary. Exact Software is a software development and consulting
firm, based in the Netherlands, with several locations overseas and in the U.S. This economic
development agreement is in response to the company's conducting a national real estate
search for an expanded U.S. headquarters. The company plans to locate 100 employees to
Dublin in 2015 and create an additional 15 jobs over the next three years. This accounts for
approximately $1.2 million in net income tax withholdings over the seven -year term of the
lease. He introduced Mr. Robin Foster, General Counsel for Exact Software.
Robin Foster, General Counsel Exact Software stated that as a Dublin resident, he believes
this is a wonderful community, and they are anticipating a decision that will allow them to
invest further in the community with some very important jobs. As stated in the agreement,
Exact Software will bring jobs to the City of Dublin that will average $83,000 per year. They
are significant jobs — attorneys, sourcing and procurement staff. Their decision to invest and
locate in Ohio and this community is in part because of the economic incentives, but also
because of the resources that communities such as Dublin offer; the resources that
universities, such as OSU offer for I.T. development; and organizations such as Tech Columbus
offer as an incubator for their company. Exact Software has an annual growth revenue of
approximately $300 million /year; one quarter to one third of that is based on American
revenues. The company has five business units operating in the Americas, including locations
in Silicon Valley, Boston, Minneapolis and a Columbus business unit, which was founded in
Marion, Ohio. Dublin is a terrific option, which is why they are before Council today.
Vice Mayor Gerber noted that he viewed information about Exact Software online and learned
that it is a very dynamic company. Council welcomes them to the Dublin community.
Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Gerber, yes; Mayor Keenan, yes; Ms.
Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes.
i
INTRODUCTION /FIRST READING — ORDINANCES
Ordinance 115 -14
Authorizing the Execution of a Development and Tax Increment Financing
Agreement to Facilitate the Construction of a Residential Development and Provide
for the Construction of Public Infrastructure Improvements Relating Thereto.
(Casto Tuller LLQ (Second reading /public hearing January 5, 2015 Council meeting)
Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance.
Mr. Foegler stated that this is the agreement for the Tuller Flats project. It is consistent with
the Letter of Intent, which was authorized by City Council in October. Companion legislation
will also be before Council tonight that establishes the associated TIF districts. This does not
substitute for or is subservient in any way to the development review process required for the
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
\L BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148
December 8, 2014 Page 16 of 26
20
)roject. It establishes the basic economic terms, similar to the process Council discussed
earlier, that define how this project would move forward. The general aspects of this project
ire fully consistent with the information provided at the October Council meetings and with
:ouncil's October 27 action related to the Letter of intent. Although there are references to
'uture phases, nothing in this agreement limits or applies in any meaningful way to future
)hases of the project.
the private improvements that are identified include 420 units of multi - family housing with the
ninimum taxable value of $20 million. It is important to note that minimum amount is
! stablished to relate to and support the minimum service payment guarantees that accompany
:his project. Staff anticipates actual future valuations to be significantly higher than that, as
:rends suggest. There are some criteria with regard to performance timeframes. Among the
tems that this project is leveraging for the City is the John Shields Parkway extending from
✓illage Center Parkway to relocated Riverside Drive — an estimated cost of $10.1 million. In
addition, the City would assume the obligation for a very small section of interior streets. For
all the other streets, the developer will pay the first $1.15 million; the City contributes the next
$2.5 million, as outlined in the LOI. Any costs in excess of $3.65 million, would be the
developer's responsibility. The developer is dedicating all the right -of -way for this project at no
cost to the City, which includes the right -of -way for John Shields Parkway and the internal
streets. One of the unique features of this project is the parkland exchange that led to the land
exchange that is embodied. In effect, the developer is dedicating a 1.9 -acre major park in
conformance with open space requirements for their project, but there is also a trade of real
estate, in which the City will provide some of its legacy parkland along Tuller Ridge Drive,
approximately 1.4 acres, to the developer. In exchange, the City will receive 1.3 acres of prime
frontage to continue implementation of the John Shields greenway along the project. The
other benefit of that is, in keeping with the previous MKSK proposal, it allows buildings to
frame this very important signature street as our urban design objectives will continue to do.
The land swap provisions are established in this agreement as well, which are consistent with
the Letter of Intent. With regard to future development, the exhibits depict an additional eight -
acre option that the developer has on the Thomas property as phase 2. It also shows the
areas of buy -back provisions on the previous Byers property, now owned by the City, which
could be acquired by the developer for a future phase. The commitment within this agreement
is that those will be pursued with mixed -use development, approaching the more intense
activity centers to the west. The developer was fully cooperative in helping the City realign
John Shields Parkway consistent with the City's urban design principles for this area. They
initially secured the site control of the Byers site for the City under good terms and have some
rights to acquire within a period of time the land that the City does not need for right -of -way
or greenspace as part of the development, subject to plan reviews and approvals. The
minimum service payment obligation will no longer apply to the developer at such time as the
appraised value of the TIF equals 130% or more of the value used to calculate the minimum
service payment for a period of four consecutive years. The developer has the obligation to
follow through on the required steps to establish the TIF district and make those payments.
In regard to the school impacts, this project is covered by the Bridge Street District
Cooperative Agreement that was entered into by the schools and the City of Dublin. For the
first 15 years, it provides 100% of the applicable real estate taxes -- years 2016 — 2030.
Effectively, 90% can be captured to go toward these improvements. With the minimum service
payments, in phase one, with current millage, that would be over $700,000 annually for the
first 15 years, about $655,000 in the real estate for the second 15 years. These are very
conservative estimates.
One of the important public benefits of the project is that leveraging the design, construction
and completion of John Shields Parkway as a key east -west signature roadway in the Bridge
Street District will provide for implementation of one of the most important roadway elements
in the District. It will also facilitate the timely removal of the Tuller Road intersection with
Riverside Drive's full turning movements in all directions. With the completion of Emerald
Parkway and the relocation of Riverside Drive, the Tuller Road intersection will become right
turns in and out only. Those movements will be replaced by John Shields Parkway to facilitate
the full continuity of that roadway all the way to Village Center Drive. What it will accomplish in
advancing the greenway is also a plus. The general approach to establishing the grid with
urban -type buildings lining the roadway appropriately, subject to Planning's review, must still
go forward. This is in full compliance with the vision and goal for the Bridge Street District.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher inquired if this phase of John Shields Parkway ends at Dublin Village
Parkway, or does it extend to Sawmill Road.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC FORM NO 10148
December 8, 2014
Held
Meeting
Page 17 of 26
20
Mr. Foegler responded that it will end at Dublin Village Parkway, which will provide the
continuity to Sawmill Road. This phase does not include any of the internal Dublin Village
Center developments. In conjunction with the other piece of real estate being acquired from
the Wendy's corporate facility, which is scheduled for the next Council meeting, there will be
both east -west movements, full continuity, from Riverside Drive with that right -of -way in place.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that there is a need to clarify that -- even though the City does
not know what the mixed -use development will ultimately be -- it is not intended that this area
would be built as strip retail.
Mr. Foegler responded that is correct. It would not be compatible with the vision.
Mr. Lecklider requested clarification of the mimimum service payments addressed in staff's
memo.
Ms. Mumma responded that in contemplating a development agreement, staff considers the
level of infrastructure that will be necessary for the City to provide. If certain roadway
improvements will be necessary for the development, staff must determine what the
development is worth. Including a minimum service payment in the agreement ensures that
the City will receive a service payment of a specified dollar amount, which will be designated
to pay for the infrastructure improvements. By including a minimum service payment, it
ensures the developer will make service payments of a certain dollar amount even if their
property is not valued as expected.
Mr. Lecklider stated that, looking at the proposed agreement, the first building permit is issued
in 2015, and the first minimum service payment would be computed based on applicable real
property taxes for tax year 2018. Is that to allow for some increase in value?
Ms. Mumma responded that it will allow time for the developer to construct the project before
they begin payments.
Mr. Lecklider stated that he presumes that the property would also be valued higher.
Ms. Mumma responded that it is anticipated that the value of this development will be higher
than $20 million, but this minimum service payment sets the floor amount.
There will be a second reading /public hearing at the January 5, 2015 Council meeting.
Vice Mayor Gerber moved to waive the Rules
and 118 -14 together.
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher seconded the motion.
of Order in order to discuss Ordinance 116 -14
Vote on the motion: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor
Gerber, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes.
(The Clerk read the titles into the record.)
Ordinance 116 -14
Declaring the Improvement to Certain Parcels of Real Property in the City's Bridge
Street District to be a Public Purpose and Exempt from Taxation; Providing for the
Collection and Deposit of Service Payments and Specifying the Purposes for which
Those Service Payments May be Expended; Specifying the Public Infrastructure
Improvements Directly Benefitting the Parcels; and Authorizing Compensation
Payments to the Dublin City School District and the Tolles Career and Technical
Center.
Ordinance 118 -14
Declaring the Improvement to Certain Parcels of Real Property in the City's Bridge
Street District to be a Public Purpose and Exempt from Taxation; Providing for the
Collection and Deposit of Service Payments and Specifying the Purposes for which
Those Service Payments May be Expended; and Authorizing Compensation
Payments to the Dublin City School District and the Tolles Career and Technical
Center.
Ms. Mumma stated that Mr. Foegler provided information relevant to this project, but she
clarified that two separate TIFs would be created. Under the statue for TIFS, there is a section
that deals with using the service payments to fund public infrastructure imporvements, which
is how all of Dublin's TIF districts have been created in the past. There is also another section,
the .41 TIF, that allows the service payments generated in a particular TIF area to be used not
only for public infrastructure improvements but also for private improvements. One of the
conditions for service payments being collected and used in that manner is for the City to hold
title to that particular parcel prior to the legislation being approved. For this development, the
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC.. FORM NO 10148
1 December 8, 2014
Held
Meeting
Page 1 of 26
20
City is the owner of the Byers property. Because of that, the City can be allowed the flexibility
to use those service payments generated on that property -- once it develops -- to possibly
fund some private improvements, such as parking structures, that may be in the Bridge Street
District TIF area. In any TIF legislation, staff outlines the public infrastructure improvements,
as well as the defined area, but this will allow the City more flexibility as to how those dollars
are used in this particular area.
There will be a second reading /public hearing at the January 5, 2015 Council meeting.
Ordinance 119 -14
Establishing Appropriations Based on the 2015 Operating Budget of the City of
Dublin, State of Ohio, for the Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2015. (Annual
Appropriations Ordinance) (Request to dispense with public hearing)
Mr. Lecklider introduced the ordinance.
Ms. Mumma stated that this establishes the appropriations in accordance with the Operating
Budget that was approved earlier this evening with Ordinance 109 -14.
Vice Mayor Gerber moved to dispense with the public hearing.
Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Vice
Mayor Gerber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes.
Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Gerber, yes; Ms.
Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes.
Ordinance 120 -14
Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with the Ohio
Department of Transportation (ODOT) to Finance the I- 270 /US 33 Improvement
Project through the State Infrastructure Bank Program, and Declaring an
Emergency. (Request to dispense with public hearing)
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher introduced the ordinance.
Ms. Mumma stated that this legislation authorizes the City Manager to execute an agreement
with the State Infrastructure Bank. The last few years, the City has been working with ODOT
and MORK on funding for the interchange. The construction is slated to begin in early 2015.
In anticipation, the City is shoring up the funding -- $35 million of which will come from the
State Infrastructure Bank Program. An additional $25 million will be funded by MORK, and
the remaining amount of $10 million will be paid by the City of Dublin. Additional legislation
will be proposed in January that will have the final documents provided by ODOT for the
program. The City will be using service payments within the Ruscilli, Pizzuti and Upper Metro
TIFs to make these payments for the construction of the interchange.
Mr. Reiner moved to dispense with the public hearing and treat as emergency
legislation.
Ms. Salay seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Gerber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr.
Peterson, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes.
Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes;
Vice Mayor Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes.
Ordinance 121 -14
Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Necessary Conveyance Documents to
Acquire a 0.011 Acre, More or Less, Permanent Easement and a 0.006 Acre, More or
Less, Temporary Easement from E. Elaine T. Horr, Trustee of The E. Elaine T. Horr
Revocable Trust Executed March 12, 2009, for the Property Located at 8668
Hyland -Croy Road for the Construction of a Shared -use Path Connection, and
Declaring an Emergency. (Request to dispense with public hearing)
Mr. Lecklider introduced the ordinance.
Ms. Grigsby stated that this legislation is for easements to facilitate the completion of a
bikepath connection along Hyland -Croy Road. This is one of six property owners whose
properties will be impacted.
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher moved to dispense with the public hearing and treat as emergency
legislation.
Vice Mayor Gerber seconded the motion.
RECORD C�i' ?RQCFEDINGS
Minutes of Du m ity ounce Meeting
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO 10148
December 8 - 2014 Page 19 of 26
Held 20
Vote on the motion: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes;
Vice Mayor Gerber, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes.
Vote on the Ordinance: Vice Mayor Gerber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes;
Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Peterson; Ms. Salay, yes.
Ordinance 122 -14
Amending Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2014.
Mr. Lecklider introduced the ordinance.
Ms. Mumma stated that this is the final amendment to the 2014 appropriations. This legislation
is brought forward each year as a housekeeping measure related to projects that were funded
through Council actions this year. Many of the amendments are TIF related, so those
expenditures would be repaid from the service payments received. There are two requests in
this ordinance that are related to projects that were anticipated to be funded in 2015 — one
relates to the road salt purchase and the other is related to a sewer improvement project.
Legislation will be proposed in 2015 to unappropriate the funds.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher moved to dispense with the public hearing.
Ms. Salay seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Ms. Salay, yes;
Vice Mayor Gerber, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mayor Keenan, yes.
Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Peterson, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Keenan,
yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Gerber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes.
OTHER
Grounds of Remembrance Maintenance Improvements
Mr. Hahn stated that in Council's packet, maintenance recommendations were provided for the
Grounds of Remembrance.
1. There have been issues with maintenance of the loose aggregate path. The
recommendation is to replace the loose limestone with an exposed aggregate
concrete path still using the limestone for that project.
2. Use a charcoal gray paint to highlight the inscriptions on the dedication pavers. Those
have not been as readable as expected with age. The charcoal gray epoxy paint will
give the right level of contrast to the lettering.
3. Use the same charcoal gray paint to highlight the letters of the Dublin Veterans Park
signage that faces Dublin Road.
4. Within the project, there is an interior handrail that was initially considered necessary
to meet ADA requirements, but with the exposed concrete path, we would remain in
ADA compliance even with removal of the handrail.
Mr. Hahn noted that if approved, the renovation bid documents would be prepared and the
project sent out for bid as soon as possible.
Mayor Keenan thanked Mr. Hahn for his effort to address the issue, as there have been many
citizen inquiries. He believes the solutions recommended are excellent. He assumes they have
been vetted with the artist.
Mr. Hahn responded that they have definitely vetted them with the artist. Using the limestone
that is currently in the path as the aggregate in the exposed concrete path is a good way of
allowing some of that original design intention to carry through in this renovation. It would
actually be more economical to start over than to use the current inscribed pavers.
Mayor Keenan inquired if the pavers would be returned to the owners.
Mr. Hahn responded affirmatively.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher inquired if the handrailing that will be removed also includes the
pedestals.
Mr. Hahn responded that the entire rail system including pedestals would be removed.
Mr. Reiner asked if the paint is actually an epoxy.
Mr. Hahn responded that it is an epoxy. He has a sample, if anyone would like to see it.
Mr. Reiner inquired if the epoxy brings the seal up to the face level of the brick.
Mr. Hahn responded that it does not -- the engraved inscription remains. [sample of brick
displayed]. Mr. Hahn stated that there was some concern that a freeze /thaw cycle would cause
some edges of the inscriptions to break off. The City has not experienced much of an issue
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes Qf Dublin City Council Meeting
LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148
December 8, 2014 Page 20 of
with that, but the epoxy coating inside the inscriptions should completely eliminate it as an
ongoing issue.
Vice Mayor Gerber stated that Mr. Hahn's work on this issue is appreciated.
Vice Mayor Gerber moved to approve the staff recommendations for maintenance
improvements.
Ms. Salay seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Mayor Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr.
Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Gerber, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Ms. Salay, yes.
• Discussion regarding Proposed Riverside Drive /Future Sohn Shields Parkway
Pedestrian Underpass
Darren Meyer MKSK, stated that in November, the potential for an underpass crossing under
Riverside Drive at John Shields Parkway was reviewed. Council expressed a need to better
understand the context of Riverside Drive and where that crossing would take place, and to
have an update on some of the components considered at Riverside Drive. He will review the
context of the Riverside Drive design, some of the traffic- calming elements that will be
incorporated into that design, and the three underpass options.
7,
Context of the District
The presentation tonight will focus on the traffic - calming aspects of the plan and how they
relate to each other and to pedestrians and cyclists crossing the roads [slide presentation
shown of the existing Bridge Street District and different views of the streets as designed].
Roundabouts tend to be self- enforcing from a driver speed standpoint; there are fairly uniform
speeds — 20 mph or less. From the speed reduction standpoint, the roundabout will have a
great impact on traffic entering this portion of Riverside Drive from SR161 or from the south.
Riverside Drive will be realigned to the east to accommodate a park along the river, and will tie
back into the existing road alignment just south of I -270. Ms. Bishop will be providing an
update on the progress of the portion of John Shields Parkway and the Dale - Tuller connection
currently under construction. The view he is displaying shows the street network in the District
at full buildout, which includes two future bridge crossings over the Scioto River — the
pedestrian bridge to the south and a vehicular connection at John Shields Parkway. These are
very important links in marrying the east side of the District to the west side, and they are part
of the internal loop road system. It will add great value to the District because it will touch
virtually all of the developments and neighborhoods within the two square mile District and
connect them to the core amenities — the river, the riverfront park and Historic Dublin.
Because of that value, they are considered signature streets and creating a local design and
finish on them will encourage the walkability and movement throughout the District.
Detailed View
Traffic calming attempts to meet two objectives — reduce speeds and increase driver
attentiveness. Both of those can be achieved through one overarching strategy, which is to
provide cues in the streetscape that signal a change in the prevailing road condition to the
motorist. The cues set up the expectation that they will see something other than cars, i.e.
pedestrians and cyclists. There is a visual feel to the driver that creates a sense of enclosure.
Traffic engineering studies show that the visual feel impacts the speed and behavior of
motorists.
• On- street parking
The current design includes 40 spaces on the west side /park side of Riverside Drive; 59
parking spaces will be on the east side within three blocks — for a total of nearly 100 on- street
parking spaces along Riverside Drive. The on- street parking will reduce the apparent width of
the street and create a feel of enclosure. The articulation of the cars themselves, entry and
exit maneuvers from those cars and the visual impact of pedestrians — all of these cumulatively
will result in drivers better maintaining speeds. Bumpouts extended at the end of the curbs at
the end of those parking lanes will protect the parking bays and provide lane discipline in the
area.
• At -grade crossings
Two at -grade crossings are provided for pedestrians to cross Riverside Drive to the park and
the west side of the District. The bumpouts will also: (1) reduce the distance in crossing the
street; (3) make pedestrians more visible to oncoming motorists. Alternative materials, such
as brick, will be used in the intersections. That will provide a visual and experiential cue to the
motorist to alert them this is a pedestrian area and to exercise caution. At the traffic signals for
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148
H December 8, 2014 Page 21 of 26
each of the intersections, under consideration is a protected pedestrian -only phase — no
vehicular movements during that phase of the signals so that pedestrians can cross with more
confidence.
• Design aesthetics
All of the streetscape, median, and parkscape will have tremendous and significant aesthetic,
recreational and environmental value. From a traffic - calming standpoint, it creates a sense of
enclosure and intimacy. The leaf canopy will create a light and shadow pattern on the road —
texture that provides an additional visual cue for motorists. From a pedestrian standpoint, on
the sidewalk it creates an additional buffer between moving traffic and the sidewalk zone.
• Building placement
The buildings represented are consistent with the early framework of planning and with the
development proposals to date. Buildings that front the road with minimal setback create a
sense of enclosure and have urban characteristics, which create the expectation that
pedestrians will be present. Elements on the road itself, such as front doors, awnings and front
entries result in motorists respecting that context and better observing appropriate driving
speeds and behavior.
The elements just listed are the tools that will be used to convert a suburban arterial into a
walkable City street, which pedestrians are comfortable crossing to access the riverside park
and the west side of the District.
Ms. Salay inquired what the speed limit would be along this stretch of Riverside Drive.
Ms. Bishop responded that as currently designed, it will initially be 40 mph, but as the area
develops, the Ohio Revised Code allows municipalities to apply a lower speed per the prima
facie speed of 35 mph. That will be the goal.
Mr. Meyer inquired if the process utilized with achieving a reduction in speed limit involves
some measurement of traffic speeds on that roadway.
Ms. Bishop responded that would not be a factor in this case. There is actually Ohio Revised
Code that allows for speed reduction in developed areas. City Council could pass an ordinance
setting the speed limit at 35 mph; it would not have to go through a speed limit study, as it
would in the current setting.
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher requested clarification of the proposed on- street parking in the context
of Riverside Drive's current alignment.
Mr. Meyer responded that the current Digger and Finch building sits inboard just west of the
Riverside Drive alignment.
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher stated that if the parking is there, then the road would be just to the
east of it, correct?
Mr. Meyer responded affirmatively.
Ms. Chin nici-Zuercher stated that it is difficult to envision. The design appears to be similar to
Front Street, except on- street parking is not permitted there.
Mr. Meyer responded that on- street parking is permitted there except during peak hours.
Mr. Meyer stated that a better example would be Riverside Drive /Dublin Road as it moves into
downtown Columbus, where North Bank Park is. There, you find the bumpouts to protect the
parking lane. It is the same state route, so it is possible to get a sense of what it would look
like.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she has noticed pedestrians crossing, even though there are
five or six lanes of traffic. There is a traffic light there; yet here there will be no traffic signal.
Mr. Meyer responded that the benefit of this proposal is that both John Shields Parkway and
Bridge Park Avenue will have signals from the outset. At North Bank Park, the signal at
Hanover has not been activated, so there is only the signal at Neil Avenue. This proposal will
have a slight advantage over that condition.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher inquired if there would be traffic signals.
Mr. Meyer responded affirmatively.
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher noted that there doesn't seem to be sufficient distance for two signals.
Mr. Meyer responded that there is approximately 1,100 feet.
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher inquired if the signals would work automatically as programmed, or
would they be activated by pedestrians when they wish to cross.
Mr. Meyer responded that the traffic signals would be activated by pedestrians and default to
green light. The crossing from Bridge Park Avenue and John Shields Parkway will be the
primary access of users from the east side of the Bridge Street District to the river park and
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dub lin City Coun
Minutes of _ Meeting._
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FOR N O. _10 J
December V, 2014 Page 26
Held 20
west side of the District. From a planning perspective, they have considered an underpass
under Riverside Drive, which is a major arterial. Public concern and a desire for that option has
been expressed. Some factors determine the location of an underpass connection:
(1) The footprint of the pedestrian bridge — because it must go under the road, a ramp
or stairs are necessary for access.
(2) The proposed Crawford - Hoying development at Bridge Park Avenue — Because of
the level of retail with the mixed use, the connection to the pedestrian bridge, and
the vibrancy and the amount of space needed to accommodate those types of
uses, the real estate here is very valuable.
(3) John Shields Parkway, as it is currently conceived, is a little less intensely
developed with retail and restaurants.
(4) There is a publicly owned greenspace here, which provides the needed real estate
to make the grade change under the road.
Prroposed options:
Option A : a ramp sytem leading from the corner of John Shields Parkway down and under the
road.
Con — This option would significantly impact the greenway and the ability of a building there to
address a street on the corner.
Pro — This option provides the most gradual and universally accessible route from the street
grade down and under the street into the park.
Option B : maintain a tunnel under Riverside Drive, with access only by stairs. This is an
improvement over the Option A footprint; this option leaves the greenspace more intact and
there is more ability for the building to address the corner. There are some tradeoffs with the
stairs, however. The potential users, which would include elderly and young children, would
have a less comfortable street crossing; it will be necessary to navigate 30 steps down to the
underpass. There is some question how much it would be used, as there will also be an
accessible at -grade street crossing to the park. A ramp would be redundant.
Option C : no tunnel under road.
Mr. Lecklider inquired if there is a natural grade change from the west to the east, or will there
be excavation on the west side at the tunnel entrance.
Mr. Meyer responded that there will be some excavation, although the design does take
advantage of the natural fall to the river.
Mr. Lecklider inquired if people wanting to cross at -grade from the west side would also have
steps to climb.
Mr. Meyer responded that there will be both a ramp and stairs to move from the park to the
street crossing.
Mr. Lecklider inquired now many steps would be on the west side.
Mr. Meyer responded that it will be approximately the same amount.
Mr. Lecklider noted that it will then be necessary to use stairs on both the east and west sides,
along with the ramp.
Mr. Reiner inquired if there will also be an underpass tunnel at the pedestrian bridge.
Mr. Meyer responded that there will not. Only one location is proposed.
Mr. Reiner stated that he believes the most important location is at the pedestrian bridge,
because it is the link that will tie together both sides of the river.
Mr. Meyer responded that there were some concerns with that option:
1. Access from the ramp and stairs to the bridge is less convenient, and
2. The proposed location is more valuable due to the Crawford Hoying development on
that corner and the signature intersection at Bridge Park Avenue.
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher inquired if Option B is recommended.
Mr. Meyer responded that Option B seems to strike the best balance between the pros and
cons.
Mr. Lecklider inquired what would be the width of the tunnel.
Mr. Meyer responded that it would be 14 feet.
Mr. Lecklider inquired if there are existing tunnels in Dublin with approximately the same
width.
Mr. Meyer responded that that this tunnel is probably wider than the existing tunnels.
RECORD OF PR OC -rEDINGS
l Dubm ty R IC
Minutes-of Meeting
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148
"I December 8, 2014 - -._ "- - '--- -_- Page 23 of 26
Held
20
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she prefers Option B. Option C concerns her, as not
everyone would be comfortable crossing a main road. This will provide another option.
Ms. Grigsby stated that concerns have been expressed regarding pedestrians with strollers.
Ramps will provide an option for them as well as bicyclists.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher agreed. In addition, it will be less difficult for ice and snow removal.
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher moved approval of Option B, as outlined in the staff report of November
2014.
Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Mr. Peterson, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Chinnici-
Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Gerber, yes; Mayor Keenan, yes.
Mr. Meyer stated that there are two traffic light standards used in the City. The smaller traffic
light is used in the Historic District; the other is used in the rest of the District. There have
been some concerns regarding whether this is architecturally appropriate for the Bridge Street
District. Their proposal is for two fixtures in the District. The smaller, pedestrian -scale fixture
would be used on all of the two -lane roads, which is the vast majority of the roads in the
network, with the exception of Riverside Drive, SR 161 and some of the larger arterials. The
second option would be used for the larger arterials. The lamps for both fixtures are from the
same lamp series, however.
Consensus of Council was to approve the recommended fixtures.
• Maintenance of Traffic - Riverside Drive /SR 161 Roundabout Project
Ms. Callaghan that in September, staff shared information about several major construction
projects planned in 2015, including the Riverside Drive realignment and the Riverside Drive /SR
161 intersection improvement, which is a roundabout. Options have been explored for
maintenance of traffic during this project and recommendations have been developed. In
September, with a 40% developed plan, it was anticipated that a full closure of the SR
161 /Riverside Drive intersection would be necessary. At that that time, Council requested staff
to evaluate (1) alternatives to closing the intersection, and (2) opportunities to expedite
construction.
• Updated plans (approximately 60 %) were received from the design consultant in
October, and 90% developed plans are anticipated yet this month. There is now
sufficient detail to determine construction sequencing, so plans for maintenance of
traffic can be better evaluated and defined. Staff has reviewed the plans and evaluated
traffic maintenance alternatives. In regard, to expediting the projects - a memo was
provided previously regarding exploration of innovative contracting methods.
Construction of the Bridge Street District public improvement projects began in 2014.
The Emerald Parkway connection opened last week. Construction of a signature street
-- John Shields Parkway and the Dale Drive - Tuller Ridge connector began in the
summer of 2014. Those roadways will be completed in spring 2015. In 2015, the
Riverside Drive realignment and the SR161 roundabout will be constructed. Those two
projects are designed as separate and distinct projects; however, they will be
constructed under a single contract for ease of contract administration and ease of
maintenance of traffic coordination.
• When the state route of Riverside Drive was built, it was built close to the edge of the
river with no consideration given for access to the river. However, the river is an
important amenity that the City needs to take advantage of. The SR161 intersection is
signal - controlled with left turns onto Riverside Drive restricted since 1993. The
intersection is the third highest crash location within the City.
• The infrastructure improvements will open up important parkland, re- construct the
intersection as a new roundabout with restoration of all movements at that
intersection. The new roundabout will accommodate traffic volumes well into the future
and will have many aesthetically pleasing features.
Traffic during 2015 Construction
Option 1 : Maintain one lane of through traffic in all directions with the exception of short-term
closures, determined as the design is finalized. It does not maintain turning movements,
however.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council
ON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148
December 8, 2014
Held
Meeting
Page 24 of 26
20
Option 2 : Close SR161 traffic for 10 weeks; northbound and southbound traffic would be
maintained on the bypass lane under the intersection. Early on, this was the preferred option.
It was anticipated that with the closure of SR 161, it would be possible to get all lanes of traffic
open in all directions in one season; that is now considered extremely unlikely. The closure
would pose the risk of the bridge remaining closed throughout the winter and into the spring.
Realistically, all lanes open in all directions would not happen until April 2016 under the closure
scenario.
In comparison, Option 1, which maintains at least one lane of travel in all directions, results in
all lanes of traffic in all directions open in June 2016 — only a couple of months longer. Based
on a comparison of the impacts resulting from each option, staff recommends Option 1, which
will maintain at least one lane of traffic in each direction on SR 161 and Riverside Drive for the
duration of the project.
I �
1
Ms Bisho explained the traffic sequencing of the option:
1. In March 2015 — closure of bypass lane. Traffic will shift up to the existing intersection
with all lanes and movement operational through June 2015.
2. June 2015 —construction commences in the westbound lanes (north side of
intersection). The traffic would be restricted to one lane in each direction. One lane
north and south will be maintained in the Riverside bypass lane.
3. Construction commences in the eastbound lanes (south side of intersection.) One lane
east and west would be maintained on SR 161 within the new section of the
roundabout. North and southbound traffic will be maintained on the Riverside bypass
lane.
4. September 2015 — One lane east and west would be permitted through the
roundabout. The realignment of Riverside Drive is under construction.
5. October 2015 — Four lanes open -- two eastbound /westbound lanes on SR 161.
Maintenance of this traffic will continue until June 2016.
6. June 2016 — All lanes on Riverside Drive and SR161 are open. Only one lane on the
Riverside Drive vehicular bypass lane, as well as a pedestrian path that connects to
Kiwanis Park. Curbs, lighting and sidewalks will be constructed into fall 2016.
In summary, with Option 1, one lane in all directions will be maintained. All traffic movements
will be open in June 2016, except by the bypass lane. Curb work will continue until October
2016 to finish the project.
Ms. Salay requested copies of the PowerPoint for Council members.
Ms. Chin nici-Zuercher noted that the rendering of the completed intersection should be posted
at the City's website.
Mr. Lecklider moved approval of Option 1, as recommended by staff.
Mr. Peterson seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Keenan, yes;
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Gerber, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes.
STAFF COMMENTS
Ms. Grigsby reported that ODOT will begin tree clearing for the I- 270 /US 33 interchange
project on January 5, to be completed by mid - March, when construction will be initiated.
COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
Finance Committee recommendations for hotel /motel tax grants
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher reported that the Finance Committee met on November 24 and reviewed
the hotel /motel tax grant applications. Recommendations were provided in Council packets.
Mr. Chinnici - Zuercher moved to affirm the Committee recommendations for the following
applications.
Approval
1. Dublin A.M. Rotary Blarney Bash - recommend $10,000 up front for marketing,
branding, logistics and up to $10,000 for City services
2. Dublin Arts Council Placemaking - recommend grant of $14,750
3. Dublin Robotics - recommend grant of $1,500
4. Dublin United Soccer - recommend grant of up to $4,000 for City services
5. Miracle League - recommend grant of 50 percent of submitted expenses — grant
not to exceed $15,000
RECORD
u r
In R C QC C EDINGS
Minutes of
LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148
Held
December 8, 2014
Page 25 of
Meeting
20
6. Ohio Premier Soccer - recommend grant of up to $8,500 for City services
7. Ohio Wildlife Center - recommend grant of $35,700 as outlined in application with
City recognition (plaque)
8. The OHIO Company (OU) Summer Theater Festival - recommend grant of $10,000
9. Arthritis Foundation - recommend grant of $10,000 for Police security and stage
rental
10. DCVB Irish is an Attitude - recommend grant of $7,500 (matching)
11. DCVB Top Gun - recommend grant of $25,000 matching
12. Dublin Jerome Homecoming parade - recommend grant of $1,000 for City services
13. Dublin Kiwanis Frog Jump - recommend grant of up to $5,000 for City services
14. Dublin Soccer League - recommend grant of $7,039 as outlined in application
15. DYA Wayne Williams Tournament - recommend grant of $19,500 for City services
16. Club Ohio Soccer (2 events) - recommend grant of $13,000 as outlined in
application
17. DSHS Lacrosse Boosters - recommend grant of $7,000 as outlined in application
18. Dublin Special Olympics - recommend grant of $6,000 as outlined in application
19. National Intercollegiate Flying Association - recommend grant of $10,000 as
outlined in application
20. Historic Dublin Business Association Community Engagement - recommend grant
of $25,000
Mr. Reiner seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mayor Keenan, yes;
Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Gerber, yes.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher moved to affirm the Committee recommendations for denial of the
following applications.
Disapproval
1. Safe Alliance of Interfaith Leaders
2. Dublin City Schools Emerald City Music Games
3. DWC Philanthropic Old Dublin Pub Crawl
4. DWC Philanthropic Memorial Tournament Meet the Spouses Luncheon
Mayor Keenan seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mayor Keenan, yes;
Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Gerber, yes.
Administrative Committee
Vice Mayor Gerber, Chair stated that Council has been working on the selection of a new City
Manager, which as announced tonight will be Mr. Dana McDaniel. The expectation is that there
will be a resolution for approval of the new City Manager contract on the January 5 Council
agenda.
Public Services Committee
Ms. Salay, Chair requested that Council refer the matter of private homeowner association
(HOA) maintenance responsibilities to the Public Services Committee. Some time has passed
since Council last considered this matter, and there have been requests from HOAs for relief.
The Final Plat included on tonight's Consent Agenda provided for the HOA to be responsible for
their maintenance with the exception of stormwater retention ponds and associated
infrastructure, which would be maintained by the City. This arrangement is different than
earlier HOA maintenance arrangements.
It was the consensus of Council to refer to the Public Services Committee the matter of private
Homeowner Association maintenance responsibilities for various items - meeting to be
scheduled in early 2015.
• Dublin Arts Council Representative
Mr. Reiner provided the report from the DAC quarterly meeting.
• ADAMH will be funding the creation of a mural in the bike tunnel near Bailey
Elementary. Public meetings will begin in January, a conceptual plan will be completed
by April and construction will occur in June -July 2015.
• The City has 33 entries listed in the national database of the Public Art Archives — one
of the largest.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC., FORM NO 10148
December 8, 2014 Page 26 of 26
H 20
• Work is in progress on the "Where to Go" public art tour — a mobile app. The
organization continually makes efforts to secure funding for projects.
• A grant application for $200,000 has been submitted for a hosting a "bread festival."
There are only two other such festivals — one in Europe and one in the U.S.
• US 33 Corridor
Ms. Grigsby reported that a meeting was held last week. So far, the meetings have focused on
accumulation of information on the existing and future land uses of the various jurisdictions.
Last week, the discussion centered on the topic of overlays within the area and the planning
elements, specifically the importance of the infrastructure within the area being reviewed. It is
important that as developments occur, jurisdictions do not lose opportunities to include the
infrastructure. At the next meeting, the goal is to have William Murdoch, MORPC, discuss
Insight 2050, which focuses on the fiscal impact of the development process. This issue is
important in the US33 Corridor area.
Mr. Lecklider stated that he, Ms. Grigsby and the Mayor should have a discussion about the
City's representation with this group. Would it be possible to hold future meetings in Dublin?
Ms. Grigsby responded that the meeting site rotates. Dublin hosted the May meeting.
COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE
Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher:
1. Reported on the OML Board meeting held last Thursday. Board discussion focused on
the HB 5 Substitute bill, now approved. Ms. Gibson will be providing a synopsis of the
bill and its anticipated impact on the City.
2. Thanked Mr. Hahn for the report in Council packets on the Miracle League playground
expansion. This is the largest Miracle League program in the country. As the
information indicates, there are sponsorship opportunities for the development of a
Special Olympics Miracle League area. She encouraged Council members to share with
their businesses and friends. There is a flyer in the packet.
Vice Mayor Gerber noted that it would be helpful to have additional flyers to distribute.
3. Inquired when Mr. Grabill will be receiving certification for the nursing facility.
Ms. Grigsby responded that it will depend upon when the facility is completed. Originally
anticipated at the end of 2014, it will probably occur near the end of the first quarter in 2015,
perhaps in April. Building Standards staff have been meeting with them regularly to coordinate
steps for occupancy approval.
Mr. Lecklider thanked staff for all their lengthy preparations, which were necessary for this
meeting tonight.
Mayor Keenan thanked staff and past and present Councils for all the work on Emerald
Parkway over the years. He congratulated Ms. Grigsby, who has been here throughout the 18-
year process.
Vice Mayor Gerber reported that the third class of the Citizens Police Academy will be
graduating at 6 p.m. this Thursday, December 11, at the Dublin Recreation Center.
He wished everyone a happy holiday!
ADJOURNMENT
The mee .
VAg was adjourned at 1 30 p.m.
OL
C'. -Mayor — Presiding Officer
Clerk of Council